jacee Posted April 14, 2012 Report Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) One of Canada’s largest credit unions is launching an aggressive drive to compete directly with the country’s major banks. FirstOntario Credit Union, which started in Hamilton as a cooperative of Stelco workers, has been urging consumers through billboards and a website to think about how they’d run their own bank. This is exciting, when you think about people/members collectively taking back control of their banking, INCLUDING all small businesses ... That's starting to look like having a chance against the megabanks/corps. -links- Credit Union Act http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/creditun.htm http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union#section_4 Edited April 15, 2012 by jacee Quote
Shady Posted April 14, 2012 Report Posted April 14, 2012 What's a megabank? Do you mean a bank? Quote
punked Posted April 14, 2012 Report Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) What's a megabank? Do you mean a bank? The big 5 in Canada would be megabanks but in Canada their are banks (which are not credit unions) outside the big 5. Do you understand anything? Edited April 14, 2012 by punked Quote
Topaz Posted April 14, 2012 Report Posted April 14, 2012 Would this be about some Americans who withdrew their money from the banks and went over to the credit unions in protest? I know that credit unions don't have the fees like the banks do and I was thinking of switching when our mortgage is done next year. If one isn't going to be borrowing money than the credit unions are a better deal. Quote
Smallc Posted April 14, 2012 Report Posted April 14, 2012 The big 5 in Canada would be megabanks but in Canada their are banks (which are not credit unions) outside the big 5. There are six large banks in Canada. They're called Charter Banks. Quote
punked Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) There are six large banks in Canada. They're called Charter Banks. There are more then 6 charter banks in Canada SmallC heck there is three different categories of Chartered banking in Canada and each has more then 23 banks which fall under them. However most people only know or bank at the big 5 Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, ScotiaBank, Bank of Montreal, and CIBC. Thanks for the lesson though. Edited April 15, 2012 by punked Quote
jacee Posted April 15, 2012 Author Report Posted April 15, 2012 Would this be about some Americans who withdrew their money from the banks and went over to the credit unions in protest? I know that credit unions don't have the fees like the banks do and I was thinking of switching when our mortgage is done next year. If one isn't going to be borrowing money than the credit unions are a better deal. The Credit Unions are Ok for borrowing too, in my 30 years' experience. Any minor differences in interest rates are more than compensated in better service, fewer fees. They are not profit-obsessed. You're a customer, not a 'mark'. And you are a member/shareholder with input to the business. Quote
Smallc Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) However most people only know or bank at the big 5 Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto-Dominion Bank, ScotiaBank, Bank of Montreal, and CIBC. The media always refers to the 6 large chartered banks. You're forgetting National. I had actually forgotten that the definition of Chartered banks extended past the 6 main ones. Still, calling the 6 main banks megabanks is a bit misleading, as it's meant to indicate a negative quality to them. Edited April 15, 2012 by Smallc Quote
punked Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) The media always refers to the 6 large chartered banks. You're forgetting National. I had actually forgotten that the definition of Chartered banks extended past the 6 main ones. Still, calling the 6 main banks megabucks is a bit misleading, as it's meant to indicate a negative quality to them. But that would be what they are and how you would refer to them if you were someone who banked at a much smaller local bank (that is if one existed around you). It isn't a wrong statement like Shady seems to imply. Those are the Canadian Megabanks. National while big is like 5th the size of the smallest of the Big 5. Although it got some big play last year. Edited April 15, 2012 by punked Quote
Smallc Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 National while big is like 5th the size of the smallest of the Big 5. Although it got some big play last year. It's counted as one of the 6 large banks though, probably because it operates in every part of Canada. Quote
punked Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 It's counted as one of the 6 large banks though, probably because it operates in every part of Canada. Makes sense to me. The only other bank I can even name in Canada is Western Bank but I know there are others. Quote
madmax Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) d Edited April 19, 2012 by madmax Quote
Smallc Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 Any credit union that gets created and is successful is soon purchased by the banks. Can they even do that? They don't even operate under the same set of rules (one is federal, and the other is provincial). Quote
