Talk:Credit union/Archive 1

current situation/mission/purpose
There are several thousand credit unions - should 2-3 really be linked to directly?
 * Not sure how long ago this was posted (or by whom), but there now is a list of credit unions with its own entry. IMO, this is a better way to reflect the range of credit unions worldwide than attempting to shoehorn individual credit unions in the main page. Friejose


 * Quite agree. A list is going to be far easier to maintain and use.  What would be useful, but probably too complex, is a zoomable map that would allow people to identify their nearest CU by mouseclick


 * Does listing in a piecemeal fasion, with an article which speaks to define what a credit union is, become defacto advertising for the few credit unions that have had their names placed on this page? In some ways, I can understand some one listing their own credit union if they are a consumer, but I can also see a credit union employee or Board member doing it as well. So at one point does a listing that isn't complete, become advertising? Stu 18:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, I don't think it as advertising, but definitely it could be. Well at least for me it isn't, I listed the credit unions I am involved in because I want to list it, not because I want to spread the word for someone to join it. Because chances are, because of membership eligibility requirements, this manner of marketing might only hit less than 1% of our eligible potential members (just throwing in some odd figure). This may be FREE advertising and it may work for credit unions as an industry, but definitely won't work for individual credit unions. -Mang Kiko 05:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * French speakers from the Maritimes or from Québec? The "caisses populaires" (credit unions)were founded in Québec not in the Maritimes and the vast majority of french speaking people came from Québec. Therefore I think we should replace Maritimes by Québec.

I would like to see more information on modern use of the Credit Union in the United States. Although the goals listed in the page are laudable, there seems to be a disturbing trend of credit unions attempting to serve all "banking needs" while retaining their advantageous tax and other status.

More and more, the Credit Union appears to be the contemporary equivalent of the Savings and Loan; yet as (at least supposedly) "account-holder owned" institutions, I can't figure out where the financial incentive is for these organizations and those who operate them - more and more small credit unions are being gobbled up by larger ones (emulating the banking industry), without the incentive of stock options.

Understand, my point is not that credit unions are "bad," simply that their original purpose of promoting savings seems to be dissapearing under the promotion of share drafts, ATMs, loans, and other "banking" services (most with fees equal to, or even greater than, traditional banks). I'd appreciate a more in-depth look by those knowledgable on the issue.


 * Hopefully I won't sound as if being Holier Than Thou. I am not here to debate, I am here to discuss... :)


 * I agree that credit unions have entered to serve ALL "banking needs" as we know it and retained tax-exempt status. However, credit unions are tax-exempt not because of limited financial products, it is because of the structure. Credit unions is mandated to make a profit since it needs to maintain 7% net worth to be considered financially sound. But it does not make profit for select individuals such as share holders and cannot raise capital by issuing stocks. It makes profit for its depositors (fondly called as members) by earning income from loans, investments, and god-forbid, fees. It is operated by a volunteer board of directors elected by the membership among the membership. Regardless of the balance in your account, one member can only have 1 vote and no proxy voting allowed. The main focus of a credit union is to help members make informed choices about their finances, be it investing, taking out a loan, or buying a new or used car, and offer competitive products and services.


 * Actually the main idea of a credit union is about credit. Where we being all construction workers from ABC Construction Company for example can pool all our money together, and those of us who needs to buy a car can borrow from that pool at interest rates that we, as a group, decide for ourselves. This is why credit union loves to characterize themselves as People Helping People.


 * There were 319 mergers approved by the NCUA in 2005 (Source: Credit Union Journal, Jan 24, 2006). Making it almost 1 merger a day (excluding Sunday, no mergers on Sundays). What makes up this large number are those small credit unions that didn't really offered those new products and services considered to be bank-products, and in the end, they are no longer viable to compete with other financial institutions and eventually needs to do voluntary liquidation or entertain a merger. A note on merger: credit union mergers are unlike most bank mergers. Credit unions are not bought by other credit unions and the merging credit union (the one that can't survive on its own) can entertain two or more other credit unions that will try and convince them that "if you merge with me, you get all this" sales pitch. Ultimately, the merging credit union members will have a vote on whether they want the merger to proceed or not. No money is actually gained by any member on these mergers and the merging credit union gains all the products and services provided by the continuing credit union at no extra cost to them. So they are gobbled up, but they have a say if they want to be gobbled up.


 * Definitely, you can never discount the fact that there are credit unions out there that are not taking to heart what they were created for and are starting to act like not credit unions (NOTE: I didn't say BANKS... lol). But offering more products and services doesn't make it a bank, since growth is simply a natural thing to do for any organization to thrive. In reality, despite the bank-like products and services credit unions offer, credit union market share didn't grow as much from 1993 to 2004 (Source: FDIC as cited by the California Credit Union League):


 * Largest 100 Banks: from 43.0% to 64.6%
 * Smaller Banks: from 51.3% to 28.9%
 * Credit Unions: from 5.7% to 6.5%

--:Mang Kiko 06:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

- That sounds really nice, in a utopian sort of world (you certainly don't sound, "holier than thou," but you clearly have little scepticism on the subject, sounding a bit like a CUNA lobbyist). Many years ago, when my local municipal employee CU was eaten by a larger one, it wasn't anything like that pretty scenario you describe. Our little CU was more than solvent, had considerible cash-on-hand (the CU promoted savings, not ATMs or credit cards, which could be why we were so attractive), and was courted relentlessly by the acquiring CU. After being soundly rejected by the membership, they came back again this time being more politically-saavy (co-opting one of the paid officials with presumably a more solid retirement package, who pushed through increased fees and decreased services until the purchasing CU actually looked good; a bit more than a year later, the acquisition was approved by a sparcely-attended meeting). Yes, my old credit union pooled money for loan; the new one brings in mortgage service companies from which they receive payment for each suck...er...client who purchases a mortgage through them. (Hey, if you aren't allowed to offer a service, find someone who is and is willling to kickback, right?) From what I've seen in my CU, the days of people with a comminality pooling money for low-interest loans are long-gone, and there are other insentives for CUs to constantly advertise on radio, television, etc. When CUs start building expansive offices, rivaling the money large banking corporations spend on buildings and grounds, something is wrong. (One of these days, for my blog, I'm going to drive around taking pictures of the opulent new buildings local credit unions have built over the last ten years. Who paid for those expansive office suites? The "members," of course.)

As for, "less than 1 in 7 people who qualify for a credit union know that they qualify," that's easy; while once membership was restricted to employees of a given company or industry, or some other commonality, now anyone in a geographic region might be eligible to join multiple credit unions, so (for example) everyone in my county will be eligible to join my CU after the annual meeting when the charter is changed. My guess is that everyone in the country is probably eligible to join some credit union or another.

It is clear to me from the inside that there is some financial insentive for at least the paid officials (President, CEO, etc.) to grow the unions, but I can't figure out what it is. When the interest being paid is less than many local banks, the loan rates are higher than local banks, the service fees are greater and more numerous than large conglomerate banks, and still they claim to be, "People Helping People" by changing charters to "service" more people, I am certain it ain't out of some altruistic desire to "do good." That's not how the system works in this country. --Charlie Summers (who doesn't "register" on principle) 71.114.136.34 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very passionate with my involvement with the credit union movement, but I agree entirely with what you said. There are credit unions out there that don't act like one and perhaps forgot what they existed for. There are credit unions out there with an executive position responsible in actively seeking potential mergers. So what's in it for the paid officials? Simple, more money for the acquiring and a great retirement package for the acquired CEO.


 * Despite all this, there are still credit unions and credit union professionals out there who volunteers their time to work for another credit union to save it, works hard to prevent a small employee credit union from merging, waiving the early withdrawal penalty on CDs because a member needs the money to pay the hospital bills for a family member, refused to take any pay increase and bonus for the despite credit union performance and instead proposed bonus dividend disbursement, and lots of other things. These are the things real credit union professionals do, you just don't hear about them because these professionals don't brag about it. Since bragging about it defeats the purpose of doing it.


 * The description is utopian, but we are one step closer to that utopian vision. As I always say, a Vision is something you can never achieve but you can surely try to get as close to it as possible.


 * -Mang Kiko 08:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

-

History
It would be great to have some information on the history of credit unions :) - FrancisTyers 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Francis, I am very interested in, and involved in, the credit union industry, and have done a bit of work adding, editing, and rearanging the info on the history of credit unions in this article. I plan to work on a separate article on the history of credit unions at some point. I live in Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to pass enabling legislation for credit unions, and the first state to create an association. However, the first credit union in the U.S. was actually chartered in Manchester, New Hampshire (I have no idea why), and that city is home to America's Credit Union Museum. That's about a two hour drive for me, and I have a call in to the museum's director to take her out to lunch. I look forward to working on this aspect as time permits! --Mmpartee 03:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that's an important gap. I've added a section on credit union history; still working on some aspects of it like the expansion of credit unions in Latin America, Africa and Asia.Brett epic 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

North American statistics
The article reads: "The United States has nearly 85 million credit union members, however less than 1 in 7 people who qualify for a credit union know that they qualify..."

In other words, for every person that knows of his eligibility more than 6 other eligible people do not know of their eligibility. If we assume that all of the 85 million current credit union members in the US know of their eligibility for membership, then for each of the 85 million current members there are more than 6 other people in the US eligible for membership that do not know they are eligible. That means, based on the claims in the statement above, there are more than 595 million people in the US that are eligible for credit union membership. Given the US population is around 300 million this is obviously impossible.


 * Of course it is a result of survey. Like a random survey of 7,000 people resulted to only 1,000 people knowing they qualify for a credit union. So from the result we can somehow say that 1 out of 7 know they qualify. Then again, I don't know what the source of this statistic is. Maybe you can say "however less than 1 in 7 people surveyed who qualify for a credit union know that they qualify..."


 * Since the 1 out of 7 doesn't make sense statistically for the U.S. as is stated above, and was credited to the WOCCU (World Council of Credit Unions), I have decided to be bold and have removed it for now. Perhaps this stat had something to do with a world-wide stat? If this stat can be backed up, clarified or verified by someone, by all means go for it. --Mmpartee 06:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * EXPLANATION: I live in Los Angeles. I am Catholic.  I am a graduate of two different Universities.  I have different hobbies and interests.  My wife is Lithuanian.  I am Irish.  As a result of the (all true) statements I just made, I can think of at least seven CU's I could become a member of if I so intended.  The six uninformed people out of seven aren't necessarily unique people.  In fact, I would argue that they are very likely NOT unique - if someone is unaware of a single CU affiliation they may have, the odds are probably high they aren't aware of ten others they might also have.  Not rocket science.


 * Well, this argument is giving me quite a chuckle. Now that hundreds (if not thousands) of credit unions are chartered to serve large geographic areas, it is impossible to say how many credit unions a person COULD be a member of. If we were to follow this line of reasoning, we'd have to say that virtually no one is aware of ALL the credit unions that he/she could be a member of. It seems to me to be MUCH more useful and straightforward if we say something simple like 43.47% of the economcially active U.S. population belongs to one or more credit unions. --Mmpartee 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Response to EXPLANATION: The sentence as written implies that the uninformed people are unique. If someone quotes website hits, or college graduates, or membership in a church denomination, or households with televisions, we assume they refer to unique hits, graduates, members, or households unless they specify otherwise.  If your explanation is correct, the writer should say that explicitly.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Pay higher interest to members?
The article claims credit unions pay higher interest rates to those who keep their money there. Is this true? I got a pretty pitiful interest rate at the credit unions I used, until I moved the money into a for-profit MMA. MrVoluntarist 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not necessarily true that credit unions pay higher dividend rate on their savings and lower rates on loans as compared to their for-profit counterparts. Especially today where most financial institutions might have given out low rate loans and are now in the bind to increasing rates. At least my credit union pays me more in interest than the other financial institutions out there (be it credit union or not).


 * Okay, then that statement at the beginning needs to go, right? MrVoluntarist 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On average, credit unions pay better rates than banks. But of course, in some markets there are credit unions whose rates are the same as banks if not slightly lower.  Factor in poorly-run and/or bankish credit unions and the rates slip down a bit too.  But traditionally, credit unions' rates (on deposits and credit) are very favorable compared to banks'. Dubc0724 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't buy it. I've never seen a good interest rate from a credit union on my savings or MMA.  I'll want a source before any claim about historical trend or tendency is re-inserted. MrVoluntarist 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, "good" is relative. All rates have sucked for years, because we're coming out of a 40 year low.  But do they "suck less" than banks?  Yep, usually.  I'm not sure what market you're in - it certainly can vary.  But check out clarkhoward.com and bankrate.com for interest rate surveys.  Also look at rate indicators from corporate credit unions tracking natural person CUs' rates.  I'll start looking for some sources as well. Dubc0724 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant "good" relative to those offered by for-profit institutions, genius. MrVoluntarist 17:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So we should remove it without a source, but based on one person's singular anecdotal evidence? I don't buy that either. Plus I think that comparing a MMA to a savings account is disingeuous regardless of the type of institution. However, let's go to a source. See http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/sav/20021209a.asp for general national information. Perhaps a more general tone needs to be used. I can't find a single source that indicates that banks offer consumers a better deal on anything, but the statement should not be an absolute.Jim Miller 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden is on those wishing to add, not wishing to remove.  Again, is each and every person who uses a bank an idiot? MrVoluntarist 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, calm down, Junior. You didn't say relative, so just saying the rates aren't good doesn't really get us anywhere.   Here's one comparison that is updated weekly. (not savings/MMA but CDs and loan rates).  More to come.  http://www.bankrate.com/brm/static/compare.asp  Dubc0724 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. I didn't say relative.  It's just that that's the only meaning in context that wouldn't look totally idiotic.  Do you know what context is?  Do you know why I don't act like your use of the term "relative" refers to members of my family?  Thanks for assuming I'm an idiot before inferring the meaning of my statements from context. As for the rates, looks like banks win on loans, while it ignores MMA's and checking accounts, i.e., the very topic of discussion. MrVoluntarist 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm thinking about it, you're leaving out two other important components. First, not all CUs are alike.  You might only be eligible to join a CU that happens to have some strategic reason (good or bad) for paying lower rates.  Secondly, focusing solely on rates ignores the fee/service charge aspect.  Credit unions generally beat banks on both rates and fees.  However, your mileage may vary.  Dubc0724 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, why does anyone ever use any bank at all? Because they're all stupid?  MrVoluntarist 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Another good source. I think the comment can be reinserted, but needs to say something to the effect of "On average they pay better rates".  http://banking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=banking&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.creditunion.coop%2Fratedex.php
 * So, why does anyone ever use any bank at all? Because they're all stupid?   I wouldn't say that.  I'd say a lot of people don't have access to a CU, and many that do have access don't know.  Some people are stuck with a credit union that doesn't know how to operate to return value to members.  But by and large, credit unions haven't had the means (or the willingness) to market themselves and the difference. Dubc0724 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

''...Do you know what context is? Do you know why I don't act like your use of the term "relative" refers to members of my family? Thanks for assuming I'm an idiot...'' Wow. I'm the one assuming someone is an idiot?? Dubc0724 18:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You assumed the most ridiculous meaning of the statement I gave, and then proudly refuted such a ridiculous claim. Who's wasting whose time here? MrVoluntarist 18:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I addressed it as it was written, just in case you were someone spouting off an opinion - there are many people like that here. But we both know you're not one of those people. I then gave two sources that support the notion that credit unions typically outperform banks from a rate perspective.  The second source is more comprehensive and more fully addresses the specific topics up for discussion. My apologies if I hurt your feelings, but let's try to move on. Dubc0724 18:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. In the future, it would help in your interaction with others if you didn't assume the most ridiculous possible meaning of what they stated.  It's called assuming good faith.  Just a heads up. MrVoluntarist 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this has been blown way out of proportion but I see your point. You deal with enough ridiculous people on here and you come to expect it. Maybe I did that.  But also may I suggest a higher level of civility in the future.  Cheers! Dubc0724 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Another annoying gripe about the article
Is it really appropriate to link mutualism (economic theory)? Mutualists are just one of about a zillion groups that think credit unions are the way to go. Mutualists' only real claim of a connection is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's independent discovery that, hey, credit union-like arragements might be a good idea, neglecting that they had been in operation in England a generation before his birth. MrVoluntarist 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could go either way. Probably doesn't hurt to leave it in, but I don't have strong feelings either way. Dubc0724 13:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about linking co-operative instead, or whatever the appropriate nearest superset of "credit union" is? That is, link to an article about cooperative-type organizational methods.  The reason I don't like linking mutualism is because I think it implicitly gives too much credit (yeah yeah, a pun) to mutualists and subtly reinforces the idea that their "discovery" was somehow novel. Also, mutualists prefer mutual banks which are actually different. MrVoluntarist 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree very much. Credit unions are cooperatives, and you're right - mutuals are a different animal altogether.  Thanks... Dubc0724 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NCUA article needs help
I hope some of you folk who know and care about credit unions will help fix up the NCUA article! 69.87.204.224 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Board of Directors elected?
"A credit union is a not-for-profit co-operative financial institution that is owned and controlled by its members, through the election of a volunteer Board of Directors elected from the membership itself."

