Another Credit Union gone to the wall...

It spend 5.4 million acquiring a new premise in 2009, hang on a moment wasn't the recession already in full swing at that stage, so where did it get the money to fund this and whose idea was it ? then it gave out 3 million euro in bullet loans, some to staff and directors and it all culminated in a four year secret engagement process to try and sort the mess with regulators. Truly shocking stuff
 
The corker of it is that the board didn't realise the risks re the bullet loans...they would have had to since by the sound of it most of them had such loans.

The problem with credit unions is altough most positions are voluntary they are professional jobs and the depth of experience is not there in local communities.

The common thread about the 3 that failed is the distinct absence of corporate governance in its most basic form
 
I'd be very interested to know how many CU's are involved in similar processes with the CB. Clearly the voluntary restructuring facilitated by ReBo hasn't achieved anywhere near the scale that may have been hoped for by the CB and probably Government.

Unlike the banks who suffered an overnight obliteration of reputation in 2008 I'd say this drip-drip bad news cycle of basket-case Credit Unions being forced into resolutions by the regulator could slowly erode confidence in the Movement generally. It's truly shocking how amateurish some CUs were and still are, and unfortunately they make it a tough environment for all CUs, even the well-managed and prudent ones.

Between this, Newbridge, Berehaven and Howth-Sutton there's an emerging trend of the CB bringing these drawn out negotiations with struggling CUs to a blunt end.
 
Tend to disagree with the notion that CU movement/lending in trouble.

We have circa 400 unions. Only a handful are in real trouble. Several have been forced to merge ,dozens will merge to become stronger.

How many of our (professional)(regulated) (well run?) covered by our guardians in Dept of Finance/Central Bank , have even survived?

Is it not surprising that most of these Amateurs will survive?
 
I'm a member of a Credit Union, fairly large operation by CU standards (c. 25K members) and generally seems fairly progressive in terms of technology - offering debit cards etc. But the wasting of money seems to be to be on a mind-blowing scale. It opened two new offices over the past decade or so, one at either end of its catchment area, along with one in the middle of its catchment area. A few years ago it bought a large premises elsewhere in the catchment area and applied for planning to demolish the building and build a new 3 story office.

It pays a miniscule dividend.

I see a role for CU's in small scale, local relationship lending but they don't have the scale to absorb this kind of extravagant expenditure.
 
tvman said:
It pays a miniscule dividend.
Click to expand...

None in a two small towns with two rebuild buildings, one with huge stone front n huge stone sign...,

Agm during week was fully of disgruntled members over rate of interest charged for loans n also huge bads debts...solictor fees 20k so members cpncerned bad debts being just written off...and no interest...
 
tvman said:
I'm a member of a Credit Union, fairly large operation by CU standards (c. 25K members) and generally seems fairly progressive in terms of technology - offering debit cards etc. But the wasting of money seems to be to be on a mind-blowing scale. It opened two new offices over the past decade or so, one at either end of its catchment area, along with one in the middle of its catchment area. A few years ago it bought a large premises elsewhere in the catchment area and applied for planning to demolish the building and build a new 3 story office.

It pays a miniscule dividend.

I see a role for CU's in small scale, local relationship lending but they don't have the scale to absorb this kind of extravagant expenditure.
Click to expand...

Presumably you've attended the AGMs and made your points known? What was the reaction of your fellow members?
 
The amount of bad debts being written off by my credit union is huge. The provision for these debts is increased every year. They have been spreading out these write offs over a number of years so as not to make it look so bad.
 
Laramie said:
The amount of bad debts being written off by my credit union is huge. The provision for these debts is increased every year. .
Click to expand...

Hi Laramie

There is a big difference between "writing off" of debts and making provisions.

The Central Bank's rules result in massive overprovisioning for bad debts by credit unions. The provisions should be far higher than the amount actually written off.

We will see the same thing with mortgage provisions in the banks. They have massively overprovided and will start writing them back to profits over the coming years as arrears fall and property values rise.
They have been spreading out these write offs over a number of years so as not to make it look so bad
Click to expand...

I understand that they have very little leeway in this matter. The provisions are made according to strict Central Bank rules. There isn't that much judgement exercised by the CU itself.

Brendan
 
In reply to Derek1969

I have a very small amount in a deposit a/c so I couldn't be bothered. One problem with having many small owners(members/shareholders) is that its rarely worth any one members while in monitoring the behaviour of managers, because they have to expend the time and effort but the gains accrue to them only in proportion to their % ownership - there's a vast economic literature on this free rider problem in corporate ownership - basically it shows that many small shareholders = powerful managers, free to pursue their own interests at the expense of shareholders.
 
tvman said:
In reply to Derek1969

I have a very small amount in a deposit a/c so I couldn't be bothered. One problem with having many small owners(members/shareholders) is that its rarely worth any one members while in monitoring the behaviour of managers, because they have to expend the time and effort but the gains accrue to them only in proportion to their % ownership - there's a vast economic literature on this free rider problem in corporate ownership - basically it shows that many small shareholders = powerful managers, free to pursue their own interests at the expense of shareholders.
Click to expand...
...............

