Comments on: Credit Unions, Welcome to the TARP Bailout…

By: The Financial Brand » Blog Archive » Credit unions, welcome to the financial crisis

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:06:25 +0000

[...] last Friday, credit unions had remained fairly immune to the fallout from the financial meltdown. But with the implosion of U.S. Central and WesCorp, [...]

By: The NCUA Corporate Stabilization Plan « EverythingCU.com World 2.0 Adventure

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:17:09 +0000

[...] Pilcher’s Financial Brand (Don’t Tarp CUs, Tarp on CUs, CU [...]

By: Jeffry Pilcher

Jeffry Pilcher — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:03:43 +0000

They say CUs need TARP money for parity one day, then the next they talk about how there’s a big need among CUs to renegotiate mortgages and extend relief to members. Which is it?

But then they also say that few CUs are exposed to the subprime mess, and the vast majority are healthy, so don’t worry. They also note that CUs are in positions strong enough to renegotiate mortgages without governmental assistance.

Don’t forget the distinction between corporate and natural-person credit unions.

And they are quick to point out that it’s not a “bailout,” it’s a “rescue plan,” whatever difference that might make.

The case in favor of a credit union TARP participation, thus far, totally lacked cohesion.

By: Credit Union Warrior

Credit Union Warrior — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:43:24 +0000

I’m trying to figure out who should be most irate about this news: the 95% of credit unions who don’t want or need a bailout, or taxpayers. As a representative of both groups, it should be assumed that I’ve never been more frustrated with our supposed leadership. I agree that we need to do a better job of telling our stories, but I also wish our representatives would get our story straight. Is parity the objective, or is highlighting our differentiated strengths? Can’t have it both ways.

By: Andy LaFlamme

Andy LaFlamme — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:20:00 +0000

Too true Jeffry, I went from having at least 2 or 3 shining articles on the benefits of credit unions in my Google Alerts to complete silence other than reports of robberies. Its too bad the big guys ruined a lot of good press for the rest of us.

By: Roger Conant

Roger Conant — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:51:13 +0000

@ Morriss – I stand corrected…Morriss. I guess I was trying to be a little too diplomatic. Actually, I totally agree that this is “prime time” for “storytime” for the CUs. Thanks

By: Jeffry Pilcher

Jeffry Pilcher — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:47:43 +0000

Morris, you’re right. This is a great reminder to get out there and tell your own story. Always a priority, but even more so now.

By: Morriss Partee

Morriss Partee — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:42:08 +0000

@Roger Conant – I agree completely that this is an awful thing, and gives the CU movement a self-inflicted black eye. But I disagree that the “lack of a national brand means CUs can’t clarify their position to the general public.” The CU position on the national stage in no way precludes credit unions from getting their message out to their members. Credit unions employees are talking to their members every single day. This is where the telling of the CU story starts, on the front line. There are opportunities made or missed constantly with thousands upon thousands of people collectively across the movement, one person at a time.

By: Doug Adams

Doug Adams — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:32:43 +0000

Well, in spite of all the voices raised, I guess we should have known this would happen. The “big boys” always win out and always will I suppose. I think the powers that be in the credit union industry will regret this day for many days to come.

By: Roger Conant

Roger Conant — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:42:12 +0000

Jeffry,
I hate that this is happening. But CUs will just have to rise above it. The “autonomy” that CUs enjoy works both for and against them. In this case, it works against them. The lack of a national brand means that CUs can’t clarify their position to the general public. But hopefully, the good news will outweigh the bad.