Well, that is a nice beginning, but needs further explanation. Is the BOD election one-member-one-vote, weighted by your level of savings/investments in the credit union, or what? What if you are mainly a borrower? (Then there is the matter of explaining the real politics of how these elections work, but right now I'm just asking about the details of the theory/mechanics.) 69.87.204.224 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One member, one vote. Whether you have the minimum share deposit or several hundred thousand dollars on deposit, you have exactly the same right to vote. Dubc0724 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Credit Unions versus Banks
Rogklien's latest edits are very interesting. Although the comments are fairly factual, it is apparent that the edits are removing language that paints CU's in a more favorable light, and has added some statements to paint banks in a more favorable light. Since this kind of thing is only going to accelerate as more and more people involved with these industries discover wikipedia, I propose that these type of edits be kept to an absolute minimum, and also ought to be discussed here on the talk page. I am going to make an important addition to the article to try to keep future edit wars to a dull roar, and that is to add a new section of this article for points of contention between banks and credit unions. I am going to move some of Rogklien's, and others', statements to this new section.

One additional note: The current photo in the sidebar of the article (Financial Market Participants) is wildly inappropriate for credit unions. The vast majority of credit unions exist in modest office buildings. Very few exist in anything looking like a skyscraper. --Mmpartee 15:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rogklien has modified a portion of this new section. Rogklien, I invite you to discuss such changes here first. I've never heard from a neutral person that credit unions should be taxed because they don't have charitable goals. This is an argument that only a banking lobbyist would make, and it's not even a very strong one. There are thousands of non-profit organizations that are tax exempt and not charities, such as universities, civic groups, and social clubs. And I've provided references for the two major points that I made in this section. You are not providing any sources. Since I feel this argument is [WP:NN], I'm taking it out. Also, Rogklien has changed this new section to be Credit Unions and Public Policy. I don't know of anybody not affiliated with banks that is concerned about public policy in regards to credit unions. I think it is misleading to label this section as such. Therefore, I'm changing it back. Rogklien, I think you are doing a great job of being fairly factual (I'm sure you could word your statements much more harshly), but I do feel that these changes are misleading and show bias. If you have sources to support your claims, please reference them in regards to any changes that you make to this article. Thank you. --Mmpartee 05:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate hack
Ummmmmmmm.... this article received a major axechop from an unregistered user. There was some useful editing done, but important sections were deleted wholesale. Can an experienced wikipedian get this back to how it was? --Mmpartee 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the article back to a version before that edit. Gobonobo  T C 12:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An Article on Credit Unions Globally
With credit unions operating in over 100 countries around the world, serving everyone from World Bank staff to bidi rollers in Madhya Pradesh, this article is not capturing their global presence. On dimensions like

(among others) there is incredible diversity, sophistication and complexity in national credit unions systems.
 * institutional diversity (within credit union principles),
 * market segments served,
 * regulation and supervision,
 * product characteristics and mixes,
 * structure and evolution of credit union federations and their relations with other cooperatives,

We in the credit union industry (I'm from a credit union in Canada) are being discredited every day in international forums by mainstream bankers and other microcredit practitioners who argue that credit unions in developing countries are not professional, are unstable and don't serve ordinary people in those countries.

On top of that, representatives of European cooperative banks (and the Desjardins banking system in Quebec) advanced an argument at a World Bank Conference on cooperative banking in Washington in April '07 that the Anglo-Saxon model of credit unions is far less financially stable and more costly to operate than the European (and Quebec) models. This article should position credit unions against those criticisms, which are largely off-base.Brett epic 20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An Article in US Credit Unions?
There's a lot of interesting US content that could be written; it would certainly justify a separate article. On the other hand the repeated assertions in the present article that credit unions are 'non-profit' organizations (not true in most countries), and repeated references to arguments between bankers and credit unionists in the US about tax status seem more relevant to a separate article on US credit unions. Would anyone like to write it?Brett epic 20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly at some point. At the moment, the rest of the article wouldn't hold up too well if the US content was moved. Probably we can grow a bit as it is before we consider splitting off. --Pearrari (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bank attacks on credit unions using this Wikipedia page
If you want to see an example of a likely American Bankers Association employee posing as a neutral wikipedia user and attempting to use "debate" to further bank misinformation attacks on credit unions, read the entries by on this talk page by "--Charlie Summers (who doesn't "register" on principle) 71.114.136.34 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)" above; his statements are right out of ABA's "Operation Credit Unions" and he even mentions "CUNA lobbyist" which is a dead giveaway. Mikel1777 (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Section -- Introduction
The lead section in article is intended to summarize the key content of the article, as well as to provide a brief and neutral synopsis on the subject (in this case, what credit unions are and why they are different from similar things, like banks or other cooperatives). Credit unions operate in 97 countries, yet reading this introduction one would think that either credit unions are all American, or that all credit unions are the same as American credit unions. Neither of these propositions squares with the facts. The two longest paragraphs refer specifically and solely to United States credit unions. This is inappropriate; those paragraphs belong somewhere else. The recent edits have reverted without explanation or discussion the previous content that tracks the important debate within credit union history between those who argue that credit unions are not-for-profit institutions, and those who view them as for-profit-institutions that because they are owned by their members, return their profits to their members. The current edit simply asserts that they not-for-profit institutions, apparently because in the US regulators deem them to be.

The lead should be brief and take a global perspective on credit unions, not a country-specific view. Editors should not revert key content without discussing on the talk page. Let's get this corrected.Brett epic (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay so at least one person is mad at me for attempting to eliminate what appeared to be banker propaganda that did not have a citation. I am a lawyer for the Credit Union National Association and no one here had ever heard of this debate regarding whether or not credit unions can be viewed as "for profit;" honestly, such a perception would be immensely damaging to the credit union movement. I think that some of this misunderstanding stems from the difference between "nonprofit" (e.g. a charity) and a "not-for-profit" (e.g. a cooperative institution like a credit union that turns a profit but has the purpose of operating to serve its members rather than turn a profit). I never wrote "non-profit" as such would be incorrect.

I have also been in touch with the World Council of Credit Unions in order to give this article a more international perspective. Perhaps WOCCU will be able to help in this regard. In addition, I did give explanations for removing the sections that I did.

Sorry if I breached etiquette by not discussing this on the talk page first, however, the bankers are very well organized and funded. This extends way beyond the Wikipedia. I am extremely suspicious regarding uncited credit union "facts" for this reason, but I would not "revise" anything that has a proper citation. I am all for moving the U.S. credit union paragraphs lower in the article, however. Mikel1777 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have rearranged the article and added a caveat regarding the "for profit" thing since Brett may have a good point (I am waiting to hear back from WOCCU on their opinion regarding for-profit status). I think that most of the U.S. stuff is pretty well segregated now.  I do not think, however, that ripping the U.S. content out of this page, at this time, would make a lot of sense because there is not a lot of non-U.S. related content and virtually no non-U.S. related citations.  I did not move many parts of the intro that previously existed (but to which I cited U.S. law as an example), such as the discussion about one-person one-vote, etc.

Frankly, I think that I have contributed a great deal to this article and I welcome further revisions that can be supported by a citation. Have I addressed most of the concerns? WOCCU says that they will have someone add to this as well so hopefully that will make this article even better and with even more of an international perspective. Mikel1777 (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, I have just spoken with a Vice President at WOCCU who formerly worked at USAID, and he says that he has never encountered a credit union that considers itself a "for profit" institution, even for its members. He says that many credit unions internationally get confused about the concept of "nonprofit" versus "not-for-profit" and think that they therefore are not allowed to turn a profit (which has contributed to some credit unions being undercapitalized), so he explains to them that they need to turn some profit to control for inflation, add to their capital reserves, and expand their business; these specific limitations on profit seeking purposes, however, are what distinguishes a "not-for-profit" from a "for-profit." Brett, you appear to be a development person but I am not sure if your insistence on the "for profit" thing is really grounded in reality as none of us here in the credit union movement have heard of it, so I would really like to see a citation. Mikel1777 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be a non-issue. If it's not a cooperative, it's not a credit union. Even the largest cooperative in the US by revenue (the NFL) cannot reasonably be called a for-profit institution by the virtue of it's ownership structure. That's why I added the tag to the statement. Jim Miller (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jim; we all know that it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. Let's make sure that everything on this page is verifiable.  Mikel1777 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also want to note that Brett epic's user page states that he wants "to build genuine banks for poor people," . . .  credit unions are not banks.  Perhaps the best solution would be an explanation that credit unions need to turn some profit for limited purposes and are not charities.  If you read his flame on my talk page you will see that he feels very strongly about this "for profit" thing but I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what distinguishes a "nonprofit" from a "not-for-profit" as well as what distinguishes a credit union from a bank no matter where you are in the world.  Mikel1777 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want see who else thinks that credit unions are "for profit" check out the banker propaganda website www.creditunionruse.com, which contains exactly the sort of insidious misinformation that should not be tolerated on the wikipedia credit union entry (I don't go to bank wikipedia entries and write incorrect information about banks):

"Originally, members of a credit union all knew each other and pooled their resources to provide credit for their co-workers and/or neighbors. Today, this “common bond” — the former hallmark of the credit union industry — has been stretched beyond recognition while large credit unions still describe themselves as not-for-profit. Many credit unions have grown into highly profitable, billion-dollar institutions offering a full range of financial services, including commercial lending, to just about anyone. The common bond is hardly recognizable."

