On June 15, 2015, Reps. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn., Denny Heck, D-Wash., and Bill Posey, R-Fla. introduced the Credit Union Risk-Based Capital Study Act of 2015 (H.R. 2769). This NAFCU-backed legislation will stop NCUA from moving forward with their second risk-based capital proposal until completing and delivering to Congress a thorough study addressing NCUA's legal authority, the proposal's impact on credit union lending, capital requirements for credit unions compared to other financial institutions and more. The agency would not be able to finalize or implement RBC2 before 120 days after the report goes to Congress.
We urge credit unions to take action and ask their members of Congress to cosponsor the Credit Union Risk-Based Capital Study Act of 2015.
The NCUA Board issued their second risk-based capital proposed rule (RBC2) for credit unions on January 15, 2015, which amends their first proposal issued nearly a year prior. Key wins and changes in the second proposal are outlined in the "Issue Background Information" section of this page.
NAFCU SVP of Government Affairs and General Counsel Carrie Hunt, Director of Regulatory Affairs Alicia Nealon and Chief Economist Curt Long highlight the association's regulatory and economic issues with NCUA's revised risk-based capital proposal.
NAFCU continues to provide its members with in-depth analysis and tools to help assess how the new proposal will impact their credit unions, including:
NAFCU recognizes that NCUA addressed several of the key issues, including the risk weighting and implementation period, raised by NAFCU, credit unions and lawmakers in its most recent RBC proposed rule. However, there remain several key issues with the proposed rule and NAFCU still strongly believes this rulemaking is unnecessary and will only impose more regulatory burden on an already extremely well-capitalized industry.
NAFCU believes there are several issues related to NCUA's legal authority to issue the rule as proposed, including, the ability to prescribe separate risk-based capital thresholds for well capitalized and adequately capitalized credit unions.
NAFCU is also deeply concerned with the cost of this proposal. NCUA's own estimate approximates that it will cost $3.75 million for the agency to adjust its Call Report, update its examination systems and train internal staff to implement the proposed requirements. If this proposal were to be finalized, NCUA also estimates credit unions would incur an ongoing $1.1 million expense to complete the adjusted Call Report fields. While NAFCU is still analyzing the true costs of this proposal, we strongly believe that NCUA's projections do not reflect the actual amount the agency will spend implementing the proposed changes.
Despite NCUA's claim that only a limited number of credit unions will be impacted, this proposal would force credit unions to hold hundreds of millions of dollars in additional reserves to achieve the same capital cushion levels that they currently maintain. Based on our financial analysis, credit unions' capital cushions will suffer a $490 million hit if NCUA promulgates a two-tier approach to RBC. Specifically, in order to satisfy the proposal's "well-capitalized" thresholds, today's credit unions would need to raise an additional $760 million. On the other hand, to satisfy the proposal's "adequately capitalized" thresholds, today's credit unions would need to raise an additional $270 million.
Ultimately, NAFCU believes legislative changes are necessary to bring about comprehensive capital reform for credit unions such as allowing credit unions to have access to supplemental capital sources, and making the statutory changes necessary to design a true risk-based capital system for credit unions.
NAFCU has outlined a legislative solution that will institute fundamental changes to the credit union regulatory capital requirements in our Five-Point Plan for Regulatory Relief. The plan, as it relates to capital reform:
After its first proposed rule regarding risk-based capital, released in January 2014, NCUA received more than 2,000 comment letters from credit unions and their trades – including NAFCU. Based on those comments, NCUA Board Chairman Debbie Matz announced that a new proposal would be released that would include a longer implementation period and revised risk weights for mortgages, investments, member business loans, credit union service organizations and corporate credit unions, among other changes.
Official comment letter to NCUA on first risk-based capital proposed rule
On May 27, 2014, NAFCU submitted its official comment letter to NCUA on the agency's first proposed risk-based capital regulation. The letter explains our position in detail, including data on how the rule will gravely impair credit unions' ability to compete in the marketplace and serve their members as well as fail to provide additional safety to the industry. We firmly believe that, in this form, the proposed rule poses such widespread, catastrophic consequences that it should be withdrawn.
On January 15, 2015, the NCUA Board issued a second proposed rule regarding risk-based capital (RBC) for credit unions that amends their first risk-based capital proposal issued nearly a year prior. (Watch videos of the NCUA board RBC proposal discussion and succeeding briefing.) NCUA reported receiving 2,167 comment letters on their second proposal by their April 27, 2015 deadline for comments. NAFCU submitted its official RBC2 comment letter to NCUA on April 23, 2015.
Key NAFCU victories in the new proposed rule include:
Key changes the proposal would make to NCUA's current capital requirements:
NAFCU has stayed at the forefront of this issue and continued to champion credit unions in major media nationwide.
NAFCU Statement on NCUA’s Risk-Based Capital Report to House Financial Services Committee
(November 23, 2015)
NCUA Downplays RBC2 Effect on Credit Unions (Credit Union Times, October 24, 2015)
With RBC2 Final, NAFCU Focuses on Legislative Solution (Credit Union Times, October 19, 2015)
NCUA's Risk-Based Capital Rule Could Set Stage for Supplemental Capital Push (American Banker, October 16, 2015)
Washington Wrap: 'Wall Street regulates Congress' (SNL Financial, October 16, 2015)
NCUA Board, In 2-1 Vote, Approves RBC (CUtoday.info, October 16, 2015)
RBC Vote Could Prompt Tough Reaction by Congress (Credit Union Journal, October 15, 2015)
NAFCU Vows to Work to Make 'Bad Rule Better' (CUtoday.info, October 15, 2015)
NCUA: RBC2 Only Affects 16 Credit Unions (Credit Union Times, October 15, 2015)
NAFCU: NCUA's Final Risk-Based Capital Proposal Misses Mark, Credit Unions Still Need Legislative Solution For True Risk-Based Capital System
(October 15, 2015)
Trade Groups Eager To See How 'Revised' The Revised RBC Rule Will Be (CUtoday.info, October 12, 2015)
RBC Up For Vote Next Week (CUtoday.info, October 9, 2015)
NAFCU: Disappointed With NCUA's Advancement of Second Risk-Based Capital Proposal
(October 8, 2015)
Stop & Study Bill Clears Committee (Credit Union Times, September 30, 2015)
House Committee Favorably Votes Out Several CU-Supported Bills, Including 'Stop and Study' (CUtoday.info, September 30, 2015)
NAFCU Statement In Response to the House Financial Services Committee Mark-up of 'Risk-Based Capital Study Act of 2015'
(September 30, 2015)
NAFCU Continues To Press HFSC To Support 'Stop & Study' (CUtoday.info, September 29, 2015)
'Stop & Study' Bill Scheduled For Wednesday Mark-Up (CUtoday.info, September 27, 2015)
NAFCU Statement In Response to House Financial Services Committee Mark-up of 'Stop and Study' Bill
(September 25, 2015)
Stop and Study Heads to Mark Up (Credit Union Times, September 24, 2015)
House Lawmakers Blast Credit Union Capital Plan (American Banker, September 17, 2015)
See all of NAFCU's media outreach.
TALKING POINTS: Download RBC2 talking points (member-only).
REGULATORY ALERT: 15-EA-02: NCUA - RBC2 (member-only) – Download NAFCU's summary of the new proposed risk-based capital rule.
View entire series of Risk-Based Capital posts
Letters to NCUA
Updated October 2015