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.
its america first, not american first.
ReplyDeletecan see why you would confuse them. they both have had and do have serious balance sheet issues.
the utah cu is laden with garbage on their balance sheet and theyre spending this kind of money...they shouldnt be spending $5 let alone $500,000.
Did you have the same concerns when Citi used TARP money to sponsor the NY Mets new stadium?
ReplyDeleteciti didnt use tarp money to sponsor citifield but we should be appalled that they were allowed to survive in part on taxpayer support. citi repaid tarp.
Deleteciti pays taxes.
america first does not pay taxes and has that status by virtue of the charter fo serving those of modest means.
which probably didnt intend to include leveraging the tax advantage to a marketing advantage such as sponsoring a pro basektball dance team.
and if you go to the NBA event does that relationship qualify for credit union membership?
ReplyDeleteGood point.
DeleteApparently anyone can join.
In fact, the short order cook at the Beverly Hills Hotel can join an Illinois credit union because its a SEG!!
There would be nothing wrong with this reach if, like national banks, national credit unions paid taxes also!
America's credit unions- "I want my cake and to eat it too. And, when I'm done, I want your cake!"
Australian and Canadian credit unions stopped whining and paid taxes, got a level field on powers and are thriving!
Would US bankers allow credit unions to have a level playing field on powers? That indication has NEVER been shown. Past performance is no as S&Ls kept limited powers when taxed. Why the S&Ls aren't around now.
DeleteYou need to revisit the history books. And stop guessing.
DeleteI keep asking the question that if it is so advantageous to be a credit union, why don't banks convert. Given the deafening lack of activity, supression of competition continues to be the real motivation of these bank trade associations.
DeleteI'm glad you ask that question.
DeleteNow lets see how much of a truth seeker you are or, are you a CUZ (cu zombie).
Banks don't vie for credit union charter for a number of reasons including the one articulated by Leggett below.
What's more, consider this...
The ability to raise capital to help with growth and merger is worth more than the tax exemption.
This is before we consider that the small biz lending powers are greater, there are no "field of membership" restrictions and other regulatory powers.
Then you must factor the issue of consumer awareness. Even cu industry studies contemplate the "crisis of awareness". People don't know what a credit union is.
Our larger credit unions are larger in some large measure because they're part of an affiliation that was growing..examples...we've been at war since 2002. Look at military and government credit unions.
State Employees in NC. Take a look at which are the fastest growing states and state governments in the country.
Aside from those type of examples, and despite 15 years of community access, credit unions true growth (not Cuna manipulated growth) is less than market growth.
Banks don't seek a credit union charter because it would slow growth and scale is more critical to survival than hating on banks and the tax exemption.
So, let’s see… Based on what you’ve posted, there are many reasons why banks don’t vie for a credit union charter: the ability for a credit union to raise capital is more restrictive, they have fewer small business lending powers, there are field of membership restrictions, they have more regulatory restrictions, credit unions don’t have as much consumer awareness, and credit union growth is less than market growth. According to you, “banks don’t seek a credit union charter because it would slow growth and scale is more critical to survival than hating on banks and the tax exemption.” In other words, banks would rather pay taxes than have to deal with the onerous restrictions and the capital structure of credit unions. Hmm… Are you sure you’re not a CUZ (cu zombie), because everything you’ve pointed out is what credit unions have been saying all along; CU’s are different from banks and their tax exemption is tied to their unique structure as well as the many restrictions they’re encumbered with. Trying to tie a credit union’s tax exemption to the way they market themselves is asinine.
DeleteYou're dreaming or sleep walking like a cuz.
DeleteIf credit unions are so happy with all our restrictions than why do we:
Cheat on field of membership?
Lobby for MBL "relief"?
Lobby for supplemental capital?
Advertise that "anyone" can join, just like banks?
Cuna, always talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Cuna. Boomerangs itself again.
You need to spend less time bashing CUNA and more time reading and comprehending the comments you’re responding to. I never said credit unions are happy with all of their restrictions. On the contrary, I stated that the restrictions are “onerous”. Perhaps you should look that word up. My point is there are structural as well as regulatory differences between bank and credit unions. That is the reason for the tax exemption. It has nothing to do with where a credit union chooses to spend its marketing dollars.
DeleteSo the onerous restrictions justify the tax exemption and therefore credit unions will no longer request/lobby for expanded regulatory treatment on capital, small business lending or fom.
DeleteNow that its settled we can quit wasting money lobbying.
One small problem.
Too many credit unions want all that and many have said theyd give up the tax exemption.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe only conversions to credit unions have involved mutual banks. But most banks are stock organizations.
ReplyDeleteIt is highly unlikely that a switch from a stock to a mutual organization would be successful.
You would have to compensate shareholders for their ownership stake in the bank. This would most likely leave the bank that is converting to a credit union with a capital hole that would need to be filled. It is doubtful that such a plan would gain regulatory approval.
This might explain the deafening lack of activity.