Filed under: credit unions
If you have kids, have ever babysat kids, or were ever a kid, you know how acute a child’s sense of fairness is and how fiercely they will fight to keep things fair.
As adults, we like to think that we’ve outgrown those tendencies – that we’ve finally come to terms with what our parents always reminded us, that “life isn’t fair.”
But even as adults, we still want things to be fair. I once read about a study where two adults were given 100 dollar bills. One person divided up the money between the two and the other was told they could accept or reject the offer. If they accepted the money that the first person had allocated to each of them, they both got to keep the money. If the second person rejected the offer, both got nothing. In cases where the first person split the money equally, the second person always accepted the offer. They usually accepted it if it were 60/40 and even if it were 70/30. Above that, things got dicey. Most people would not accept the offer if the first person gave himself $90 and left the other with $10.
Logically, you are still better off, even if you only get $10. You are still walking away with $10 more than you had going into the deal. But that is the point where the idea of fairness kicks in. It’s not fair if one guy gets $95 and you only get $5. Most people would rather things be fair and walk away with nothing than have things be unfair and walk away with a little.
I believe that it is human nature to want things to be fair and that is the major factor fueling the Occupy movement and for that matter, the Tea Party movement. It isn’t fair that some debit card providers are charging me a new fee while the bank executives get big bonuses. It isn’t fair that my neighbor bought a house he couldn’t afford and his foreclosure caused the value of my house to plummet. It isn’t fair that the public services we need most are being cut. Credit unions are even lamenting that it’s not fair that big banks are causing all of their customers to open deposit accounts with us while they keep their loans – essentially giving us the costly accounts while the banks keep the profitable accounts. In this economy, there are a lot of things that are just not fair.
It’s this sense of fairness that makes credit unions such an attractive banking choice for consumers. At a credit union, nobody is making unseemly amounts of money. Credit unions are governed by middle-class working types. Credit unions charge fees that are reasonable. Credit unions never got any government bail out money. Credit unions attract employees who are community minded and drawn to bettering their world.
There isn’t a lot to feel good about in this unjust economy. I can understand why moving accounts to a credit union is making people feel like they are evening the score, if only by a little.
Shari Storm is Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of Verity Federal Credit Union and is the author of the book “Motherhood is the New MBA”, available here.
Filed under: Current Issues in Credit Unions | Tags: authentication, Bank Transfer Day, board compensation, corporate merger, guidance on supervision and examination, internet as a public accommodation, MBL cap, municipalities, prohibition orders
The glamor of last month’s live show is over and we are back to the studio. This month, Guy, Hal, Katherine & Rob discuss the following:
-More on board compensation.
–Results of bank transfer day.
–Should credit unions handle accounts for municipalities?
–Joint Guidance on Supervision & Examination Authority
–FFIEC Guidance on Authentication
Big K Roundup
–MBL Cap update
–Newest Corp Merger
–Is the Internet a Public Accommodation?
–New case law on prohibition orders
The CIiCU hosts are:
Farleigh Wada Witt,
Attorneys at Law
121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-228-6044 Fax: 503-228-1741
Messick & Weber P.C.
211 North Olive Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone 610-891-9000 Fax 610-891-9008
American Airlines Credit Union
P.O. Box 619001
DFW Airport, TX
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.
323 W. Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Telephone: 216-739-5004 Fax: 216-739-5642
Subcribe to the show via iTunes Music Store:http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=151785964&s=143441
By Stuart A. Best, Esq.
In April 2011, a Michigan case was published that initially caused a shock wave throughout the foreclosure and eviction world. The case arose from the consolidated cases of Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Saurman, and Bank of New York Trust Co. v. Messner (“Residential Funding”), and involved foreclosures brought in the name of Mortgage Registration Systems (MERS). The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that MERS had no authority under Michigan law to foreclose non-judicially. The ruling was based upon the determination that MERS was not an “owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage” as required by statue. This decision went on to state that “MERS did not own the indebtedness, own an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, or service the mortgage. MERS’ inability to comply with the statutory requirements rendered the foreclosure proceedings in both cases void ab initio.”
