On Whose Side Is Nationwide? Analyst, CU Disagree On Price
Credit Union Journal July 31, 2006
by Carol Anne Burger, Reporter
The sale of Nationwide FCU to Nationwide Bank has been hailed as a
"fair" conversion of a credit union to a bank, because the acquiring
bank is paying members a premium for the CU's equity.
But at least one analyst is questioning just how "fair" that selling
price is, noting it appears to be well below market value.
Nationwide FCU CEO Paula Edwards noted that the merger entails the members
receiving the equity of the CU plus a premium. "We came at the price through
a deliberative process. It involved a lot of negotiation and hard work. We hired
an independent accounting firm to establish a fair price, and we do believe it is
fair."
Based on the sales figure of $79 million for the CU's $65-million of equity,
Edward's said that members would actually realize more than 20% for the credit
union, not the oft-mentioned 15%. Going over the math would help correct some
misrepresentations that have been written and talked about in publications,
Edwards said. "I'd like to straighten that out, if you don't mind. If you
take the equity and divide by the total share balance it comes out to about 12%
and then you add the premium, so it's 21.3% or 21.5%."
"We've been trying to think of ways to help the members calculate what it
means, and it's about $150 per thousand (dollars on deposit)," she said.
"I understand that if we were a standalone institution (with infrastructure
and property) that we would have much more value on the street."
Analyst Sees Low Price
Asked about the relative fairness of the merger price, Eric Fitzwater, a
financial services analyst with SNL Financial, a data, news and analytics firm in
Charlottesville, Va., noted there is no comparative basis for judging such a
credit union acquisition. But using bank data seems to show that the credit union
is being undervalued.
"NFCU is located in Ohio. The average Price-to-Book ratio for deals where
the target was a bank located in Ohio that have been announced since the
beginning of 2005 is 152.77%," he said. "That's quite a bit more than
the 121.54% this deal produced. So, relative to bank deals in the same area, this
is an inexpensive deal."
"The consideration of whether the CU has real estate or not will affect the
sales price such that real estate may be more or less valuable than operations of
the company," he continued. "My opinion is that it's minimal in this
case. The lack of infrastructure, etc. makes the business transportable, but I
don't think it played a large role in the pricing. But, if the company had a
bunch of real estate in a high-dollar area, the Price/Book could certainly be
higher. I'm not familiar with the area so I can't really say for sure.
"Ultimately, I think the notion that it is a 'friendly price' is probably right on. These companies are closely related. I expect the pricing would pass any fairness test but I doubt seriously if there was ever any question to the outcome."
The Filene Institute, recently published a study authored by James A. Wilcox, of
the Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley, titled, "
Credit Union Conversions to Banks: Facts, Incentives, Issues and Reforms,"
which includes a demutualization model for CU conversions with suggested
safeguards to prevent insider enrichment from the infamous first day
"pops" from an Initial Public Offering (IPO), guidelines for member
notification, voting requirements and distribution of the retained earnings.
Filene's Executive Director, Bob Hoel believes that members should receive the
pro rata value of retained earnings. He estimated that given total capital in the
CU movement, some $80 billion, it represents $907 per member. "But at $100
billion of market value, that becomes $1,250 per member."
But debating whether the selling price is fair only looks at one aspect of this
transaction, and there is much more to it than that.
The proposed sale of Nationwide FCU to the Nationwide Bank, owned by the
Nationwide Insurance Company, itself a mutual, represents a unique twist in the
usual CU-to-bank conversion.
Firstly, it's not strictly a sale and not quite a conversion, but the emerging
entity, assuming all the regulatory approvals from the Office of Thrift
Supervision, the FDIC, and the NCUA come through will make for a very strong and
highly competitive bank. And, one that has a ready-made customer base of former
CU members. So what is it, exactly?
"It's a direct merger," answered NFCU's Edwards. "That is the
proper legal term used by OTS and the NCUA." But whatever the transaction
may be called, in the end there will be no more credit union, and that is what is
troubling many in the CU world. That, and the selling price.
Secondly, this wasn't a decision that was easily reached, Edwards admitted. She's
been with the CU since 1975, when it was a $19-million institution. "There
were only 20 people here and we used a manual typewriter to write checks and
hand-wrote receipts. They call me a dinosaur now and I suppose it's true; I've
been around a long time. Credit unions are in my DNA."
Wanting to remove the greed issue forthwith, Edwards said that "there's no
way I'm going to enrich myself (in this deal) and none of my board members will
either. This will not be a publicly traded stock; we'll be owned by Nationwide."
The important thing for Edwards was to be able to look her co-workers and members
in the eye and be able to say that this deal was the best answer they could come
up with given the circumstances. "We've been working on this since April
2005. The Board formed a three-person committee to do a study, and they spent
countless hours of their time in analyzing the options."
The process started long before that, in 1998, in fact, when Nationwide obtained
a thrift charter. "A lot of insurance companies did that same thing,"
said Edwards, adding, "Nationwide has always been in the financial services
industry."
The company decided in early 2005 that it wanted to go deeper into banking, so
they "needed a full service retail operation," she said. "From the
very beginning they came to us" with what was an obvious conundrum. "
They said they weren't eager to compete with us but it didn't make sense to have
a bank on one side of the hall and a credit union on the other side."
Nationwide FCU is one of a diminishing breed of CUs in that it is still a sole
sponsor (it does have a few SEGs). The company's embrace of the credit union has
always been total. The credit union has no employees, said Edwards; they are all
employees of Nationwide. It has no headquarters, either, and no branches, no
ATMs, no data system and no phone system of its own.
"I use Nationwide human resources, have Nationwide benefits and our loan
portfolio is guaranteed by Nationwide," Edwards said. "So we are truly
embedded with Nationwide. So the best path we saw was to enter this transaction.
I feel it represents the best opportunity for members to have access to all the
products and services we've always offered and for them to be served by all the
same people they've come to know."
Hoel noted that "banks are bought and sold all the time and models (of
valuation) are well established," but it seems that what (Edwards) doing is
giving money directly to the members. "Now, Nationwide has changed its
strategy to include offering banking services and it seems fairly reasonable what
they're trying to do."
Attorney: 'Long Debate'
That's also the opinion of Bruce Jolly, partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm
of Venable LLP and a longtime CU attorney. Jolly represents Nationwide in the
transaction, but willingly stepped outside the usual cautionary field attorneys
inhabit when he told The Credit Union Journal, "Paula (Edwards) is the best
client I've ever worked with and her vision is crystal clear. She's about the
members and is not about the money."
"We've debated an awfully long time to pull the press into the saga this
transaction represents; it's a good path and we are anxious to see it come to
fruition," he said. Jolly deferred any further comment to Edwards, whom he
said was the best possible spokesperson for the credit union.
Pressed, he added only that it "wasn't a complicated transaction, but a
fascinating one." And he said that the questions raised by Jim Blaine of
State Employees CU and others concerning price, distribution and fairness to
members were legitimate questions and would all be answered.
Asked about disclosure, Edwards said, "We are committed to total
transparency. Each member will receive 40-plus pages of documents, including
disclosures, letters and a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet. That package
will go out as soon as NFCU is notified by regulators that their application has
been accepted. The applications were filed on June 16, but no firm timetable has
been established. Once it happens, however, Edwards indicated that the details of
the valuation process and distribution of equity plan for the merger would be
available.
© 2007, Used with permission from The Credit Union
Journal. All rights reserved.
Top of Page