Should We Be Concerned About Membership Growth?

The flexibility to add to fields of membership comes at an opportune time for credit unions – provided favorable court opinions continue to fall in favor of the industry, and credit union’s change their perspective on marketing and business development investment.

Membership Growth Rate Slowing?

Glatt Consulting’s HealthScore includes membership growth as a component of the overall HealthScore calculation, and the industry has seen notable year-over-year membership growth score declines in each of the first two quarters of 2019. Q2 saw a score decline of 7.36% on the heels of a 3.2% decline in Q1. Prior to 2019, credit unions showed a decline only once in 18 quarters.

What is the cause?

We think there are two. First, slower growth in indirect auto loans (both total dollar volume and total indirect loans). Indirect is a channel that fuels membership growth for many credit unions, so the drop in indirect has a definite impact on membership growth.

Second, credit unions are coming up against limits to field of membership – in two different ways. First, credit unions do turn away those that are not qualified to join. Second, and relatedly, credit unions have come close to exhausting the “low hanging fruit” of membership growth – namely those that are already familiar with credit unions and/or that already belong to one or more. Attracting the “unfamiliar” is slow going.

The Challenge, and Competition Ahead

Credit unions, already experiencing slight declines in operating expense scores, may need to pump up spending even more to garner the attention of the next generation of credit union members – those that can belong as result of expanded memberships but that have no idea what a credit union is. These folks will be hard to reach using more traditional approaches – especially if indirect is a channel of concern (meaning credit unions continue to experience slower indirect channel growth).

Consider that SoFi, a non-credit union entity that nonetheless touts their service to “members,” outspends the average credit union to acquire/serve members by about $400/member. And they don’t spend in the same areas as credit unions.

To compete, credit unions will need to spend more, and spend better.

See: SoFi Is Paying Top Dollar To Acquire Its Prime Customers

Credit Union Community Continues Streak Of Year-Over-Year HealthScore Gains

Wilmington, NC (September 17, 2019) – Credit union strategy consulting firm Glatt Consulting Group, Inc. announced today that the Credit Union Industry HealthScore, a composite score measuring the health and performance of US-based credit unions, extended its streak of posting year-over-year increases for the 22nd consecutive quarter with a score of 6.006. The current HealthScore, calculated using 2nd quarter 2019 data, represents a 1.25% year-over-year score improvement. Credit unions performed better in 13 of 17 HealthScore categories. Despite the strength of the overall HealthScore, the continuing decline in scores for both Loan Growth and Membership Growth present challenges that may extend to other categories in the future.  

The Credit Union Industry HealthScore measures overall credit union health, which is calculated by scoring/grading credit union performance across 17 different key ratios. Grading is based on a 10-point scale, with 0 reflecting poor performance and 10 reflecting exceptional performance. The Credit Union Industry HealthScore has been calculated and published by Glatt Consulting since 2009.

Driving Score Growth

Credit unions continued their unprecedented run of year-over-year performance improvement. Industry HealthScores have now improved year-over-year for 22 straight quarters, with 13 of 17 of the score components showing positive gains. Some notable score drivers include Return on Assets, Efficiency, Asset Growth, and Cash & Short-Term Investments, which posted year-over-year growth for the first time in two years. It will be interesting to see how the Cash & Short-Term Investments component performs in the coming quarters with the flattening yield-curve environment that currently exists.

Q2 Observations

Loan Growth and Membership Growth once again experienced year-over-year weakness with scores down 20.95% and 7.36% respectively versus Q2 2018. Continued weakness in these two components would likely result in the eventual declines of other components such as Income and Efficiency. The continued strength in Loans Per Member and Borrowings Per Member could help insulate credit unions from the effects of declines in Loan and Membership Growth in the short-term. However, any prolonged weaknesses in these two membership components would eventually present a myriad of operational challenges.  

Top Performers

The industry’s highest scoring credit union in the 2nd quarter, with a score of 9.12, was Churchill County Federal Credit Union based in Fallon, Nevada (https://myccfcu.org). The credit union holds assets of $51M and serves approximately 2,800 members. The credit union regains the top spot in the 2nd quarter after having the highest HealthScore for both the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2018. Keep up the great work!