So whose interests does this so-called "debate" regarding whether credit unions (which no one I know in the credit union movement has heard of) are "not-for-profit" really serve? Mikel1777 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why I did not remember this earlier but the World Council of Credit Unions defines credit unions as "not-for-profit cooperative institutions" (see http://www.woccu.org/about/creditunion) so I really do not see why there is any "debate" about whether or not credit unions are "not-for-profit." The page now includes the WOCCU definition. Perhaps we can get rid of that NPOV tag, please? If addressed the other concerns about the article being overly U.S.-oriented and hopefully someone from WOCCU will add additional international information since no one else seems to be motivated to do so. Mikel1777 (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the definition of credit union includes the words not-for-profit. Mike, your additions and changes to this article are very valuable, but please don't interpret the lack of the rest of us jumping in on the article or talk pages immediately as not being motivated or caring as to the changes you are making. Personally, I just don't have time to examine your many changes and improvements right now. In terms of this debate, we need to try to remain factual, and report the official stances of CUNA, the WOCCU, and other country's governing bodies, and report the banking industry's official stance, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. -Mmpartee (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike1777. I notice you impute that I may work for a bankers' association in your note below so lets get that off the table first. I worked for 8 years at a large Canadian credit union (now called Alterna) in Toronto and have been working to advance credit union approaches to microfinance internationally for much of the past 8 years (they could contribute enormously to microfinance but generally are dismissed in development practice without serious consideration, precisely by mainstream bankers). I wrote the section of the credit union article on 'global dispersion' and the section of 'history', as well some other relevant contributions to Wikipedia including credit union history, Edward Filene, Moses Coady, bond of association, Antigonish Movement and microfinance. I do believe the key to microfinance is to build genuine banks for poor people. Last time I checked a credit union is a bank owned by its members. But maybe you disagree about that, too. All my colleagues at Alterna knew that a credit union is a bank owned by its members. And they also all knew that like any other bank, it was in business to make a profit -- just a more reasonable profit because it was also a cooperative. And that concept of a 'reasonable profit' has been a major contribution, in my view, to the practice of enterprise.


 * And if you still harbour suspicions I'm from a bankers association, I have no interest in helping you with your confusion any further. But don't expect me to go away.Brett epic (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'Profit', 'Surplus' and the Global Credit Union Brand

 * I have just been checking the '9 principles of credit unions' passed by WOCCU a few years back and it says this: "The surplus arising out of the operations of the credit union, after ensuring appropriate reserve levels and after payment of limited dividends on permanent ownership capital where it exists, belongs to and benefits all members with no member or group of members benefiting to the detriment of others.  This surplus may be distributed among members in proportion to their transactions with the credit union as interest or patronage refunds, or directed to improved or additional services required by the members.  ... A prime concern of the credit union is to build financial strength, including adequate reserves and internal controls, which will ensure continued service to its membership."  If you still believe that this 'surplus' is not 'profit' then I don't know what to say to you.  Feel free to try to explain it to the average Wikipedia reader!  To me, that distinction seems highly technical and frankly irrelevant.  The issues around perception matter far more than the technicalities in this discussion.


 * There may be some confusion in our discussion around the definition of the word 'profit'. Wikipedia in the article profit refers to an accounting profit as "net profit (before tax) is the sales of the firm less costs such as wages, rent, fuel, raw materials, interest on loans and depreciation. Costs such as depreciation, amortization, and overhead are ambiguous. Revenue may also be ambiguous when different products are sold as a package, or "bundled." Obviously one goal of credit unions is to secure such revenue, and indeed they wouldn't exist today if they did not consistently do so.  Credit unions also consistently make what economists call 'normal profit'.Brett epic (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike1777 your additions to the credit union article are constructive and add a lot of value to it. They were also initiated abruptly and I hope you don't do that again. But to be fair to you, everyone does that at first, and most have far less to contribute than you obviously do. Since, as you say, WOCCU describes credit unions as 'not for profit' in spite of their own description (delicately named 'surplus' in their own principles) I will remove the NPOV dispute. I am in India right now far from the books that can offer me any detailed guidance on this matter.


 * I also understand your perspective on the problem of bankers wanting to blast credit unions for excessive profits and wanting to skew the tax regime against credit unions. I am sure that must be very frustrating in the context in which you work and respect your need to address it.


 * But let me tell you a little about my context. In microfinance one thing matters and one only -- 'microfinance institutions' must be able to serve poor people while making a profit.  WOCCU is currently boycotting the Microcredit Summit for the very good reason that it is dominated by bankers who dismiss the credit union approach as weak and marginal, largely because it is not 'commercial' enough and so by implication leads to highly unstable institutions.  The Summit in 2006 was a celebration of Dr. Muhammad Yunus' Nobel Prize.  The story at the Summit and in microfinance generally is that proved to the world -- first the first time, in the 1970s -- that it is possible to "serve poor people and make a profit doing it".  In fact, credit unions were built in Europe in the 19th century and in America in the early 20th not from grants but precisely because they served poor people and made a profit doing it.  The entire current credit union and cooperative bank system, which represents some 10-20% of the financial sector almost anywhere in the West, was built with its own money -- reinvested profits.  It didn't rely on anyone for handouts.  This model can be replicated in the developing world, but so far has not been.  Bankers are rewriting our history through the battlefield of microfinance in the developing world; we must get our stories back on the table.


 * If you read my wiki article on the Comilla Model you will see what the consequences of not paying enough attention to build profitable institutions can be -- the consequences in short, of mixing of social goals (not-for-profit) with business without thinking it through clearly. The World Bank had a conference last year for the first time in recent years on ways to expand the credit union/cooperative finance model in the developing world.  But this is a rare and most people at the World Bank and at multilaterals and bilaterals generally dismiss credit union approaches because they are not commercial enough.


 * So in the end there is a trade-off to be made. Perhaps the right way is the way you are working on; I'm not going to dispute it now.  But hundreds of millions of poor people need access to quality credit unions.  Non-profit organizations create many credit unions, and because they aren't business oriented those credit unions often fail.  Credit unions have a bad reputation among development organizations (both public and private) and in many parts of the developing world as well.  Expats in developing countries are often credit union members back home -- in principle they love them and in practice, in the country where they are working, they hate them.  I am now working in India where discussion of credit unions leads to derision.  The irony is that credit unions were started in India before anywhere else in the developing world (the 19th century) but were totally trashed in later years by 'help' from the government and non-profit organizations that wanted to 'strengthen' them (this kind of 'help' was never available in the West -- arguably a major cause of their success there).


 * Yet Indians come to the US all the time (and to Canada). Will they chose a bank or a credit union when they arrive?  Based on their home experience, a bank for certain.  That is true throughout most of Africa as well.  Credit unions have to start taking a more business-like attitude if we want them to really spread in the developing world.  They have to become more business-like and they have to talk the language of business, whether we call for profit or not for profit.  My colleages at WOCCU will agree with me on that.Brett epic (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for bringing WOCCU into the Wikipedia forum. I have found it very difficult to get credit unionists engaged in Wikipedia, in spite of the potential importance of Wiki for perceptions of credit unions in future. I have raised this matter at WOCCU, but so matter without success.Brett epic (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Brett, I agree "surplus" is "profit" and that credit unions need to turn some degree of profit/surplus in order to stay in business. The real question here is whether the institution exists for the purpose of maximizing profits (and is therefore organized "for profit") or if the institution exists for the purpose of serving its members (and is therefore organized "not-for-profit" but for serving its members).  I think that it is important to drive home that credit unions are not nonprofit charities (i.e. an entity that is NOT ALLOWED to turn a profit) or entities that rely upon donations, etc.  Unfortunately, among dictionaries that I have consulted, only the Oxford English Dictionary recognizes this subtle distinction between "nonprofit" and "not-for-profit" and marks this distinction as chiefly U.S-English.  I think that I will add a sentence about this distinction in the intro with citations to the OED.  At least the OED is the gold standard for the English language.


