ACUMA ONpoint
ACUMA ONpoint
Inside DC’s Standoff and the Road to Housing Act: What Credit Unions Need to Know
When Washington grinds to a halt, households and lenders feel the tremors long before the headlines fade. We break down the current full federal shutdown, why ACA subsidy deadlines hardened the standoff, how “essential” designations keep some services moving while paychecks stall, and where the real economic bruises show up if this stretches from weeks into months. From missing jobs reports and data gaps that complicate interest-rate decisions to airport slowdowns and household cash flow stress, we connect the dots to mortgages, servicing, and credit union balance sheets.
Then we pivot to a rare bright beam: the Road to Housing Act. It’s the most extensive housing package to move in years, and it cleared the Senate Banking Committee unanimously before hitching a ride on the NDAA. We unpack how “Senate magic” pushed it forward, why the House lacks a clean counterpart, and what the conference process looks like when the little four corners start trading priorities. For credit unions and lenders, this could mean incremental but meaningful improvements to housing supply, financing access, and community development—provided the final text survives the House-Senate negotiations.
We also surface risks hiding in plain sight: the lapse in federal flood insurance during peak storm season, the legal and operational uncertainty from RIFs aimed at programs like the CDFI Fund and HUD, and what that means for community institutions already stretched by high rates and tight inventory. Throughout, Zach Fister offers a clear map of the politics, the policy, and the practical steps leaders can take now—member outreach for furloughed workers, skip-a-pay frameworks, pipeline reviews in flood zones, and rate-lock strategies when official data go dark.
If you value straight, helpful guidance on housing and policy without the noise, you’ll find it here. Subscribe, share with a colleague who needs the signal, and leave a review to help more listeners navigate a tricky moment with clarity.
Sponsored by Loan Vision.
The views and opinions expressed in this podcast do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of acumen, its board of directors, its management staff, or its members. The podcast discussion presented is conversational in nature and for general information only.
SPEAKER_00:Is your credit union looking to turn your accounting department into a profit driver? LoneVision can help. Register today at www.lonevision.com under our upcoming events page.
SPEAKER_03:Hello, welcome to Acadon Point Podcast, a series focused on sharing the stories of people who are making a positive impact in the credit union mortgage industry. I'm your host, Peter Benjamin. Today I'm joined by our resident expert, Mr. Zach Fister, policy director with the Brown scene. Zach, my friend, how are you doing today?
SPEAKER_02:How are you, Peter? It's great to hear your voice.
SPEAKER_03:That's good. And at least I'm glad someone is happy to hear my voice. My my my kids aren't aren't too fond of it at this moment in time, but that's good. That's good. So, Zach, as I mentioned in my intro, we have you know, I'm not gonna say two of the more important topics that come up lately. I think one is I don't want to frame it up as a negative, but but you you may say otherwise. One's kind of sort of a negative topic with a shutdown, but one, on the other hand, is is is really a positive thing with the Road Housing Act. So I I know you have your list of stuff, but you know, those are the two main things I want to focus on. So I'll let you figure out are we gonna start with you know some some positivity, or we're gonna focus on with you know some negative? I'll let I'll let you pick. But Zach, what's going on in DC?