Mortgages that were foreclosed in the name of MERS and any pending eviction actions, were subject to this ruling. Thereafter, Michigan courts began denying evictions based upon MERS foreclosures, stating that the underlying foreclosures were void.
Subsequently, Residential Funding was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. On November 16, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision.
MERS is an entity which was developed to provide faster and lower cost buying, selling and tracking of mortgage loans. At the time of closing or thereafter, the mortgage (but not the note) was assigned from the initial lender to, or in some cases originated in, the name of MERS. MERS would hold the mortgage as nominee for the lender. When the note or indebtedness was sold, MERS would then track these sales within its private system. The mortgage was not changing hands – being held in the name of MERS – therefore there was no need for assignments of the mortgage to be recorded with the Register of Deeds. In Michigan, all assignments must be of record before the commencement of a foreclosure. In some instances, MERS was the foreclosing entity. For some time, it has been common practice for MERS to assign the mortgage interest to the note holder prior to foreclosure. This did not occur in Residential Funding where the foreclosure was undertaken in the name of MERS.
The sole question presented to the court in Residential Funding was whether MERS could foreclose by advertisement under Michigan law- specifically MCLA 600.3204 that restricts which entities can commence a non-judicial foreclosure. MCLA 600.3204(d) requires that “[t]he party foreclosing the mortgage is either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage.”
The Court of Appeals, in applying MCLA 600.3204, found that MERS was not an owner of the indebtedness and MERS did not hold an interest in the indebtedness. The Supreme Court overruled this determination and found:
* * * MERS’ status as an ‘owner of an interest in the indebtedness’ does not equate to an ownership interest in the note. Rather, as record holder of the mortgage, MERS owned a security lien on the properties, the continued existence of which was contingent upon the satisfaction of the indebtedness. This interest in the indebtedness — i.e., the ownership of legal title to a security lien whose existence is wholly contingent on the satisfaction of the indebtedness — authorized MERS to foreclose by advertisement under MCL 600.3204(1)(d).
By finding that the owner of a security interest in the property allows MERS or other similar entities to foreclose non-judicially, the Michigan Supreme Court ruling validates any past MERS foreclosures. Most foreclosures (and all since the Court of Appeals decision) have followed the procedures discussed in a footnote to the Court of Appeals Decision that suggested MERS assign its interest in the mortgage to the holder of the note prior to foreclosure and thereby avoid ownership concerns.
The Court of Appeals decision in Residential Funding was given retroactive effect by a subsequent ruling in Richard v. Schneiderman & Sherman, P.C., 2011 Mich. App. LEXIS 1522. With the overruling of Residential Funding, any retroactive effect would also be eliminated.
Notwithstanding the Residential Funding decision, and based upon the decisions in both matters, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, continues to recommend that prior to a foreclosure, any mortgage held in the name of MERS should be assigned to the note holder or servicer prior to foreclosure.
For a complete copy of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, go here.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Stuart A. Best, Esq. Stuart is a partner in the Detroit office practicing in the Litigation & Defense department of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. Stuart is a part of the Integrated Real Estate Default Group, handling complex legal foreclosure and title issues, as well as state law foreclosure compliance. He can be reached at 248.786.3124 and firstname.lastname@example.org.
By David A. Wolfe, Esq.
In January 2009, eight Michigan credit unions pioneered a sweepstakes savings program to increase the savings of people who typically do not save through traditional programs, particularly low income members, and develop the habit of setting aside money on a regular basis. Instead of traditional payment of interest, this unique program offers members a return in the form of a chance to win cash prizes. For members who deposit $25 or more into a Save to Win one-year certificate of deposit, the program provides raffle entries for a chance to win an annual grand prize of $100,000 or smaller monthly prizes sponsored by individual credit unions ranging from $125 to $1,000.
The program has achieved measurable success. In 2010, the members of the 36 participating credit unions saved approximately $28 million according to the Michigan Credit Union League. Through June 2011, participation increased to 42 credit unions and the league estimates member savings at $21.6 million.
The unique certificate of deposit accounts are federally guaranteed by the National Credit Union Administration and pay between 1% and 1.5% interest annually. While these rates are lower than conventional certificate of deposit rates, the opportunity to win cash prizes encourages members to increase their savings and improve their financial future.
