Tell Me Why I'm Wrong

Feat. Randy Karnes

Check out this exchange between Randy Karnes and Susan Mitchell

by Leave a Comment

A conversation on innovation, collaboration, and CUSO executive compensation

I recently attended an Underground Collision session at the 2018 NACUSO Network Conference during which Susan Mitchell, CEO of Mitchell, Stankovic & Associates, and I discussed many topics ranging from innovation to CUSO executive compensation. Check out this excerpt from our exchange and be sure to check out the full article at the Underground website.

Sue:  Credit Union Service Organizations were started by credit union leaders as a for-profit, entrepreneurial endeavor to add value to members and generate income! Think of the early days of CO-OP, PSCU, CUSG, CU Direct, Shared Branching and CU*Answers. These collaborative efforts started some of the largest, most successful business ventures in the credit union industry and have returned significant dividends to the original investors, not to mention the impact on credit union owners and charitable causes. Is this true today or have they have become competitive ventures that may distract from the credit union mission?

Randy:  I always think of CUSOs as being started to expand the powers of credit unions. CUSOs created the ability to diversify the cooperative tactics and expand on the idea that if a community owned a cooperative venture then they should have the chance to leverage it for even more value. Why have a one-trick-pony venture? If we can do this, why not that. Cool idea. Now the natural extensions usually come in two flavors – financial service extensions or emulating vendor solutions from non-CU owned entities. But the spirit of the design to DO MORE with your cooperative owners is a cool idea.

Read more

What helps you sleep at night might be the very thing guaranteeing your demise

by Leave a Comment

Is our trust in the power of the NCUA, our need to be compliant, and our faith in old designs the reasons our results leave us with a shrinking existence?

Recently Chip Filson emailed me wondering where to go next with his series on the NCUA’s management of the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund and distribution. Good work, strong arguments, and passionate about the need for all of us to push to right the wrong in the way history will record this solution. It most likely has run its course, and Chip was wondering how to sum it up, push it forward, or reconcile all of that work against the dismal response from our industry. And while I have seen some recent angst when CU CEOs compare their refunds to their lost investments for the bailouts, I imagine that this episode will go down to “it sucks, but it’s how the world works.” I thought I might share my response to Chip with you.

“Chip, I hate that I am writing this, but like you I wonder – will your diligence pay off here or is the machinery (NCUA’s propaganda efforts) going to roll on by as the parade watchers (credit union stakeholders) turn their attention to new attractions? There is probably not a good reason to expect action from anyone in the CU industry and a tiring reader base, so who could you appeal to that might want to make a stink about this at a higher level? Government watch dogs, a higher-level player who wants to point out sins of past administrations or solutions, etc. Most likely no one. I believe we should now think more about the future. How can you stage this not to be just about righting the past (NCUA mismanagement), but to be more about changing things today for the future? Who might want to be on the NCUA board and sees this mess as a campaign plank for their election/selection?

I remember the day my father told me that he and my mother did not have control over the world and how it would treat me. It struck me that maybe I was smaller than I ever realized in relation to everyone else around me. I could not appeal directly to the powers that shaped my world; I did not have a voice that was easily heard by those who could ignore my hopes and dreams; I was afloat and the concept of control of my own destiny seemed a child’s fairy tale.

It is possible that the credit union industry will one day face the same “in your face” awakening about much of what is fears and embraces about the NCUA and regulations as a motivator and comfort. It will see that false hopes in the NCUA, our insurances independence, and our government’s backing of cooperatives. Will it crush us or free us? Will we go silent for a lack of thinking anything will change or will we search harder for the right people to influence and push for what we need? Will we be even less likely to push the edges of design or debate with examiners as powerless messengers of a system without representation or will see the need to agree to disagree and act to shape new destinies with our consumer-owners?

Without a doubt the real powers in our industry already understand the false hopes of counting on those who really are not empowered to change things. The winners in our industry already see that “going along to get along” with directors and NCUA messengers fits their short term existence, but there is a potential that one day the rest of the industry will awaken to the idea that compliance with someone else’s ideals for what they should be is only a suggestion, not the iron clad, all empowered design for success. It is time to reach for more, time to jump the track and push for a new regulatory approach.

