Credit unions - What should they do with spare capital?

Did you have a look round on the SBP website yourself, instead of expecting someone else to do this browsing for you?

Good point! However, I would not have expected online access to today's articles so soon. Anyway, I went out and bought a copy. Nothing new in the Hobb's article. Most of it is already articulated in the posts on this thread, which also clearly promote the CUDA point of view. The O'Toole Bill was clearly a CUDA drafted mechanism to attempt to put pressure on the Gov, ILCU, the Regulator and Dept. of Finance as they attempt to work out a deal to put the Savings Protection Scheme into an approvable format.

Slim
 
This is a consumer protection issue and not a trade body political issue.

Tadghin, you make a very good point. Most credit union boards are completely unaware of the difference between a League owned and run stabilisation fund and state backed deposit insurance. The former is a type of benevolent fund for credit unions the latter statutory consumer protection for savers, a basic consumer right in a modern society.

The difference between stabilisation and deposit insurance is this. If I say that I will take care of your family if you die this is a promise - something I might do. This is stabilisation. However if I guarantee to pay your family an amount when you die, this is deposit insurance. Deposit insurance may include for stabilisation assistance but stabilisation can never include for deposit insurance.

Under stabilisation, credit unions club together, creating a fund to support a credit union in trouble. Originally these funds were used in the US to provide non-repayable grants to credit unions to strengthen their balance sheets (reserves). It’s a promise to provide help which was always discretionary and with no legal obligation on the fund manager typically a credit union League to provide assistance. At best they only ever provided for the possibility of assistance. The key point is the credit union is the client and not the saver.

The ILCU created a similar fund here in the 80’s some time after they disappeared in the US. They disappeared in the US in the early 70’s after credit unions succeeded in persuading the US government to provide deposit insurance protection similar to banking coverage. At the time this led to a split in the credit union League. (sound familiar)

Later still in Ireland the ILCU considered establishing the stabilisation fund as a type of deposit insurance scheme but balked as this would have meant it would have lost control as it would have to establish it as stand alone company leading to it being regulated and taxed. This was despite consistent advice over time from its advisors to establish the fund as a separate company.

It decided to bolt on a promise that it might in the case of a credit union failing pay up to €12700 to savers. It called the fund Savings Protection and in sleight of hand promoted the scheme as a deposit insurance scheme. Most of its members thought it guaranteed savings – many still do. It maintained the subterfuge until the Competition Authority case during which it changed its stance maintaining its scheme was only ever a discretionary stabilisation fund.

In 1997 the new credit union act obliged credit unions as a condition of their authorisation to participate in an approved and regulated savings protection scheme to protect savers in the event of the failure of a credit union, in other words deposit insurance. The relevant section was enacted in 2001. However since then the Regulator has refused to approve the ILCU scheme. It appears then that every credit union in the state has not complied with the law since 2001 by not participating in an approved scheme. Technically this would appear to expose every credit union director to the possibility of legal sanction. Of course the ILCU hasn’t informed its members of this. Instead in 2001, in a subterfuge, it led them to believe their scheme had been approved. Even the Ministerial press release in 2001 implied that its scheme was approved under the act. Such was its influence at the time.

What’s really of concern is that ILCU policy is to provide assistance to a credit union no matter what for the good of the Movement. Its stated policy is:

In the event of a credit union not complying with procedures, the Administration Committee is given the power to recommend to the League Board its disaffiliation. The Committee also has the power to propose the amalgamation of any member credit union, which is considered to be in default with procedures, with another credit union. This, however, will be a discretion since in many cases it might be necessary to provide temporary support to a particular credit union for the good of the Movement even though compliance was not being secured or had not been secured in the past.””.

Now what’s going on is an attempt by ILCU to establish a private stand alone stabilisation fund including a guarantee of compensation to savers. One that can be approved by the Regulator.

It has cobbled together a solution arguing that there must be an all Ireland solution. But it only represents about 104 of 170 or so credit unions in the North. Funny thing is credit unions in the UK are covered under the FSCS. This scheme could be extended to credit unions in Northern Ireland by British authorities but of course the quid pro quo would require regulation by the FSA which is something the ILCU certainly doesn’t want. In effect it is saying that it wants to deny savers statutory consumer protection both here and in Northern Ireland.

Of course Fianna Fail have pretty bad memories of ILCU when its lobbying for DIRT free status nearly threatened its re-election prospects. (Recall the McCreevy affair). Politically they have funked the issue and kicked for touch. Minister Cowen told the Regulator to find a solution within the current legislative framework – shorthand for “do a deal with the ILCU ”.