 * This "nonprofit" versus "not-for-profit" distinction is a pretty important, however, because in the U.S. a "nonprofit" must legally give away any profit that it may turn, whereas a "not-for-profit" may retain its profits and reinvest them (whether it is a credit union, another sort of cooperative, or a trade association, etc.). BTW, I don't think that you are a banker, but in the U.S. credit unions are not banks even though they are also depository institutions; we actually do have member-owned "cooperative banks" and other types of mutual savings associations (although not so many any more because their managers like to convert their charters in order to issue stock and grant themselves options) but they are for-profit institutions organized to maximize profits rather than serve their members per se.  In addition, it is generally illegal in the U.S. for a credit union to call itself a "bank" or for a bank to call itself a "credit union." Mikel1777 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, your legalistic argumentation is beginning to sound like that of President Clinton when he was defending his affair with Monica Lewinsky. To argue that credit union (an organization that must make a profit to survive -- whether that profit is the 'reasonable' profit defined by credit union founders as the appropriate standard or the profit maximization standard of normal corporations) should be correctly defined as 'not-for-profit' simply defies common sense. The term 'not-for-profit' explicitly eschews any profit motivation whatsoever (the organization does not have a goal of profit, hence it is a 'not-for-profit'). This implies that the organization will happily take losses if other goals happen to be more important that year. We often speak of credit unions as having a 'double bottom line'. That description is perfectly valid and presents a vital differentiating point with respect to banks, which invariably engage in a single bottom line business focused on profit maximization for a tiny group of shareholders. If you cannot agree with me that credit unions have profit as one of their bottom lines, my patience with this discussion is completely exhausted.

My experience in the developing world tells me that much of the wreckage among credit unions here could have been avoided if they had been started with the concept that they were for profit organizations. By opening the door to charitable contributions and subsidized external credit, we have witnessed borrower dominance (especially in Latin America), external agendas that conflict with those of the members, and elite capture of external resources (and any local savings caught in the cross-fire) by interests that are inconsistent with that of protecting profits earned in trust for members and returning those profits to them. Take a look at WOCCU's statistics on the number of credit union members outside the West. It's in the 10s of millions. Given the century of history of credit unions in India, there should be over 100 million members here alone. There is lot of wreckage behind that poor performance, and the more we talk, the more I am starting to realize that some of it may have to do precisely with the debate we're having now.Brett epic (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is?" LOL That is how they teach us in U.S. law schools: That subtle distinctions matter.


 * Be that as it may about wreckage in the developing world (and I am sure that the local credit unions in those countries are not worse there than, say, the local agriculture extension system and other development projects designed from afar), I am not disagreeing that credit unions need to turn some profit (or generate a "surplus"), but perhaps the OED will persuade you that there is a meaningful distinction between these terms (we all speak and write English here, right?).

-- Mike, agricultural extension systems are not in the business of telling poor people that savings will get them out of poverty, and that their organizations can protect those savings, once deposited with them. WOCCU is, and so are the local partners of most credit union development agencies from the West.Brett epic (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:
 * "not-for-profit:"
 * "A. adj. (and adv.)   Designating an organization, corporation, etc., which does not operate for the purpose of making a profit. Cf. NON-PROFIT adj., FOR-PROFIT adj. Also occas. as adv.
 * B. n.    An organization, corporation, etc., which does not operate for the purpose of making a profit."


 * "non-profit:"
 * "A
 * 2. orig. and chiefly U.S. A non-profit-making organization; spec. a charity. Cf. later NOT-FOR-PROFIT n.
 * B. adj. (usu. attrib.).
 * 1. orig. U.S. Of, relating to, or designating an organization, corporation, etc., which does not operate for the purpose of making a profit; non-profit-making. Cf. later NOT-FOR-PROFIT adj."


 * As you can see, both definitions reference the other using a "Cf." signal (i.e. "compare") indicating that there really is a difference between the two, albeit subtle, and the definitions themselves bear out this distinction. Further, the definition of not-for-profit uses the cf. signal for BOTH "nonprofit" and "for-profit" indicating that "not-for-profit" is really a middle way between the two.  There are some other parts of the "non-profit" definition but they are irrelevant to this context (i.e "failure to make a profit (rare)" and something related to a type of British life insurance policy).


 * I think that with a proper explanation in the article's intro we can make the credit union difference (as "not-for-profits" rather than "nonprofits" or "for profits") apparent to Wikipedia readers without incorrectly rebranding credit unions as "for profit" institutions. Mikel1777 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are avoiding my core argument. Credit unions are user-owned and -controlled enterprises with a double bottom line. One is profit, the other is community and member development. This differentiates them fundamentally from banks and is a clear formulation that would -- hopefully -- stand up even in a US law school! More importantly, it would stand up in the rest of the world, too.Brett epic (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I will try to formulate a statement that captures your concerns without totally f'ing up the definition of a credit union in order to conform it to your opinion, and you can evaluate that, agreed? Mikel1777 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Slander Has No Place on Wikipedia

 * Others, please look at Brett epic's comments on my talk page because I told him that the burden of proof had shifted to him since I had provided sources supporting the fact that credit unions are "not-for-profit" by defintion:


 * "With respect, the onus related to this debate is on you, not on me. This debate matters to me because the possibility of hundreds of millions of poor people securing the benefits that real credit unions can offer is tied up in it, whether I have time to deal with your edits in more detail now or whether I have to get back to it later."


 * He may be a banker puppet since he claims that he is representing credit unions worldwide yet he refuses to acknowledge verifiable facts that conflict with his opinion of credit unions being "for profit." This is typical banker false flag strategy.


 * Please also look at my recent changes to the intro where I have attempted to address his concerns. I am operating in good faith but I have some serious questions about this "debate" that seems to exist only between Brett and the credit union movement.  Mikel1777 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, as I told you, I cannot offer citations right now because I am travelling and away from my books. In spite of the fact that you reverted important content about credit unions that I wrote here, which was encyclopedic and far more appropriate for the lead section of this article than the legalistic description you have replaced it with, I have not reverted you. Please think about that. On Wikipedia, we do not revert without discussion, and if issues come up we discuss them on the talk page. Revert leads to revert leads to more revert. It doesn't help anybody and it isn't in the spirit of this forum. But you haven't relented on this revert. Far from it -- what you have done since, in spite of my own reasonableness, is far worse than a revert war. You have slandered me in a public forum (here). In the absence of any evidence to stick on me you have also made up words to put in my mouth and try to hang me on. I have never suggested on this forum that I represent anyone other than myself. That is precisely the strength I bring to Wikipedia.

I went far above the call of duty and actually provided you with evidence that I am not in the pay of a bankers' association. Still, you have looked at the evidence and without offering any of your own still choose to assert that I am. This is grossly unprofessional conduct that I might expect of a used car salesman, not of a representative of the great organization (CUNA) that I described the origins of in Edward Filene and was created largely by one of the greatest cooperators of all -- Roy Bergengren (still working on that one). But then, I believe this poor conduct reflects more on you than on CUNA; they would probably be as shocked by it as I am.Brett epic (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In my comments on your talk page I pointed out that since you honestly acknowledge who you are and why your are here, the onus is on you to participate in the on-line encylopedia basing your comments on the merits of those made by other participants. Accusing me of being in the pay of a bankers' association because I don't happen to be in the pay of a credit union or one of its associations, regardless of the fact that it is slanderous and false, does your cause no justice here. If you cannot follow the norms of Wikipedia related to on-line collaboration here because your interests or emotions are too tied up with this, you should do the right thing and absent yourself from editing this page precisely because of who you have explicitly stated you are. An on-line encylopedia is not written by lobby groups, it is written by people working to advance human knowledge. I really have not sensed that spirit or openness in you at all.

