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.
I am sure it was an innocent mistake. What I do know for sure is that we, dispite doing nothing extra to attract new business gained 6-7 months worth of extra new accounts and 1.5%-2.0% in balances. If that was repeated accross the country, the banks took a big hit.
ReplyDeleteExpand 436,000 off on new members credit union gained by CUNA. (Let's see the NCUA right them up on that one-have any of you ever had an error of 436,000 and got off with no consequences? I saw the article in the business section of the Chicago Tribune yesterday. EMBARASSING. This hurts the credit union union movement by being looked at less than banks. Errors like this should not occur and checks should have been in place to make sure the numbers first were accurate. As credit unions wipe eggs off our face thanks to CUNA, one once again we are forced to ask if another organization needs to be formed to be represent the interest of credit unions, in the best way especially small credit unions which are the back bone of this movement and represent the vast majority of credit unions? CUNA had had no effective results in getting the MBL lifted or any regulatory relief. It is time to establish another organization to represent credit unions and one that will play hard ball with the politicians that will not support what credit unions need. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Just in case your wondering CUNA's Credit Union legislative council CUNA supported,at least from what I read in the federal election web site,contributed $10,000 to Durban's reelection campaign-another decision that has really paid dividends for credit unions right?
ReplyDeleteDennis A. Fisher,MBA,CCUE,CFSP
President/CEO
First Security Credit Union.
And I am certain it was an innocent mistake that now CUNA CEO Bill Cheney had the misfortune to sit on the Board of Directors of both USCentral & WesCorp FCU. Remember those 2 corporate credit unions? Yes that is correct the NCUA placed both of them into conservatorship. What policies and procedures did these corporate Board of Directors approve to permit these corporate credit unions to fail? Any corporate credit union directors taking responsibility for mismanagement? I didn't think so. Mistakes made at USCentral and WesCorp caused them to be placed into conservatorship. Now CUNA makes mistakes in counting. The mistakes continue. Anyone see a trend here?
ReplyDeleteIt was less than that when you factor in the average number that would have joined anyway during that period, and most who joined were low balance accounts that banks didn't want anyway that are more costly to maintain than they are worth to have.
ReplyDelete