We are a consulting resource for credit union leaders nationwide. Executives and directors alike turn to us for strategic planning assistance, to identify and analyze growth opportunities, and to improve team performance.
Blog Move
You may have noticed, but the Glatt Consulting website (www.glattconsulting.com) has moved! As part of the move we have made a few site adjustments, modifications, etc. This was part of a bigger transition of email hosting and other back-office functions.
It is important to note, however, that the move has impacted the blog as well. This blog site will no longer hold our captivating thoughts on credit union leadership and management issues. But wait! We have simply moved the home of our comments to the new website.
If you want to move your subscription with it, simply check out the following link:
Simple! On that page you will find the links to subscribe to the new blog location.
We are looking into how to easily transfer existing subscriptions to the new location, but in the meantime you can take control of that process by visiting the new site and subscribing yourself.
FDIC Woes
Just received a notice regarding the low level of the FDIC insurance fund (see below). It seems most credit union CEO's I have worked with this year hold the belief that the NCUSIF will run into similar issues - and once again hit the industry with an assessment. Here's hoping that won't happen, but given the overhang of delinquencies and earnings issues how can it not?
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s fund that protects more than $4.5 trillion in U.S. bank deposits fell to just $10.4 billion at the end of June, as the banking industry continues to struggle with souring loans and regulators brace for pain in trying to clean up the mess.
The level of the FDIC's fund, the lowest since the savings and loan crisis, almost guarantees that the government will have to hit the banking industry with another special fee to recapitalize its reserves. The agency said it had 416 banks on its "problem" list at the end of the second quarter, up from 305 at the end of March.
-Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125137695691263385.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
Healthcare Reform
Though not a credit union-specific topic, I thought I would share a few comments I recently posted to a news publication regarding healthcare reform. Healthcare costs are certainly an issue for the industry, in fact I spoke yesterday with a credit union leader about the cuts they were making to benefits in response to the economic environment. In any case, here is my position (which, fundamentally, supports the further expansion of the HSA gains credit unions have made in recent years).
I happened to visit my doctor the other day and we got to talking about the healthcare issue. He is not in favor of the currently proposed plan(s). I asked him his opinions on a more effective solution. He said we already had one - Health Savings Accounts. I agree with him, and I have a HSA (self-funded as I am a self-employed small business owner).
His is one of the few doctors offices I have been to where they actually divulge the cost of the treatment BEFORE the treatment. With them, at least, you can match what you were told up front to the myriad bills, EOBs, etc. that come flooding through the mail as a result of the visit. You can also make more informed decisions about your treatment options.
Contrast that to an antibiotic recently prescribed for a family member. Their doctor handed them the prescription, and when they went to fill it they found it to be VERY expensive - about $300. They called the doctor back and asked about alternatives. His comment was, "I thought you had a good prescription plan." He then prescribed another antibiotic at about $250 less - which turned out to be no less effective.
We need healthcare reform, but mainly in the way doctors communicate options and the way consumers pay for those options. If cost is out of sight, then it is out of mind. What we have before us now is unsustainable change - a simple consolidation of the current problems into one location rather than a lasting solution.
Upping the Planning Ante
I am, at the moment, in Las Vegas preparing for a session at the National Director's Convention. My session is called "Black Belt Planning." I will be covering two methodologies for planning, one called Strategic Pathing and the other called Strategic Positioning. While both methods aim to elevate the strategic discussion at the top level of an organization, each has a unique starting point.
Strategic Pathing is structured as in inward-out experience, with the development of strategic opportunities (paths) generated via an internal starting point. Positioning, on the other hand, is structured as an outward-in experience, with a market-defined starting point used to uncover strategic opportunities.
While planning is more art than science, these methods add some "science" to the process, enabling organizations to make more informed (and less risky) strategic decisions.
Once the session is wrapped, I will share more of the methodologies in the blog and on the GCLLC website.
