An initial reaction to the NAFCU-CUNA merger

Here are my first thoughts. The members of both organizations will vote on the mergers. This is a good precedent for all coop mergers.  That way the details and commitments are explained to both constituencies. When only the merging entity votes, the acquiring firm is exempted from commenting, or even committing, to what the intended benefits will be.

The loss of competing views

Competition in ideas can result in more and better options for credit unions. NAFCU as the # 2 trade association had to always “try harder.” This was especially important in critical moments of legislative and regulatory change when there were different “proffers” or options presented by each trade group responding to congressional or administration views. One need only recall the give and take in passing the CUMAA in 1998.

NAFCU’s origin story in the early 1970s was to advocate for a federal insurance option, a position on which CUNA was extremely skeptical. CUNA feared federal insurance would mean the dual chartering system and cooperative solutions would be subjugated to federal control and uniformity. Both trade groups were right.

 

continue reading »