In developing the Save to Win program, the Michigan Credit Union League worked with the Filene Research Institute and the Doorways to Dreams Fund to implement an idea developed by Peter Tufano from the Harvard Business School. This prize-linked savings program is based on centuries-old practice of using lotteries to raise capital for public and private ventures that includes the Premium Bonds program in Great Britain. In 1956, the British government introduced the bond program to help control inflation and encourage savings following the Second World War. The program was an immediate success and today, nearly 40% of Britain’s population participates, with nearly 23 million people holding more than $50 billion in Premium Bonds.
Through the Save to Win program, Michigan credit unions have a program that has proved to be a fun and effective way for members to watch their money grow. While expansion of similar programs in other states may be limited by existing laws and regulations, lawmakers in Nebraska, North Carolina and Washington have passed enabling legislation to expedite the implementation in order to successfully leverage the overlap between savings and lotteries.
By David S. Brown, Esq.
In late July, the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”) proposed a rule that would require all Credit Union Service Organizations (“CUSO”) to file financial reports directly with the NCUA and the appropriate state supervisory authority. The rule would require CUSOs to use GAAP accounting, prepare quarterly financial reports and get annual audits. The board also proposed limiting federally insured state-chartered credit unions’ aggregate cash outlays to a CUSO. Finally, the rule would expand the definition of a CUSO to include CUSO subsidiaries. NCUA stated two reasons for regulatory authority over all CUSOs. First, the NCUA desires parity with banks’ regulatory authority over bank operating subsidiaries and third party service providers. Second, NCUA believes that CUSOs are a systemic risk to credit unions as a whole.
As a whole, the credit union movement and CUSOs all across America have voiced a unified opposition to NCUA’s proposed rule. Many have questioned NCUA’s legal authority to approve the proposed rule. Although the NCUA has the authority to examine the books and records of CUSOs under section 712.3(d)(3), it is undisputed that NCUA does not have regulatory authority over CUSOs. Moreover, critics agree that the new rule will put CUSOs at a competitive disadvantage with non-CUSO competitors. Obviously, the regulation will increase costs for CUSOs. More importantly, though, “the requirement to disclose confidential business plans and customer lists, documents that compromise a corporation’s intellectual property, would potentially expose private business secrets to public dissemination through Freedom of Information Act requests. These same risks would not be faced by CUSO competitors and could, in fact, be exploited by them.”
The credit union movement also fears that the new rule will “single-handedly kill the one competitive advantage the credit union has.” After all, CUSOs are “a unique business model that enables collaboration and innovation so credit unions can achieve economies of scale, increase efficiencies, share intellectual capital, provide better service to members, and mitigate risk.” In simpler terms, CUSOs are innovative entities that let the credit unions approach risks collaboratively, minimizing the risk to any single institution.
Finally, the credit union movement questions the need for the new regulation by pointing out that “the aggregate amount invested in and loaned to CUSOs is only 22 [basis points] of industry assets.” “Each credit union’s CUSO investment risk is less than 1% of its assets.” As one opponent said, “[t]his is hardly ‘systemic risk’ to the industry”.
Now that the September 26, 2011 comment deadline has passed, NCUA will consider whether to implement the new rule. The board is in the process of reviewing the more than 140 letters it received in response to the proposed regulation.
David Brown is an associate in Commercial Collections based in the Cleveland office of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. He can be reached at 216.685.1062 or email@example.com.
 Marx, Claude R., NCUA Wants More CUSO Disclosure, Credit Union Times, July 27, 2011, http://www.cutimes.com/2011/07/24/ncua-wants-more-cuso-disclosure.
 Samaad, Michelle A., New CUSO Regs Prompt a Mountain of Concern: NACUSO CEO Says Clarifications Needed, Credit Union Times, August 17, 2011, http://www.cutimes.com/2011/08/17/new-cuso-regs-prompt-a-mountain-of-concern; see also Proposed Rule, http://www.ncua.gov/GenInfo/BoardandAction/DraftBoardActions/2011/July21/Item2b11-0721.pdf.