No Obligation Necessary! It's Free!
I saw a press release on an upcoming event being held at a large west-coast credit union. The event covers mergers (among other topics) and is open to any credit union. Even better, it is free.
What it reminds me of is the old pitch process for timeshares.
"All you have to do is sit through this interminable exciting presentation, get your free tchotchke TV, and that's it! No obligation whatsoever!"
Right. People signed on the dotted line just to get out of pitch purgatory. And, if they didn't sign up right then they were quickly ushered to telemarketer hell.
So, this large (troubled) credit union is hosting an event for credit unions to discuss mergers, free! Do participants also get a free t-shirt with a target on the front just for attending?
FDIC Actions Stir Bank Resentment
I thought I would share two interesting articles from NPR. The first covers the banking sector/FDIC pain of covering the insurance costs of failed banks. Sounds like a familiar story. The article is here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102384657
The reason I share it is that during many of the NCUA informational webcasts they fielded questions about whether banks faced the same dilemma. Clearly they do, but this article gives some perspective on scale.
The second article is called "The Anatomy of a Takeover." It profiles the FDIC takeover of The Bank of Clark County, offering an interesting insider perspective of a conservatorship, though in this case the bank was quickly given away to Umpqua Bank.
The article is here:
One can imagine when reading the article how the WesCorp conservatorship went down. When I close my eyes I can see NCUA staff hiding in the bushes along Overland Court, ready to swarm, with Blackberrys poised like pistols.
Take note of the reader comments at the end of the article.
Happy reading!
Seven Year Spread - NCUA Responds to Booking NCUSIF Replenishment
The NCUA just released a media advisory suggesting that they intend to seek congressional approval to allow credit unions to book the NCUSIF replenishment over seven years. This is certainly good news, and credit unions everywhere should follow the NCUA's suggestion of actively communicating with congressional leaders to ensure the required legislative changes are passed into law.
This does not, however, address the lack of transparency with regard to the WesCorp/US Central conservatorships. My fear is that credit unions, seeking to avoid a fight, will consider this seven year spread a victory and call it a day. We cannot let that happen if only because the relationship between the NCUA and the industry is in such poor condition. The complete breakdown of trust in the NCUA (as referenced in my earlier post today as well as by CUNA's Dan Mica and Callahan's Chip Filson) will make the entire regulatory and supervision process ineffective and potentially harmful.
I implore all credit unions to consider the NCUA's decision a blessing, but to not rest on the decision.
Closed-Door Transparency
A few weeks ago, two NCUA representatives went on camera at NAFCU and said that the industry needed to come together to save the corporate system. In fact they urged that industry cooperation was the only way to salvage the system. They indicated that every federally insured credit union, in the spirit of industry cooperation, would have to contribute even if that meant widespread negative earnings and potentially the sacrifice of hundreds of credit unions.
Let us all be clear on the definition of cooperation. It means the process of working together for the same end. What we have so far is not even close to cooperation. NCUA so far has not only failed to meet the specific definition of cooperation, they can't even claim to be working within the spirit of the definition. Just today they met in a closed-door session presumably to discuss how to further compel the industry to "cooperate" with their directives.
If cooperation is what they want, why the closed-door deliberations?
If cooperation is what they want, why not release the PIMCO details?
If cooperation is what they want, why not call together leaders of credit unions from around the country for town hall meetings?
If cooperation is what they want, why hide behind audio-based "webcasts" that spare them from seeing the true emotion their actions have stirred up?
I have talked to many credit unions, from New York to California, and the position each has taken is that the process that the NCUA has utilized in its corporate efforts is wrong. One credit union even likened the steps taken with regard to WesCorp specifically as taxation without representation. Back in the day, those words were enough to start a revolution.
This isn't cooperation. This is compulsion.
