• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hundreds of Thousands of Consumers, Billions of $$ Move to Credit Unions

conservativeguy said:
Let's not resort to scare tactics. The liberals think a CU's not for profit status means the CU doesn't have to make any money so the services will be free.
Click to expand...

Lie much? Where did anyone say that? Where did anyone argue that? Where did you get that other than from your butt?
 
Watch very shortly and mark these words...the teaparty starts efforts to go after credit unions to protect their banks right after the election.
 
lpast said:
Watch very shortly and mark these words...the teaparty starts efforts to go after credit unions to protect their banks right after the election.
Click to expand...

LOL...why would the Tea Party protect banks from credit unions? I suppose next you are going to tell us that OWS is going to protect the FDA?
 
obvious Child said:
Not really:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ions-move-credit-unions-3.html#post1059931732
Click to expand...

So, you actually believe you've managed to find some magical industry that takes in billions of extra dollars in money and hundreds of thousands of extra customers not having to hire additional people. You're free to that beliefe, but I find it rather silly.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make is that CU's will start charging fees or eliminating other services they currently offer - just like banks. The CU's themselves have told us.
 
conservativeguy said:
Let's not resort to scare tactics. The liberals think a CU's not for profit status means the CU doesn't have to make any money so the services will be free.
Click to expand...

no of course they have to make money but the majority of the profit is invested back into the credit union or the local economy. For example my cu is Service Credit union in new hampshire they are one of the fastest growing Cu's in the country and all the profit has gone into creating more branches and starting jan 2nd 2012 free atm withdraws worldwide!
 
buck said:
So, you actually believe you've managed to find some magical industry that takes in billions of extra dollars in money and hundreds of thousands of extra customers not having to hire additional people. You're free to that beliefe, but I find it rather silly.
Click to expand...

Like adpst, you clearly do not understand the business. No single credit union is going to get overwhelmed by billions in deposits. Right now some are reporting excellent months...where new accounts went from 10 a month to 55. That's hardly cause to hire more people. Especially when bill pay is online, statements are automatic, many people get their money from ATMs and bank investments are simply going to expand the amount invested. IF this was 1950 where things were done manually, yes costs would significently rise. But with so much of banking done these days in an automated form, there really isn't a reason to expect costs to rise or the need to rapidly expand workforces. Some credit unions may hire more, but the cost to service a few thousand more automated accounts is largely nil. Navy Federal is the largest credit union. And it's assets are less than the write downs the big banks took during the worst of the financial collapse. Spread billions of dollars and a dozens of millions of new accounts over the huge number of credit unions and it's hardly a concern to hire more people. The firms that should be worrying about this are the big banks as they are losing deposits and will have to change their capitalization allocations up to be in compliance.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make is that CU's will start charging fees or eliminating other services they currently offer - just like banks. The CU's themselves have told us.
Click to expand...

Then your CU is poorly run. Not all CUs will follow. Most probably won't.
 
obvious Child said:
Like adpst, you clearly do not understand the business. No single credit union is going to get overwhelmed by billions in deposits. Right now some are reporting excellent months...where new accounts went from 10 a month to 55. That's hardly cause to hire more people. Especially when bill pay is online, statements are automatic, many people get their money from ATMs and bank investments are simply going to expand the amount invested. IF this was 1950 where things were done manually, yes costs would significently rise. But with so much of banking done these days in an automated form, there really isn't a reason to expect costs to rise or the need to rapidly expand workforces. Some credit unions may hire more, but the cost to service a few thousand more automated accounts is largely nil. Navy Federal is the largest credit union. And it's assets are less than the write downs the big banks took during the worst of the financial collapse. Spread billions of dollars and a dozens of millions of new accounts over the huge number of credit unions and it's hardly a concern to hire more people. The firms that should be worrying about this are the big banks as they are losing deposits and will have to change their capitalization allocations up to be in compliance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't buy it. The internal auditers are going to have more to audit. The investment team will have more money to invest. The loan department will have more loan requests to review. Individual CUs may not hire or just hire 1 new employee, but as an industry, CU's will be hiring. With the influx of money, I would also expect some CU's to be more likely to open new branches, which will require staffing.

Then your CU is poorly run. Not all CUs will follow. Most probably won't.
Click to expand...

Can't say most, but many will. By the time it's all done, I would expect that most will have increased fees or reduced services.

I lost the link, but you can just copy the following into yahoo.

