Pub. 2 2013 Issue 2

28 l e a d i n g a d v o c a t e f o r t h e b a n k i n g i n d u s t r y i n k a n s a s decisions on the subject, and they do not expect to be asked to make those decisions.” Well, as member-owned cooperatives, and given the ease with which information can be posted on websites, perhaps FCS institutions should become much more transparent, enabling their bor- rower/shareholders to make more informed votes on “say on pay.” Such increased transparency also would conform with FCA Chairman Jill Long Thompson’s long-standing promotion of greater transparency in government, which encompasses the FCS since it is a GSE. Of course, the FCA could help promote greater FCS transparency by publishing FCA enforcement orders against FCS institutions and making them post those orders on their websites. The public, which includes bankers and other taxpayers, have until April 22, 2013, to comment on the Council’s petition, in particular by responding to this question posed by the FCA: “What reason- able alternative(s) to the non-binding, advisory vote provisions on senior officer compensation would comparably engage shareholders and provide them greater transparency in and disclosure of their institution’s senior officer compensation practices?” It will be most interesting to read the comments. CoBank to fund $5 million of ag research and education E VER WONDER WHY ACADEMICS, AND ESPE- cially ag economists, are rarely critical of the FCS and often are among its loudest cheerleaders? Well, here is one reason. On February 12, CoBank, one of the four remaining FCS banks funding FCS associations as well as the FCS’s sole authorized lender to ag cooperatives, announced that it was contributing $5 million to “support more than 30 land grant uni- versities and other institutions [actually 31] focused on agriculture.” The CoBank news release stated that “recipient institutions were selected based on a wide range of criteria, including . . . existing relationships with CoBank, its customers, and [FCS] association partners across the country. . . . CoBank is designing each contribution in collaboration with the school as well as customers and [FCS] associations from the surrounding area.” The message to potential recipients: If you have an FCS critic on your faculty, don’t bother to apply. That message seems to have pierced the ivory towers. Kansas bankers make valiant attempt to tax the FCS T HE KANSAS BANKERS ASSOCIATION MADE A valiant, but unfortunately unsuccessful, attempt earlier this month to eliminate one state-level tax exemption the FCS enjoys – an exemption from Kansas’.26 per- cent mortgage registration fee. This exemption is in addition to the FCS’s exemption from federal and state income taxes on the profits the FCS earns from its real-estate lending. Similar mortgage-registration, recording fee, and other state and local tax exemptions exist in other states. A Kansas Senate committee was ready to consider a bill that would eliminate the FCS exemption, but tax policy experts working for the Kansas legislature opined that the FCS’s federal preemption from state and local taxation (except real estate taxes) is “virtually untouchable.” That legal opinion effectively killed the legislation. Needless to say, the six Kansas FCS associations whined about being subject to a relatively small tax, the proceeds of which would remain in Kansas, for the benefit of all Kansans. Bankers are continuing to send FCW reports of FCS lending abuses, such as FCS loans for rural estates, weekend getaways, and hunting preserves. Email reports of similar lending abuses in your market to: green-acres@ ely-co.com . Please provide as much detail as possible about any loan which violates the spirit, if not the law, governing FCS lending. REPORT FCS LENDING ABUSES TO: GREEN-ACRES@ELY-CO.COM continued frompage 27