Once again, Eastman Credit Union based in Kingsport, Tennessee (https://www.ecu.org) is the top-scoring credit union with assets over $1B with a Q2 score of 8.53, followed closely by Redwood Credit Union based in Santa Rosa, California with a score of 8.5. These two credit unions are perennial top performers who serve 232,747 and 265,237 members respectively.

Summary HealthScore Data

With regard to score trends, 13 of the 17 HealthScore components saw year-over-year score gains. They are:

(1) Net Worth: Up 1.88%
(2) Solvency Evaluation: Up 2.67%
(3) Return on Average Assets: Up 13.54%
(4) Efficiency: Up 7.12%
(5) Delinquent Loans to Total Loans: Up 1.51%
(6) Net Charge-Offs to Average Loans: Up 1.74%
(7) Texas: Up 0.20%
(8) Cash and Short-Term Investments to Assets: Up 1.92%
(9) Loans to Assets: Up 4.74%
(10) Deposits Per Member: Up 1.64%
(11) Loans Per Member: Up 4.25%
(12) Borrowers Per Members: Up 2.28%
(13) Asset Growth: Up 2.21%

Components that saw a year-over-year decline in score include:

(1) Operating Expenses to Average Assets: Down 3.95%
(2) Regular Shares to Total Shares and Borrowings: Down 1.46%
(3) Loan Growth: Down 20.95%
(4) Membership Growth: Down 7.36%

A HealthScore data report, including the top 20 credit unions by HealthScore, is attached to this release. We’re happy to serve as a resource on articles related to overarching industry performance, and we welcome your use of the trend material, properly credited to Glatt Consulting. If you have questions about this quarter’s report or CU industry trends overall, contact me at mgriffiths@glattconsulting.com or (888) 217-5988, ext. 802.

About Glatt Consulting Group

Glatt Consulting Group, Inc. is a credit union consulting company based in Wilmington, NC. Founded in 2006, Glatt Consulting specializes in aiding credit unions in areas including strategy, organizational structure, governance, and leadership development.

###

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Credit Union Community Hits Highest Ever HealthScore

Trend Chart

Wilmington, NC (June 11, 2019) – Credit union strategy consulting firm Glatt Consulting Group, Inc. announced today that the Credit Union Industry HealthScore, a composite score measuring the health and performance of US-based credit unions, reached an all-time high score of 6.041. The current HealthScore, calculated using 1st quarter 2019 data, represents a 1.6% year-over-year score improvement. Credit unions performed better in 12 of 17 HealthScore categories, though potential challenges in the areas of loan and membership growth may be emerging.

The Credit Union Industry HealthScore measures overall credit union health, which is calculated by scoring/grading credit union performance across 17 different key ratios. Grading is based on a 10-point scale, with 0 reflecting poor performance and 10 reflecting exceptional performance. The Credit Union Industry HealthScore has been calculated and published by Glatt Consulting since 2009.

Driving Score Growth

In addition to attaining the highest ever HealthScore, credit unions continued their unprecedented run of year-over-year performance improvement. Scores have improved year-over-year for 21 straight quarters, with 12 of 17 of the score components showing positive gains. Notable score drivers include Return on Assets, Efficiency, Delinquencies, Charge-Offs, and Loans to Assets. In addition, credit unions continue to show improvement in Borrowers to Members, which indicates effectiveness in member relationship development and is directly correlated with the improvements in scores referenced above.

Q1 Observations

While credit unions are managing expenses well relative to current income, they may have a difficult time maintaining that positive relationship going forward given two emerging score issues: Q1 score declines of 10.37% and 3.20% respectively for loan growth and membership growth. Should score declines for these two components continue over the coming quarters, score declines for income and efficiency may materialize, and the trend of decline in operating expense scores will continue. This will put pressure on the HealthScore overall and could break the streak of year-over-year score improvement.

Top Performers

The industry’s highest scoring credit union in the 1st quarter, with a score of 9.06, was Little Rock Fire Department Federal Credit Union based in Little Rock, Arkansas (http://lrfdfcu.virtualcu.net). The credit union holds assets of $13M and serves approximately 764 members. The credit union is a reflection of the strength typical of credit unions serving firefighters. Such credit unions out-performed the industry overall with an average HealthScore of 6.23 vs. the industry score of 6.041. Firefighters are apparently a sound field of membership.

Also of note is Eastman Credit Union based in Kingsport, Tennessee (https://www.ecu.org). Eastman, with a Q1 score of 8.529, is the top-scoring credit union with assets over $1B. The credit union is also a perennial top performer with a historical average score of 8.03. They serve 228,017 members.

Summary HealthScore Data

With regard to score trends, 12 of the 17 HealthScore components saw year-over-year score gains. They are:

  1. Net Worth: Up 1.93%
  2. Solvency Evaluation: Up 2.38%
  3. Return on Average Assets: Up 9.81%
  4. Efficiency: Up 5.56%
  5. Delinquent Loans to Total Loans: Up 3.19%
  6. Net Charge-Offs to Average Loans: Up 1.23%
  7. Texas: Up 0.30%
  8. Loans to Assets: Up 6.35%
  9. Deposits Per Member: Up 1.69%
  10. Loans Per Member: Up 5.08%
  11. Borrowers Per Members: Up 2.78%
  12. Asset Growth: Up 0.77%

Components that saw a year-over-year decline in score include:

  1. Operating Expenses to Average Assets: Down 3.39%
  2. Cash and Short-Term Investments to Assets: Down 2.60%
  3. Regular Shares to Total Shares and Borrowings: Down 1.13%
  4. Loan Growth: Down 10.37%
  5. Membership Growth: Down 3.20%

About Glatt Consulting Group

Glatt Consulting Group, Inc. is a credit union consulting company based in Wilmington, NC. Founded in 2006, Glatt Consulting specializes in aiding credit unions in areas including strategy, organizational structure, governance, and leadership development.

The Next Branch? Maybe Not the Best Idea!

Lightbulb representing ideas
We recently saw a press release from a mid-sized credit union touting the launch of its latest new branch. You would think that a credit union highlighting yet another branch (they have a few) would be doing so after generating amazing results with the ones it already had. Well … not the case.
The chart below highlights the credit union’s HealthScore trends over the last few years. Keep in mind our HealthScore scale is 0-10 with 10 being high performing – and the industry average is 5.862.


And how about the table of results highlighting their component scores below? Low scores for earnings, operating expenses, and efficiency … and also for growth. High scores for some relationship metrics, but also an indication of concentration risk. This is probably not the best time to expand the branch network. Rather, this credit union should be working on cost reduction strategies along with strategies to drive deeper member relationships. All they did with this latest decision was add cost on top of cost. A rather risky proposition.

HealthScore Trend Table

Visit https://www.glattconsulting.com/healthscore/healthscore-trends to see additional details regarding score acronyms and trends.