According to CUNA’s 2010-2011 Fee Survey, 91% of credit unions offering debit cards anticipate making some sort of change to their rates, fees, and/or services as a result of the negative impact of the regulation. The most common changes credit unions anticipate making will be to introduce or increase debit card fees and to increase nonsufficient funds (NSF)/overdraft protection fees. About 40% of credit unions cite these potential changes ... Beyond this, 25% to 30% of credit unions say they might eliminate free checking accounts and/or lower deposit rates as a result of the regulation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
Watch very shortly and mark these words...the teaparty starts efforts to go after credit unions to protect their banks right after the election.
Click to expand...

That would be extremely unfortunate and a betrayal of their supposed concern for the average person. However, it would be very consistent with what we have seen from them so far. Here in Michigan, there is a huge fight over the issue of building a new international bridge crossing from Detroit to Windsor. The main current bridge is privately owned and neither the USA nor Canada likes it that way and wants governmental control over their border crossing.

In the Spring, Dick Morris came to the state on the payroll of the current bridge owner and they targeted the tea party crowd with money and propaganda and have succeeded in capturing their support on the issue. They were simply bought off lock, stock and barrel.

http://buildthedricnow.com/2011/06/08/guess-whos-supporting-detroits-bridge-tyrant-now/

So this prediction of them coming out on the side of the big banks would not surprise me if it came to pass.

Some people just seem to like being toadies and sycophants of large corporations. Its sad but true.
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
LOL...why would the Tea Party protect banks from credit unions? I suppose next you are going to tell us that OWS is going to protect the FDA?
Click to expand...

I guess you havent been reading much...the banks have already been insisting the same regulations be placed on credit unions that are placed on them...and the gop will certainly be the ones to pick up that mantra for them.
 
lpast said:
I guess you havent been reading much...the banks have already been insisting the same regulations be placed on credit unions that are placed on them...and the gop will certainly be the ones to pick up that mantra for them.
Click to expand...

I understand why "banks" would insist that the same regulations be placed on credit unions that are placed on them, and I understand why that might affect the gop. But, why would the Tea Party pick that up? That makes no sense to me.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
I understand why "banks" would insist that the same regulations be placed on credit unions that are placed on them, and I understand why that might affect the gop. But, why would the Tea Party pick that up? That makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Because groups like ALEC and the Americans for Prosperity people which fund them want it as a part of their corporatist right wing agenda.
 
apdst said:
If all the bank customers tranfer to credit unions, it highly possible.

The biggest question, is how is the government going to replace the revenue that will be lost from banks losing income.
Click to expand...

Damn, I thought you believed in Capitalism, but your post here shows you believe in Socialism, at least for some. Here's the deal:

1) A bank, according to Capitalism, is just like any other business. It must compete with other financial institutions for the money that consumers deposit.

2) If a bank cannot stay competitive, then it deserves to go under.

3) And here you are, asking how the GOVERNMENT is going to replace the revenue that the banks lost? The Government should not be in the banking business in the first place.

The irony here is that you call Obama a Socialist in one post, and then, in the next post, you support Socialism. So, let me see if I have this straight - If you call Obama a Socialist, and you also support Socialism, this can only mean that you are a closeted Obama supporter. It's OK, you can come out of the closet now. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Damn, I thought you believed in Capitalism, but your post here shows you believe in Socialism, at least for some. Here's the deal:

1) A bank, according to Capitalism, is just like any other business. It must compete with other financial institutions for the money that consumers deposit.

2) If a bank cannot stay competitive, then it deserves to go under.

3) And here you are, asking how the GOVERNMENT is going to replace the revenue that the banks lost? The Government should not be in the banking business in the first place.

The irony here is that you call Obama a Socialist in one post, and then, in the next post, you support Socialism. So, let me see if I have this straight - If you call Obama a Socialist, and you also support Socialism, this can only mean that you are a closeted Obama supporter. It's OK, you can come out of the closet now. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood what he was saying, but don't let that ruin your "point".

His question was, how will the government replace the tax revenue lost due to the banks loss of revenue. He possibly could have worded it a little better, but it still seemed pretty darn obvious.
 
Last edited:
I've considered doing this when my wife and I move next month. I've done a little bit of looking and none of the credit unions or regional banks nearby offer a clear financial advantage for switching, so if I did it, it would be strictly for the intangible benefits. I'm relatively satisfied with the bank I have now though, so I'm debating if it's worth the trouble.