We need to elect or influence the election of NCUA directors. NCUA director candidates must be able to declare platforms that they believe in, and will work towards. We need an agency that has a CEO who can lead the agency and work with directors. We need a functioning entity with cause, vision, and something more than a governmental employee’s hope for a long-term job and a pension. We need a future where the industry understands the boundaries that both constrain us and foster us – the boundaries that we evolve with an agency willing to be transparent and communicative on par with their expectations of us.

And while much of this seems like a fairy tale’s outline for change, I would rather work on that than suffer working through fooling myself that the current design of the NCUA will ever yield different results.”

Wow! Looking back I managed to vet a whole lot of stuff, include mom and dad’s teachings and fairy tales… but did I say anything that will inspire Chip to push credit union leaders to act differently? Can we change our behaviors in response to recognizing through our faith in these systems we have adopted bad habits that need to change:

  • Over capitulating to external powers
  • Over paying for compliance without searching for not needing to comply–both rules and the peer pressure of “best practices”
  • Put seat warmers on a pedestal without examination, and accept committees as leaders over our vision empowered
  • Over trust group think and under trust their community’s needs – their local membership needs
  • Count on others more than we count on ourselves

I know all of us like to go to sleep thinking that while we sleep the good guys are on duty and through their powers of control we have nothing to worry about, but I am quite sure that we all need to rethink trusting the NCUA’s powers to fix things will suffice. We overpaid for the Corporate Crisis and will for every crisis if we do not. Tell me why I’m wrong.

P.s. Most nights I do not sleep because I know that my world is safe in the hands of those in control, I sleep trusting with faith in the fact that every day members have goals that inspire our efforts, our work, and our hopes. There is freedom in trusting chaos and yet unrealized success.

It’s is not the amount of data you need, it’s what you do with it that matters

by Leave a Comment

A Q&A about getting started and remembering to share your data

Introduction:  If you haven’t noticed, it seems like every CEO is having to answer a lot of questions about how and when they are going to dive head first into revolutionizing their firms with data analytics efforts. CU*Answers’ Asterisk Intelligence project is getting a lot of attention these days from our allies, competitors, and commentators. From time to time I get asked some questions that might be worth sharing with you all.  Here are a couple from last week.

Q1: What is the minimum amount of data any CU needs to get moving? Is there a magic number for how much data is needed to effectively deliver insight and drive decision-making?

My short answer: the volume of data needed is a variable most valuable to those selling data, not those using it. Right now we need businesses focused on using data as an art form.

The amount of data is not the right question credit unions should be asking themselves at first. It is the intent that organization has towards data that separates those who succeed and those who struggle. I believe that this is one of the reasons that most CUs are so far behind the curve in relation to other industries:

  • They lean towards efficiency over effectiveness
  • Focus is on ROI, black-and-white ledger totals versus ROL (return on learning) as the foundation for what to do next
  • They are slow to trust shifts in norms, and resistant to shades of grey and variations in their accepted rules of thumb

After adopting new intent towards data, the organization must consider their ability to process or refine data and the yield from the work in doing so. Will they act on insight? What is the proper investment for the amount of effort they will put in to refine it and then to act on it? There is gold in them there hills, if you go up there to look. An organization must look at its leaders and see what motivates them to act, and what kind of processes lead to the strongest response. Some teams lead from an income statement or balance sheet and need very little else; some teams lead from their response to board members and very little else; and some teams lead from their response to experts/regulators and little else. How will that change if you decide to drive decisions from data? If you cannot say it will, save the money.

“Randy, you didn’t answer the question.” Well, the amount of data you need depends on the areas of analysis and the different variables they entail. What constitutes a trend? What is the proper age of data? What correlation to your audience specifics do you need? What are you trying to do with the insight – sell something, invest in something, win an argument, predict something, etc.

Remember most CUs just want to record something for compliance’s sake or gain confirmation and earn affirmation. Actually using insight to up their game is farther down the hill. For the average CU today, I wish they would simply excite their owners with trust and access, let their members feel like the data positions themselves as insiders trusted, and stakeholders empowered.

Q2: CU*Answers has set its sights on offering both shared data analytics services and infrastructure and solutions for the “do it yourself” turn key CU teams.  Do you think a product like Analytics Booth will be valuable to both market spaces? Even if my CU started with OnApproach as our foundation?

Without a doubt, because the designers of both shared data analytics and business intelligence teams have the same problems in delivering long term value. First, build the infrastructure and factories that set the foundation for the analysts to do their work and generate value, and second, build a team of analysts and actors to turn insight into realized value and gain. In the end, the insight and intelligence has to move outward as a distributed function to be successful and products like Analytics Booth do just that!