Cycle_Date HS NW SE RA OE EF DL CO TX CS RS LA DM LM BM AG LG MG
03/31/2004 4.4706 7.5 7 3.5 2 6 3 1 9 6 3.5 4.5 4 4.5 6 8.5 0 0
06/30/2004 4.0882 7.5 7 3 2 6 2.5 1 9 6 4 5.5 4 4.5 6.5 0 1 0
09/30/2004 4.4412 7.5 7 4.5 2 6.5 2 1.5 8.5 5.5 4 5.5 4 4.5 6.5 1.5 4.5 0
12/31/2004 4.4412 8.5 7.5 5.5 1.5 7 2 1.5 8.5 2.5 4 6 4 5 7 0 5 0
03/31/2005 5.5588 8 7 8 1.5 8.5 2 1 9 7 4 5.5 4 4.5 6.5 9.5 0 8.5
06/30/2005 5.0294 8.5 7.5 8.5 1.5 8.5 2 1 8.5 5 4 6 4 4.5 6.5 4 0 5.5
09/30/2005 4.9706 9 8 8.5 1.5 8.5 2 1 9 6 4 6 4 4.5 6.5 2.5 0 3.5
12/31/2005 4.5588 9 8 8.5 1 8.5 2.5 1 9 2.5 4 6.5 4 5 5.5 0 2.5 0
03/31/2006 5.6765 9 7.5 5.5 1 6.5 3.5 1 9 4 4 6.5 4 5.5 5.5 10 10 4
06/30/2006 5.4706 9 7.5 6 1 7 3.5 1 9 1.5 4 7 4 5.5 5.5 6.5 10 5
09/30/2006 5.0882 9.5 8.5 6 0 7 4 1 9 1 3.5 7.5 3.5 6 5.5 1 9.5 4
12/31/2006 5.3529 9 8 6.5 1 7 3 1.5 9 3 3 7 4 5.5 5 6 7.5 5
03/31/2007 4.9706 9 8 5 1 6.5 3.5 1.5 9 4 3 6.5 4 5.5 5 4.5 0 8.5
06/30/2007 4.9412 9.5 8.5 2.5 7 6 3 1.5 9 4 3 7 4 5.5 4.5 0 2 7
09/30/2007 4.5294 9.5 8.5 5 1 6 2.5 1.5 9 3.5 3 7.5 3.5 5.5 5 0 2.5 3.5
12/31/2007 4.5 10 9 6 1 6.5 1.5 1 8.5 3 3 8 3.5 6 5 0 4.5 0
03/31/2008 5.1176 10 9 9 1 6.5 2 1.5 9 4.5 3 7.5 4 6 5 9 0 0
06/30/2008 4.8235 10 9 8 1 6.5 1.5 1.5 8.5 3.5 3 7.5 4 6 5 7 0 0
09/30/2008 4.6765 10 9.5 8 0 7 1 1.5 8.5 3 3 7.5 3.5 6 5 2.5 0 3.5
12/31/2008 4.5 10 10 7 1 7 1 1 8 3.5 3 7.5 4 6 5 2.5 0 0
03/31/2009 4.7353 9.5 9 5.5 1.5 8.5 0 1 7.5 4.5 2.5 6.5 4 6 4.5 10 0 0
06/30/2009 4.3824 9.5 9.5 0 0 8.5 0 0 7.5 6 2.5 6.5 4.5 6 4.5 9.5 0 0
09/30/2009 4.8235 10 9.5 9 1 9.5 0 0 7.5 5 2.5 6.5 4.5 6 4.5 6.5 0 0
12/31/2009 4.6471 9.5 9 6 1.5 9.5 0 0 7.5 5.5 2.5 6.5 4.5 6 4.5 6.5 0 0
03/31/2010 4.5294 9 9 2.5 1.5 8.5 0 0 7.5 4.5 2.5 6 4.5 5.5 4 8 0 4
06/30/2010 4.0294 8 8 0 1.5 9 0 0 7.5 2.5 2.5 5.5 5 5.5 4 8 0 1.5
09/30/2010 4.0294 8 8 0 1.5 9 0 0 8 2.5 2 5 5 5 4 6 0 4.5
12/31/2010 4 8 8 0 1.5 8 0 0 8 4.5 2 5 5 5 4 5.5 0 3.5
03/31/2011 3.6765 8 8 1 1.5 7 1 0 8.5 2.5 2 4.5 5 5 4 4.5 0 0
06/30/2011 3.5882 8 8 3 1.5 7 1.5 0 8.5 1.5 2.5 4 5 4.5 3.5 2.5 0 0
09/30/2011 3.7353 8 8 1.5 1.5 6.5 1.5 0 9 3.5 2.5 4 5.5 4.5 3.5 4 0 0
12/31/2011 3.9118 8 8 3 1.5 6.5 1.5 0 8.5 5 2 4 5.5 4.5 4 4.5 0 0
03/31/2012 4.8529 7.5 7.5 4.5 2 4 1.5 1.5 9 5 2 4 6 5 4 9.5 9.5 0
06/30/2012 4.5588 7.5 7.5 5 1.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 9 4.5 2 4 6 5 4 7 8 0
09/30/2012 4.4118 8 8 6 2 4 2 1.5 9 4 2 4 6 5 4 5.5 4 0
12/31/2012 4.1765 8 8 6 1.5 4 1.5 1 9 4 2 4 6 5.5 4.5 3 3 0
03/31/2013 3.8235 8 7.5 0 1.5 0 1.5 1.5 8.5 6 2 3.5 7 5.5 4 8.5 0 0
06/30/2013 3.4412 8 7 1.5 1 1 1.5 1.5 9 3.5 2.5 3.5 6.5 5.5 4 2.5 0 0
09/30/2013 3.2941 8 7.5 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 8.5 1 2.5 4 6.5 5.5 4.5 1 1 0
12/31/2013 3.3529 8.5 7 1 1 1.5 1 1.5 8.5 0 2.5 4.5 6.5 6 4.5 0 3 0
03/31/2014 4.0882 8 7 0 1.5 2 2.5 1 9 1.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 6 4.5 8 0 5
06/30/2014 4.1471 8 7.5 0 1.5 2 2.5 1 9 1.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 6 4.5 5 2 6.5
09/30/2014 3.7941 8 7.5 0 1.5 3 2.5 1.5 9 1.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 6 4.5 1 2.5 2.5
12/31/2014 3.9118 8.5 7.5 0 1.5 3 3 1.5 9 1 2.5 5.5 6 6.5 4.5 0 6.5 0
03/31/2015 4.0882 8 7.5 0 1.5 3.5 3 1 9 2.5 2.5 5 6.5 6.5 4.5 8.5 0 0
06/30/2015 4.0588 8 7.5 0 1.5 4.5 4 1 9 2.5 2.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 4.5 2 3.5 0
09/30/2015 4.0882 8.5 8 0 1.5 4 3 1.5 9 3 2.5 6 6.5 6.5 4.5 1 4 0
12/31/2015 4.0294 8.5 7.5 0 1.5 4 3 1.5 9 3 2.5 6 6.5 7 4.5 1 3 0
03/31/2016 4.2941 8 7.5 1.5 2 3.5 2.5 2 9 4 2.5 5.5 7 7 4.5 6.5 0 0
06/30/2016 4.1765 8 8 1.5 2 3.5 2.5 2 9 4 2.5 5.5 7 7 4.5 4 0 0
09/30/2016 4.2059 8 8 1.5 2 3 4 2 9 4 2.5 5.5 7.5 7 5 2.5 0 0
12/31/2016 4.0294 8.5 7.5 1 2 3 4 2 9 3.5 2.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 5 0 0 0
03/31/2017 4.2647 8.5 7.5 0 2 2.5 4 2 9 3.5 2.5 5.5 8 7.5 5 3.5 1.5 0
06/30/2017 4.2353 8.5 7.5 1 2 2.5 3.5 2 9 4 2.5 5.5 8 7.5 5 1.5 2 0
09/30/2017 4.2941 8.5 8 1 2 2.5 4.5 2 9.5 4 2.5 6 7.5 7.5 5 0 2.5 0
12/31/2017 4.2059 8.5 7.5 1 1.5 3 4 2 9 4 2.5 6 8 7.5 5 0 2 0
03/31/2018 4.9118 8.5 7.5 0 1.5 4 4 2 9 3.5 2.5 6 7.5 7.5 4.5 0 5.5 10
06/30/2018 4.4412 8.5 7.5 1.5 1.5 4 5 2 9 4 3 6 8 8 5 0 2.5 0
09/30/2018 4.3235 9 8 1.5 1.5 4 5 2 9 4 3 6 7.5 8 5 0 0 0
12/31/2018 4.2647 9 8 1 1.5 3.5 4.5 2 9 4 3 6 8 8 5 0 0 0

