At the same time, we were resolving the $50 billion in toxic assets at the five failing corporate credit unions and trying to figure out how to inject liquidity into the system. So we were really burning the candle at both ends.

But after we did stop the hemorrhaging and stabilized the system, I felt we could move on and take a look at the regulations that needed to be modernized. We have modified 21 regulations under the regulatory modernization initiative.

I am very, very proud of our efforts to hold Wall Street firms accountable for the losses that they caused credit unions. We've recovered more than $3 billion and we still have 11 lawsuits pending.

I feel that those are all significant accomplishments that I'm very proud of.

CU Times: What do you wish you would have achieved but didn't?

Matz: I had hoped that we would have a finalized field of membership rule before I left. It just took us a long time to get to the point of proposing the rule because it was so complicated. We didn't propose the rule until November and we had hoped to propose it in September. It's not finalized yet, but I am hopeful that my colleagues might be able to finalize a rule before too long.

Also, I had hoped we would have a supplemental capital rule, but that turned out to be much more complicated than we had anticipated. We were just not able to get to it. Hopefully a future board will deal with that.

CU Times: Looking back on the financial crisis, do you feel credit unions recovered in the way you expected them to? If not, how have things turned out differently than expected?

Matz: Their recovery has far exceeded my expectations, I'm happy to say. The system was in such bad shape when I came on that I really had very limited expectations. By every indicator the credit union system is very strong. Assets have surpassed $1.2 trillion; membership is up to 103 million.

CU Times: You often say you brought regulatory relief to the credit union community. However, many executives very publicly blamed you for excessive regulations. Why do you think there is a disconnect?

Matz: I think that it's human nature to dwell on things that bother us. I've spent a great deal of time crisscrossing the country, talking with credit union officials. When they complained to me about excessive regulations, I ask them to tell me which regulations are overly burdensome. Generally, they talk about the BSA and the CFPB, which are not NCUA regulations and there's nothing that we really can do to mitigate the burden of those regulations, so I think that's part of it.

I think there's always going to be, and there should be, a healthy tension between regulators and the people that we regulate. I know some of the decisions that I've made were unpopular, but I like to take the long view. I did what I thought was in the best long-term interest of the system. Sometimes, even though something isn't popular at the time, it's the right thing to do. As a regulator, you can't have a goal of being popular or just doing what the industry wants you to do.

Those that are regulated don't often agree with us. Sometimes that's just the way it is as a regulator.

CU Times: What is an example of a decision you made that was unpopular?

Matz: None stands out more clearly in my mind than risk-based capital. That was not popular, particularly the first draft.

I think that the credit union industry was much more comfortable with the second version, but there are a lot of people who wished we didn't go in that direction.

CU Times: Is the NCUA pressured to provide regulatory parity with other agencies and regulatory committees like Basel?

Matz: I don't feel that there's pressure. I don't know where the pressure would come from. It's interesting because the industry is of two minds on that issue. They certainly want parity when it's something like our MBL rule and stakeholders argued very strongly that we should follow the lead of the banking regulators who don't require personal guarantees. We did take a look at that and ultimately agreed that that was a good thing.

But on risk-based capital and vendor authority, for instance, stakeholders argue strongly that [the] NCUA should not have parity with the banking regulators. We were not suggesting that we needed either of these authorities because of parity, we were suggesting them because we feel that they're the right things to do.

CU Times: Do you think the CFPB should grant greater exemptions to credit unions?

Matz: I wouldn't appreciate it if another regulator told me how to do my job or voice their opinion about how I was to do my job. I certainly don't want to criticize [CFPB Director] Richard Cordray or suggest he should do his job differently.

The CFPB made changes to its rule on privacy notices, remittances, qualified mortgages and payday lending to exempt more credit unions based on the input that I had – my direct conversations with him.

CU Times: Why leave the NCUA board now, rather than waiting until after the election?

Matz: I've served at the NCUA for nearly 11 years. My term expired a year ago. I've accomplished just about everything I've set out to do. So I think it's the right time to move on. I take great satisfaction knowing that I am leaving the agency and the credit union system stronger and safer than when I arrived.