Throughout the ILCU has never been called on to justify its position nor has it ever cogently argued why the state should not provide a statutory scheme. Why? Because, its position has always been to retain control and dominance as a trade body. If it controls the only approved scheme and every credit union is legally obliged to be a member of the scheme then it copper fastens its dominance and control. This was what it thought it achieved in 1997 but the regulator then and the new Financial Regulator (2003) refused to approve its scheme. Initial refusal had probably something to so with the way in which it dipped into the fund to finance its IT ISIS failure, its head office building and provide loans to its credit unions to do up their buildings.

The ILCU position remains a vested interest. It can only represent credit unions as regulated financial service firms (credit institutions). It cannot and does not represent a citizens right to legal protection for their savings although it claims to do so. What’s missing is proper informed public debate on this important consumer protection issue.


Kaplan
 
The views expressed by Bill Hobbs are not confined to CUDA credit unions. It really doesn't matter who originated them - the important issue is what is being proposed and why. I would venture the following:-
1. A bank customer has a guarantee on his or her savings, up to €20,000 or 90% of the total, whichever is the smaller amount.
2. A credit union member has no guarantee. I emphasise the word guarantee.
3. Most credit union members don't realize this. Most credit union directors don't realize this. The ILCU faffed and faffed about before Christmas, but the bottom line is "There is no guarantee".
4. A Savings Guarantee Scheme for Credit Unions must be a statutory scheme. It must be clear in it's guarantee. It must be managed by experts. It must be transparent. It must be regulated by the FInancial Regulator. Anything less is not good enough.
5. Credit Unions should not settle for a lesser standard of protection for their members than is afforded to bank customers currently.
6. The Minister for Finance should stop passing the buck here and legislate. There is nothing to stop him from permitting the ILCU to retain it's stabilisation fund as an additional benefit for it's member credit unions.
 
For those who have an interest in credit union savings protection there is a quite useful posting here.

[broken link removed]

There’s an interesting piece in the Indo predicting a good year for lending for credit unions, mentioning Enfield Credit Union’s loan rate.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/credit-unions-set-for-a-good-year-despite-us-worries-1276422.html

A glance at Enfield’s website is quite illuminating as it highlights how credit unions promote the ILCU savings protection scheme:

http://www.enfieldcu.ie/benefitsofmembership.php

This credit union states that “savings are totally secure and guaranteed” and “savings protection scheme”.

It isn’t the only credit union that maintains that savings are guaranteed or protected etc.

Derry http://www.derrycu.com/content.asp?section=17 “Your savings are guaranteed under the Savings Protection Scheme of the Irish League of Credit Unions”

Thurles http://www.thurlescu.ie/content.asp?section=17 “Your savings are protected in your credit union under the savings Protection Scheme of the Irish League of Credit Unions”.

Waterford CU http://www.waterfordcu.ie/ A savings protection scheme is in place to the benefit of the member up to euro 12,700

Newbridge CU http://www.newbridgecu.ie/content.asp?section=88 Savings Protection Scheme benefit of up to €12,700 per member

Dundrum CU: http://www.dundrumcu.ie/content.asp All of the savings of Credit Union members are fully insured and secure. Dundrum Credit Union operates a Savings Protection Scheme which protects members’ shares. Dundrum Credit Union also operates Life Savings Insurance….

Kaplan
 
Last edited:
Kaplan's Tour of the Web is very instructive. It lends support to the belief that:-
1 Credit Union Officers are under a misapprehension as to the nature of the ILCU Savings Protection Scheme - they think it is a "Guarantee" scheme, and are innacurate on many sites;
2 Credit Unions spend a lot of money and time on this scheme - few would appear to have read the document, and fewer still understand it.
3. There seems to be confusion in at least one instance between the Life Savings Insurance scheme and the Savings Protection Scheme.
 
Tadghin

"The Savings Protection Scheme protects the individual savings of members by making sure that the credit unions are financially and administratively sound and by providing remedial help to any credit union which shows signs of weakness in these areas. Participation in the Savings Protection Scheme does not confer any legal right on a credit union to receive any financial assistance under the Scheme. Provided assistance is given under the Scheme the savings of individual credit union members may be protected up to a maximum of €12,700." ILCU definition

No sign of "guarantee" or "benefit" nor "insurance" here. It's quite clear it's entirely discretionary.

Kaplan
 
Kaplan's assertion that the Savings Protection Scheme of the ILCU is totally discretionary is beyond dispute. The documentation clearly states the following:- "Individual credit unions or their members will not have a legal right to obtain assistance".
 
Were Davys acting as agents of the Irish League of Credit Unions when they sold these bonds to Credit Unions?

Given that the Irish League of Credit Unions invited Davys to their Belfast Conference last year, and subsequently defended the advice given by Davys, going to the extent of stating that they were appropriate instruments for credit unions, where now stand the Irish League of Credit Unions?

Given that the Irish League of Credit Unions reappointed Davys as Investment Advisors to the League recently, what does that say about a scene in which one credit union has successfully taken on Davys, and a number of others stand in the wings?
 