SPEAKER_02:I mean, I I definitely think we should start with the elephant in the room, and that is the fact that the federal government is now in its second week uh of a shutdown. Um the federal government shutdown uh en masse. Uh this is a full government shutdown, uh shutdown on October 1st. Um both sides are currently at what can only be described as an impasse. Um the House passed a what's known as a continuing resolution uh back on September 19th, and then promptly uh departed Washington, D.C. There was some strategy involved in that, uh trying to jam the Senate. Uh the Senate then followed suit and attempted to pass this uh continuing resolution. Uh now they are on their eighth attempt, um, which will be uh the season. Now that's anticipated to fail. Uh once again, uh the Democrats have offered a competing continuing resolution. Uh a lot of this just disagreement and you know the the catalyst that led to the shutdown was the fact that the Affordable Care Act premium subsidies uh are set to expire at the end of the year. The problem is that open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act uh starts on November 1st and throughout the month of October, any policyholders uh using ACAP coverage will receive notices that their premiums are likely to increase uh two or three X. So the the Congressional Democrats have planted their flag in extending those subsidies outward. Uh their ask is for permanence. Uh Republicans have uh not expressed a willingness to uh to extend these in any form, and now both sides are at this this impasse. The government remains shut down uh as we speak. In terms of light on the horizon, the best I can say is that it seems that they are talking about potentially talking, but right now we're we're not in a great place. Um how I think this ends is as we get closer to this November 1st uh open enrollment period, and as we get closer to these expiration dates on the two continuing resolutions that were put forward, one goes until the Democratic one goes until October 31st, the Republican one goes until November 21st. At some point, those dates are going to be moot. And even if the uh Senate Democrats relented and voted on the House passed provision to reopen the government tomorrow, that provision or that continued resolution only extends until November 21st. So they are uh going to have to do this all over again if that's the if that's the date. As we get closer to November, it's very possible that we see both sides recalculating their thought processes on this. Uh, we will see new dates floated in terms of you know extending government funding, and we will hopefully see a thawing in in some sort of negotiation around extending these subsidies uh to you know out to a later date, one, two, three years, whatever it may be. And no doubt with certain conditions um that both sides have to meet. So in the meantime, with the entire federal government shut down, uh only essential services being offered, uh the term essential is a designation you know made by the executive branch. So, for example, uh we we still have active duty military, we still have uh federal law enforcement and TSA agents deemed essential. The issue is that they uh are are potentially going to go without pay until the shutdown is resolved. There's an automatic provision in law now, uh, after the last shutdown from 2019 that requires automatic back pay uh without the approval of Congress. Traditionally, over the years, every time there's been a shutdown, Congress would then have to go and vote each chamber to give back pay to the you know several million federal employees. That's no longer an issue. However, um there are inflection points that ensue uh through these periods where uh nobody wants a federal employee to miss their paycheck. But members of Congress certainly don't want our armed services to miss their paycheck. A lot of people thought that today or tomorrow would be that inflection point because this is the this is the day that uh our our service members were scheduled to receive their next paycheck and potentially would have gone without. The administration found some money in unobligated funds from a DOD uh research and development uh bucket, and they're gonna reallocate those funds to buy themselves some time. I think everybody is relieved by that, but at the same time, it lets out pressure from uh you know the action forcing events. So now uh the issue of troop pay is not an issue for at least another two weeks. Arguably, that gives both sides the ability to dig in further and prolong this shutdown until there's some sort of thawing of that ice. What that means for the you know, the the housing industry real large in terms of of the shutdown, uh as of now, um I think the impacts are minimal for now. Um what we are seeing, you know, the FHFA is is independently funded, the the banking regulators uh are independently funded. So that they're operating as normal. Um however, you know, the residual impacts of a shutdown when you have potentially millions of Americans missing paychecks, that can weigh down the economy red large. That can weigh down, I mean, every every other one of those federal uh employees likely has a mortgage, right? Um they they have car payments, they have bills, they have tuition payments just like everyone else. And uh if people are missing paychecks, people are more likely to potentially miss payments. And the aggregate effect of that we will presumably uh and potentially see in the market. Uh, we will see in people, Americans writ large reducing uh their consumer spending. Again, this is a a long, a more you know lengthy projection, uh, but it's also you know, these are the limited reasons why it's in no policymakers' best interest to allow for a prolonged shutdown. Uh the effects can be minimal if the length is minimal. Uh, but if we're if we're talking you know, more than a month, more than two months, uh that starts weighing down on the economy as a whole.
unknown:Right.
SPEAKER_03:So I mean, all right, so you just threw out a lot, right? And here we are, what, 13 days, a couple hours in, et cetera. The longest shutdown part of this was what 35 days, right? All right. So when we think about and I I and thank you very much for kind of bringing up how hey, there is may not be uh an effect today, but there's gonna be an effect tomorrow the longer this progresses on, mispayments, etc. Now, one of the things that could be impacted today, I mean, because correct me if I'm wrong, we're still very much in you know hurricane season, right? Um flood insurance. You know, it's it's pretty much lapsed. Yeah, lapsed, and and right now, what happens okay again, worst case, I know act of guidance thing. What happens when when there if when and if there is a hurricane, you know those states, those cities, wherever you frame up, those communities are gonna be completely vulnerable. But every single mortgage company who has servicing rights in that in that territory could be crippled. That's right.
SPEAKER_02:And and it's even been you know, I've seen commentary over recent weeks where it's you know, would this would this have ever gotten this far had there been a major hurricane heading towards the east coast? Um in past shutdowns, Congress has notoriously uh taken up individual bills to address some of these issues. So in the in the last uh shutdown, they passed a standalone extension uh for NFIP for the flood insurance program. They also passed a standalone extension for troop pay, uh for FAA authorization that was lapsing at the time because the dates coincided. They have the ability to do this. They can do it uh in minutes because you can voice vote something like this in the House. You can unanimo you can do it via unanimous consent in the Senate. And the fact that they that neither side has attempted to do this yet, um, that leadership has not, you know, forced the issue to the floor, uh, kind of shows the result that both sides either uh think that they are winning this argument or both sides know they are losing this argument. Um, you know, the current polling out there on the shutdown because there's a poll for everything. The current polling shows, you know, 33% on average, you know, 33% of Americans blame the Democrats, 33% of Americans blame the Republicans, but a majority, or at least the plurality of those poll blame both parties, right? And if if neither party has the upper hand, it it can further that mentality of trench warfare that we're kind of seeing right now, barring some you know major action forcing event. Uh it it seems that the the Democratic position is that they are better positioned to have that breakthrough with the president himself, a direct negotiation with the president. Um, you know, uh President Trump is looking down the pike at the midterms as well. And and you know, everyone knows that having these subsidies lapse or having a hurricane uh materialize in the Gulf next week, those are not those are not good problems, right? Regardless of the of the politicking over um, you know, the the current shutdown, those are real problems, right? Federal work federal workers missing their paychecks are real problems. And so far, these are um theoretical, but they can become real very quickly. And um I, you know, it it's a it's a valid point. Uh I'm personally shocked that they did not just do a voice voted uh NFIP extension, but it's certainly on the minds of others uh up there on the hill as to you know what catastrophic effects that could have if if not dealt with at the right time.
SPEAKER_03:Okay, so you know that's obviously flood major. That could be major disasters, deadly. But also when we when we look at other things that could be impacted, correct me if I'm wrong, but the nef the next FOMC meeting is right before Halloween. Are they still able to meet or even vote on the state of interest rates? Because I think I read somewhere that uh was it not consumer confidence? Um there's one poll. Maybe it is consumer confidence. Um it won't be able to be published because of this shutdown.
SPEAKER_02:That's possible. Um I so I mean the the the the Federal Reserve itself, I I I think that they can meet um the uh but but offices that are critical to the inner workings of the federal government. So whether it's the government printing office or whether it's the Bureau of Labor Statistics putting out jobs numbers, those those items do not come out if there are not humans working in those departments to put out that data, right? And that these are perfect examples of the ripple effects that uh, you know, I think we all take for granted, right? It's like, you know, it's it's it's Friday jobs reporting day, right? Yeah, it it is if the government's open, right? But it's not if it's not, right? We have you're seeing this, you know, you're seeing this starting to bubble up in the airport, right? You can deem as many people essential as you want in these critical positions, but when people start miss missing paychecks for, you know, for for earned, you know, hours earned, pay earned, um you're gonna start seeing people call out, right? And you're starting to see that, you know, uh at various airports across the country. I think it only gets worse, right? Where uh, you know, now may be a good time to use some sick days, right? Um all of this in the aggregate, you know, creates problems. You know, we will see it, you know, the longer it goes, we will see it in you know economic and on this forecasts on what that does to the next quarterly GDP report, right? We've seen that in the past where the GDP has taken a dip because of a federal shutdown. And the last one, what made it um slightly different is that it was a partial federal shutdown. So there was um, for example, the the DOD and I think Homeland Security and a handful of other cabinet departments, they were fully funded, right? So that also took some pressure out. This is a full government shutdown, and we haven't had one of these in in quite some time. So the the dynamics are slightly different. The other thing I will say is the reason that this has the propensity to uh get worse before it gets better is that the you know the administration has made some recent announcements on further reductions in force, uh commonly referred to as RIFs. Uh the we saw a lot of RIFs earlier this year, um, you know, several hundred thousand federal workers, either uh the positions or the departments terminated, or uh federal buyouts, etc. So the doge activities at the beginning of the of this administration and this Congress led to several hundred thousand um federal workers having their jobs eliminated in one way or the other. We're starting to see those RIF notices being reported um you know going into the end of last week. And um, you know, I'm just reading