Jeffry Pilcher, Publisher
The Financial Brand

I don’t disagree with you, and in fact I think we’re saying very similar things. My argument is that the data itself doesn’t tell the whole story and it’s not a simple formula of adding a branch = better performance. Additionally, I’m not suggesting that the report tries to make that connection at all.

I’m simply trying to point out that by-and-large, the credit unions that have added branches and had positive performance are most likely led by management teams who understand how to execute on their growth plans. There’s a human element that drives branch network success that doesn’t show up in the data, and I just wanted to point that out.

As with any study that analyzes existing data collected by third parties, one cannot draw a cause-and-effect relationship. All a researcher can do when using third-party data is draw correlations. In all fairness, it’s no more accurate to say “adding branches leads to growth” than it is to say “performance is the result of exceptional leaders and solid strategies.” One can draw inferences, but this study doesn’t “prove” anything.

The only scientifically reliable way to establish cause-effect relationships is to craft a study from scratch, one that sets out to test a specific theory, like “Does adding branches lead to growth?”