There definitely is a role for Analytics Booth in CUs that go forward with their own solutions. Internal teams are about centralized process management, infrastructure, and controlled project sets in general. They do not often have goals for audience management, distributed processes, engagement, and self-service-self-starter interactions. The systems they build are subsets walled of in networks, and they have long lists of things to do before they go external to the net, planning rooms, and the offices and homes of external stakeholders. In essence, they are not built to exchange insight and data like currency in the beginning. That is Analytics Booth’s primary focus – build trust, leverage insight, reach out to stakeholders and let them contribute. Data is an asset best leveraged for insight and best positioned when many have the chance to look at it.

Note: Internal teams have a lot to do – and invest. It can be overwhelming and demoralizing if they cannot gain traction quick enough with a distributed audience to gain support for continued investment. AB is only one answer to this problem for internal developers. The ASAP (Ask See Act Profit) concept that says data insight must be ACTED on with muscle memory and default to action is another issue Asterisk Intelligence is working on to support the internal development dilemma. Check it out!

What questions might you have about your next steps to go active with a business intelligence or data analytics effort? Let me know.

Is Amazon a disruptor or a distraction?

by Leave a Comment

Stop worrying about “threats” and focus on our real advantages

The other day a credit union CEO sent me an article about Amazon potentially working on offering checking accounts to its customers. He wondered: “Why do credit unions ‘suck’ at telling our story? Is this an industry issue, local issue, or generational issue?” My take on this potential disruptor…

  1. Amazon is great at drawing attention to itself as a potential disruptor (e.g. drone delivery!)
  2. Amazon is great at attracting capital and endorsement alliances – health care insurance, etc.
  3. Amazon is great at redrawing boundaries where there are no boundaries – the internet, low regulation, and virtual relationship spaces.

So, the article is their MO and just another chance to stir the pot. Not necessarily unique, just a nice moment to grab some attention and see what falls out on the ground. I would bet the first thing is some large international banks that would like to have Amazon front a lot of checking relationships…maybe even the one that is involved in the health Insurance play.

As to telling our story… our story is LOCAL in 99% of the cases. Some of the emerging 10s of billions of dollars sized firms have other aspirations and opportunities, but for the rest, LOCAL and its genuine affinity is the only competitive advantage that we can leverage. What makes it genuine is the cooperative ownership structures and intent. And LOCAL can be an impactful story locally, but never on par with the reach of OPEN MARKET players. It is what it is, whether we “suck” is a matter of opinion, but judgement should be based on how we tell our stories locally against other locally leveraged players. Amazon can claim local consumer prowess, but not local genuine designs – thus its issues with sales taxes, and other competitive impacts on local players.

What is genuine about your local advantages, intent, and practices beyond just consumer ideas? How can you make those advantages bigger, sincerer, and counted on in the minds of every stakeholder you have – including you? Confidence in these needs to shine through as calm, indifferent to games you cannot play or change, and through your default responses. You live and die by your trust in the duality of your local community both as consumers and owners of their own designs. Win or lose… and how can you lose if you follow them as much as they follow you?

Remember that some people in our industry overplay the idea that our movement is not a local one, and therefore burn up a lot of resources and break hearts when they organize forgetting the need for a proper tone of a large local movement. We need local as an affinity, local as respecting autonomy, and local as seeing that it is owned by consumer communities versus an open market affinity, too much respect for group think, and thinking agents decide.

It’s not crowd control that we need, it is crowd inspiration we need to move the ball for individuals wherever they are. What you are doing is far more important that what the movement hopes to inspire. Do the work, we have a movement—worry about the movement more than the work, we have nothing.

I like the book “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F#&%” for this reason… there are just a lot of things outside of what we do that has little bearing on what we can do. Tell me why I’m wrong!

A 21st century model for de novo credit unions

by Leave a Comment

Are newly hatched credit unions being cannibalized by the industry?

I was channel surfing during the holiday and happened upon one of those Nat Geo shows about survival in the wild. It was striking that among all the threats to newly hatched crocodiles the biggest killer of baby crocs was other crocs. Sound familiar? There’s no secret about it, a new credit union start-up has about as much chance of survival and a normal growth pattern in today’s marketplace as a newborn crocodile. Much like life in the wild the new credit union faces many challenges to its survival, and much like the young crocs the greatest threat may be viewed as coming from its own kind.