Decisions decisions.
 
buck said:
Yeah, I don't buy it. The internal auditers are going to have more to audit. The investment team will have more money to invest. The loan department will have more loan requests to review. Individual CUs may not hire or just hire 1 new employee, but as an industry, CU's will be hiring. With the influx of money, I would also expect some CU's to be more likely to open new branches, which will require staffing.
Click to expand...

An additional 1,000 customers will not change an audit. And investing another 10 million won't increase investment staffing requirements. Loan departments might increase but considering how lending is so low right now, that likely won't change for the foreseeable future. There's no real reason why CUs will have to increase staffing as the increasing in new accounts will be geographically diverse. Apdst has this crackpot idea that CUs will become just like banks and have the same kind of size problems. He does not understand how CUs are different. As for new branches, that doesn't make sense considering how CUs have branches in areas they already serve. You're not going to go to a CU that's far away from you.

Can't say most, but many will. By the time it's all done, I would expect that most will have increased fees or reduced services.

I lost the link, but you can just copy the following into yahoo.
Click to expand...

But that as a function of what apdst was arguing is a different animal.
 
obvious Child said:
An additional 1,000 customers will not change an audit. And investing another 10 million won't increase investment staffing requirements. Loan departments might increase but considering how lending is so low right now, that likely won't change for the foreseeable future. There's no real reason why CUs will have to increase staffing as the increasing in new accounts will be geographically diverse. Apdst has this crackpot idea that CUs will become just like banks and have the same kind of size problems. He does not understand how CUs are different. As for new branches, that doesn't make sense considering how CUs have branches in areas they already serve. You're not going to go to a CU that's far away from you.
Click to expand...

Many CU's have multiple branches. So, I don't know why you wouldn't think that with the additional money (billions of dollars) flowing in some CU's might open additional branches. I still don't buy your argument just as you don't buy mine, but we won't know for certain until the dust has settled. I would expect stories to come out over hte next few months.

But that as a function of what apdst was arguing is a different animal.
Click to expand...

He indicated that CU's would be charging fees. Even blamed it on the government, if I recall correctly. The CU's themselves have indicated that more than 90% of CU's that offer debit cards will be charging fees or eliminating free checking (just another fee) in the same way banks have. There is no difference. When revenue is taken away from someone or some business, they will do their best to make up for it. It's the same whether you are a non-profit CU, a for profit bank or just a regular joe living pay check to pay check.
 
I've been using Credit Unions for a very long time. I also belong to USAA... so you can imagine how this news surprises me not.
 
buck said:
Many CU's have multiple branches. So, I don't know why you wouldn't think that with the additional money (billions of dollars) flowing in some CU's might open additional branches. I still don't buy your argument just as you don't buy mine, but we won't know for certain until the dust has settled. I would expect stories to come out over hte next few months.
Click to expand...

Considering that people generally open accounts with CUs that are close to them, it doesn't make sense to open additional branches when the branches you currently have are already in the right geographical locations. No one goes 50 miles to open a CU branch when there's a closer different CU. That's crazy. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that any individual CU will actually see a billion dollars in new deposits. Remember that the biggest CU, Navy Federal is a bit over 46 billion in assets. That's small compared to the big banks. While the rush of military personnel into backing the OWS movement may lead to increases in military related CUs, it's unlikely that a civilian CU would see the same impact. We'll have to see, but the geographical nature of CUs and their exclusive membership suggest that no single CU will actually see the kind of new deposits that require new branches.

He indicated that CU's would be charging fees. Even blamed it on the government, if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...

Actually I recall him blaming it on the functioning of them getting new deposits and having new associated costs from rising membership that was jumping ship from the big banks. I recall he specifically tied it to the large amount of deposits being withdrawn from the big banks.
 
Considering that people generally open accounts with CUs that are close to them, it doesn't make sense to open additional branches when the branches you currently have are already in the right geographical locations.
Click to expand...

How about to get depositers, loans, etc from different geographical locations that still meet membership requirements? If move your money really proves to be a success of any type, current CU's will chase the money to different locations.

obvious Child said:
Actually I recall him blaming it on the functioning of them getting new deposits and having new associated costs from rising membership that was jumping ship from the big banks. I recall he specifically tied it to the large amount of deposits being withdrawn from the big banks.
Click to expand...

Actually, in looking through the thread, he blamed both the number of deposits to CUs and he also blamed the government. However, I am stating that CU's and banks will both be charging fees due to the government. They have stated as such. Almost all CU's will start charging fees, probably even yours and any CU that you might want to move to.
 
buck said:
How about to get depositers, loans, etc from different geographical locations that still meet membership requirements? If move your money really proves to be a success of any type, current CU's will chase the money to different locations.
Click to expand...

