(Please note: These questions are for discussion and conversation only.)

There are two “tiers” of safety to be aware of. Yes, your deposits may be “safe” because they are insured. But no, any particular financial institution may not be “safe.”

In this climate, there are consumers who would prefer to deal with financial institutions who took fewer risks (i.e., “safer”). Isn’t it fair to publicize this information? Could someone like Consumer Reports publish something?

Just like there are some people who would prefer to do their banking at a “green, eco-friendly” bank, there are people who would prefer to do business at a more conservative financial institution. If someone is looking for a bank or credit union that aligns with their conservative philosophy, how can they compare financial institutions if all that data is kept hush-hush?

Simply put: Some people would prefer to do business at a bank/credit union that won’t get seized. These consumers want to “protect their money,” for sure. But maybe they also want to reward good behavior by sending their business to a “responsible” financial institution.

And why can other industries bash the crap out of each other? In other industries, stealing business is considered a mark of success. If Nike crushed Reebok into oblivion, they would be celebrated as champions of industry. As long as Nike used factual information — no matter how unflattering it may be to Reebok — would anyone step in to stop them?

@Jeff – That’s a very interesting suggestion about the cooperative campaign between the NCUA and FDIC. Is it too late? Or couldn’t they get one going now?

As long as the depositors have their accounts structured correctly, their funds are ultimately no less safe in one place or another.

There are plenty of CU-bank differentiators, especially now … but this is not a good, honest or responsible one to put forth in my book.

I would add that NCUA & FDIC missed a HUGE opportunity by not working TOGETHER on a marketing campaign on deposit insurance and it would have set a good example – and perhaps prevented some of these types of individual campaigns from happening.

I do have a problem with the Glendale Area Schools ad, however. It was ill conceived, not because ranking one credit union over another violates an unwritten rule, but because they didn’t keep it simple. Banks are taking the heaviest beating on their balance sheet, banks are receiving an overwhelming majority of bad press, and banks are the FIs that continue to receive federal assistance to the increasing rage of many Americans.

Throwing a couple of credit unions in the mix only serves to complicate what should have been a very simple message: Many banks are in trouble and we are thriving. Now their message seems to be: Many banks are in trouble and the available credit unions are ok but we’re better.

Having said all of that, credit unions should not be encouraged to advertise one way or another by the NCUA. They should be allowed to reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of their advertising on their terms.