Both Ken and Bauer have updated their ratings for credit unions and for banks, too. You can now see the fresh Q1 2021 data in both instances.
Weiss Research continues to publish only old Q4 2020 data at this time.
(1) There's one FI (sorry I don't want to put the name here) that Ken/DA has given a solid "A" for many years, and Weiss has it at D+ for many years, including now. Ken/DA: "A", Weiss: "D+". That's a HUGE difference. And this isn't because of Q4/2020 vs Q1/2021... over the past many quarters, it's remained a "D+" at Weiss and an "A" at Ken/DA.
(2) Not as extreme, but another example is Sharonview. Ken has them as an "A" which I believe they've been for a while, and Weiss has them as a "C"
I understand a small difference in interpretation (ie, an A- vs a B+, or even an A vs a B) but an "A" vs a "D+"?
So... while I appreciate everything both Ken/DA and Weiss do... when I see wildly varying numbers and interpretation for data that's supposed to be the same, that tells me not to put too much trust in them...
(Besides... though DA and Weiss aren't the same as S&P and Moodys, the one thing 2008 should have taught EVERYONE is: do your own homework -- do NOT trust the rating agencies.)
I have looked at GTE from the standpoint of its Tampa regional economic environment. Saw both good and less good, and I would characterize that aspect of GTE's prospects as neutral. Tampa's four major league sports teams continue to add a positive spin to life there; better for the region to have champions rather than perennial losers. Overall regarding GTE I am hopeful, but cautious.
Incidentally, I do not regard overwhelming deposit growth at financial institutions burdened with add-on CDs as a positive; quite the opposite. It's a special situation, and those additional deposits are a millstone in my view beneath add-on CD circumstances. This sort of thing could account for ratings differences between Ken and Weiss, if the latter digs deep.
It's great to hear your positive report about the Tampa region. I'm pretty upbeat myself about GTE in the shorter term. But we need their viability to endure through 2024 and that's a long haul. When the Fed stops printing "funny money" things could cool down. So ongoing vigilance is called for on a quarter by quarter basis, in my view.
For instance, for the FI where Ken/DA always has them at "A" and Weiss always has them at "D+":
Ken's info has their Texas Ratio doing well (true) and their Deposit Growth doing VERY well -- but if the FI has older high-rate Add-On CDs in an ultra-low rate environment (like GTE), very high deposit growth can be a BAD sign, not a good one. Ken also shows the FI's Capitalization as a poor "C-" grade -- and even though DA states "NCUA consider capitalization levels of banks and credit unions to be of high importance" -- while also showing that the FI's profit margin is a small Negative (ie, they're losing money), Ken/DA still has them at a solid "A".
Note that Weiss (where you can look at a history on the same page) shows the same negative profit margin now, but regularly, the FI's profit has always been right around $0 (usually a miniscule positive, sometimes a small negative, but always pretty close to $0). Note that it's a smaller CU, so is profit hovering on either side of $0 okay for a smaller CU?
So how does data like that rate an "A" from DA?
While Weiss has it at D+?
Yet Bauer (who's always much more bullish than Weiss) has them at 4 stars (of 5) and "recommended."
That's what I mean about not trusting the rating agencies and their summaries, and instead look at the raw data with the specific circumstances (ie, Deposit Growth can be good or bad depending on circumstances) to come up with your own conclusions.
All of the "big three" ratings services have now reported in.