Not a member? Sign up now
More Americans joined credit unions last month than all of 2010 combined
By Jeff MillsNovember 4th, 2011, 2:00 pmComments (21)
A thrilled Credit Union National Association (CUNA) has reported that a stunning 650,000 Americans have joined credit unions since September 29, a date that not coincidentally coincided with the since-rescinded Bank of America five-dollar monthly debit-fee announcement. By comparison, only 600,000 new members signed up for credit unions in all of 2010. CUNA also estimates that credit unions have added a whopping $4.5 billion in new savings accounts, between new members and existing members shifting funds.
In other words, there's something happening here, and what it is is exactly clear. The Occupy Wall Street movement, eagerly embraced by the media, has increased focus on sentiment that was obvious even pre-Occupation. And Saturday's Bank Transfer Day, a call by the 99 Percenters for Americans to migrate their moolah from big banks to credit unions and community banks, will undoubtedly spur even more bank customers to make a statement.
And, according to CUNY President Bill Cheney, it's not just a way to express your dissatisfaction with greedy lending institutions, it's also an opportunity to save a little coin. He said:
"These results indicate that consumers are clearly making a smarter choice by moving to credit unions where, on average, they will save about $70 a year in fewer or no fees, lower rates on loans and higher return on savings."
Bank of America tried to gouge customers in anticipation of revenue losses as a result of the Durbin Amendment, which limited big banks' cut on their customers' debit-card purchases. Prior to October 1, big banks were collecting forty-four cents on the average thirty-eight-dollar purchase. Now, as a result of new Federal Reserve rules, that number is down to about twenty-four cents.
Bank of America claims the new rules could cost them upwards of $2 billion a year. And in total, big banks are expected to hemorrhage $6 billion to $8 billion in annual fees. But, clearly, there won't be many tears shed for these losses. As a certain septuagenarian folk singer could tell you, the times are definitely a-changin'.
Commentarium (21 Comments)
It was not OWS. It was the banks doing it to themselves. I suppose Nerve will credit OWS with Netflix losing so many customers. It has nothing to do with the hippies, it has everything to do with poor business decisions. I know this site is liberal, but does it also serve as the propaganda wing for these hippies? This comment will be deleted in 5...4...3..2...
Comma, again, we do not delete your comments because you express a conservative opinion. We do so because A) sometimes you do so rudely and profanely, and B) sometimes it starts a giant troll war without adding anything to the conversation. Then, yes, they will be deleted, since the original point is lost in a sea of name-calling.
Alex is saying that even though you're a jerk, they don't always delete your comments. However, other commenters are free to troll the hell out of you until it is deleted.
Actually, Moron, it's your trolling that does it. So it's you, not me. Moron.
Can't disagree with myself there!
In fairness, Alex, you don't delete all comments that express an opinion rudely or profanely. There are trolls of all persuasions here. I have seen left-wingers express the hope that someone they disagree with die but those comments are not deleted. It really doesn't get much ruder than that.
You don't seem to get angry when it becomes public policy!
huh?
Honestly I was as willing as anyone else to write off Occupy Wall Street when it was first beginning. Bunch of angry students camping out in a corner of New York? Yeah whatever, that'll be done in a week. But now it's grown and grown and spread and spread, and basically everyone knows about it now. And it's definitely brought attention to the whole crisis. Even people who are anti-OWS have had to face and re-evaluate their views on banks and corporations. And sorry, but there's definitely a correlation here when a single month sees more shifts than a whole year. That doesn't just spontaneously happen. Something is in the air, and I think we have OWS to thank for it. I don't know how much long-term change we'll see, but this is certainly one big first step, and it's the first sign of real progress I'm seeing so far. So even if OWS doesn't totally destroy capitalism, it has at least managed to turn a few people on to credit unions, which is never a bad thing.
I'm not sure it's entirely OWS to credit for the change. The Tea Party, with whom OWS is frequently compared, has been agitating for change as well. To me the analog is 1968 and 1994, a combination of distrust of the actions of the government and a rejection of the internal workings of the government.
The Tea Party has one huge advantage over OWS: It has organized for change and is winning people over to its side. It's also largely taking aim at the Executive and the Senate. OWS will energize some but: 1. It's not nearly as organized, and, 2. It appears to me that most of those who support OWS are squarely in a liberal demographic. The inexplicable element to me is that OWS seems to support the current administration, despite it being in bed with corporations like GE (no taxes paid!) and getting more money from Wall Street than any administration before it.
I'm a credit union member. The credit unions are bastions of capitalism, competing on the open market, lowering costs and gaining customers.
You haven't seen the teabaggers take over the streets like OWS. No contest!
Because they have homes and a life to live.
When in reality we're all old, white & fat. Too damn lazy to physically commit to much more than misspelling signs and coming up with racist conspiracy theories.
A very encouraging development. It does seem disingenuous to describe illegal income no longer allowed as a "loss" however. Disallowing gouging is a social gain.
Shit bananas they transferred on average $7500 per person! ALERT THE MEDIA. Oh wait.....
Don't worry. If the trend continues, those with significant amounts of money will also move to CUs.
The means of the Occupy movement are only working if people can look right through it and claim it's not responsible for the results we're seeing. Just the idea that we don't need a leader, or an organization with paid bureaucrats, to direct us. That we can all lead, that brave or intelligent or compassionate or community-oriented people will put some ego aside and choose the best ideas for themselves, their families, their friends, their neighbors.
A voice of sanity rising above the chatter of the trolls hired by the Koch Brothers.
Choosing what's best for yourself is a key tenet of capitalism and the markets. As far as this describes the OWS movement, I'm certainly behind it. Unfortunately, it seems this is a small part of the entire movement.
This is how the market works. I doubt OWS has all that much to do with it but, what if it did? OWS protestors are consumers, too, and can "vote" with their money and business.
If this is OWS's doing then the irony is great, because this is how capitalism is supposed to work. If you dont like what company A is doing, then you take your business to company B. And if company A goes under, THEN YOU LET IT!.