Now I don’t mean that other credit unions and credit union institutions purposely make survival difficult for a de novo, but I do think that as a network of shared values and commitment to cooperative principles, we should be doing much more to help to guarantee the success of all new start-ups, and we should fight for that survival with the same fervor that the investors in a de novo bank will fight to protect their investment.

While there are many among us that think that the continued decline and consolidation is in our collaborative best interests, please don’t count me among them. New start-ups are about new ideas, new people, new excitement and new blood in an industry overwrought with risk aversion that often overrides the best interests of our owners. It wouldn’t be too much to say that anything new—procedure, policy or product—is more often initially viewed with excessive skepticism.

Admittedly, my position is an anecdotal composite of my 45 years in credit union management and consulting and not a peer-reviewed academic study of the success ratios of new credit unions. We can agree that a network of fewer than 6,000 CUs that continues to contract in the asset ranges of its smallest institutions will logically bring us to the assumption that any ne devo credit union will be fighting the same battle for survival.

Here are some of the obvious threats to a de novo start-up and some collaborative solutions.

Capital

Much of what challenges any small credit union, but especially a de novo, is the limitation of a small capital position and the corresponding strategic and operations constrictions. ALM strategies, loan policies, costs of operations, new member acquisition strategies, identification of qualified staff and the human resource expenses related to that staff, all of these considerations and much more will squeeze start-up capital positions that will most likely be worst case between $3-5 million or best case between $5-10 million.

Remember the home-based credit union model that was the incubator of hundreds of credit unions since the Great Depression? (I’m talking about the 1930s, not 2008-2014.) The complexities and competitive pressures of today’s financial services market ensures that those days are unlikely to return. Even the volunteer nature and self-sacrifice of many credit unions’ founders is unlikely to play a significant role on the financial success of a de novo as it did in the first half of the 20th century.

Regulatory limitations

What kind of services and products would it take for you to switch from one FI to another? Credit cards, mortgages, brokerage services, mobile services, small business loans, convenient hours? For the modern consumer today, it’s a fair guess that it would require this much and more in terms of a menu of financial solutions. How is any start-up supposed to succeed if you must tell prospective members that you only offer a few core services and you don’t really know when you’ll be offering others? That’s the regulatory box that de novo credit unions face.

Our own federal regulator/insurer automatically limits the chances of success because of financial risk aversion and a natural fear that the de novo lacks the expertise to manage modern financial products and delivery channels. Better for the small to disappear and the large to expand. It’s tough enough to survive with limited capital, but practically impossible without meeting the product and service needs of your potential members. Can today’s technology tools and a new de novo strategy overcome this barrier?

Leverage the network

Who’s responsible for the future health and success of our network of credit unions? We are! All of us, credit unions, CUSOs and affiliated partners should actively pursue those strategies that allow for a healthy de novo environment. We should act as collaborative partners in much the same way that private investors facilitate a de novo bank. We must lend our collaborative expertise, established delivery channels and the strength of our balance sheets to ensure the success of a de novo.

How does a de novo ever grow if it has to tell members that because of limited capital or liquidity it can’t accept a large deposit or has to ration loans? How does a de novo prove itself to new members if they don’t have access to full service debit and credit plastic programs? Why can’t that de novo find an established CU partner who will participate in any lending activity that can’t be met by the credit union? Why can’t a start-up make mortgage loans if it utilizes the expertise of a well-established mortgage CUSO for everything from application to closing to servicing? How about meeting the small business lending needs of a de novo member? Why not offer a robust brokerage services program for alternative deposit and investment options? Surely we can identify and gain the support of a CUSO or credit union to meet those needs, without the new credit union having to give up its branding rights.

You might say that this strategy limits the revenue potential of the de novo. It becomes much more dependent on fee-based non-interest income than spread, so how does it pay the bills? It utilizes trusted network partners to the maximum of those solutions being available. For starters you can look to the CU*Answers Scholarship program which provides two years of free core processing for any de novo. What is no cost core processing and all of its electronic delivery capabilities worth? I’m told that you can calculate that being approximately $1.50/member/month.

What kind of savings would a de novo appreciate using networked outsourced back-room operations, like an in-bound and out-bound call center, accounting services, compliance services, credit decisioning, data analytics expertise, lock box services and many operational functions that often test both the financial capacity and skill sets of a de novo. I certainly believe that it is both a fiduciary responsibility and sound strategy for a de novo board of directors to oversee an operation that utilizes a strategy that lowers the cost of services to members, provides the highest level of professional operations and provides the flexibility to meet the changing needs of its owners/members.