Shady Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 Still, calling the 6 main banks megabucks is a bit misleading, as it's meant to indicate a negative quality to them. That's what I figured. Quote
jacee Posted April 15, 2012 Author Report Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) Any credit union that gets created and is successful is soon purchased by the banks. Can they even do that? They don't even operate under the same set of rules (one is federal, and the other is provincial). I don't think so. Credit Unions belong to the members, and earn only "a small profit". Credit unions are "not- for-profit" because they operate to serve their members rather than to maximize[ 21][ 22][ 23] profits.[ 21][ 22][ 23] But unlike non-profit [charity] organizations, credit unions do not rely on donations, and are financial institutions that must turn what is, in economic terms, a small profit (i.e."surplus") to be able to continue to serve their[ 24][ 25] members. According to the Credit Unions (WOCCU), a credit union's revenues(from loans and investments) need to exceed its operating expenses and dividends (interest paid on deposits) in order to maintain capital and[ 26] solvency[ 26] and "credit unions use excess earnings to offer members more affordable loans, a higher return on savings, lower fees or new products and services. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union#section_6 And ... Banks are bought and sold all the time. Credit Unions CAN’T be bought OR sold. They are owned by their members. http://www.alturacu.com/education/protect-credit-unions/credit-unions-101 Edited April 15, 2012 by jacee Quote
fellowtraveller Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 Any credit union that gets created and is successful is soon purchased by the banks. Competition doesn't last very long. Incorrect first sentence, correct on second for credit unions here. But it is the big credit unions who gobble up small credit unions. They don't like competition either. The Credit Unions are Ok for borrowing too, in my 30 years' experience. In my direct experience, credit unions are useless for commericial, business or mortgage brokerage. It appears that they are unable to make timely decisions or approvals Quote The government should do something.
dre Posted April 15, 2012 Report Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) There shouldnt be chartered banks at ALL, and the government should get out of the business of insuring the deposits as well. These commercial banks arent even really banks... banks collect deposits, lend the money out at interest, and share the interest with the depositors. These commercial banks create most of the money they loan out of thin air... a practice also known as counterfeiting... and they steal money from every single Canadian, every time they make a loan. The current banking system has only been around for a little less than 40 years, and already it has the entire world so mired in debt that the only way we will ever be free of it is to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch. We should separate legitimate banking from monetary expansion and deregulate it. Private banks should be able to lend out whatever real money they collect in deposits at whatever terms they see fit. The government should not regulate them much at all, and it should not insure their deposits, and it should not bail them out if they fail. The money creation component should be completely nationalized. Edited April 15, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bleeding heart Posted April 17, 2012 Report Posted April 17, 2012 The media always refers to the 6 large chartered banks. You're forgetting National. I had actually forgotten that the definition of Chartered banks extended past the 6 main ones. Still, calling the 6 main banks megabanks is a bit misleading, as it's meant to indicate a negative quality to them. Everybody feels negatively towards the banks. Must not be their fault; must be everybody else's! Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Michael Hardner Posted April 17, 2012 Report Posted April 17, 2012 There shouldnt be chartered banks at ALL, and the government should get out of the business of insuring the deposits as well. These commercial banks arent even really banks... banks collect deposits, lend the money out at interest, and share the interest with the depositors. These commercial banks create most of the money they loan out of thin air... a practice also known as counterfeiting... and they steal money from every single Canadian, every time they make a loan. This is called fractional reserve banking. I'm more inclined to listen to your arguments when you don't imbue them with inflammatory language like "stealing" and such. The current banking system has only been around for a little less than 40 years, and already it has the entire world so mired in debt that the only way we will ever be free of it is to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch. dre, it's hyperbole, I think, what you're posting... Debt as a % of GDP is bad, it's true, but we're in another recession right now. We should separate legitimate banking from monetary expansion and deregulate it. Private banks should be able to lend out whatever real money they collect in deposits at whatever terms they see fit. The government should not regulate them much at all, and it should not insure their deposits, and it should not bail them out if they fail.The money creation component should be completely nationalized. I get suspicious when complete redesigns are suggested, especially in dire times. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