Perhaps a revolution is what we need. It is time to put right the relationship between the NCUA and the credit union community, and a peaceful yet forceful revolution may be the catalyst for long-needed change. The NCUA exists because of credit unions. Credit unions do not exist because of the NCUA. Last I checked, the NCUA came to being in 1970. Long before then the credit union community was, cooperatively, seeking to serve member-owners.
I am certainly not arguing for the NCUA to go away. I am not arguing that the US Central or WesCorp conservatorships should not have happened (after all, how would I know without any supporting data). I am not arguing that we should go back to the credit union community that existed in the 1960's. What I am saying, and what I firmly believe, is that we need to get back to a peaceful and intelligent, cooperative, relationship with the agency. That means that the agency must be true to its desire for industry cooperation, actually seeking to cooperate rather than mandating poor policy.
While I feel bad for the fine folks that work hard at WesCorp and US Central, many of whom I know personally and count as friends, this may be the best thing to happen to the industry in some time. NCUA, through its own efforts, finally forced into the sunshine the poor relationship that exists between itself the credit union community.
For the sake of 89 million Americans, this must be corrected.
Power to the People
When we conduct strategic planning sessions, a key agenda item is working through the major political/regulatory, economic, social/demographic, and technological trends and issues confronting the industry. This puts strategy into perspective, and also helps to identify potential opportunity.
Since late 2007 one of our presentation slides covering regulatory issues has included this statement:
The trend is toward more regulation and oversight of traditional services. “New” credit union services may face a more reluctant regulatory audience, and income-producing products such as courtesy pay may be under the gun.
Interestingly, Bloomberg today had this to say about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's testimony to legislators:
In another sign of tighter regulation to come, Bernanke said supervisors should have authority to bar new financial products that may be destabilizing to markets.
Chairman Bernanke is certainly talking about such exotic products as credit default swaps and the like, but my concern is what could be defined as "destabilizing." It really depends on the person writing the definition. Taken to an extreme, there are credit union products that could be classified as "destabilizing" and therefore subject to a greater regulatory scrutiny.
I know that there are many leaders within the credit union community that believe certain products (such as courtesy pay and payday loans) should be purged from the credit union system all together. Whether that assessment is right or not, I think we can all agree that members should have the say over what should and should not be offered at "their" credit unions rather than politicians/regulators far removed from having to serve the day-to-day needs of consumers making that determination.
I believe that consumers can be the greatest regulator if given the chance. They are already responsible for the rise and fall of many a company. If they don't like something, they move on - enriching the new while teaching a lesson to the old. The problem, as I see it, is that they have been taught not to worry about that responsibility for a range of services and activities. They have been taught not to care about the strength of their financial institutions, because regulators have taken on that responsibility. They have been taught not to be concerned with the safety of airlines, because regulators have "made sure" that every plane in the air is in top condition. They have been taught not save for the future, because the Washington is "saving" for them.
The net result is a misplaced trust that drives consumers to accept certain promises as truth even when those promises have no such foundation.
To be honest, I trust the wisdom of members to tell us what we should and shouldn't offer via their basic consumer response to true competition. We need to make sure, however, that they are aware of their responsibility and encouraged not to abdicate it to anyone or anything else.
The alternative is more misguided regulation, which in my opinion only serves to further remove people and institutions from the responsibility of their actions. We cannot afford any more of that.
Power to the people.
Consulting the Social Network
I am a member of a few different "social networks." Every day I try to determine whether it is worth the time to keep my profile active, and to feed the network with the awe-inspiring details of my life (in case you were wondering, that was a bit of sarcasm). My recent deliberations got me to thinking about how professionals have started using these networks.
On one of my networks, a large part of the professional appeal seems to be posting "help me" questions. These are questions people ask when they want help with a vexing problem, but they don't want to pay a consultant for an answer. I can respect that. Consultants are an expensive option, especially for simple issues. The social network is inexpensive and places the "wisdom of crowds" at your disposal.
