In regard to Matz's discussion on the 18-month examination cycle, Gentile said, “One of the most compelling discussion points about 18 months was when the chairman mentioned how sometimes very well-run, low-risk credit unions can change direction quickly if a new CEO comes in. I think that's exactly the type of discussion we should be having. A change in leadership, a change in key data points, a change in product offerings are all things that could be the triggers for what type of exam cycle a credit union is on. I continue to believe that's the healthy dialogue that the NCUA and credit union community should have.”

Gentile added the exam cycle was consistently identified by his members as a tangible way to provide regulatory relief.

“A pilot would be a healthy approach and would show the system that (the) NCUA is serious about this issue and serious about reg relief on the exam front,” he said. “Chairman Matz seemed open minded to this concept and that's positive to see.”

NCUA Public Affairs Specialist John Fairbanks told CU Times the agency “is not locked into an annual examination cycle, and, in future years, the board may consider moving to an 18-month cycle for credit unions that pose less risk to the Share Insurance Fund.”

The agency would need additional time to evaluate the impact of regulatory relief measures before the agency could have that conversation, according to Fairbanks. He added a pilot program would push back the consideration of a move to any kind of 18-month program because it would need to “organize, implement and evaluate the results of such a pilot program.”

Still, while Matz may be considering the 18-month cycle, it is not enough for some. Rep. Guinta said in a statement that he and others have pressed the chairman to “stay true to her agency's promised year of regulatory relief. So far, results have been meager.”