Alignment: Ignore It At Your Own Risk

Since 1995 I have worked with hundreds of credit union leaders on various aspects of organizational strategy (thousands if you count conferences, schools, and workshops… but who’s counting?). Over that same time period my strategic recommendations have evolved. New regulations have been introduced, innovative technologies have come online, consumer demands have shifted. One recommendation, however, has never changed. No matter which direction a strategy takes you, everyone in the organization must be equally committed to execution in the context of the institution’s purpose as well as its strategic goals and objectives.

Of course many business books, blog posts, and business educators state similar opinions. My recommendation is not unique, so why, then, in the face of near universal advice to align the focus and effort of human resources around common objectives, do we see so many organizations give so little attention to alignment?

I think one key reason is that many leaders still do not believe that such alignment is all that necessary. I think they believe that some splintering in focus is okay because it won’t do any damage. Some have gone so far as to convince themselves that those with opinions contrary to the organization’s own provide a devil’s advocate viewpoint that may serve to keep the organization from making strategic mistakes.

I think this perspective is wrong.

Consider this story. It is all true…..

A single-sponsor credit union suffered two defined strategic challenges:

  1. It had fully tapped its sponsor, leading to limited opportunity for further growth;
  2. It had a severe lack of branch capacity, resulting in long lines of visibly frustrated members.

The credit union also had two distinct market advantages:

  1. It existed in a relatively peaceful market with few big-bank competitors;
  2. It had a sound reputation throughout the community – even as a single sponsor.