Although you have reverted important content of mine (especially on the advantages of credit unions vis. the principal-agent problem -- an issue which links this article usefully to others in the encylopedia, apart from its substantive importance), and although I am beginning to acquire a strong personal distaste for you, the additional content you have added has continued to the article itself has continued to be constructive. Prodded more by my comments than you seem to realize, you have continued to improve the article. That is what Wikipedia is all about, though may I ask you to do it in a more friendly way in future?Brett epic (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not 'refusing to acknowledge verifiable facts', as you say. Have I denied your citation from WOCCU? No. What 'verifiable facts' have I have disputed? As a Wikipedian however, I have raised (and will continue to emphasis) the real issues here. Your legalistic definition is not a common sense one that the average reader can understand. A simple dictionary definition of 'profit' is all you need to look up to know that the term 'not-for-profit' may be legalistically correct, but in substance is not counterintuitive and will be baffling to the average reader. Many credit union executives have MBAs. They don't have Masters degrees of social work! Say why credit unions matter to people and why they join credit unions. Show some common sense, or at least have the decency to not revert people who do. Put your legalistic definition in an article on US credit unions or lower down in this one. In the lead section you need a clear definition that distinguishes credit unions from similar but different entities like banks, cooperative banks, other cooperatives and so on. Whatever WOCCU says, contradicting the dictionary is just plain bad writing in the lead section of an article.Brett epic (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology for Personal Slander

 * Brett has contacted me through email demanding that I apologize for stating I wrote earlier that he "may be a banker puppet," which he called an "outrageous lie." Pursuant to his demands, I wish to state on this forum that I retract this accusation and apologize for any offense that I may have caused him or his reputation, both professionally and personally.  I have no evidence that he is  a banker puppet. I acted without malice and I was not attempting to defame him.  My only interest was protecting the integrity of credit unions and their reputations, as well as the integrity of this article, from bankers who masquerade as credit union people; it is very unlikely, however, that Brett is one of these persons.  I have now read several of his articles published outside the Wikipedia and he is very unlikely to be employed by bankers.  I am sorry.  Mikel1777 (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I accept you apology. Please try to become more familiar with the norms of communication and mutual respect between editors here at Wikipedia and try to follow them.Brett epic (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Brett. By the way, I restored your principal-agent problem text. I should not have removed it in the first place. Mikel1777 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the relative calmness which the two of you (Mike and Brett) are approaching this issue. Here's my own two cents at this point. One: I don't think Brett is a banker. He's made very helpful contributions here and on other CU related articles. Two: What the wikipedia article says about CUs is not going to a.) make any difference in banker/credit union arguments out in the world, and b.) not going to sway people to join either a CU or a bank. So we don't need to get up-in-arms about the issues here. I feel that it has about zero impact elsewhere. Three: This talk page is not supposed to be a forum for debate on what CUs are all about- we're here to report facts as cited in reputable sources. This is kind of like the Pluto/planet debate. Wikipedia is not where the debate over planetary 'status' occurred, it must be the place to debate how best to report the facts of what is "out there." Brett, I feel that you are trying to make a case here, instead of helping us understand how best to report the differences in how CUs exist in different countries. Just as in the Pluto discussion, we're not trying to establish the 'popularity' in keeping Pluto as a planet, or even have the debate about it on wikipedia, wikipedia must really report the highest governing body, the IAU, which has adjudicated the issue (and is clearly correct-despite anyone's feelings about the Pluto issue, which ran VERY deep and very hot, when you look at the facts, you learn that clearly Pluto is not a planet like the others). So too here, we must report the most credible, established authority, which is the WOCCU. (Unless we need to get into a debate on if the WOCCU is the right authority to go by, but I don't think so.) However, Brett's points ARE clearly important, and should be addressed in the article in an appropriate way. -Mmpartee (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If any of you are familiar with controversy surrounding Compartamos in Mexico -- a microfiance organization that went from nonprofit to for profit status and has been widely criticized for doing so -- you might find that debate to be an interesting parallel to this one. Here are links to an article from Business Week from last year http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_52/b4064045919628.htm  and a recent Economist piece supporting the idea of profiting from the poor. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11622469&fsrc=RSS  That situation is somewhat different from this one, however, because Compartamos sold shares on the open market, but "for profit" is pretty controversial irrespective of whether or not a credit union is properly defined as "not-for-profit."  Mikel1777 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, in the case of Compartamos they are being criticised for average loan rates of 79% a year. They are still so paranoid about losing money they demand repayment in under a year. They are like this because they have costly urban staff headquartered in the cities who do their lending. Those people don't know squat about what is going on in the villages so it costs them a lot to find out. This is completely different from the credit union situation. The Raiffeisen credit unions that reached practically every village in Germany with microfinance (both loans AND savings) in the 19th charged about 10% a year and 20% of their loans were for period of 10 years of longer (only 20% of their loans were for LESS than a year). They still had enough of a profit at the end of each year (and if you prefer to use the rhetorical fig-leaf of 'surplus' feel free to do so) to grow into as national movement reaching 2 million households within 30 years -- WITHOUT significant external subsidies. That is because they employed local savings which demanded a reasonable return (not profit maximization) and they employed local staff who were committed to the growth of the villages and knew what was going on them. See credit union history -- something we in the credit union movement have sadly forgotten -- for more details. A basic principle of credit union philosophy is a 'reasonable' return on owners' capital or a 'reasonable' profit. Interest rates like that are impossible today due to accelerated globalization -- but even today a sound credir union model would not be charging more than 3% a month (in some remoter and more difficult areas) and considerably less in more developed areas. The Compartamos case could not have and never would have come up in a credit union context. It is unique to the thinking of the bankers who drive microcredit now -- who drive microcredit that is, because credit unionists have so far failed to.Brett epic (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Microfinance Gateway on Wikipedia spam blacklist
microfinancegateway.org is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist so one cannot post a link to that website in a Wikipedia article. That page says that you should not edit the spam blacklist list unless you know RegEdit. I do not. Can anyone here please do that or contact someone who can? The Microfinance Gateway is not a spam site to my knowledge and it has a lot of valuable microfinance information. Mikel1777 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I figured out how to nominate the site for de-blacklisting and did so, but any expediting of the process would be appreciated. Mikel1777 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Credit unions in Canada
Mike has stated that credit unions are considered to be 'not-for-profit' in all countries and that his revert of my original lead point in the article was justified because there is no debate (except as he says, between me and the global credit union movement) about whether credit unions are 'for profit' or 'not for profit'.

I have just received a note from Rob Martin, a lawyer and senior policy advisor at Credit Union Central of Canada. He says that "In Canada, credit unions are considered ‘for profit’ and taxed as such at the small business rate and when they get big enough at the corporate tax rate… just like the Schedule 1 banks. Of course, credit unions in Canada seek profits but the share and governance structure ensures the profit motive is used to build business, services and dividends for members not to necessarily juice earnings for shareholders or owners. In Canada, not for profits are created to benefit some sort of community (e.g. charitable, philanthropic, religious, professional or athletic without monetary gain). For fiscal purposes, an NPO is an entity created and operated solely for non-profit purposes. Its income must NOT be distributed to proprietors, shareholders or members, or made available to them for personal gain as credit unions do. In certain limited situations a not-for-profit organization may engage in revenue producing activities and earn a profit, however these activities are to be conducted solely to further the principal objectives of the organization and credit unions do not fall into this category." He has always done overseas assignments in Uganda, where he believes that there in nothing in current legislation deeming SACCOs to be 'not-for-profit'.

It would be interesting to get fuller facts on this matter; I suspect it is more complex than a blanket 'not-for-profit' scenario in the 97 countries where credit unions can be found.Brett epic (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with the article reflecting Canada's position in the intro, at least as an example, but I would like to keep the WOCCU definition first since they are the international standard setting organization. Mikel1777 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am being bold and I revised the intro to state that Canadian credit unions view themselves as "for-profit" but it still needs a citation; perhaps the Canadian tax code would supply such as source, maybe with a "Compare [tax code section for Canadian CUs], with [tax code section for non-profits]" or something from Credit Union Central of Canada? Mikel1777 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I also moved the "not-for-profit" versus "nonprofit" discussion from the intro into a new section since the intro was a little long. I hope that no one objects. Mikel1777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation to Ontario Credit Union Act
The citation provided to the Ontario Credit Union Act, ch. 11, sec. 24, available here: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_94c11_e.htm#BK34 reads:

"24. (1)  The object of a credit union is to provide on a co-operative basis financial services primarily for its members. 1994, c. 11, s. 24 (1).

Co-operative basis

(2) A credit union shall operate on a co-operative basis such that,

(a) membership is voluntary and is open to those that fall within its bond of association;

(b) its business is carried on primarily for the benefit of its members;

(c) the net income that accrues from its business is,

(i) used to provide services for its members,

(ii) used to develop its business,

(iii) used to increase its reserves or retained earnings,

(iv) distributed to its members and shareholders, or

(v) used for another purpose approved by the members; and

(d) each member has only one vote at its general meetings or in respect of elections of its directors and officers. 1994, c. 11, s. 24 (2)."

This law actually supports the position that Ontario credit unions do NOT operate for the purpose of making a profit off of their members, so I dispute its appropriateness to support the proposition that Canadian credit unions are "for profit." I think that someone is trying to redefine the term "cooperative" and refuses to acknowledge any difference between a non-profit charity and a cooperative financial institution; thereby presenting a false choice between charity and "for profit." Were credit unions "for profit," their goal would be to make as much money as possible off of the borrowers in order to redistribute that money to the savers. That is apparently not the case in Ontario; rather there are significant restrictions on what the "net income" can be used for.