One thing that gets me, though, is when people post more complicated requests to their social network, then trust the advice they receive. Yes, people defend the practice by saying "why reinvent the wheel?" I can buy that, but only to a certain extent. If someone has encountered the exact same problem in the past, for the exact same circumstance, and have the exact same underlying corporate structure (strategy, organizational design, culture), and subsequently offer a response to your challenges, then by all means use the suggestion. It should fit. But how many institutions in the world are exactly the same?
Every organization is different, in fact every organization should strive to be different. Compelling and calculated differences form the basis of competitive advantage. If you have an organization that truly strives to develop an advantage, why would you ever make use of someone else's response to similar challenges? All you end up with is a second-class implementation.
Furthermore, who is to say that what your network proffers is actually right? What if you need wheels for your cart, and the best your network has created are square wheels. With a firm "try this - it has worked great for us and should work just as well for you" recommendation, you are on your way to having a cart just as bad as everyone else's.
This brings me back to consultants, and their value to organizations. A good consultant should never apply turn-key solutions to your institution. A good consultant should work to assess your strategy, build an understanding of your organizational design, and get to know your culture. A good consultant should develop a relationship with you so that their recommendations are deeply related to your organization and crafted to succeed, given your own unique infrastructure.
Social networks are not that deep. You may find, via a feed, that someone in your network is off on a trip across country to visit a long-lost aunt. That knowledge does not make their relationship with you any deeper, and it certainly does not make their uninformed recommendations to you informed, accurate, or correct.
Interestingly, social networks and consultants start from the same basic point - experience. Those with experience in the stated challenge rise to answer, but here is where they differ: The social network response is, "Here is what worked for me, it should work for you." The consultant response is, "Here is what I have seen, let's determine how it applies to you, given the unique circumstances of your situation."
I suppose I will continue participating in these social networks because they do encourage me to think, even if the thought they inspire goes against some facet of their proposed usefulness. And besides, I feel like that long-lost aunt of a friend, of a friend, who was recommended to a friend of my friend, is a member of the family. Saying goodbye would just be too hard....
A Stabilizing Punch in the Face
I just returned from a credit union planning session. One of the topics of discussion was how much of an impact last week's NCUA decision on the "stabilization" efforts of the corporate credit union system would have on the industry's future. The concern this credit union shares with credit union leaders across the country is that the NCUA is destabilizing natural person credit unions with their corporate rescue efforts.
A widely held perspective in the circle of clients we support is that hundreds of credit unions will be driven to untenable financial positions if this plan is enacted. That every corporate credit union will "survive" while 500 credit unions are driven out of business.
It is certainly too soon to tell if this ill-conceived plan will have such consequences. Perhaps they will revise the plan with something a bit more sensible, though I have my doubts. Unfortunately, every credit union that spent the fall deliberating deeply on the most sensible pathway through this downturn just had their well-devised plans dealt a blow.
I suppose that Mike Tyson is worth quoting here. He apparently once said "everyone has a plan . . . until they get punched in the face." Well said Mr. Tyson. Well said.
Bye, Bye Citi...
The recent announcements and news articles covering Citi are truly interesting. Take this headline delivered via the Wall Street Journal a few minutes ago:
"Citigroup, under pressure to rapidly downsize, is preparing to unveil a major reorganization that will mark a further step toward dismantling the financial conglomerate..."
I wonder where this pressure is coming from!? Just kidding. I have an idea from where and by whom. In case anyone was wondering, this is what happens when the "banking experts" elected to Congress begin running financial institutions. To say that I am a bit concerned about where this all may lead is an understatement.
Here is an example of the factors driving my concern: the recent decision on the cramdown option proposed by enlightened Senators and now "endorsed" by Citi. This option would allow bankruptcy judges to set the principal value of homes in bankruptcy court. I find it hard to believe that this is the best idea available for stemming nationwide declines in home values.