Adoption of new delivery channels

Many of today’s credit unions continue to be plagued by the burden of legacy brick and mortar branch networks. It’s tough for many of today’s CEOs to tell members that one or many branch locations are the best use of credit union resources to meet the changing needs of members. Today’s de novo doesn’t have to deal with the fixed asset costs of a physical location for service delivery, not if you start from the position that all products and services will be provided through virtual services like home banking and mobile banking. That cash can be delivered through shared ATM locations, and that loan services can be delivered via any device plus a human call center or video services, then the de novo has only to support the physical location needs of management and those operations that are self-managed.

A support consortium for de novo opportunities

Organizing and starting up a new credit union was a relatively straight forward exercise in the 20th century—as we’ve seen, this is no longer the case. Fortunately, we have the resources within our national credit union network to support a healthy and vigorous de novo environment. First and foremost is the availability of credit union capital. The strategies for capital deployment among credit unions are atrocious and greatly mismanaged. Few credit unions have come anywhere near their regulatory limitations for investment in CUSOs or other allowed activities. Do we begin to walk the talk about being cooperatives with a shared vision and start to identify underutilized capital that can be leveraged to support de novo strategies? Can a consortium of committed CUs be identified that would have pools of capital investment available for supporting a healthy de novo environment?

Secondly, the consortium could support the need for de novo loan participations. In the start-up period loan demand often exceeds deposit growth. It sure doesn’t send a good vibe out to your potential new members that you may not have the capacity to meet their loan needs, either by dollar amount or loan type. A network solution that matches de novo loan demand with supportive participation partners is sure to increase the long term viability of a de novo.

A third function in a consortium of de novo supporters can be filled by CUSOs. Just about every daily operational activity can be supported by a CUSO whose business model is to provide an outsourced solution for the credit union who does not have the scale or expertise to offer or manage certain products, services or delivery channels. Supporting the de novo environment is another way to expand the market for any CUSO in any line of credit union business.

This same consortium of supportive credit unions and CUSOs can play a considerable role in educating the regulatory community of this realigned business model for new credit unions. The regulator needs to adapt to the new energy around the de novo that represents a network wide support system for new CUs and provides levels of expertise and financial support that have never been seen in the past.

Finally, we need to build a comprehensive marketing effort to build awareness among those who share a common bond that starting a credit union is an achievable goal and that there is a capable and well-resourced network of supporters available to help them. Those who have been around for a while can remember a time when this was one of, if not primary, functions of state leagues. Most leagues had a dedicated individual or group of advisors who traveled the state supporting the organization of new credit unions both pre and post chartering. It is a common theme that we have heard from those wishing to start-up a credit union today finds such resources lacking. They are most often directed to NCUA as their primary source of information and guidance. Let’s see… an agency dedicated to small credit union merger as a strategy acting as primary advisor and cheerleader for the de novo credit union. Sounds disastrous to me.

Meeting more aggressive goals

Much like the private investor in the local community bank, our credit union network needs to recognize the power and opportunity of co-operative ownership in new credit unions and the vitality that brings to all of us. Leveraging the co-operative business model not only acts as a force multiplier for our shared efforts to gain market and build our co-operative brand, but it puts all on notice, the general public, legislators, regulators and our competitors that we mean to fully exploit what we believe to be our social and economic advantages. It is the proof that we will not be satisfied to continue to see a contraction of the number of credit unions nor the minuscule position we hold today in the retail and commercial financial marketplaces.

Will you notice if there’s a bump in the road?

by Leave a Comment

Thinking about how we respond to negative trends

Every quarter, we write a report to stockholders, the State of Michigan, and the NCUA (we file every 90 days and have since the early/mid 1990s) detailing our quarterly financials. One of those things that gets filed in a room or can like CTRs… (we flatter ourselves) — just there in case someone ever gets interested. In our latest, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article pointing out how we had somewhat embarrassingly missed the mark on our budgeted net income for the first quarter of our 2018 fiscal year. (We still had our second best start to any fiscal year in our history, but fell short of our projections.)