 Marx, Claude R., supra.
 Letter from NACUSO, Jack M. Antonini to NCUA, Mary Rupp, dated August 4, 2011, https://www.nacuso.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/NACUSO_Comment_Letter_to_CUSO_Rule_8_4_2011-FINAL.pdf.
 Letter from CU Direct Corporation, Tony Boutelle to NCUA, Mary Rupp, dated September 2, 2011, https://www.nacuso.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CommentLetter-CUDirect-TonyBoutelle.pdf; see also Letter from Mazuma Credit Union, Brandon Michaels to NCUA, Mary Rupp, dated August 15, 2011, https://www.nacuso.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CommentLetter-MazumaCreditUnion-BrandonMichaels.pdf.
 Tony Boutelle, supra.
 Samaad, Michelle A., supra.
 Russell, Jeff, Newest NCUA Proposed CUSO Regulation Will Likely Stifle Innovation, September 1, 2011, https://www.nacuso.org/2011/09/01/newest-ncua-proposed-cuso-regulation-will-likely-stifle-innovation/.
 Brandon Michaels, supra.
Filed under: credit unions | Tags: debit card, EFTA, Electronic Fund Transfer Act
By Andrew C. Voorhees, Esq.
Section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) contains several provisions related to debit cards and electronic debit transactions (see 15 U.S.C. 1693o-2). Specifically, Section 920 set a debit interchange fee cap for “large issuers” at 21 cents.
Section 920 of the EFTA also directs the Board to prohibit issuers and payment card networks from restricting the number of payment card networks over which an electronic debit transaction may be processed to one network or two affiliated networks. In addition, it directs the Board to prohibit issuers and networks from inhibiting the ability of a merchant to direct the routing of an electronic debit transaction to any network that may process the transaction.
While the debit interchange fee cap applies to only “large issuers”, i.e. card issuers with over $10 billion in assets, the routing and exclusivity rules apply to all debit card issuers regardless of asset size. Credit unions typically have less then $10 billion in assets, which makes them exempt from the fee cap. However, credit unions are still subject to the routing and exclusivity rules of Section 920.
On September 13, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board released Regulation II (12 CFR 235), which is a compliance guidieline for debit card interchange fees and routing. These guidelines are targeted to credit unions and other “small entities” and assist with meeting the routing and exclusivity requirements that apply to all debit card issuers.
Regulation II is comprised of fourteen (14) compliance questions and related answers to provide guidance to credit unions and other small entities. The 14 questions/topics found in Regulation II are:
- What does section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act require?
- What does the rule require for issuers subject to the interchange fee standard?
- Which issuers are not subject to the interchange fee standards?
- Which fees are not subject to the Board’s standards?
- When do the interchange fee standards take effect?
- How many payment card networks must be enabled on each debit card?
- Which issuers must enable at least two unaffiliated networks on each debit card?
- What types of payment card networks may an issuer enable to satisfy the two unaffiliated networks requirement.
- How does an issuer know whether a payment card network is eligible to be one of the unaffiliated networks on a debit card?
- When must an issuer comply with the prohibition on network exclusivity?
- May payment card networks or card issuers place limitations on debit card transactions?
- When must issuers and networks stop inhibiting merchant routing choice?
- Is there more guidance on the provisions of Regulation II?
- Whom should you contact if you have further questions?
The routing provision of Regulation II went into effect October 1, 2011. The exclusivity provision will go into effect on April 1, 2012. The guide found in Regulation II will be of assistance to credit unions and other entities in ensuring compliance with Section 920 of the EFTA.
By Matthew D. Urban, Esq.
The recent economic downturn has had a wide ranging impact on all facets of the economy. Mortgage foreclosures are at all time highs, credit card delinquency rates have increased and the unemployment rate remains around 9.0% nationwide. An additional casualty of this crisis has been an increase in the failure of homeowners to pay the property and other taxes associated with their homes, which has created additional pressures on those taxing bodies relying on these revenues to support their operations. In response, the taxing authorities have been left to pursue any and all options available to them in an effort to recoup this lost revenue. As more taxing bodies assert their rights, existing lien holders run a greater risk of losing a potential avenue for collection of their own liens, which can have a substantial impact for credit unions as they attempt to improve and enhance their recoveries.