the news here at this point, but the the the OMB director uh you know announced that the RIFs would focus on uh priorities and programs that are important to Democrats. And that is another kind of lever in this uh you know, tit for tat between the Democrats and Republicans, where they're going to attempt to apply pressure on the Democrats to uh to you know to move their votes into the S column. And one RIF notice that we saw going into the weekend or reports of about said RIF is around the CDFI fund. Right? So the CDFI fund's already been um a target for reduction and or you know uh abolition, uh uh, you know, abolishment in in you know the last year. And there was a lot of stakeholder pressure, congressional pressure that pushed back on that, you know, that attempt last year. What what was reported going into the weekend is that essentially the the remaining CDFI staff will be uh will be have their positions terminated through a formal RIF notice, which has a kind of a 60-day and in some cases 30-day timeline, right? Uh, but then it begs the question what do you what do you do with a congressionally mandated program with congressionally mandated spending, money mandated to go out the doors, if there are no humans there to administer that distribution of funds. And so you will see, you know, you will see plenty of reporting around the you know the legality of this or the you know the constitutional you know disagreements around this. Um, but at the end of the day, it's it is another tactic in you know that that one side is using as an arrow in their quiver, uh, you know, against the other side who has you know their own respective arrows. In the in the midst of that, though, the we're talking about you know in real real world impacts, you know, for credit unions, you know, there are several hundred, you know north of 500 CDFI credit unions, right? And this creates a level of uncertainty uh that is has not is not paralleled in in recent memory for for these for these credit unions. And I and I think this is the very beginning, and I I trust that this will be resolved because the support for the CDFI fund and the support for CDFI institutions is so strong in Congress. It's bipartisan, it's always been bipartisan, that I I do think there will be resolution, but it is yet another example of you know the the the collateral damage that a federal shutdown causes because these various programs and entities and institutions involved become kind of pawns in the chess game.
SPEAKER_03:So kind of going back to the rifts, you know, one of the if I I I think I read this, but it either already happened or it's going to happen. But HUD is is one of those agencies that that's on that list to be further displaced. Is that correct? That's right. So I mean uh again, the I won't say it's the long-standing impacts. Now, would you consider that these I'm I'm kind of pivoting real quick, so please forgive me. Would you say like if someone is displaced, you know, and they they kind of fall into that river and we'll say they're at HUD, is this a temporary thing or is it like where they can be hired back, or is this the administrative's move to continue with, like you said, the hinting at the doge stuff?
SPEAKER_02:So so that this is where I think it gets kind of murky. Um it again, I and I am not a uh I am not a RIF uh expert by any means. Um that this has not been a tool that has been uh used uh to great degree over the years. But um, if my understanding is correct, in addition to having a you know a timeline for this um, you know, the the execution of the RIF itself, right? So the the the offboarding of the the federal workforce headcount in that given program or department, um, I think that there are there are requirements on the back end of that protocol that says in the future, uh RIFT employees of that program must be given first precedence for any rehiring that uh ensues, you know, in in in the you know in the months or years ahead, right? So if you are, you know, if you're in one of the you know, if you're in the acme division and you're selling this widget, if you get laid off via a RIF, and then that ACME division turns around two months later and puts out a job posting for the same position and the same qualifications, my understanding is that they have to be given kind of right of first refusal for for the position. Now, I think it is way less clear than that. And I think there are uh you know a million ways to to go about this, but theoretically, that is how it it that that is how it it should work. But again, if if you're if your position is terminated and you're out there on the on you know it in the in the market and you get a new job, like do you have interest in coming back to the position that you just got laid off of? In some cases, probably not. But what you're seeing is um any reversion on those decisions happens really quickly, right? Uh they announced similarly, you know, they announced like 400 um planned terminations at at HUD. They also announced hundreds over at the Center for D Disease Control. And then within 24 hours, something like two or three hundred of these uh these disease specialists got hired back immediately. Like, okay, you know, we we overshot the bow there, right? Come back in. Um, because once you lose that talent, it is it is hard to get that back, right? I mean, have you I'm not I'm not supposing that you you've ever applied for a federal position on on USA jobs, but the process for federal hiring is lengthy, um, as you might expect, right? It it's the it's the federal government, it's the largest employer in the United States. They have, you know, it it is quite the process. So hiring people back is is is not the easiest thing. So any decision on that front needs to be made sooner rather than later.