It’s been many years since I’ve had to write a report where we were off plan at the end of a quarter. And I was interested to see–would anybody notice? So far… not really. Like many firms, CU*Answers has ridden a very long winning curve up as a vendor for the CU industry and seldom publicly has to admit that it ever worries about that streak. And since the firms that are now gone from view are silent, all we hear about is streaks of good luck for the most part. We know the industry is consolidating; we know the industry is polarizing to the point where those at either end can see no relevance in calling each other peers any longer; we know that it is more likely that our industry will be redefined by others (competition, regulators, or those simply unaware of who we are and were) instead of experienced CU architects. We know a lot….but we act so little on big things.

So on a day where I am filing a tongue-in-cheek quarterly analysis of a blimp on the radar, I wonder what I would write if losing/struggling was the streak? Multiple quarters where our plan could not be reached, where our goals seemed less than bright, or where we fell short of expectations that extended our futures. What would I write? What would I change? What would I push to engage?

Quietly I wish I had kept the phone numbers and emails of CEOs that are now gone from view. Ex-CEOs that could tell me what they had wished they had done when they faced downward curves on the way to the end. I worry that lessons lost and archived outside our industry now are what is needed. What did we miss when we justified the NCUA or regulators actions to end an organization? What did we miss when no owners really dug into a vote to end a charter? What did we miss when the life-cycles of leaders and volunteers were more important than CUs needing young blood? What did we miss when we followed models based on scale that left local communities and individuals on the sidelines? What did we miss that are the keys to turning a streak back towards winning?

Some might say we missed nothing, we witnessed progress and the natural march towards an industry’s maturation. But that sounds like short term winners talking to me. Tell me why I’m wrong.

Crafting approaches to how you delegate is the key to how you respond to your board

by Leave a Comment

Finding your comfort zone with “teach, negotiate, and tell” ratios may be the key to every interaction

I was recently working with two new CEOs and discussing the art of both building teams and of reporting to the board of directors. We got started on the idea of using a formula to govern your interactions with each. For my staff, I use the following: 80% Affirmation, 10% Adjustment, and 10% Reversal/Rejection. When presenting to the board: 60% what we’ve done, 20% what we’re doing, and 20% what we’re considering.

Finding the right tone and approach to this is key to your role as CEO. Strict adherence to this way of thinking is not the objective here; rather you should always keep these ratios in your head as you delegate assignments and work with your board to build a better organization. Team members need the feeling that you have truly entrusted them with the assignment and are relying on their skill set. Board members similarly need to be involved and trusted. When you read through these, relate them to the concept of TNT: Teach, Negotiate, Tell.

Working with your staff

This ratio is about building trust and confidence in your teams, and continuing to develop them over time. Veering away can be damaging both to the speed at which you’re developing products and services (by making too many adjustments) and to the relationship you have with your team (by rejecting their ideas too often).

80% Affirmation

This comes down to trust. If you have delegated to the right person and communicated the objective well, the variance in their outcomes will be slight or minimal in comparison to your expectations for the assignment. Remember leading is adjusting and if the team member is 5-10 degrees off your track that adjustment is generally small; pace is the key and constantly forcing adjustments for slight differences will slow the machinery. Leaders need great instincts and speed to adjustment. Affirmation is letting the teammate Tell you; receiving their tell interaction in the right way builds trust and confidence in their ability to make calls.

10% Adjustment

When the team member is on the right track, but has veered off to the side a bit too far, use a Negotiate/Teach approach to make the adjustments necessary to reach a consensus on the assignment’s direction. 10% Adjustment is the act of finding the win-win in the move forward. You’re reassuring the staff of your confidence in them to make the right decisions, but working with them to ensure the final product isn’t too far removed from the original idea.

10% Reversal/Rejection

While it might feel like the formal power play, work to avoid that sense. Reversal/Rejection is simply your Tell/Teach message to them. You’re still confident in their abilities, but you’re letting them know they’re off the mark and this is your opportunity to communicate where they can get back on track—build a two-way street with teammates. Just don’t forget the ratio—if you’re rejecting your teams more than 10% of the time, you will damage the relationship and make them feel as though you’ve lost confidence in them. If you feel like you are rejecting too much, consider how you’re communicating those expectations to the individual before they get started.

6-2-2 for presenting to the board

Do you give enough facts and opinions to let the board get to know you and trust your evaluation of things? Do you allow for the TNT (Teach, Negotiate, Tell) in the evaluation of your delivery of opinion and task? And are you delivering the right percentages of Accomplished, Working on It, and Thinking About It issues in your reports, presentations, and agendas? They must learn your approach and you must trust their feedback—use TNT to find the right balance.

