The secondary capital debate draws deep-seated philosophical arguments from both sides as you've seen in letters to the editor and opinion pieces in this publication and elsewhere, and NCUA Board Member Gigi Hyland's recently released white paper on the subject stirred the pot further.

The issue of secondary capital has many complex aspects in addition to the actual complexity of structure. Less quantifiable, but probably more important, political considerations are at play, too. There are intra-credit union politics pitting opponents against backers that have gotten quite snippy. There are agency and Capitol Hill considerations as well.

While I believe credit union capital can be deployed better at some credit unions, I also do not understand the logic behind denying credit unions even the opportunity to access other sources of capital to help them spread their good deeds. Healthy credit unions that intentionally run at marginally well-capitalized as defined in the prompt corrective action regulation could use alternative sources of capital to further expand their product and service lineup, cultivate membership growth and hedge against inordinate deposit influx. After all, these are the credit unions that are, theoretically, providing the best returns to the membership, which should be a primary mission of credit unions. Secondary capital in particular could help to buffer and finance greater service to those of modest means-that's why low-income credit unions are permitted to use it.