 * Mike, it is obvious we are never going to agree on this. The Canadian credit union lawyer who provided this to citation to me sent it as evidence that credit unions in Ontario are 'for profit'.  I personally find it incomprehensible that anyone could look at this citation, with its reference to 'net income' from 'business', that is used to 'develop business' increase 'retained earnings' and for distribution to 'shareholders' and not agree with her.  But you are entitled to view it differently in Indiana or any other place in the United States you wish (note though that the citation you provide below acknowledges that in Indiana they are saying that credit unions 'return their profits to members', and on all points unrelated to its different use of the terms 'for profit' and 'not for profit' it is in complete accord with the view north of your border).  What you are not entitled to do is telling me how Canadians 'should' be thinking about this, even though they obviously don't.  You are not entitled to tell me that the way it is viewed in the United States is the way it is viewed everywhere else (or at least the way it should be viewed everywhere else) when in fact there is clear evidence in front of you to the contrary.


 * So please Mike, let's give this a rest. I think you have what you need on the main page.  Let's move back to the real world, where people around our continent do their shopping at the supermarket and their banking at their credit union, and blast the board during the AGMs when the dividends are too small.Brett epic (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are still presenting a false choice; credit unions are nor-for-profit because they are cooperatives. That does not preclude them from turning a profit, in fact it appears that U.S. and Canadian credit unions operate in much the same way.  I have still seen nothing yet from CUCC or Canadian law that says that Canadian credit unions are "for profit" in terms of their purpose; in fact the Ontario law states: "The object of a credit union is to provide on a co-operative basis financial services . . . ."  Therefore Ontario credit unions' legal purpose is to operate provide cooperative financial services rather than turn a profit per se. This makes them "not-for-profit" within the meaning of the term as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (see above), which is the authoritative source on the English language in the U.S., Canada, and the rest of the world. Mikel1777 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to make this perfectly clear, the question is not whether or not the institution turns a profit, but what is the purpose of the institution's charter? If the purpose of the charter is to be a cooperative -- rather than to maximize profits -- the institution is a not-for-profit.  Mikel1777 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Indiana Credit Union League has summed up the not-for-profit versus for-profit difference pretty well http://www.icul.org/what_is.asp  Their take on the situation is not so different from the Ontario law.

"Credit unions are not-for-profit, member-owned, democratically controlled financial cooperatives — that is, they are mutual organizations operated entirely by and for their members.

Once you deposit money in a credit union, you become a member, not just a customer, because your deposit is considered your share of the ownership in the credit union.

Historically, credit unions offered only savings accounts and consumer loans. Many have expanded their services, particularly the larger credit unions, during the past few decades in response to their members' changing — and more sophisticated — financial needs. Some credit unions offer credit cards, debit cards, checking accounts, IRAs and share certificates. Credit unions also are expanding the types of loans they offer. Many offer mortgages, home equity loans, student loans and small-business loans to members.

Credit unions may look like banks in that they both offer financial products and services to consumers. But that's where the similarities end and the differences begin.

As cooperative organizations, credit unions exist solely to meet their members' financial needs, not to make a profit off of them. In fact, after expenses are paid and reserves are set aside, credit unions return their "profits" to members in the forms of lower loan rates, higher savings rates and free or low-cost services. That's why consumers typically get better rates at credit unions. For-profit financial institutions, on the other hand, exist to generate profits for a relatively small group of stockholders at the expense of their customers.

As a member-owner of a credit union, you have a voice in the overall governance of the credit union. Each credit union is run by a volunteer board of directors elected by, and from, the membership. This democratic process ensures the board remains accountable to the membership. At for-profit financial institutions, the boards of directors are accountable only to stockholders, not to customers.

While for-profit financial institutions can serve anyone in the general public, credit unions can serve only the individuals within their fields of membership. A credit union's field of membership is the association, affiliation or residential area stipulated in its charter that legally defines who may become a member.

Credit unions were created to enable people to pool their financial resources to help themselves and each other. Credit unions still operate by this People Helping People philosophy today. They exist to bring people together in a cooperative effort so these people can receive low-cost, high-quality financial services. This philosophy helps explain why since 1984, credit union members have been more satisfied with the service they receive from their credit unions than bank customers are, according to a well-known national survey of consumers' attitudes toward financial institutions."

Mikel1777 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Peace Offering
Mike, Morris and others here. I suspect it might be good for all concerned if we archive the current talk page (which is getting kind of long and unwieldy anyway) and start on a fresh page. Technically I don't know how to do this however. Anyone have any suggestions?Brett epic (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Brett, I do not know how to archive it either, but think that is would be a good idea to do so. No hard feelings I hope; my experiences just have me paranoid about bankers. Mikel1777 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to try to do this today, but here is the link to the Wikipedia help page on archiving a talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page    Mikel1777 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I'm not going to do it at all. This is a genuine peace offering -- let's move forward. But there's nothing on this page that embarrasses me.Brett epic (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. You brought it up. Mikel1777 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, even if I theoretically did defame you -- which I did not -- slander only occurs with spoken, non-published communications. The correct term for what you accused me of it "libel." Mikel1777 (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a few ways of archiving the talk page, some easier than others. I have done manual moves on pages with large sections of old coversations, and it is not really difficult once you get the hang of it. There are also bots available that would automate the process. Consensus is urged before setting up automatic archiving of a talk page. I would suggest that the automated process might be the best way to accomplish this. There are options as to how it is done. Those interested can look at the howto page to see the options. It usually moves inactive conversations, but will not leave the page blank. I would happy to set this up here if there is no objection to automating the process. Jim Miller (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to set it up, but in the miszabot approach it will not wipe it clean and start over, it will archive sections based on age.--Gregalton (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving based on age is not a bad idea. Mikel1777 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that a "go" then? I would set this up with, say, a 90-day archive limit to begin with. Note that most of the recent traffic would remain for some time (the archiver will not remove everything, but always leaves some of the most recent content).--Gregalton (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it, either Jim Miller or Gregalton. Based on age sounds good. -Mmpartee (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done Now it's just a matter of seeing if I got it right the next time the bot runs. Jim Miller (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Section order
It seems that the section labeled "Not-for-profit status and the need for a surplus" would not be the first thing most readers are looking for when looking up information on credit unions. I recommend it go further down in the article and start off with broader topics like global dispersion and history. I wanted to get some consensus before making such a change considering how much this topic has been discussed lately. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with moving it below the global dispersion section. Mikel1777 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Or move it below history but above "corporate credit unions." 208.58.205.95 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving it below history but above corporate credit unions was also my suggestion; for some reason I was not logged in. Mikel1777 (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved section below history. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it, Alan. BTW, I did not intend to undo your revert of my change on the NCUSIF insurance thing; I had originally written "the vast majority" then changed it to "virtually all" based on a letter I saw saying "virtually all," and thought that I had not saved the change I had made.

Bigger thanks to Jim Miller for adding the citation to NASCUS on private insurance; I had not realized that 5% of state-charters were ASI insured alone. Always best to have actual data. Mikel1777 (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rearranging of Lead Section
I am rearranging some of the info in the lead part of the artcle to fit it into four paragraphs, as per Wikipedia guidelines. I am not changing any content, but if anyone has a problem with what I have done, please do not hesitate to say so. Mikel1777 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged it into four paragraphs (as Wikipedia's lead section max is four); I think that it is better organized now. I did not alter any content other than to combine two sentences into one using a semi-colon and to change the beginning of one sentence from "Credit union policies . . ." to "A credit union's policies . . ." so that there would not be three sentences beginning with "credit union" in a row. Mikel1777 (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And I also added a statement to the effect that average asset size of credit union in different worldwide credit unions systems varies. Mikel1777 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, I did add some content to the lead section regarding Worldwide credit union system stats and names for "credit union" in French and in Afghanistan. I think that it reads a lot better now, however, and we are more likely to get this article upgraded to "good article" status. Mikel1777 (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Money Matters doesn't fit here
I don't know how it crept in here, but Money Matters as example of a CUSO smacks of commercialism. Money Matters is not the archetype CUSO, so doesn't belong as the example, certainly not in the Leagues and Associations section. Feels unencyclopedic. Let's remove it. -Mmpartee (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the paragraph to use a better example with its own page. I had to go through a similar removal a few months ago (see this diff). They creep in to articles from time to time. Jim Miller (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
The last two editors (one of whom is anonymous) have inserted "calls to action." Such marketing speak definitely does NOT belong in wikipedia. Please read, familiarize yourself with, and follow the guideline Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I am removing these non-encyclopedic commercial statements. As much as I might was to tell all wikipedia readers that they ought to run out and join the nearest credit union, that would be against wikipedia guidelines, so we can't do it. -Mmpartee (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs a section on how credit unions work..
I'd like to see some sort of explanation of how credit unions work in this article, and maybe the differences between them and a bank. At the moment the only difference that is listed is the way the board is elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.45.194 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Difference from mutual savings banks
How do credit unions differ from mutual savings banks? In spirit, their purpose is similar: "to provide a safe place for individuals to save and to invest those savings in mortgages, loans, stocks, bonds and other securities... to stimulate savings by individuals" (from the WP article on mutual savings banks). Also similar to credit unions, "the entirety of profits beyond the upkeep of the bank belongs to the depositors of the mutual savings bank". Please mention these similarities and explain the differences in the section "Differences from other financial institutions". -Pgan002 (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. It is not quite so simple, as mutual savings banks vary across the world.  For example, in the UK, parliament decided (in the 1980s) that the profits didn't belong to anyone, so authorized the banks to sell common stock to anyone that subscribed for it.


 * See also the Cooperative banking article, where there is a brief mention of this similarity.


 * Will you take it on?


 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! A British invasion!
Wow! It's great to get additional information about credit unions in the United Kingdom, but the new information is simply way too much for this article and has overwhelmed it. It may even be too much for its own article. In any case it needs to be returned to a nice summary and split out into its own article. --Mmpartee (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not concerned about large volumes of information on a subtopic (such as a country). That is one way that shorter articles (like this one) grow to become fully comprehensive featured articles.
 * However, I am concerned that the additions seem to be about mutual organizations and cooperative banking in general, rather than ( Raiffeisen / Schulze-Delitzsch ) credit unions in particular. I think they might be better moved from here to one or other of those 2 articles.  I don't think that it is correct to say that a mutual society (in the UK) is also known as a credit union  (though it is certainly true that a credit union is a type of mutual society.)
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question
I am 90% sure that the new text is ok copyright-wise, but I would like a second opinion on the changes before I spend some time wiki-fying it and moving it to the correct article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete references
I would like to move the new section about UK mutual society history to an appropriate article. However it seems it was written for a college essay. When it was rewritten for Wikipedia, all the references were lost. There are some Cambridge-style references: But the full citations of the books/papers/articles were not given, and the "anonymous" papers will be impossible to trace. (The others will take a trip to a university library - which I can ill afford.)
 * 1) ^ see Shay (1992)
 * 2) ^ Anonymous (1994b)
 * 3) ^ according to Stahl (1995)
 * 4) ^ as suggested by Anonymous (1994a)
 * 5) ^ Anonymous (2001)
 * 6) ^ Anonymous (1994c)
 * 7) ^ by Cook, Deakin and Hughes (2001)
 * 8) ^ Martin (1999)
 * 9) ^ Green and Johnson (1980)
 * 10) ^ London (2001)
 * 11) ^ a view supported by Mayers and Smith (1986)

Could the original contributor please dig out the missing information and post it here?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Company owned?
What about so called "company owned" credit unions? Are they also regarded as "not-for-profit"? 141.151.23.70 (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no such thing as a 'company-owned' credit union. Credit unions are by definition owned by their users/members.  However, many credit unions are based in companies.  See bond of association for details.Brett epic (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

confusing statistics
This article is filled with contradictory statistics, and does not read well in the country examples section. I`m going to edit if there are no objections,

non-verbatim examples,
 * Canada has the largest per-capita credit union usage in NA, 1/3 of the population 11.5m people
 * The united states has 43% of economically active people enrolled, 89m
 * The Caisse Desjardins North Americas largest and has assets of 111b
 * The US Navy Credit union is the worlds largest credit union with assets of 35b and 3m members

Caese (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not-for-profit status and the need for a surplus
"credit unions ... must turn what is, in economic terms, a small profit (i.e. "surplus") to be able to continue to serve their members."

Why is an economic profit necessary? The references don't seem to explain this. Also, this sounds incorrect as no firm *needs* to earn economic profit -- in fact, perfect competition demands that economic profit is zero. This needs to be explained. If this was not the intended meaning, then clarification instead is needed. Furthermost (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A surplus is necessary to build capital because credit unions cannot issue stock. They can only build capital through retained earnings.  Capital must be sufficient to allow a cushion for the bad years so that members can continue to be served.  The appropriate level of capital depends on the particular credit union.  Is this the kind of information needed in the article (although probably expanded and written better)?  72Dino (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks 72Dino for the thoughtful response. Yes, I agree with you that retained earnings are desirable as a buffer, but this can be achieved without economic profits being made. Keep in mind that return on equity does not have to be paid out to shareholders to be realised, where in this case the credit union’s member depositors are its ‘shareholders’. (My main point is that I hope people are mindful of the distinction between economic profit and accounting profit.) - Furthermost (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

difference between this entity and fractional-reserve-banking
I'm sorry, i don't see it. it's the same system of institutionalized fraud. it's like the debt-slaves are wishing for a nicer collar. Credit-unions, so called, still create money out of nothing, and inject it into the banking system to multiply and make the bankers richer and richer. The issue is not banking "costs", the problem is that ALL money is created as an interest-bearing-debt, out of thin-air. All Money, has to be returned to the banks, with interest. and so they are the rullers of us all.

These newly dubbed banks are nothing but one more layer of the fraud. I think it's sad.

There is not a word in this entire article about CreditUnions being exactly the same as regular-fractonal reserve banks. The ONLY difference is the name. not even the holding structure. not really even the for profit incentive. really sad. governments should create money WITHOUT debt. that's the solution I am waiting for the sheeple to voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.57.10 (talk) 16:34, December 18, 2011‎
 * The key difference between credit unions and fractional reserve banking is that of ownership. Perhaps you would prefer something like JAK Members Bank? Gobonobo  T C 00:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

not-for-profit vs non-profit
The article currently says in one paragraph: “Legally, and for tax purposes, credit unions are considered to be non-profits.”

And in the next paragraph: “In the credit union context, "not-for-profit" should not be confused with "non-profit" charities or similar organizations.[20] Credit unions are "not-for-profit" because they operate to serve their members rather than to maximize profits.”

which is a contradicts the previous paragraph. Which is right? Benjitz (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Regulatory Environment
I recommend describing the regulatory environment under which credit unions must operate. In particular, the authority and responsibilities of the National Credit Union Association (NCUA) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisdavid (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That information would probably be better in the Credit unions in the United States article, as those entities only apply to the U.S. and this particular article is for credit unions worldwide. You may want to check out that article to see if more information is needed.  Regards, 72Dino (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree that CUSO information should be merged with Credit Union information. They are totally separate. See www.nacuso.org vs. www.ncua.gov. A CUSO is a FOR-profit business within the NOT-for-profit CREDIT UNION entity. Also, a CUSO is made up of several credit unions partnering together. A Credit Union is a single entity made up of member-owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.96.215.67 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

SFK2 deletions
On February 10, I added text about state leagues partnering with outside groups.

On February 11, User:SFK2 deleted all but one sentence of my text, and deleted the citation. User:SFK2 wrote "rm ref spam" in his edit summary, referring to his anti-spam project against the publication Bank Credit News. However, there is still a dispute about his premise in that project. That dispute is not yet resolved. You can see it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Bankcreditnews_refspam.

In his deletion, User:SFK2 left one sentence remaining, and left it not cited. Therefore, his edit provided content that is unreferenced, in violation of Wikipedia's practices. As such, I have reinstated my edit.

Furthermore, the user in his actions is showing that he would prefer this hanging sentence ("State credit union leagues can partner with outside organizations to promote initiatives for credit unions or customers") - with NO citation - to remain on the page, instead of having that sentence PLUS an example AND a citation remaining on the page.

The evidence is clear that my original edit is acceptable and that his deletion does not seem to have any clear reasoning or defense.

Carpalclip3 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * was this issue resolved? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

word choice of "higher moral ground"
In the first section, regarding the distinction with other financial institutions, there is a sentences that states, "Generally speaking, credit unions see themselves as of 'higher moral ground' than banks; they feel that they are 'community-oriented', and 'serve people, not profit'".

The "higher moral ground" line doesn't fit with the neutral tone desired. The whole sentence, considering it is making a huge generalization, should be re-worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.232.196 (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No longer in article. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Credit union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080909215902/http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/fcu_act/fcu_act.pdf to http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/fcu_act/fcu_act.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080307131824/http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/fcu_act/fcu_act.pdf to http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/fcu_act/fcu_act.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100412180139/http://moralmoney.com:80/blog/2009/01/christian-credit-unions-and-what-they-offer/ to http://moralmoney.com/blog/2009/01/christian-credit-unions-and-what-they-offer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Credit union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120115021847/http://www.cuna.org/press/cudiff.html to http://www.cuna.org/press/cudiff.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Many credit unions also provide services intended to support community development[3] or sustainable international development on a local level."
Isn't this more of an example of a common myth? I'm not aware of any credit unions that provide any services outside the fairly narrow financial services provided to their members. The citation offered for the assertion that credit unions provide "services to support community development" is a webpage of a coop that says no such thing. I'd like a better citation offered for this claim, and I think it should be removed unless one a reliable citation is offered.Aharon (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)