SPEAKER_03:Appreciate you walking us through that. All right. So I think we need to, I don't want to say cheer things up a bit. Um, but at least at least it's some private or some positive news. Well, let's go over. So in our last episode, you know, uh Ann Marie did an excellent job of helping us summarize you know the road to housing. You know, you know, I think you and I have talked in the past offline and you know, not on air. You know, that this is really an instrumental or could be a significant um decision across on on Capitol Hill that will actually help. I don't say the housing crisis, but I'm gonna say the housing crisis that actually could help the housing crisis. Recently there's been some positive momentum. So why don't you kind of share what that is?
SPEAKER_02:Sure. Um and and yeah, I I I think the best way to describe it is it's a start, right? Um it it it is notable, if not for anything else, that it is probably the largest piece of housing legislation that has come out of Congress in recent memory. Um and it somehow uh passed out of the Senate Banking Committee unanimously. Um there is a wide ideological spectrum on the Senate Banking Committee. Uh both Chairman Scott and uh Ranking Member Warren should be commended for their ability to um, you know, to to bridge those gaps. And, you know, in part it's all about compromise, right? This bill is really a uh an amalgamation of several dozen, or I think close to you know 40 or 50 individual pieces of legislation that were kind of pieced together into various titles uh that that made the that ultimately made the Road to Housing Act. Um in the midst of all of the doom and gloom that I just walked through, uh the Senate showed just last week, at the end of the week, right before they left town, that Senate magic still exists. Um Senate magic is a a term that you know we in the industry refer to when the Senate wants to do something, they can do it. Uh and they can do it quick. The Senate is not known for being quick on anything, but whenever they uh when they employ Senate magic, they can they can do things at lightning speed. And they did just that. They languished through the week with no um no results on government funding, and they turned around and reached an agreement on a series of standalone amendments and a manager's amendment package uh that had uh you know a wide assortment of provisions in it, and they held a series of you know, 20-some odd votes and passed the Senate NDAA. The Senate NDAA had been kind of written off for dead, and most assumed that the process would simply move into the background uh in an informal conferencing uh between the two chambers. But they moved it through regular order, and so it gave everyone a glimpse that you know it it's still possible to do, you know, robust public policy work in this environment. That said, um, you know, the the as you mentioned, the Road to Housing Act was earlier in the process submitted as an amendment to the NDAA. Uh it it it got uh it got included, uh it passed out late last week. And so now where it sits is the Senate has passed its version of the NDAA, the House has passed its version of the NDAA, and now the two chambers um are either going to do a formal conference where they appoint they appoint conferees from both chambers. This is usually like members of leadership, uh the committee chairs, uh, committee ranking members over um, you know, for committees that have jurisdiction over various provisions of the bill. And then these two groups of conferees then technically meet in conference. And hash out their differences. In reality, they may meet only once. They may meet twice. But in practicality, all of their respective senior staff who are responsible for writing this bill are meeting frequently, right? They're making trades, they're you know refining the language, etc. The challenge for the Road to Housing Act is it has clearly robust Senate support, right? In addition to passing out of the committee unanimously, uh it passed several thresholds before it was ultimately included in uh in the Senate version. It passed what are known as hotlines, meaning like the Senate leadership Republicans and the Senate leadership Democrats will run a quote unquote hotline for their respective caucuses before that amendment or bill is going to come to the floor for a vote. And it's kind of think of it as like a pre-vote, like, hey, we're gonna put this on the floor. If anybody has objections, let us know now so we can speed things up once we get there. Uh, and if everyone signs off, then that means that uh it passed that initial litmus test and then it's included. The challenge is that the House, not only do they not have the Road to Housing Act, they don't have anything comparable to a counterpart. So they're gonna go into this conference setting, and you're gonna have this robust Senate support for road to housing, and you're going to have at best um tepid support or at least indifference from the House side. So it will be the job of Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Warren to, you know, fight for this in the conference committee to convince their house counterparts that they should come along on this and that they'll, you know, they'll throw their support behind other House initiatives or the House members, the you know, French Hill, Maxine Waters, they may come to the table with uh with some other legislative priorities that they want to trade on, right? Because when you get into this conference committee, you have what's known as the four corners, the big four corners, and the small four corners. Big four corners are House and Senate leadership. So that's the speaker, the Senate majority leader, and their respective um minority counterparts. And then you have the little four corners, which are the committee chairs and the committee ranking members of that committee of jurisdiction over the bill. So the little four corners, when they meet, they may say the Senate folks may say, we want the Road to Housing Act included. Please, you know, sign off on this. French Hill and Elizabeth Moore, or French Hill and Maxine Waters may say, uh, that's fine, but uh we want this French Hill bill and we want this Maxine Waters bill. And traditionally, all four sides need to sign off on something for inclusion if it is outside the traditional scope of the NDAA, which the Road to Housing Act obviously is. It is not a defense-related provision. So um it has a road to go for the road to housing, but it is in a much better place than it was last week because it has legislative history now. It has history of you know being supported and voted both in the committee and on the Senate floor, and going into you know the next several weeks, it it'll be positioned as as good as it can be going into this conversation, which they hopefully uh hope to wrap up by Thanksgiving.
