Would You Rather Serve on CoBank's or CHS's Board of Directors?

Looking strictly at equity management approaches, which Board would be more interesting to serve on this year?  CoBank's, where in 2011 CoBank will pay as large a cash patronage refund as possible for its 2010 fiscal year, and hence provide the lowest effective 2010 interest rate possible for CoBank's Members?  

Or CHS's board, where during its fiscal 2010 year, CHS will redeem as much old equity as possible to reward decisions made going back to 1995 to patronize CHS, with nothing from 2010 earnings (net, net after the recipient pays patronage refunds or taxes) paid to reward 2010 patronage?  

Consider this question in more detail.  

CHS’s equity management situation is arguably at its worst even after those terrific years of earnings.  CHS has never made more money or redeemed more equity than over the last six years.  But CHS's resulting allocated equity obligation, which more than doubled over the past six years, has never been larger or more imposing than now.   

CoBank’s equity management situation is arguably at its best position, more tamped down and manageable than it has ever been.  CoBank has also enjoyed its best six years, but at the end of that run, its allocated equity had increased only 25% from 2003, and it had reduced its expenditures on equity redemptions to their lowest level in the last decade.  

CoBank is always "paid up" with its Members.  If CoBank has a fabulous year, its cash patronage refund will also be fabulous.  If CoBank has an off year, its cash patronage refund will be off too. 
  The point:  every year’s patronage earnings and equity are tied off.  CoBank does not have to revisit equity redemptions to any large extent – ever. 

In contrast, CHS is arguably never "paid up".  If CHS has a fabulous year, it will redeem as much old equity as it can, but the amount redeemed is seldom sufficient for Members.  If CHS has an off year, it will redeem as much old equity as it can, but the amount redeemed is seldom sufficient for Members.    

Whose membership will be happier at the end of 2010?  Cobanks’s, where this Co-op will pay as much cash as possible and provide the lowest cost effective interest rate paid by its members in 2010?   CHS's, where this Co-op will redeem as much of its oldest equity as possible, while creating no benefit or incentive for 2010 patronage?