Links in “NAFCU”

NAFCU has submitted a comment letter to NCUA that provides detailed recommendations for revisions to the Federal Credit Union Bylaws. NAFCU has identified many areas where the bylaws need to be updated to better reflect current operating practices. In addition, the trade association recommends changes that, among other issues, would facilitate the expulsion of members who have committed crimes against the credit union or whose names appear on an OFAC list and would clarify the nominating process. [7/16/14]

NAFCU’s comment letter on NCUA proposed rule on associational common bonds relates concern with the threshold requirement to determine an association’s independence and purpose. Specifically, NAFCU is questioning the need for the one-year operation period before a new association can be considered for a membership expansion request. [7/1/14]

NAFCU President/CEO Dan Berger sets the records straight regarding an article promoting the elimination of the CU tax exemption that appeared in the American Bankers Association’s publication, The Hill, on June 23^rd.  Berger cites an independent tax study that found that repeal of the tax exemption would result in Americans losing an estimated $17 billion in economic benefits and costing the federal government about $15 billion in lost tax revenue. [6/25/14]

In a comment letter to the CFPB on proposed remittance rule amendments, NAFCU argued for an expansion of the 100-remittance threshold for exemption to the new disclosure rules. NAFCU pointed out that over 25% of credit unions have said they have or will discontinue offering remittance services and those that still offer remittance services have had to increase the fees to members significantly. [6/9/14]

NCUA has come out swinging in its response to a letter sent by 75% of the members of the House of Representatives that called into questions the Agency’s proposed risk-based capital rule.  NAFCU and CUNA both encouraged the House members to take action and say that NCUA’s claim that the trades have overestimated the costs of the proposed rule is not supported by the facts. [6/2]

In a letter jointly signed by six industry trade associations, NAFCU and CUNA are urging Congress to limit the Justice Department’s ability to bring legal action solely on the basis of disparate impact. Disparate impact is defined as discrimination that results from an activity, despite any and all reasonable efforts to prevent the discrimination, that results in an adverse impact on a federally protected class. [5/30]

A NAFCU-sponsored letter with the signatures of 324 members of Congress has been sent to NCUA Chair Debbie Matz. The letter, which calls for more clarity about why the proposed risk ratings for credit unions is different from those set for other types of financial institutions, urges NCUA to consider the cost burden of the proposed rule and how that burden might affect mortgage and business lending. The letter also calls on the Agency to extend the comment period beyond 90 days. [5/16]

NCUA Board member Michael Fryzel has sent a letter to both CUNA and NAFCU in which he states that he believes the full NCUA board should vote on whether to extend the comment period for the proposed risk-based capital rule.  However, he added that he was confident that the final rule would include the suggested changes recommended by the two trade associations. [5/15]

NCUA Chair Debbie Matz has said “no” to the joint request from CUNA and NAFCU to extend the comment period for the proposed risk-based capital rule for an additional 90 days stating that the proposed rule has been available to credit unions since January and that is sufficient time for credit unions to review the rule and to formulate their comments. The other two board members have yet to respond to the request for the extension. [4/25]

Calling NCUA’s proposed stress-testing rule for credit unions with assets of $10 billion or more inappropriate, costly, and unnecessary, NAFCU General Counsel Carrie Hunt writes that, at a minimum, the proposed rule should be delayed until there is more clarity with the proposed risk-based capital rule. [4/22]