In any case, the cramdown option was first proposed last year by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. It was rightfully met with resistance by lenders and other housing groups at the time. This year it is now seen as the best path forward. Citi changed its tune and is on board, perhaps because of the small payment of $25B awarded the institution as a result of the bailout.
Anyone who has read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" likely sees the interesting parallels between the fictional Washington of the novel and the Washington of today.
I am no conspiracy theorist, and generally believe most people in government try to do their best, but often policy-makers are ill-informed (this includes policy-makers of all kinds, including a number of financial institution boards). Ill-informed decision-makers make ill-informed decisions. I believe that the folks at Citi know this isn't the right path, but given their newly minted allegiance with Washington they have no choice but to follow it to its end.
While credit unions have been largely locked out of the bailout game, perhaps this is the best thing going for the industry. We owe favors to no one but the members who own us.
A 2002 Web Leader!
We are currently researching a selection of credit unions for a client project. We came across something in our research that I had to share. One of the websites supporting a credit union we reviewed proudly proclaimed that the credit union was the 2002 recipient of NAFCU's "Best Credit Union Website" award. From the looks of it, nothing on the site has changed since.
It's as if they were so proud of that moment, they decided they would go out on a high note. It seems like the reasoning is, "It can't get any better, so let's not even try."
If the world had not changed since 2002, especially with regard to online activities and advances, I would have no problem with an institution that made minor or even no adjustments to a website. But we all know that is not the case. 2002 was six (nearly seven) years ago! Even within the last two years we have seen incredible change in the online world. Look back over the last six years and the changes are astounding.
One of the major, non-technical changes with regard to the online world has to do with design. I was in New York City over the weekend and came across an interesting book that reflected on the transition in web designer skills. It used to be that the majority of web designers had print design training, and they had to adapt their skills to the unusual world of online design and layout as requests for web sites came in from clients. Now, there are professionals trained directly in online design who have never had the challenge of adapting skill sets from one medium to another.
My point is that website design, as much as the functional elements of financial institution web sites, has changed greatly over the last few years. Especially since 2002. Any website that holds on to designs favored more than five years ago is jarring to look at, as it stands out starkly against other more updated sites. Were this a branch I was talking about, it would be similar to a credit union holding on to its look from 1975. Lots of strange color combinations, shag carpeting, etc.
No successful credit union, to my knowledge, still has 1975 decor proudly displayed throughout its branches. Why? Because to date ourselves in such a way shows those that might open accounts with us that we are not up-to-date with the latest in financial services and professionalism. Yet when it comes to the online world, many still hold the mistaken belief that just having a web presence, whether well-designed by today's standards or not, is enough. It isn't. Design is important in the online world.
Let's take pride in our appearance - online as well as in the real world. Our members deserve no less than that because as owners, the way we look is really a reflection on them!
The Youth Shall Lead
I've been carrying around a newsletter excerpt from State Farm Insurance for a few months. I've been meaning to comment on it in the blog.
For awhile now, credit unions across the country have talked rather openly about the challenge to attracting "young" board members. I "quote" young, because young is a relative term. In any case, young board members are hard to come by for the industry as a whole. Some credit unions do well with Gen-Y board members, but they tend to be credit unions that have a field of membership largely composed of Gen-Y individuals.
USC Credit Union, the credit union for the University of Southern California, is a good example. They have a board seat reserved for a USC student to ensure that the credit union's governance process takes into account that vital membership demographic. In fact, it is through USC that we got to know Justin Ho - our resident Gen-Y expert and strategy consultant.
What I found interesting about the State Farm piece, pictured here in the blog, is the depth of their effort to incorporate the youth. Rather than just talk about the need to incorporate youth into their strategy, they put action to words and desire. For example, they have the State Farm Youth Advisory Board, which is tasked with the responsibility of overseeing a program called the Signature Service Learning Initiative and the program's $5M budget. Imagine that! A youth board with real responsibility.
