At your credit union, you know exactly how cumbersome regulations (and the examinations that come with them) can be.
I recently was invited to give a talk at the Credit Union InfoSecurity Conference in San Diego. I shared five of the hidden traps for regulatory compliance and examinations for credit unions. What follows is the lightly-edited text of that presentation.
I recently found a helpful resource for CEOs whose credit unions are preparing for a regulatory examination.
For most credit unions we talk to, regulatory examinations are a bit like college finals week. They cause a lot of stress and, like a cram session, your team often ends up rushing to get the examiner everything they need at the last minute.
You could say there’s a reason regulators call them exams.
But the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) publishes detailed roadmaps to passing – the kind of study guides that only the most lenient professor would provide.
These guides are called the AIRES questionnaires. They’re easy to download and available to any credit union.
Federal regulations have imposed a staggering burden on credit unions over the past seven years.
According to a study commissioned by the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), credit unions’ regulatory costs have increased by $1.7 billion since 2010. In that span, CUs have seen a 91 percent increase in staff time spent on regulatory activities. That’s something that credit union CEOs are paying attention to.
Do you know of a credit union that looks forward to its next regulatory exam?
Examinations aren’t designed to be pleasant, even when you are doing everything right. When you miss a detail or provide conflicting information, that’s when authorities raise concerns.
There are strategies to make the process less painful, while at the same time better protecting your organization from an examiner’s finding (or even worse, a DOR!) from NCUA. Other credit unions have found the following strategies valuable and worthwhile:
Redboard began as our second-best idea to help credit unions.
Both ideas aimed to fill a need for credit unions. Our “best” idea seemed more glamorous. Describing it to colleagues who work for and with credit unions elicited oohs and ahhs. On a good day, I could imagine it changing the industry.