unknown:Okay.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah, before we wrap up, I I just have one uh maybe it's a ridiculous question, but I'll call it a ridiculous question. Yeah, well, I mean, I I know that this still has uh a ways to go, and I I know that it still has very many hurdles to jump through. But this seems to be a positive thing that you're not really hearing about in the news. Is this just being overshadowed by everything else that's happening?
SPEAKER_02:Oh, 100%. Uh I mean all of the all of the energy and political capital in DC is is being sucked into this uh federal shutdown vortex, right? Um uh in your face politics and combative politics makes for better cable news coverage, right? Um D DC outlets aren't uh you know particularly known for covering the wonkier side of of legislation until there becomes something of a contention point, right? Um I think for something to reach the level of of that coverage, it it ends it, you know, it usually starts uh partisan, right? So you look at things like the you know, the Economic Recovery Act or the you know the various COVID bills, and you saw all that, you know, disagreement about how to make that sausage. Um when you have something uh you know, again, this bill is is less substantive and uh and than those pieces of legislation, but when you have something that everybody agrees on, um, you know, I would argue that's kind of news in and of itself, right? But um it it doesn't drive the it doesn't drive the viewership, right? So there are dozens of other pieces of legislation out there that have made significant progress throughout this year that are you know slowly moving through the schoolhouse rock process, and they're not getting any coverage as well because where they are getting coverage, it's just being blanketed over by the overarching shutdown narrative or the overarching Democrats versus Republicans or Democrats versus the Trump administration narrative. And, you know, the the president has the biggest megaphone in the world. And there's no president that has better use that megaphone uh to news coverage than President Trump. And, you know, he's been on uh he's been on quite a um you know, quite a tear recently with some big news, right? He he just got back from the middle Middle East, um where he was with the uh you know with Middle Eastern and Israeli leaders announcing the peace deal. The previous week he was you know holding Oval Office uh uh announcements with the big drug makers and you know announcing deals on that front. He, you know, when he has an announcement, he gets all the coverage, right? And so Congress is you know not gonna get the coverage on something like this unless there's controversy involved.
SPEAKER_03:It's unfortunate. Unfortunate. Well well, Zach, thank you very much, as always. It is politics, I know, and not only that, it um it it's not it doesn't produce ratings like all the other ones, so I mean I get it. It's unfortunate. I mean it it I don't want to say it's a feel-good story, but it it it like you said, it's it's it's unanimous, it's bipartisan, you know, it it shows that hey, in some way, shape, or form, regardless of how you feel about our the current state of government, it does still work, right? If there's a message that's agreed upon, right? And and housing is can be something they all agree upon. So I don't know. Anyways, I I I'll come off, I'll I'll come off my soapbox. Well, anyway, Zach, we gotta wrap up. Thank you very much for for everything that you do for us and and for for being on today. All right, thank you all. Okay, and to close out, thank you again to Lone Vision for sponsoring today's episode. And to all of you, we know your time is valuable. Thank you for tuning in to the latest episode of Acuma's On Point Podcast. We hope you enjoyed it. Until next time, be well, my friends.
SPEAKER_01:Thanks for listening. We'll see you next time at the Acuma on Point Podcast. If not already, be sure to subscribe and give us a five star rating. For more great episodes and information, be sure to visit us online at Acuma.org. And to get the latest updates, head over to our LinkedIn page.