I was curious, so I searched for additional information on this board. I found more than I expected at http://www.statefarmyab.com. This initiative is working. I encourage you to check out the page listing the board members. I believe there are 29 young board members spread across the country.
There is something to learn here. The push-back I get when talking to credit unions about youth board members, or volunteers in general, is that the youth are not all that interested in serving on boards and/or volunteering. That youth don't have time to participate. That the value of their participation may not be equal to long-standing board members. So on and so forth.
What the State Farm effort shows us, what we can learn from, is that all we really need is the institutional will to actively recruit the next generation. The youth will participate. The youth will volunteer. The youth will engage. Now, maybe not in ways familiar to long-standing boards - but who cares about that? When it comes to deliberations on strategy and governance, tradition can be an albatross.
If your credit union has the desire to incorporate the youth perspective at the highest level of the organization, make sure you have the will to proceed. The old saying "where there is a will, there is a way" rings true. Without the will, there is truly no way. If you don't have institutional will to proceed, then don't bother with a youth strategy because there is no way it will work.
Slowing Economic Activity
Throughout the fall we often referenced the Federal Reserve's Beige Book during the various strategic planning sessions in which we participated. The Beige Book is a report published by the Federal Reserve Board that provides perspective on current economic conditions in each of the twelve Federal Reserve districts. It is usually updated eight times a year.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2008/20081203/default.htm
The latest update was recently posted and is available on the Federal Reserve's website at:
As you might expect, the report is not all that rosy. In any case, if you haven't read the latest, or were not aware of the availability of the report, it is a good resource to use in the consideration of market strategies.
Puttin' on the Ritz
From a CU Times story posted today:
"Mica said he was unsure but hopeful that despite belt tightening and travel costs the GAC conference would top the 5,000 from 2007 noting, however, the trade group is running a heavy ad schedule “doing mailings, videos, using league publications—everything we can” to ensure a strong industry presence in February."
Hello!? While I do agree that this is certainly a good time to tell the credit union story to new, incoming congressional leaders, why don't the powers that be use their marketing budget to subsidize the attendance of credit union CEO's and Board Chairs. If the message is truly the most important part of the outreach, then a simple "the trip is on us" offering would speak volumes about what the GAC is truly all about - the personal interaction between credit union and congressional leaders.
From my perspective, a marketing effort to encourage credit union leaders to attend a conference at this time seems like money wasted. The credit union leaders that I know are diligently working to cut all expenses that do not directly support members in this time of need. While meeting congressional leaders is important, it is certainly not more important than meeting member needs.
Which brings me to subsidizing the event. Why force credit union leaders make the choice? Drop the $895 attendee fee and run the conference at break even - or even a loss? If this is all about credit unions, then this time of "belt tightening and travel costs" should serve as an opportunity for the association to give back to credit union members.
This enhanced spending on marketing seems like an effort merely to break an attendance record than to truly serve the industry.
Lender of Last Resort?
I just saw the headlines that the Federal Reserve is creating a facility to support consumer and GSE debt. Here is the statement:
The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday announced the creation of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), a facility that will help market participants meet the credit needs of households and small businesses by supporting the issuance of asset-backed securities (ABS) collateralized by student loans, auto loans, credit card loans, and loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
At some point, you have to wonder whether in the future we will need financial institutions at all. The way this seems to be headed is to a "central bank" system. That is one institution, owned by taxpayers, chartered to lend directly to the american population. Good bye banks, credit unions, thrifts. Who needs them when you can get a subsidized loan from your local FedBank?
Okay. I am being a bit dramatic here, and leaning to a belief not entirely supported by the facts as they stand today, but it sure seems that the government is getting closer and closer to stepping on the toes of traditional banking institutions. True, we have a short-term problem in need of attention, but I am more or less drawn to the conclusion that in the haste to push more credit out the door in an effort to "fix" the economy we are throwing caution to the wind, making decisions that could leave a long-lasting scar on our banking system.