60% What We’ve Done

A key role for a board is to evaluate and confirm work done, and the correctness of the work on the path to the organization’s success. Does the firm execute on track with the firm’s plans, philosophy, and culture? Can it be trusted and will you, the leader, prove it?! It’s easy to get excited about what we’re doing now and what we’re dreaming of, but it’s important to reflect on our accomplishments and to affirm our teams’ successes. Allow your board to become too focused on what’s next, and they won’t stop to appreciate the hard work it took to get there.

20% What We’re Doing

The next thing I focus on is giving the board the foundation that they are engaged and in the mix of things. Do not embarrass boards by letting them be surprised by initiatives/efforts undisclosed; they drive with you, not in the back seat. Share openly the projects you’re working on and the work that’s going into it. Let them in on the process.

20% What We’re Considering

The next role I focus on is giving the board the respect of heeding their advice and input ahead of the game. This is the art of asking what they would consider doing and avoiding the blank page requests that make committees uncomfortable and ineffective. You are listening all the time to triage issues for the planning page, do not have moments where you make them fill it out.

Whether you’re dealing with staff or your boards, it’s a good idea to have ratios like these in your mind. When you don’t stop to think about how you’re interacting with each, it can be easy to let those interactions get away from you. Build trust with both your staff and your board by keeping these in mind. If you have ratios of your own that you use, let me know. Tell me why I’m wrong!

A challenge to my staff and yours: don’t be complacent with pricing in 2018

by Leave a Comment

Refocus and avoid the trap of price creep

I recently gave my staff the task of asking themselves if they’ve fallen into any of these traps when setting their pricing: “things just get more expensive;” “these are the common tactics, discount this and charge for that—it’s the same for everyone;” “if we do not charge them, someone else will;” or “we are still a better deal.” Every one of these is just a lazy statement and a killer of our model and intentions. Goals for disruption cannot abide lazy thinking or acceptance of norms from the outside.

The credit unions we serve are no less susceptible to the dangers of sloppy or lazy thinking when it comes to setting pricing and competing with other financial institutions. Are you talking with your staff about how you set real value for your community? Read the four fallacies below and ask yourself if you’ve fallen into the trap.

“Things just get more expensive!”

My message to staff: NOT TRUE. New companies come along every day and change the expectations of apples to apples, and pretty soon you are selling oranges at a high price. Buyers simply overbuy and accept what you sell as value adds for more money. Stay on the point – make sure you pricing is not bundling unnecessary stuff to justify lazy pricing. “Do no harm” means do not oversell and do not let people be fooled by bundling things off the track of success for you or them. More is not better if more has nothing to do with a return.

“These are the common tactics, discount this and charge for that—it’s the same for everyone.”

My message to staff: Do not set de-facto pricing by being on auto-pilot. We have a price sheet – the credits we grant CUs are based on their thinking, not our credit habits. We discount to “invest” in the CU’s game plans. We want the CU to target these investments and tell us how they wish to use the funds. If they do not have a plan, then we should charge rack rate and invest for them. Push them to think about how they would use the funds; we discount to invest, not just to win deals. Applying mutual creativity is the key to us treating them as individuals and earning their respect for buying into their agenda. Invest so they win, do not just discount so you can win a sale!

“If we do not charge them, someone else will.”

My message to staff: BS, and I would rather someone else live with a bad deal delivered. Short term gains are not worth it if in the mid-to-long term the client loses for being sold the wrong thing. If we cannot be disruptive (in price, access, or shared execution) then we might not be the right ingredient for a win, and a sale might risk being the worse thing we can do. We are second and third to market for a reason. We want to sell products that contribute to the long game; there are few premiums for CUs in being first. The true premium for CUs is being vested and trusted in solutions that evolve, and solutions priced so CUs can make a return.

“We are still a better deal.”

My message to staff: I hear my parents reminding me that two wrongs do not make a right. Test yourself. Being slightly worse than the worst is not an answer for long term success. Find a better way to declare our value than to compare ourselves to others.

It’s 2018 – resolve to be more than we were last year and prove it by avoiding lazy traps. Pricing and its justification can be one of the biggest areas for lazy thinking. Do not get caught.

Tell me why I’m wrong.

