The content is provided for educational purposes only, with the understanding that neither the authors, contributors, nor the publishers of this site are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other expert or professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Comments appearing in response to articles appearing on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the ABA. ABA makes no representations regarding the truth or accuracy of commentary or opinions that may be posted in response to the articles that appear on this website.
The inclusion herein of any link to a website, either in the text of an article or in a comment, does not denote any approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by the ABA, and ABA is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed on those linked websites or related commentary. This content is not licensed to third parties sites and is not affiliated with any third party site. Any reference to the author or this content on any third party site on the Internet is not authorized by the ABA.
It is the policy of the American Bankers Association to comply fully with all antitrust laws. Certain discussions should be considered off-limits, including those that contain competitively sensitive data such as price and cost information, or statements that could be construed as reflecting an attempt or desire to control or influence a particular market or markets. Future pricing or other prospective competitive information should never be shared.
Even with that "less than objective" article, credit unions are on a par with banks to powers and capital? Thank you for disproving your basic premise that credit unions are the same as banks but "tax-exempt."
ReplyDeleteHey wait a minute, I thought credit unions were just like banks except they didnt pay taxes or have to comply with CRA! Why the heck would credit union be interested in converting to a bank charter?
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure why Keith would link to an article that would directly undermine the fallacy he espouses on a daily basis.
"It's not fair, the playing field is uneven. Credit unions have so many unfair advantages including that accursed "tax-subsidy"."
Yeah Keith, thats why credit unions are dominating the marketplace and leaving no place for the national mega-banks to compete...
I'm thinking about starting a blog where I whine about how banks have access to secondary capital, no restrictive cap on business lending, and virtually unlimited opportunites to expand across 50 states.
"The playing field is uneven! Banks should have to go back to the days where they couldn't branch outside of their home state! Congress should revisit the issue of interstate banking of the banking lobby wants to retain their for-profit, non-member owned structure."
Doesn't the ABA have more important things to do than worry about than an industry composed of over 7,000 institutions that collectively have an asset size smaller than just 1 of its Mega-Banks?
Zachary, to answer your question, Keith is giant walking, talking contradiction. Let's return to July 15, 2004...
ReplyDeleteNorthwestern Financial Review's "Minnesota Bankers gearing up for Operation Credit Unions,"..."[Leggett] said people in the credit union industry are predicting there will be no credit unions with fewer than $10 million in assets in 2010."
First of all, these "people" probably don't exist anywhere but in Keith's head. But let's say these "credit union people" actually exist (nevermind that he probably polled the tellers on their understanding of financial markets to arrive at that conclusion)...now Keith is saying those same small credit unions are a problem (April 21, 2011 on his own blog).
So which is it? You're upset about all the gobbling up of small credit unions. But small credit unions are problem children.
Keith, this is your mother, take your meds.