Yes, the efforts of a few (relative to the many fine financial institutions chartered to serve the credit needs of Americans) have "left a mark" as they say. However, in Washington's attempts to correct those mistakes, the sound business practices and efforts of surviving banks and credit unions are being undermined. In negatively impacting solid strategy, Washington is serving as a cause of the demise.
Consider the case of IndyMac. IndyMac failed, sort of. In a preemptive effort the bank was put into conservatorship. It is essentially being run by the FDIC, a government regulator. The FDIC has an aggressive pricing policy at IndyMac. The rates for most of their deposit products, especially short-term certificates, handily beat national averages.
Here is why that is a problem. A recent Wall Street Journal article covered the increasing competition for consumer deposits. They called it a deposit war. IndyMac is undeniably a participant in this war. Because of the FDIC's own efforts at IndyMac, the cost of funds for institutions working the same market have to be higher just to retain existing accounts. In establishing an above-market pricing strategy the FDIC is directly competing with institutions that they regulate. Competition is absolutely a good thing, but it isn't really a competition in this case.
Back to my original doomsday perspective. I truly believe that the banking system will be forever changed due to the efforts of regulators. To be clear, I am not talking about investment banks, et. al. I am referring to the ABC National Banks and XZY Federal Credit Unions now serving people in communities across the country.
The real question for me is not whether the system will be changed, but just how drastically. Unfortunately, that question will likely remain unanswered for some time. We won't know until the dust settles, the sky clears, and we see what we have left.
Courage and Grace
Over the last four months I have traveled the country working with credit unions on strategy and direction. In many ways it felt like being on a campaign trail. In one stretch, I went from Northern California to Southern California to North Carolina to Southern California to Oregon and back to North Carolina - all in a seven-day period. Like I have said to many people over the years, I truly love what I do but I am not all that fond of the "getting there" part of the job!
In any case, I thought it important to share a perspective I developed this year of the character of the leadership in the credit unions with whom I have worked. The words courage and grace come to mind.
It is no secret that a number of credit unions are facing the unpleasant prospect of mounting loan losses. To be sure, this is not due to lax standards, fraud, or mismanagement. Rather, the housing slide has had unforeseen consequences in certain markets, severely impacting members and the credit unions to which they belong.
In working with credit unions on the response to members' needs during this crisis, I have seen impressive, selfless, courageous, graceful decision-making as leaders evaluated and chose from options that no one would ever desire.
Some argue that the CEOs and boards running a number of our nation's credit unions are not "professional grade." These naysayers suggest that many are in positions of leadership only because of natural attrition in a segment of the financial industry that lacks aggressive, competitive pressure. I don't buy it. I never will.
The leaders I have seen, in action, defining the strategies that they feel will give their institutions the best chance to succeed in meeting the needs of members (a novel concept) are some of the best I have ever come across, and I have met some very interesting, well-known business titans in my travels.
I think that the key to their effectiveness, and what ultimately leads to the right decisions with regard to strategic direction, is that they understand the core focus of credit unions. It's the people. They get that words like "members," "customers," and "staff," describe a human element, not some lifeless, faceless group.
To our clients, and you know who you are, regardless of how the economy goes or the pain that it may cause your members and perhaps your bottom line, rest assured that the credit unions you lead will emerge stronger than ever because of you.
Still Living
For those that know about our services, it should come as no surprise that I have not posted a blog entry in a few weeks. This is high season for strategic planning, which means lots of airplane flights, all-day sessions, etc., which leave little time for updating the blog. In fact, I suppose I have some degree of frustration that I don't have 36 hours in the day to get to all the "fun" stuff like blog posts and podcast recording sessions!
There is so much to write about these days, especially with regard to strategy. These "unprecedented" times are driving perhaps the most thoughtful and intense strategic planning sessions I have seen in some time. Rest assured that I have notes galore and will catch up soon!
In the meantime, it's back to the airport and on to California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)