In Pennsylvania for instance, when a property related tax becomes delinquent, the taxing authority has the ability to file and perfect that lien in the county where the property is located. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Real Estate Tax Sales Act (RETSA), lawfully levied taxes operate as a first lien on the property in question, provided the lien is perfected by its filing in the county where the property is located. As a result, even if a credit union holds a first mortgage on the property, that mortgage is now subservient to the tax lien. The same fate also awaits a judgment lien that was secured by the credit union through the courts.
Although a tax lien once perfected takes precedence over other liens, the credit union may not necessarily lose their ability to be repaid the amounts secured by its lien as the taxing authority may or may not take further steps to execute on the tax lien. Should it choose to execute on the lien however, the property must first be subject to a tax upset sale. At a tax upset sale, properties are listed for public sale with the highest bidder being awarded the deed to the property. However, any third party acquiring a property at a tax upset sale takes that property subject to all other recorded claims and liens. In this instance, the credit union could theoretically be in a better position to secure a recovery on the amounts owed to it, as a new owner is presumably in a better position to make good on the outstanding obligations following the property. Unfortunately, since a tax upset sale does not extinguish existing claims and liens, only a handful of these properties are sold at this point.
If a property is not sold at a tax upset sale, upon petition of the tax authority and proper notice to all lien holders, a property is then exposed at a judicial sale at which time the property is sold free and clear. Therefore, whether it be a mortgage or judgment lien, the credit union’s lien on that property is extinguished forever. Despite the lien against the member’s real property being removed, the credit union’s judgment against the member does not disappear.
In neighboring Ohio, credit unions face similar challenges regarding tax liens and their subsequent sale. Like Pennsylvania, Ohio tax liens take first priority. However, as opposed to a tax upset sale, Ohio tax liens are put up for sale to third parties. At these Tax Certificate Sales, when the tax lien is sold, the purchaser effectively steps into the shoes of the taxing authority. The purchaser has the right to collect the outstanding tax due, plus interest and fees. While the credit union’s mortgage or judgment lien survives, it is left in a worse position than it had initially been in as its claim or lien is now subservient to the tax lien. However, should the holder of the tax lien wish to execute, it may take the necessary steps to have a Tax Foreclosure or Deed Sale conducted. Much like the Pennsylvania Judicial Sale, the tax or deed sale serves to extinguish all existing liens and encumbrances against the property. Therefore, the credit union again is in the position of having lost a potential avenue for the collection of the member’s debt.
While a credit union may become frustrated with its lien being extinguished and therefore losing a possible avenue of recovery on a delinquent account, all is not lost. As foreclosures increase and home values decrease, members quite frequently have very little, if any equity available in their homes, thus making the home a less attractive resource for future collections. If a member is not paying on his or her mortgage, chances are they are likely not paying their taxes either. Ultimately, credit unions that hold first mortgages are in a position to suffer the most from the continued growth of delinquent taxes, as they must pay the outstanding property taxes so as to continue to secure their position as the first lien holder.
However, those credit unions that sit in the second or third position due to home equity lines of credit, along with those who have secured judgments against members on a car, credit card or signature loan have other options available to them in collecting those debts. Ultimately a credit union sitting as second mortgage holder may not see much benefit in attempting to foreclose on the mortgage, as it would be in the less than desirable position of having to buy the property at sheriff’s sale, which would require satisfying the first mortgage. Additionally, most credit unions do not want to go into the business of owning and subsequently selling homes. Therefore, instead of foreclosing on the second mortgage, the credit union can file an action under the terms of the note and secure a personal judgment against the member, thus placing them in the position as a regular judgment creditor.
While it may not seem like an enviable position to be in, based on the dismal state of the current housing market, along with the increase in delinquent taxes and tax sales, exploring other avenues of collection of judgments have started to yield better recoveries for credit unions. In the past when a credit union secured a judgment against a member, it could typically wait for a member to sell its house or refinance a mortgage in a reasonable period of time. As a result of those actions, the judgment lien would need to be paid in full before the sale or refinancing could take place. That simply is not a viable option currently.
