So why would the NCUA need to ask Congress for the authority?

And further, would the NCUA really make good use of the information? After all, the NCUA had examiners on site at corporates and was well aware Western Corporate Federal Credit Union was investing in mezzanine security positions. The Unrealized Losses blog was sounding the alarm bells well before the crisis, as were a number of credit unions. (It's a shame those credit unions mistakenly thought the losses wouldn't flow downstream.)

Bottom line: the problem wasn't authority, but rather, that corporate examiners were slurping from the same Kool-Aid fountain as corporate executives and their volunteer boards. The red flags were there. The problem is that nobody wanted to see them.

On its face, the ability to anticipate the next financial crisis is a good one. However, that rationale alone should not be used to support the need for expanded supervisory powers.

Credit unions are already burdened with increased regulatory burden from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has yet to prove it is motivated more by a desire to prevent the next crisis than by a Quixotian idealistic crusade.

Fair lending laws are also in the spotlight, as credit unions not only have to deal with fields of membership that make them statistical outliers, but also the additional lending scrutiny disparate impact provisions require by law. (Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.)

On Sept. 18, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry, who is also chairman of the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council, said he's pushing for more exam oversight of cybersecurity, noting recent DDoS attacks.

Large institutions with more than $1 billion in assets seem to have their cybersecurity defensive strategies in place, but Curry made a good point when he said hackers will increasingly target smaller, unprepared institutions.

More supervision may seem like a good idea, but where will it lead? Is it unrealistic to envision that someday all credit unions will be required to outsource all digital activities to service bureaus? Remember, these vendors would be included in the NCUA's request to regulate third-party providers. The move could reduce credit unions to just a friendly face.

One of the least controversial attempts at increased supervisory powers is the NCUA's announcement that it is writing a proposed rule that would require the four credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets to file stress testing results. Because of sheer size, these credit unions already conduct stress testing, so it doesn't appear that the requirement would result in increased costs or staff burdens.

Jim Blaine, president/CEO of the $27 billion State Employees' Credit Union of Raleigh, N.C., said he supports the NCUA making the results of the stress tests public. Of course, Blaine's position is no surprise; after all, he famously challenged the NCUA when he released his CAMEL rating. A positive stress test result would support Blaine's position that his balance sheet is rock solid, despite comments by the NCUA that the regulator would 'sleep better at night' if he decrease his mortgage portfolio risk, despite the loans falling within regulatory standards.

The NCUA and CFPB aren't the only regulators seeking new authorities. The Washington state regulator announced it will begin consumer compliance exams

Heather Anderson
Executive Editor
[email protected]