dre Posted April 18, 2012 Report Posted April 18, 2012 This is called fractional reserve banking. I'm more inclined to listen to your arguments when you don't imbue them with inflammatory language like "stealing" and such. dre, it's hyperbole, I think, what you're posting... Debt as a % of GDP is bad, it's true, but we're in another recession right now. I get suspicious when complete redesigns are suggested, especially in dire times. This is called fractional reserve banking. Well not really. Fractional reserve lending was pretty sustainable before fiat currency, and purchasing power and inflation were basically flat for hundreds of years. Our system is something completely different, because banks can use bank credit as their actual reserves, and reserve rates have been cut to almost nothing in most western countries. I'm more inclined to listen to your arguments when you don't imbue them with inflammatory language like "stealing" and such. But stealing is exactly what it is, and people have to wake up to that. A lot of people dont understand that every time a commercial bank makes a loan their paycheck shrinks and can purchase a little less. And most people have no idea how the system works at all. Debt as a % of GDP is bad, it's true, but we're in another recession right now. You cant just assess debt as percentage of GDP unless you live in a dictatorship. What matters is the federal budget. You also cant separate household debt from government debt because they are essentially the same thing. Government can put money into the economy either directly or it can let consumers do it by making credit very cheap and easily available, but the result is the same. All of this borrowing guarantees a recession. And youre ignoring the other macro-economic problems all this debt based consumption causes. This activity just caused a global recession that destroyed millions of peoples lives, and its still going on in Europe. All this debt based consumption has driven up large trade deficits in the west, and caused productive capacity to move overseas. And it also causes the insanely fast depreciation of resources. I get suspicious when complete redesigns are suggested, especially in dire times. Well... obviously a redesign isnt going to happen in good times Dire times are what DRIVES redesigns. The fractional reserve system was invented because there was a run on gold in England. The central banking system was created on the heals of a major banking crisis in the early 1900's, and further redesigned during the great depression. The fiat money system was created when the largest economy on earth went bust and there was a run on its reserves. If they didnt take a zillion dollars from taxpayers and dump it into the banks system (and the real bailouts were thousands of times larger than any of the funds they announced) it would have been "redesigned" then. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted April 18, 2012 Report Posted April 18, 2012 Everybody feels negatively towards the banks. I don't. I keep enough money in my account that I pay no fees (my business account is another story). I have no problem. Quote
bleeding heart Posted April 18, 2012 Report Posted April 18, 2012 I don't. I keep enough money in my account that I pay no fees (my business account is another story). I have no problem. Fair enough. Nine Canadians, five Americans, and two Europeans don't hate banks. Only the unwashed uninformed majority has an issue with them. And the hatred isn't always, or even usually, about one's personal experiences or finances. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
dre Posted April 18, 2012 Report Posted April 18, 2012 Fair enough. Nine Canadians, five Americans, and two Europeans don't hate banks. Only the unwashed uninformed majority has an issue with them. And the hatred isn't always, or even usually, about one's personal experiences or finances. I didnt have any problem with modern banking at all, until I did a lot of research on how they actually work, and the effect their behavior has on our behavior. Iv never met a single person who has actually taken the time to understand it all, and has NOT been disturbed by what they found out. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted April 18, 2012 Report Posted April 18, 2012 And youre ignoring the other macro-economic problems all this debt based consumption causes. This activity just caused a global recession that destroyed millions of peoples lives, and its still going on in Europe. All this debt based consumption has driven up large trade deficits in the west, and caused productive capacity to move overseas. And it also causes the insanely fast depreciation of resources. Destroyed millions of people's lives? Care to elaborate? Losing a job for a while or having to move to rental housing isn't exactly the destruction of one's life. The recession caused some economic hardship for a while, that's all. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.