Oct. 16, 2017


  • Thank you, Dan, for taking the time to read the article and to comment. We appreciate that kind of reader engagement. Regarding the bad math -- you’re right (and it's fixed). Based on the article quoted, more than half DO have succession plans. As far as the apples and oranges observation, it’s true the comparison is not precise, but the point that all credit unions should have succession plans remains valid. Despite a CEO's retirement intentions and preparations, sometimes life has a different plan. And the reason cited for many mergers of smaller credit unions is that they can’t find a suitable successor to a longtime, retiring CEO or manager. From a movement perspective, that’s something to keep an eye on. Of course, whether these numbers are alarming is up to you, the reader. And again, we appreciate your observations. Please continue reading CreditUnions.com and keep those comments coming.
    Rebecca Wessler
  • From paragraph 1: "20% of CEOs at credit unions with more than $100 million in assets planned to retire within two years, yet fewer than half of the industry’s cooperatives had a succession plan in place." First of all, you're comparing apples and oranges - 20% of credit unions > $100 million on one hand compared to fewer than half of ALL credit unions on the other. Second, if 20% of CEOs are planning to retire, it follows that 80% are not planning to retire. If 80% of CEOs are not even planning to retire, then it is decidedly less shocking and less concerning that fewer than half have succession plans. Third, the very CUNA article to which you link states that "some 42% of credit unions don’t have a succession plan in place". So evidently 58% of credit unions have succession plans. But you state that fewer than half have succession plans. Which is it?
    Dan B