In response to its challenges and opportunities, it made two well-researched strategic decisions:

  1. It would open up its field of membership to the community;
  2. It would build a new state-of-the-art branch/main office.

The credit union also possessed a few other intangible assets, namely, a highly intelligent CEO with a community banking/credit union background, a committed and well-educated board, and a much-loved staff.

Despite what looks like the building blocks of an unqualified success story, I am guessing right now you are getting the sense that the soundtrack to this article should be the theme from Jaws.

The shark in the water was the misalignment between the institution’s key organizational functions: board, management, and staff. While board, management, and staff equally understood the credit union’s challenges and core competencies, and each understood and rallied behind the strategic solutions available to the credit union, each held uniquely different opinions about the purpose of the institution. The misalignment resulted in differing perspective with regard to the definition of successful execution.

I will share one anecdote that fully explains the dilemma.

Once everything was wrapped up… the branch built, the charter change approved, etc. … here’s what happened:

  • Members waited in line less than they ever had;
  • Membership growth resumed;
  • Operational earnings and efficiency improved;
  • The health of the credit union soared.

Here is also what happened:

Rarely were members in a branch long enough to interact with one another. Members breezed through the branch because it was designed so that their time was not wasted standing in line. Most members were pleased with their new experience, though some long-time (more vocal) members did not like the efficiency because they spent less time with their friends (other members, employees).

Board members rarely ran into throngs of members when they visited the branch. They began to feel like the institution was losing its close-knit, “everyone knows everyone” soul. Furthermore, board members were truly missing their opportunities to gain diverse member feedback. Rather than having a broad slice of members to query during any given branch visit they were left with feedback only from the dissatisfied. Their feedback pool was one-dimensional.

Most employees liked the new branch and its built-in efficiency and extra capacity, but because serving members took less time, employees were being asked to fill their excess capacity with new tasks and responsibilities. Those dissatisfied with “extra” work were more diligent in communicating their displeasure. They began to feel, and share, the belief that they were being exploited.

At the same time the credit union began performing well above the industry average in nearly every key category, management team members were being picked apart by board members and staff because, in the opinions of these more vocal people, the credit union was failing to truly serve its members, and the management team cared only about the “numbers.”

So, in the end…

  • The CEO left;
  • A board rift emerged;
  • Changes began to be rolled back;
  • Long-term board members chose not to be renominated to their positions;
  • The institution’s leadership and culture changed substantially in less than a year.

The chart below highlights the approximate timeframe of the points above in the context of the credit union’s HealthScore (along with comparison to the industry-wide HealthScore).1

Now I’ll point out that this credit union did not fail. It is still alive – but clearly its performance and health have fallen. Whereas once they were performing close to the 90th percentile of all credit unions, they now are clearly no better or worse than any other credit union. This should have been an incredible success story, but it wasn’t to be the case. The question to ask is, “Why?”

Making the right strategic decisions is critical to the success of any organization, but understanding why a strategic decision is made, and gaining institutional buy-in for the “why,” is equally as important. In this case, the question of institutional purpose was never fully addressed. Was the credit union to provide efficient, cost-effective service for members? Was it to be a place where “everybody knows your name?”

While these questions were discussed, a firm organizational commitment to a singular, defining purpose was never made. This left each group within the credit union, board, management, staff, and even members (not to mention individuals within each group), to interpret the credit union’s actions from the perspective of their own idea of purpose.

This credit union is certainly not unique. In fact, your credit union may be like them. One way to find out? Ask people why they think you are executing a particular strategy. Launching remote deposit capture? Bet some people think it is because you don’t want branch traffic, others because it makes it convenient for members, others because you want to attract younger members, still others because you want to trim your teller staff. Even if none of those are true, or they are all true, unless every reason for executing a strategy is both fully understood and supported, then you have misalignment as to institutional purpose, and misalignment leads to poorer performance.

Alignment matters… every day, regardless of the strategies you define or the tactics you adopt. To ignore it is to lead yourself into a no-win situation – and ultimately to performance worse off than before.


1: Glatt Consulting’s Credit Union Industry HealthScore is a composite financial performance score reflecting the overall financial health of US-based credit unions. The score range is based on a 10-point scale, with 10 being the most healthy and 0 being the least healthy. The HealthScore is calculated quarterly. Details at https://www.glattconsulting.com/healthscore