Banks weak but Credit Unions Strong?

17 years ago

Looking at a couple bank rating sites, it seems that there are a large number of financially healthy credit unions, but I'm seeing very few strong banks.

Has anyone else checked into this?

My plan was to move my savings to a bank selected based on these ratings, but if the closest 5-star bank is over an hour away! (and there are a LOT of banks in my city)

Healthy credit unions are quite plentiful, though.

I suppose I'll make the transition to a credit union.

Unfortunately, there aren't nearly as many branches, and the savings/moneymarket rates are much lower. Perhaps this is partly why they are so strong?

By "healthy" or "strong" I suppose this means that the bank/credit union is flush with cash and not connected to poorly designed loans.

My current savings are in FDIC insured accounts, but is that all that counts? Is it OK to work with a lowly rated bank because of FDIC?

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (12)

duluthinbloomz4
17 years ago
The biggest lesson here is that rankings/ratings canÂt be viewed as an absolute indicator of bank health. Individual performance levels are determined from publicly available regulatory filings and are compared to "asset-size peer norms, industry standards and key absolute benchmarks".

Most banks seem to fall within the 3-4 star rating and most of those have not been involved in overreaching with risky loans. There are more factors involved with the ratings, but (1)Capital adequacy, (2)Asset quality, (3)Profitability, and (4)Liquidity are the ones best understood.

Having your funds FDIC insured is primary - convenient locations and friendly tellers are secondary.
kframe19
17 years ago
Credit unions are member owned and not-for-profit.

There (or there used to be) pretty significant restrictions on their abilities to do the kind of speculative investment lending that many banks have been engaged in over the past few years.

I belong to Navy Federal Credit Union, the largest in the world. Exceptional service, and untouched by the mortgage fiasco.
Related Discussions
Dangerous Unintended Consequences
Q
Comments (41)
Hi Bethesdamanman, My apologies then, Dave. I thought that I had recalled you posting on the other board that mortgage rates would stay low for years and years, and that we would never return to the high rates of years past. My error. Eeeesschhh .... well.... actually... kinda sorta, YES.... your apologies in this case are NOT warranted. Herein lies a case of "text failing where a verbal conversation *may* have worked better." I've never said rates would stay low "well... forever".... I HAVE said rates (30 FRM rates to be precise) will unlikely climb over 7% in our lifetimes. I *STILL* stand by that.... albeit, I am now offering that we are entering a territory of government-induced inflation at levels I (perhaps naively) thought the United States political system was above. If we continue down the path of dollar-dilution that we've begun accelerating along, there are only two end-game results; A) we reverse course back out of it before we self-destruct in revolution, B) we self-destruct (and the devil we do not know is always a potential problem.) *IF* we successfully reverse and dig ourselves out of the hole of trouble our most recent past and our current government administrations are hell-bent on digging us into... there are only two ways of "sopping back & vacuuming up" the diluted unbacked funny-money that has been injected out into the system; A) The Treasury collects more taxes than it provides to the government to spend, and/or, B) The Fed increases interest rates higher than its blended payout on the treasury bonds (and then some... the greater the positive income spread to the Fed, the more painful to the "fixed-income retired crowd" which is our baby-boomer bubble... who will rally with AARP-sponsored pitchforks.) Both A & B will be met with *MASSIVE* resistance from the only crowd that the poloticos *KNOW* will consistently show up to vote, and have almost unlimited spare time to write, call, email, and generally pester the daylights out of the politicians; The Seniors. SO.... I've learned to never rely on "common sense" when it comes to anticipating "government logic" (an oxymoron if there ever was one.) Obama has enlisted the original architect of option B... Paul Volcker... as a "senior economic advisor." ("Senior" may (MAY) work somewhat to our advantage here... as Gramps Volcker *MIGHT* have some age-gained sensitivity to his classmate comrade's plight.) Volcker is the one who decided to fight inflation in the 1970's by driving short-term interest rates up to the 20%'s... The late '70's and early '80's result was that Volcker recaptured (in a VERY painful way) the excess liquidity (flooding of funny money) our country created by going off the gold standard and adopting a "weak dollar" policy through the 1960's. WHAT WILL WA DC DO??????????????? I dunno.... (I know what I pray/chant/meditate they will do...) *IF* the government (both the loonie left & jackthug right) get OUT of the way of the naturally balancing markets... then my expectations and predictions stand, with virtually my 100% confidence. My fears are that the United States idea of a market-based capitalist self-righting system has been a grand and wonderful social experiment... but that the human frailties (compounded in mob psychology) are sabotaging the underlying DNA strands that made it possible to stand. My COMFORTING REALIZATION... is that despite my egoistic pride for being part of a "successful system".... even if that system turns out to be a decaying failure, INDIDIVIDUALLY I and my family, and those I guide, can still retain their own personal success and quality of life. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner
...See More
Pro's and Con's for Online Banking!
Q
Comments (39)
greg_h: That's correct. They look like a credit card, with the Mastercard or Visa logo on the lower right corner. When using at an ATM, you MUST use a PIN#. When using at a retailer, generally you can choose between a signature transaction or a PIN# transaction. In the US, there was a huge dispute over this. Fees to the retailer are much higher for signature transactions, which are processed through the Mastercard/Visa network, than for PIN# transactions, which are processed by smaller, regional systems. At Walmart, for example, the payment pad automatically prompted you for the PIN# if you swiped a debit card. It did not give you the option to do a signature transaction. In the examples I have seen cited, service fees to the retailer on a $100 transaction are about $3 for a signature transaction and 35 cents for a PIN# transaction. Personally, I have ceased using my debit card, except at ATM's. If the number is boosted, your account could be cleaned out before you realize it. Although you would likely receive reimbursement under fraud protection, you are still without the money until then. With a credit card, fraud still creates a hassle, but at least your bank account is not cleaned out.
...See More
Are Banks healthy (and safe) now?
Q
Comments (22)
(BTW, I apologize for going so far OT) I enjoy CNBC - especially the Closing Bell and Fast Money shows - but you need to realize the people they bring on are almost all high-level execs, industry analysts or professional money mgrs. The latter trade in and out of ALL sectors of the market on a daily basis. It's not so much you take their advice with a grain of salt; the fact is that you must remember these people have a much different view of the market than the average person. Their viewpoint is concentrated on the 1 week to 6 month future, max. Like the markets they follow, their main focus is the next quarters earnings report. CNBC does interesting CEO and analyst interviews, and some of their documentaries are extremely good. I could wish they would drop Erin Burnett, whom I think is one of the dumbest and least qualified staffers in existence Sharon Epperson is far more intelligent and knowledgable; plus it would be great to see an AfrAm woman anchor a business show. Their 'bullishness' is focused on trading in and out of sectors; e.g., sector rotation. If you watched on a regular basis you would get a better sense of how different portfolio mgrs are viewing the markets. Some are gold bulls (and even those, such as Dennis Gartner and Joe Terranova, trade in and out of commodities regularly). Most agree that emerging and frontier markets will outpace the US and Europe economies, and that normalization of money flows due to high global liquidity is an accepted fact hence the bullishness for specific sectors and/or stocks. Again, this is all short timeframe stuff. Theyre also the only network that gives time (albeit in quick highlights) to explain the global currency and commodities exchanges on a daily basis. I personally loathe Jim Cramer and consider him an obnoxious TV personality, although he seems to appeal to many. Id watch Larry Kudlow before Id suffer through Cramer Kudlows a dyed-in-the-wool conservative but very intelligent, very knowledgable. Kudlow oversees some extremely spirited debates on his show with a little more political flavor added than the other CNBC shows allow. As for pushing stocks, the reason is as several guests commented throughout today's shows, huge inflows of money are going into bond funds. But when inflation picks up, which we're already beginning to see in emerging markets and some commodities, bond funds are exactly what you should avoid, at that point in time. Not now, but looking forward. The biggest difference between investing pros and amateurs is that pros are always thinking ahead, planning their exit strategies when circumstances change - because they know that circumstances ALWAYS change. Amateurs don't pay attention until the local 10p news starts screaming sensationalist 30-second spots. For instance, right now I do happen to be one of those people heavily in bond funds. But I've been holding this short-term bond position for several months now. Why? Because I decided not to be greedy and took my 46% profit for the year, back in early October. The market's gone a bit higher but not by much, and the bond fund's in double digits for ROI so I've nothing to complain about. I will go back into equities when the time is right, because it actually makes me nervous to hold nothing but cash and bonds; equities are the only way to survive inflation's inevitable long-term bite. Many good investors are contrarians. Warren Buffett is one of them. In early 2009 the media was running stories criticizing Buffett for 'losing his touch' after a bad 2008. Recently, the WSJournal wrote that 2009 may go down as one of the most brilliant investing years in Buffett's long career.
...See More
Article: Mortgages: Smaller Banks Smell Blood
Q
Comments (27)
chisue wrote: "Did you mean to look at the CD yields by deducting the percentage of our tax bracket, or something else?" I'm not a financial planner (and wouldn't want to steer you in the wrong direction) so I would suggest asking your broker or CPA this question. Martin Weiss (Weiss ratings) talked about treasuries in April 06'. Here is what he had to say. "I can put my keep-safe money in 3-month Treasury bills or in a Treasury-only money market fund. The advantages are many: Advantage #1. Safety. As long as I wait the 13 weeks until my T-bills mature, the Treasury Department guarantees zero risk of loss. And even in the very rare event that I sell them on the secondary market at a loss, the loss would be so tiny I'd need a microscope to see it. Is the U.S. Treasury really a good credit risk? Some people are so concerned about the government's bulging debts and run-away deficits they're beginning to wonder, and I don't blame them. But it's still the highest rated borrower on the planet. So until someone offers me a better alternative, that's where my keep-safe money is staying. Advantage #2. Rising yield. A couple of years ago, the yield on short-term Treasury bills was hovering so close to the zero line it felt like I was paying the government for the privilege of loaning it my money. Plus, at that time, there was a big gap between the ultra-low yield on 3-month T-bills and the still-decent yield on 30-year Treasury bonds. But now T-bills yields have mostly caught up, and the gap has narrowed tremendously. Every time the Fed hikes interest rates by a quarter point, the yield on my T-bills promptly rises by about a quarter point. And every time Wall Street trumpets no more rate hikes coming, the Fed sends not-so-subtle hints that it's going to raise them some more. That's what happened after the last Fed meeting. And from everything I can see, that's what's going to continue happening after the next Fed meetings for as far as the eye can see. Good. My T-bill yield, although still not high enough to give me any thrills, just keeps moving up and up. Advantage #3. Liquidity. With a Treasury-only money fund, I can get my money out so quickly it's like having the cold cash in my night table when I wake up every morning. I can write checks on the fund to immediately pay my bills. Or I can call the fund and have them wire the money to my local bank within 24 hours. Advantage #4. One Account. Some people have bank accounts coming out of their ears. They've got checking accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts and various CDs under the $100,000 FDIC limit. I don't. Except for a local checking account I use for small monthly bills, I have just one single, multi-purpose Treasury-only money market account that does it all. It's not FDIC insured. But that doesn't bother me because the U.S. Treasury Department guarantees all the securities that the fund buys on my behalf. Advantage #5. Exempt from local income taxes. On the surface, the yields on CDs and Treasuries are similar. But there's a significant difference: The Treasuries and Treasury-only money funds are exempt from local and state income taxes. Bank CDs and money funds invested in CDs are not. This isn't an issue for us now because we live in Florida, and Florida has no state income taxes. But it certainly would have made a difference when we lived in New York. Ditto for states like California or Massachussets. Advantage #6. Inflation protection. People ask: Suppose inflation surges or the dollar falls in value? What good are your dollar-denominated Treasury bills going to do you then? Answer: I get most of my protection from the rising yield: The higher inflation goes, the better my yield is going to get. Will the higher yield always be enough to cover the loss in the dollar's purchasing power? Probably not. But in any case, I can get the rest of my protection elsewhere." This story is archived at www.moneyandmarkets.com/press.asp?cat_id=25 "The Big Picture" by Martin Weiss-April 17, 2006 He offers a free newsletter as well as other services. A link that might be useful: SafeMoney.com
...See More
joyfulguy
17 years ago
Which game would you rather play:

-patronize a bank, owned by a bunch of rich shareholders, who are interested in building shareholder values?

-involve yourself in a financial agency that's owned by the people who do business there?

ole joyful
turnage (8a TX)
17 years ago
I've been doing business with Navy Federal since 1978. Same old clunky credit union that won't even change its name to keep things interesting.

My mother, on the other hand, has her cash in a Capital One branch.

Guess which one I'm nervous about?
kframe19
17 years ago
I just closed my mortgage refinance with Navy Federal yesterday. I'll stick with same old clunky for the kind of service and rates that I get. :-)
kec01
17 years ago
Credit Unions fail, too.
duluthinbloomz4
17 years ago
I don't think there's any current reliable published information regarding the health of credit unions. But, it stands to reason that credit unions may be following banks and mortgage companies because credit unions are allowed to finance mortgages. Generally being smaller than banks, any mortgage default can compromise a CU's bottom line. Credit unions, being run by non-banking professionals, could have taken on risky loans.

Two federally insured Credit Unions failed in Connecticut in the last couple of months - New London Security Federal
and Meriden F.A. Federal.

kec01 is right - nothing is immune.
triciae
17 years ago
Credit unions are regulated by the NCUA. You can find all the information you need from the NCUA's website. It's very user friendly.

Federally chartered credit unions provide deposit insurance through the NCUA. The insurance fund is in better shape than the FDIC.

/tricia

Here is a link that might be useful: NCUA
duluthinbloomz4
17 years ago
There isn't any question about depositors being protected in federally chartered CU's. Full faith and credit of the US government notwithstanding. The fact remains that credit unions can and do fail.
triciae
17 years ago
Absolutely, they fail. I was just noting that there is publically available information regarding the soundness & safety of credit unions.

Some credit unions were overly aggressive with both small builder spec & owner/builder residential construction loans over the past few years & are now struggling with workout of those loans.

The larger ones keep some level of portfolio loans (usually a few jumbos for income) but most of their purchase money mortgages go into the secondary market.

For the most part, HELCOs are kept in portfolio.

/tricia
kframe19
17 years ago
Yes, credit unions can fail. Any depository institution can fail.

I think it's safe to say, though, that credit unions fail at a rate far lower than banks.

If you are worried about your credit union's health, you can contact the NCUA.

"But, it stands to reason that credit unions may be following banks and mortgage companies because credit unions are allowed to finance mortgages."

Actually, no not really. Yes, credit unions can finance mortgages and other kinds of loans (but they don't necessarily have to).

But credit unions are generally exempt from the strictures of the Community Reinvestment Act because they loan only to members.

Credit unions were not required to increase their lending portfolios to marginal borrowers as banks were under the 1998 (?) revisions to the CRA. As such, the number of at risk loans in a credit union's portfolio is very like a lot smaller.

Ah, the link below explains why credit unions are not bound by the Community Reinvestment Act.

Here is a link that might be useful: Credit Unions and the CRA
behaviorkelton
Original Author
17 years ago
What I'm seeing in the bank-ratings are a heck of a lot of credit unions with good marks, and only two or three banks.... and the closest of those banks is an hour away.

BK

Banks weak but Credit Unions Strong?

Comments (12)

duluthinbloomz4

kframe19

Related Discussions

joyfulguy

turnage (8a TX)

kframe19

kec01

duluthinbloomz4

triciae

duluthinbloomz4

triciae

kframe19

behaviorkelton
Original Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

Banks weak but Credit Unions Strong?

Comments (12)

Related Discussions

behaviorkeltonOriginal Author

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

behaviorkelton
Original Author