That makes essentially no sense. A CU couldn't offer branches in enough places to make it worth while to be that open. Remember the largest one basically has tiny outlets on naval bases and it's still tiny. Bank Movement day is going to spread millions of new accounts across tens of thousands of CUs. No CU is going to chase a few accounts across the country per region. That's stupid. They're just going to pick up deposits in their region. Instead of going one block over to a BoA outlet, they'll go one block that way to a local CU. The CU doesn't have to do anything except accept their money and not be BoA.

Actually, in looking through the thread, he blamed both the number of deposits to CUs and he also blamed the government. However, I am stating that CU's and banks will both be charging fees due to the government. They have stated as such. Almost all CU's will start charging fees, probably even yours and any CU that you might want to move to.
Click to expand...

Depends. My CU hasn't and isn't (at least publicly) stating they'll charge fees. Furthermore, the Frank-Dodd doesn't even apply to them. And that's likely to be the case for many CUs. A CU (or any bank) I believe has to have $10 billion in assets. That rules out the vast majority of CUs not to mention community banks. So their costs aren't going to rise because of government. If anything, a CU that starts to charge a new fee is either poorly run, or has a greedy board.

What exactly is the government doing that's costing CUs money? Frank-Dodd is largely irrelevant to them. So what other piece of legislation are you talking about?
 
obvious Child said:
That makes essentially no sense. A CU couldn't offer branches in enough places to make it worth while to be that open. Remember the largest one basically has tiny outlets on naval bases and it's still tiny. Bank Movement day is going to spread millions of new accounts across tens of thousands of CUs. No CU is going to chase a few accounts across the country per region. That's stupid. They're just going to pick up deposits in their region. Instead of going one block over to a BoA outlet, they'll go one block that way to a local CU. The CU doesn't have to do anything except accept their money and not be BoA.
Click to expand...

Credit Unions open new branches all the time. Here is a recent example.
Tinker Federal Credit Union to open downtown Tulsa branch | Tulsa World
Icon Credit Union to open new branch in Meridian | Business | Idaho Statesman


Depends. My CU hasn't and isn't (at least publicly) stating they'll charge fees. Furthermore, the Frank-Dodd doesn't even apply to them. And that's likely to be the case for many CUs. A CU (or any bank) I believe has to have $10 billion in assets. That rules out the vast majority of CUs not to mention community banks. So their costs aren't going to rise because of government. If anything, a CU that starts to charge a new fee is either poorly run, or has a greedy board. What exactly is the government doing that's costing CUs money? Frank-Dodd is largely irrelevant to them. So what other piece of legislation are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Unintended conseuquences. The CU's realize how the Durbin Ammendment will affect them, which is why 92% of CU's that offer debit cards say they will start charging fees.
 
Last edited:
I have noticed sponsorship of college and pro sports teams by some credit unions.....that bothers me. Are the CU's using member funds for this?
As for charging fees, they already get paid when I use my debit card aand if that isn't enough, they can increase what they charge the stores when I use the card. If they charge ME a fee, I will go back to cash or check....
 
I'm in favor of this movement to CUs because I'm against really big businesses of all stripes. CUs are local. That's local business. That's where I live. This movement needs to carry over until people realize that banks are not the only businesses that have lost their local significance and the local incentiveness that goes with that. We need to re-structure if we are going to grow out of our economic problems. The most important part is thought re-structure. Stop reinforcing stereotypical thought patterns that are patently false. Blame the Mass Media for that. If it makes them money, they'll propagate it. That's just busuness.
 
UtahBill said:
I have noticed sponsorship of college and pro sports teams by some credit unions.....that bothers me. Are the CU's using member funds for this?
As for charging fees, they already get paid when I use my debit card aand if that isn't enough, they can increase what they charge the stores when I use the card. If they charge ME a fee, I will go back to cash or check....
Click to expand...

They'll figure out a way to get the lost revenue back. I can't tell you exactly what that will ultimately look like - it's very possible that debit cards at both CU and banks will go the way of the dinosaur as financial instituions push customers to other means that can provide a larger profit, as just one thought.

Anyway, they won't be able to increase what they charge the store in swipe fees and will have to lower to approxaimtely what hte banks are charing. They can try to maintain their current price structure, but competition won't let them. The stores would sign up with networks that have lower swipe fees (as required by the Durbin ammendment), which will force CU's to lower their fees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom