Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

NCUA Proposes Rule Prohibiting Use of Reputation Risk in Supervision

By A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas on October 24, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
GovCon-Blog-Image_Guidelines-660x283

On October 21, 2025, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) announced a proposed rule to formally remove “reputation risk” from its supervisory framework under the Federal Credit Union Act. The proposal would amend Parts 702 and 791 of the NCUA’s regulations to prohibit the agency from taking adverse action against a federally insured credit union based on reputation risk.

The NCUA explained that reputation risk is subjective, difficult to measure, and has not been shown to impact the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. Examiners will instead focus on quantifiable risks such as credit, liquidity, and operational risk. The rule would also bar the agency from urging institutions to deny or terminate services based on political, social, cultural, or religious views, constitutionally protected speech, or other lawful but disfavored activities.

Key provisions of the rule include:

  • Prohibition on adverse action. The NCUA may not criticize or downgrade an institution, or impose supervisory conditions, based on reputation risk.
  • Limits on examiner influence. Examiners cannot require or encourage institutions to close, deny, or alter relationships with members or service providers due to reputation risk or disfavored lawful activities.
  • Regulatory amendments. The proposal removes “reputational” from the complex credit union stress-testing rule and adds a new Subpart E to Part 791 codifying these prohibitions.

Putting It Into Practice: Federal regulators continue to eliminate subjective risk factors from their supervisory framework (previously discussed here and here). Credit unions should review supervisory correspondence and internal compliance protocols to ensure alignment with this evolving approach.

Photo of A.J. Dhaliwal A.J. Dhaliwal

A.J. is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about A.J. DhaliwalEmail
Photo of Mehul Madia Mehul Madia

Mehul Madia, special counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, provides deep consumer finance and fintech expertise to clients, leveraging more than 15 years’ of public and private sector experience.

Read more about Mehul MadiaEmail
Photo of Maxwell Earp-Thomas Maxwell Earp-Thomas

Max is an associate in the Finance & Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County office.

Read more about Maxwell Earp-ThomasEmail
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Consumer Finance and Fintech Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo