Difficult Times at Our Credit Union • Hacker News Board

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#101

Post by webjprgm » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:31 PM UTC

sukulaku wrote: post #95

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "regulatory hurdles" that prevent credit unions from competing with banks were not created in a vacuum, they were created by the banks. No amount of Kickstarting will solve the problem of our political system's fetish for financial domination. The cause is obvious: as a for-profit institution, a bank has the money to lobby for preferable laws, let alone the laws they write themselves. If people began switching…

> the banks would probably calculate that it would be cheaper and easier to manipulate the regulatory environment to inhibit credit unions than to compete on honest terms Would? No such calculation is necessary because banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere - the opportunity for fleecing the masses with those sneaky & outrageous charges is just too delightful to pass up. If people actually had a cheaper and b…

It starts before the ballot box, winning over voters. And that takes money.

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#102

Post by smcl » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:36 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #90

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What costs more to a small institution? Tax or regulatory compliance?

Banks have to deal with more or less the same regulatory compliance requirements.

Banks are rarely small institutions - even the smaller ones will have dozens of people employed whose sole job is to handle regulatory compliance (UK finance perspective here)

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#103

Post by huac » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:40 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #41

I'm sympathetic to his concerns, and I applaud him for putting his money where his mouth is. Some comments: > an under-documented local Rutgers student...We sought an exception from the NCUA, but they said no. I don't know why he would expect to lend money to an illegal alien, nor why he expects the government to let him deal with someone whose very presence is a violation of the law. I should be surprised that a sta…

New Jersey isn't New England, and I resent the insult to New England.

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#104

Post by bumpercrop » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:40 PM UTC

Before the 1980's mortgage lending was limited to the credit unions and other member owned institutions like S&Ls. This regulation had been put in place after the Great Depression of 1929, in order to limit speculation in housing. This regulation had largely worked, and housing prices were largely flat in that era. Regan deregulated the banks and this led directly to the failures in the S&L's later in the 80's. It also led to the wild boom & bust cycles we have seen in the housing markets.

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#105

Post by itsmillertime4u » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:43 PM UTC

scurvy wrote: post #96

jawns wrote: post #28

My guess is that, given the choice, practically everyone would prefer to bank with a member-owned cooperative, i.e. a credit union, than a for-profit bank owned by outside shareholders. I mean, think about it: sneaky fees and outrageous surcharges are anathema, because it's more important for members to be satisfied with their experience than to wring out every nickel and dime of profit at the expense of customer sat…

Is USAA considered a bank or credit union? Either way, they're easily the best financial institution in the US. They are amongst the most tech savvy because they only have a branch in San Antonio, yet their customers are deployed around the world. For those that don't know, USAA was originally setup only for military personnel and their families. Military families get screwed on credit and insurance because they are…

They have a branch here in the DC area also, but the can't handle any money there, and are there for more of a presence to help with financial wealth planning.

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#106

Post by ethbro » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:50 PM UTC

webjprgm wrote: post #101

sukulaku wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the banks would probably calculate that it would be cheaper and easier to manipulate the regulatory environment to inhibit credit unions than to compete on honest terms Would? No such calculation is necessary because banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere - the opportunity for fleecing the masses with those sneaky & outrageous charges is just too delightful to pass up. If people actually had a cheaper and b…

It starts before the ballot box, winning over voters. And that takes money.

It realistically starts and stops at the Supreme Court. Unless they change their "money is free speech" decision, the US stays with a free market political system.

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#107

Post by huac » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:52 PM UTC

sukulaku wrote: post #95

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "regulatory hurdles" that prevent credit unions from competing with banks were not created in a vacuum, they were created by the banks. No amount of Kickstarting will solve the problem of our political system's fetish for financial domination. The cause is obvious: as a for-profit institution, a bank has the money to lobby for preferable laws, let alone the laws they write themselves. If people began switching…

> the banks would probably calculate that it would be cheaper and easier to manipulate the regulatory environment to inhibit credit unions than to compete on honest terms Would? No such calculation is necessary because banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere - the opportunity for fleecing the masses with those sneaky & outrageous charges is just too delightful to pass up. If people actually had a cheaper and b…

1. Banks are not state-maintained. You can argue that 'too big to fail' means government support for them, but support is not control.

2. Banks charge roughly the same fees for the same reason grocery stores charge roughly the same prices - competition.

3. Coercion is a straw man when considering government activity. Anything you don't like becomes coercive. I don't like that my roommate wakes up before me and disturbs my sleep - coercion! I like having subsidized education but not paying taxes - coercion! I like feeling safe with protected borders and the greatest fighting force ever assembled but not paying taxes or protecting people who don't look like me - coercion!

4. There is never a single solution, no silver bullet to resolve complex societal problems. I sympathize a bit with you here - what is the point of progressive reform when the system will adapt? Nothing structural will change, but will only shift. But at the same time, shouting down calls for representative change serve nobody either.

I also resent your use of 'rape' in that context.

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#108

Post by Kinnard » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:59 PM UTC

SeoxyS wrote: post #97

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how our political system wants us to feel: ineffectual and powerless. Don't bother voting because none of the options are good. The system can't be fixed so you shouldn't even bother. You end up falling into the trap they set for you. I refuse to give up on democracy, just as I refuse to give up on America.

The USA is not a democracy, it's a representative republic. That's the fundamental difference which means that you can't simply go to the ballot box to fix something. You can go to the ballot box to support people who you believe share your values. Sometimes it works, oftentimes it doesn't. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the USA will ever become a real democracy, so we have to make the best of the system we curren…

We could create a new system. Why is that never thought to be an option . . . people do do that.

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#109

Post by BallinBige » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

Elizabeth Warren needs to see this!

Re: Difficult Times at Our Credit Union

#110

Post by Jtsummers » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #87

karlkatzke wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He mentioned that he didn't want to start a predatory subprime loan shop. He wanted to offer non-predatory lower interest loans to higher risk clients, in concert with banking services that are difficult to provide to higher risk immigrant clients like checking and savings accounts and debit cards. But the NCUA wouldn't allow him to set interest rates lower or offer checking/debit accounts.

Sorry but this is playing with words. If you are making loans to high risk clients, this is predatory lending. There's a reason they are high-risk: they are less likely to be able to pay the loans, or have demonstrated prior poor handling of debt. Don't be misled by "low interest" either: the "predatory lenders" in the last housing bubble were not for the most part charging exorbitant interest rates, rather they were…

Lending to high risk clients, on its own, is not predatory lending. If I'm willing to accept the risk, I could loan $5k to someone with a poor credit history and frequent unemployment at a low interest rate. I have to be somewhat altruistic to do this, and most banks and lenders aren't. I have to be willing to write it off. It sounded like this was the market they wanted to be in. Poor people needing money, instead of getting payday loans or high-interest CC debt, could get low interest loans from this credit union. It's the opposite of predatory.

I'm not sure it's viable or sustainable, but it is a noble goal, at least.