Thanks as always for providing a forum to share ideas. Sheri Ledbetter wrote a letter to the editor titled, "Saving Small Credit Unions is a Sound Investment for the Future for all Credit Unions" in the Oct. 11 issue. No one can argue with that statement provided that we all agree that the intent of that statement is to serve the needs of our members. I would argue that many credit unions are not doing that. The emphasis on saving credit unions may in fact hurt the entire credit union movement. A credit union that is not meeting its members' needs is not good for the movement. The public judges all credit unions by the performance of their own credit union. An emphasis on saving credit unions leads to actions that ignore the underlying causes and instead focus on solutions that rely on outside help rather than internal changes that address the causes of poor performance. Credit unions should be outperforming almost all other institutions. Credit unions are member-owned with a singular focus on member financial wellbeing. Credit unions don't have to worry about meeting stockholders' expectations as well as customer expectations. Credit unions don't have the pressures of short-term financial performance and can take a long-term strategic perspective. Credit unions are not being realistic about obvious problems that need to be addressed. Scale makes a big difference in financial performance and in member service capability. Operating expenses to average assets are much lower as credit unions get larger. We are in a period of tight net interest spreads and being efficient is very important. When we talk about the need to save small credit unions, are we willing to also accept sharing operations with other small credit unions to achieve the scale needed to operate? Are we willing to accept that all credit unions are small in the greater scheme of things? Do we agree that mergers are good if they build scale and allow members to receive more dividends, lower loan rates and lower fees? The data show that all of these outcomes are associated with greater efficiency in serving members.

The problem is always within us. No one had to save Sam "Wal-Mart" Walton and his small store in Bentonville, Ark. Small is not a disadvantage per se. The disadvantage is almost always in our board of directors, our management team and the decisions they make or fail to make in meeting the members' needs. Leadership needs to set specific timelines for meeting those needs and if by that time they cannot meet them then they should consider alternatives. Merger is the most likely option today, but that is only because the leadership resists giving up control until it is too late and merger is the only option. Joint operations with other credit unions through CUSOs for services like ATM switching, credit card processing, shared branching, investments, indirect lending and item processing have been very successful. Why not joint credit union operations? I admit that mergers are easier and cleaner, but if the goal is to keep the current number of credit unions, let's try joint operations.

Saving credit unions isn't about keeping them around it's about meeting the needs of members. Meeting member needs is more difficult than hanging on by drawing down our big capital ratios or by means of programs that support troubled credit unions. Our charter is not to exist it is to serve members. So let's not talk about saving credit unions, let's talk about how we can best serve members and meet their needs. If we don't there are plenty of others who will. Henry Wirz President SAFE Credit Union Manhattan Beach, Calif.