Tadghin

So why did the ILCU as scheme provider not insist that credit unions informed their savers properly ? It appears that there has been a quite deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of the status of the League stabilisation fund both by the League and credit unions. A credit union listed by me in a previous post, certainly knows of the status of the scheme as it is a leading member of CUDA and was witness for the Competition Authority in its action against the ILCU.

The Enfield/Davy ruling is available on the Financial Ombudsman site. It is quite some read. Both Davy and the Ombudsman mention the ILCU advice on perpetual bonds to credit unions. It seems however that Davy were acting as advisors to Enfield and the Ombudsman is careful to exclude the ILCU from the relationship. Nonetheless his findings that the bonds were inappropriate for credit union use is based it seems on two considerations. The first is the investment policy of Enfield which required a capital guarantee and secondly that generally credit unions require such guarantees. He considered Enfield credit union people as laymen who couldn’t be expected to understand the nature of perpetual bonds, subordinated status, step ups and call dates etc.

Whatever the outcome of the High Court judicial review Davy is pursuing, the fact that the ILCU publically stated that such bonds were appropriate for credit union use is likely to undermine its reputation and damage any prospects it currently has to establish a central treasury operation.

One of the more interesting aspects of the ruling is the layman status (retail investor). If the ILCU is nothing more than a club for credit unions, where its board comprises credit union directors, then what is its status ? This could be particularly interesting as it admitted to having invested SPS funds in perpetual bonds. Should make for yet another interesting ILCU AGM.

All eyes will be on the judicial review which if it finds for the Ombudsman may trigger further credit union complaints- or will it ?

Kaplan
 
The Irish League of Credit Unions "Savings Protection Scheme" (SPS) is supposed to be a stabilisation fund. If it is, surely most of it's cash should be fairly readily available to meet contingencies if and when they arise. That begs the question, then, as to what the administrators of the SPS were doing investing the money in perpetual bonds? These are not liquid instruments.
 
There are a number of reasons why ILCU does not advise cedit unions as to the true nature and limitations of the SPS scheme - the primary one is control. The SPS scheme is not about protecting credit union members - it is a tool for controlling credit unions. Were credit unions to appreciate the true nature of the SPS and it's inadequacies, they might think that the O'Toole Bill is not so bad after all. That is, of course, to presume that all directors would have read the O'Toole Bill or been aware of it's aims, objectives and needs.

Credit Union activists are contented to hear the soothing musings of Chapter, and believe that the member is protected. Time and again we have listened to the ex CEO of ILCU say "Not a single Euro has been lost by Credit Unions"...Well, wrong.....ask Enfielf Credit Union and 130 plus other credit unions.....

Credit union directors, and indeed many of their managers, have not read the SPS scheme contents - indeed, many would be hard-pressed to find this ancient document in their filing systems!

Most credit union directors would not be aware of industry standards in this area in, for instance, banking. That their websites are significantly misleading in many instances is both disturbing, and unsurprising. However, they get away with it.
 
Yes. The credit union regulator doesn't have a consumer protection brief and the consumer director's brief excludes credit unions.

The RCU no longer refers to the SPS "as providing an important level of protection" on the IFSRA site . I wonder why?

Of course any consumer protection code developed for credit unions core business will be voluntary. It's already over a year in gestation and still no sign.

Kaplan
 
Dear Kaplan,
For over ten years now, the ILCU has successfully diverted the Regulator and the Government up a cul-de-sac of inaction in relation to the so called SPS Fund. It will also divert attempts for a consumer protection code for credit unions up a similiar blind alley. The ILCU is about preserving the status quo at all costs.
Change will only come when a significant credit union falls over, and a Northern Rock type run exhausts the SPS scheme.
 
Quarehawk

I agree. It seems it will take a real crisis before action is taken. There's a great story told here.

[broken link removed]

Kaplan

[broken link removed]
 
Thank you Kaplan.

The article entitled "Net Savers Dominance" is quite frightening, and even more frightening in that it is true.

Credit Union Savings grew significantly during the Celtic Tiger era. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of those latterday savers are now moving their savings out of credit unions again now, in search of the 5% and greater rates.

That becomes particularly significant when we realise that many credit unions now pay their operating expenses out of Investment Income receipts. As this surplus savings pool decreases, so too will their ability to pay these expenses.

This haemmorage of surplus funds, allied to significant investment losses (and they extend beyond the perpetual bonds now) paints a bleak picture.

It is ironic, on another level, that the Investment Advisors to the Irish League of Credit Unions is now challenging the constitutionality of the Financial Services Ombudsman's powers. The Financial Services Ombudsman's office is an important part of the consumer protection infrastructure in the state, and here we have the hired investment advisor of the main credit union association trying to over turn the office of the Ombudsman simply because he ruled in favour of a credit union!!! Norah Herlihy and Sean Forde must be spinning in their graves!!!!
 
Back
Top