In Pennsylvania for instance, a judgment creditor has the ability to execute on a judgment by filing a writ of execution in bank attachment against the member. Once a bank attachment is filed with the court, the local sheriff will then serve the member’s bank. Once the bank receives the paperwork from the sheriff, they are required to immediately put a hold on the member’s account(s). As a result, the member is unable to withdraw any money while money from sources such as direct deposit from an employer can continue to come into the account. While various exemptions exist that may preclude or limit the amount of recovery, the placing of the hold on the members bank account can create substantial leverage in favor of the credit union thus thrusting its claim back into the forefront. In Ohio, creditors have additional options including wage attachments through the member’s employer.
The current financial climate continues to have an impact on credit unions. The increase in delinquent mortgages and taxes leading to sheriff and tax sales has changed the landscape of how creditors must collect their debts. Credit union’s, however, do not have to sit by while their chances of recovery diminish every time a tax lien is filed or sold but rather can take a proactive approach in collecting outstanding amounts owed.
72 P.S. §5860.609
 72 P.S. §5860.610
 ORC §5721.10
 ORC §5721.35
 ORC §5721.39(E)
By Matthew M. Young, Esq.
It is well known that only one board officer of a federal credit union may be compensated for their duties as such and no other official is allowed to receive compensation. Many states’ regulations are very similar to the federal prohibitions, subjecting state charters to the same sort of restrictions.
Under the National Credit Union Association (NCUA) Rules and Regulations (Rules) several exceptions to this prohibition exist, including, “[p]ayment for reasonable and proper costs incurred by an official in carrying out the responsibilities of the position to which that person has been elected or appointed…includ[ing] the payment of travel costs….” Also excepted are certain provisions for “reasonable health, accident and related types of personal insurance protection…” and certain indemnification for legally related matters.
While this prohibition and its related exceptions seem straightforward enough, I am often asked for clarification about how far these exceptions extend. Among the most common questions: Are gifts/rewards considered compensation? And, what are deemed “reasonable and proper costs” which can be reimbursed without running afoul of the compensation prohibition?
Until most recently, the NCUA held that gifts or awards of “nominal value” to board or committee members were permissible, with emphasis placed on the notion that these gifts must be small or nominal. Of course, the nominal nature of such gifts was a subjective consideration, leaving questions about what amount may or may not be permissible. This year, the NCUA has clarified its position regarding what it considers a nominal award, taking away the previous uncertainty of its position. In responding to a credit union’s inquiry about the permissibility of providing a volunteer service award of $250 to board members serving 5 years, the NCUA determined such an award was nominal and thus, permissible. In its review, the NCUA noted that such an award was “an incentive to volunteerism” rather than “compensation” prohibited by the Rules. To further clarify its position on the point it laid out exactly what dollar amount is permissible: $50 per year of service, adjustable for inflation, of course!
As it relates to the compensation exception for “reasonable and proper expenses,” board members can take advantage of benefits in certain circumstances without violating the prohibition against compensation generally. In particular, reasonable travel expenses are reimbursable for the board volunteer so long as those expenses are incurred by the board member in order to carry out the official business of the credit union and in accordance with credit union policy. The nice part about this exception is that it allows for travel compensation for not only the board volunteer but also his or her guest, not a bad perk when having to travel to those conferences and seminars in Florida and Vegas! However, you should be aware that there are limits to this exception. For example, the NCUA previously advised the reimbursement for expenses such as paying for baby-sitting expenses while the director is performing credit union business and reimbursement for used vacation time to attend special credit union matters and neither “reasonable nor proper.”
Matthew Young is an associate in the Credit Union Practice Group at Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA. He can be reached at 216.739.5726 and firstname.lastname@example.org.
 12 C.F.R. 701.33 (b)(1)
 12 C.F.R. 701.33 (b)(2)(i-iii)
 See NCUA Opinion Letter 93-0233, March 12, 1993
 See NCUA Opinion Letter 11-0805, August 18, 2011
 12. C.F.R. 701.33 (b)(2)(i)
 See NCUA Opinion Letter 92-0507, June 10, 1992