It is a credit Union , not a Bank
..In general C U Management did not pursue their own interests.

In general Bank Management did pursue their own interests.
 
Gerry Canning said:
Tend to disagree with the notion that CU movement/lending in trouble.

We have circa 400 unions. Only a handful are in real trouble. Several have been forced to merge ,dozens will merge to become stronger.

How many of our (professional)(regulated) (well run?) covered by our guardians in Dept of Finance/Central Bank , have even survived?

Is it not surprising that most of these Amateurs will survive?
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more than a 'handful', but nonetheless the Movement has sustained itself and proven relatively resilient over the past number of years, all things considered.

But this resilience can only be measured in terms of pure survival, and that survival comes at a cost to CU members in that a significant proportion of CUs are doing their members a huge disservice by destroying value for their savings. Unless there's wide scale restructuring the current model is destined to continue to damage members' interests rather than serve them.

A lot of small-medium sized credit unions have aging common bonds, paltry loans to assets ratios and persisting operating losses - that can't continue especially with investment income set to fall across the board in the coming months and years. If ReBo doesn't work out I can definte see a more aggressive policy being effected by the Central Bank, where the use of enforcement powers become the norm rather than the exception.
 
Gerry Canning said:
...............

It is a credit Union , not a Bank
..In general C U Management did not pursue their own interests.
Click to expand...

In my view the building spree that some credit unions embarked on served the interests of management rather than members (who foot the bill).
 
tvman said:
In my view the building spree that some credit unions embarked on served the interests of management rather than members (who foot the bill).
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this, but the membership did go along with it, whether actively or by not shouting stop, they did acquiesce.
 
You know one thing that really irritates me is that apart from the Post Office Savings Bank - there is not one Irish bank that survived the crises. Several years on we have a small number of Credit unions and some of the commentary in here is simply based on hearsay.

What is shocking is that the scale of regulation imposed on Credit Unions and restrictions on their business is out of all proportion and based on part evidence, prejudice and arrogance.

For example Section 76D of the 1997 Act - inserted by the 2012 Act - has an obligation on Compliance Officers that ... "The compliance officer of a credit union
shall be responsible for managing compliance at all levels in the credit union including—(a) ensuring that the credit union complies with all statutory and regulatory
requirements ...."

It is simply impossible to achieve this. In fact, when a similar provision was put into COMPANIES (AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING) ACT 2003 - it never got commenced. Why was this? Because it became obvious that those that inserted it in fact knew nothing about Company Law - that it was so onerous it could not be complied with - because all the obligations were so wide and in so many areas ..that it would be an impossibility.

Here now we have the same type of provision. It is simply stupid. Its just the best one to illustrate the point.

What should happen is a change in the Share structure. At the moment all shares are treated by the Central Bank as 'deposits' on the basis that we are all fools and cannot help or do anything ourselves. Risk based shares - carrying the normal risks and rewards of ownership - should be established as proper share capital.

The Central Bank are imposing regulations more appropriate for banks on what are effectively the size of a modest branch.

The Central Bank may well have concerns but the famous one that they believed - has not come to pass - despite the aggressive tackling of alleged under provisioning and smashing the perceived culture of top up loans and all that - and they are still standing despite the floggings - sounds like to me that one of the legacies of the Elderfield era was deal with weak opponents decisively whilst we saw little aggression in the arrears cases - and the Banks spotted that.
 
In answer to Rob Oyle


If the reports on past behaviour in the article are an example of how this particular CU was run, I'm surprised it was given 4 years to work out its problems before this happened.

Unless a CU can put forward a realistic and sustainable proposal to bring their Reserves to the minimum 10% it makes no sense whatsoever to prolong the inevitable. Such CU's should better serve their members by finding an alternative home for their members savings and loans. You could blame the Central Bank for their apparent lack of action/care, but maybe that is the way they want it done, for their own reasons, which probably only make sense to themselves.. Better to ask why board members and board oversight committees and key members of these CU's have dragged their heels for 4 years, and seemingly more to come if there are CU's still at 5% Reserves!
 
WizardDr.

I think your post should be read by those who spout about Credit Unions.

On your comment I see the (dead) hand of a known failed Central Bank trying to impose belated (banking) type rules on a local institution.

Your comment to move Cu money to shareholders , I like it .

Have a good Xmas.
 
Dr Wizzard, your post is quite long so excuse me if my summary misrepresents you.

Your first main point seems to be that it is unreasonable to demand that an officer of each CU be designated to ensure compliance with regulation? I don't understand this position unless you also object to any regulation of the movement at all? Otherwise it seems you don't mind regulation but object to having anyone responsible for complying with it.

Secondly you seem to advocate that CU shares be treated as risk capital? You can't be seriously suggesting that grannies' savings be first on the line to be wiped out as a result of poor CU management?

It sounds to me that an investment in a venture capital/vulture fund would suit you better than putting your money into CU savings. I do not believe that the majority of members share your appetite for risk or desire for lack of regulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top