Is the collective IQ of credit unions dropping?

by Leave a Comment

“The IQ of credit unions now is lower than it was twenty years ago.” That comment made in a room full of credit union CEOs was met as you’d expect; with shocked silence and challenging looks. I heard from them later that they disagreed with the comment, suggesting that the IQ of credit unions is going up, not down. They claimed we’re amid a changing of the guard in the industry, and new leaders are thriving where old ones failed to embrace change.

What wasn’t clear however is that I’m not suggesting the people inside credit unions are of lower IQ—I am sure that the IQ of the individual talent is improving (consistent with their member peers living in today’s retail spaces and expectations). My challenge to my peers was that I fear and feel that the IQ of credit unions is going down.

The plummet is the result of several factors, first of which is the emergence of buyers over builders (NCUA-induced, multi-industry vendor approaches, the weakness of trades and lobbyists, etc.). Second is the unrealistic expectation that all credit unions need the same level of expertise resulting in overpriced expertise with no yield based on situational responses. Lastly is the unfortunate death by 100+ priorities—everything is a priority and a credit union cannot decide when good is good enough, so they buy what their competition buys or CYA coverage instead of building a response that gives them an advantage in the right areas.

Today’s business model operators are playing a game in which they have little control over the key success factors if they stay on this track. Credit unions used to manufacture more of their own solutions, and therefore had more power over price, adaptability, and investment curves than they do today.

Consequently, smarter people are playing a game that is organizationally less intelligently positioned. We’re less about the competitive strengths of a cooperative, more dependent on outside influences other than the member-owner, and far less intuitive about how to gain advantage. We’re much more apt to use crutches elected by insiders than the pioneers that had to craft solutions, not just play with a paint by numbers response.

This is not an indictment of individual operators, just a worry about the decline of credit unions control over their destiny based on the IQ of their organization and the perseverance of spirit displayed.  Before you say, “this doesn’t apply to my credit union,” understand that I’m not painting all credit unions this way, but I do think every CU should gut check themselves against these traps.

Are there enough CU players ready to take big game risks with secondary capital?

by Leave a Comment

It is clear to most people that in a crisis, surviving as an operator of a financial service firm is not really based on capital, it is based on liquidity.  Check out this article and think about it. Liquidity allows you to survive the marketplace, capital is just something you need to ward off the NCUA and examiner’s community.  Because to most CUs, capital is simply the ante needed to lend other peoples’ money.  What is secondary capital to you?  Is it more money to ante up and grow based on a one-trick pony approach to earnings in a CU, or is it working capital that creates liquidity to survive the marketplace?

Or is it capital to build with and thrive in the marketplace?  Does your organization understand the difference, and is it postured to act on all three fronts: up the ante to stay in the game?  Balance working capital as liquidity to stave off regulators?  Balance working capital to extend investments and thrive with multiple revenue modes and resource extensions?

My question to you is does the industry have enough players that would take the BIG GAME risks with secondary capital to make it worthwhile to take on the attackers that say we are so close to being bankers with a unfair tax status that the whole industry should be washed into a tidal wave of change?  I relish the change, but do you, and how long before you would right the ship and push off to new brighter futures?

As a CEO I have never really had to push hard, I mean very hard, to raise capital… I have had to work very creatively to pay off the expectations of those who push capital into our balance sheet.  And when money comes easily to our balance sheets because the owners of capital to burn send it our way, I wonder what they know about how hard it is to earn on capital these days that I do not.

Worry does not mean I am not in on the game, and would not build businesses to leverage new capital sourced in the CU industry network, but it does mean I worry for those who will not find ways to earn and pay back to capital sources.

Today our members, our owners, suffer in finding ways to believe that credit unions truly pay on the capital our ownership (members) sends to credit unions.  Now of course CUs take little heed of this confusion, they wash it away based on the ideas that members are consumers and have little regard for ownership concepts or the fact that they are the providers of capital and balance sheet health for our cooperatives.  So as an industry we are almost void of examples, tactics, and the overwhelming sense we respect the ownership persona of our members.

What will that mean to a new structure where capital may come from people who do care?  Are we the agents (professional operators and industry designers) that are ready to toe the line for an active, demanding, and constantly auditing audience of a new kind of owner – the investor?  I believe I am, are you?  No matter how the investor wears their sheep’s clothing or hides their fangs – they will be different than a mild mannered consumer put to sleep by rate deals, smiles, and good intentions.

Tell me why I’m wrong!