WASHINGTON -
Hanging in the balance, suggest some, is the credit union tax exemption itself. Indeed, research by the Credit Union Journal has found "congressional intent" for credit unions to serve people of "modest means." But in those two words lie much larger questions, chief among them: what is the definition of "modest," how far are credit unions to go in serving this group, and what are credit unions doing now?
In this special report, Credit Union Journal examines these and other questions as credit unions head to Washington this week for CUNA's GAC, where they can be expected to encounter many of these issues.
On Jan. 24 of this year, one of the authors of "Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States," Georgetown University Economist Harry Holzer, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that the poor cost the economy because they are less productive, earn less money, commit more crimes and have more health-related expenses. Indeed, according to a recent study, those costs are far greater than previously imagined-children who grow up poor cost the economy $500 billion annually.
There were faint echoes of recent history for credit unionists in this testimony since the same committee held hearings on the credit union tax exemption on Nov. 3, 2005. Former Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) scolded NCUA and the industry for the lack of both data and transparency on how credit unions are serving "modest means" Americans.
After almost a century of service, it is reasonable to pose the question of how well credit unions are serving low-, moderate-, and middle-income groups, or those of "modest means." After a review of an unlikely stew of conflicting studies, opinions and misinformation, it is clear that a definitive answer remains submerged.
Some conclusions, though, are surfacing based on interviews with economists and other industry experts as well as an examination of the NCUA and GAO studies, a soon-to-be published study by Filene Research Institute and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act numbers.
For starters, better data and further study are needed as well as a definition of modest means. The GAO report equates low- and moderate-income to "modest means," while others add middle-income to the working definition. An obvious question comes to mind: how does one measure something that is ill-defined or simply lacks a definition? Other conclusions from this analysis by the Credit Union Journal:
* Credit unions are not reaching the poorest segments of American society.
* The credit union tax exemption is based, in part, on service to modest means, according to a "Congressional Intent" written in 1998.
* Credit union product market share among moderate- and middle-income households is declining in credit cards and mortgages, while checking, auto loans and savings are showing substantial increases.
* Credit unions have higher approval and fewer denial rates on mortgage applications than banks among lower-income groups.
* As more credit unions convert to community charters, the likelihood of service to lower income groups will increase.
Serving the Poor
Some 37-million Americans who live below the poverty line, which the government defines as $19,350 for a family of four. They lack access to traditional financial institutions-credit unions or banks. They are typically served by the alternative financial market-pawnshops, check cashing outlets and payday lenders-at considerably higher fees and costs than traditional financial institutions.
As credit unions know as well as anyone, the alternative financial market has grown dramatically-especially in consumer lending market share-during the past five years, while credit union growth in the same market and membership has been modest. Credit unions are failing to reach the poorest segments of American society, according to Cliff Rosenthal, executive director of the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, New York.
"Credit unions have not made inroads into inner-city areas or low-income areas," said Rosenthal. The disappearance of "hundreds" of smaller credit unions during the past 10 years has been a factor. "A number of these credit unions occupied a niche that served low-income groups in the inner city," Rosenthal continued. "You can travel a long way in inner cities and not find a credit union. There are gaps in service which correlate with an economically segregated society."
The disappearance of smaller credit unions will likely continue, if current trends are maintained. The number of credit unions in 2007 now hovers around 9,000; by 2010 that number will decrease to 7,700, and further decline to 6,600 by 2015, according to projections by Bill Hampel, chief economist for CUNA.
For 'Working Americans'
NCUA makes the argument that credit unions were designed for working Americans, and if one takes that argument an additional step, the poor are ill-served. The trade associations tend to agree that working Americans are credit unions' real focus and that regulations limit service to a defined field of membership, while risk-averse regulators have made it difficult to reach out to the poorest segments of society.
Historically, credit unions had two balance sheets-one social and one financial, but they weren't designed to be charities. The organization needs to first survive in a tough financial services market before it can offer social benefits. "A credit union is first of all a business," said credit union pioneer Roy Bergengren in 1928-words that have relevance today.
That isn't to say the poor should be written off or neglected since their need for financial services is acute. Those interviewed for this report agreed that more needs to be done for poor Americans and there is evidence some credit unions are offering innovative programs to do so.
If one agrees with the argument that the poor are ill-served by credit unions-or the banks for that matter-the relevant question becomes whether credit unions are effectively serving "modest means" Americans.
The thermostat on the debate was turned up a notch as research studies on this subject were released almost simultaneously by GAO and NCUA in November 2006 that appeared to offer conflicting conclusions.
For reasons perhaps known only to lawmakers or regulators, Congress and NCUA have yet to offer up a definition of "modest means." And a definition is unlikely to be voiced in the near future, according to John McKechnie, NCUA's director of public and congressional affairs, who was also a congressional aide and former chief lobbyist for CUNA.
"It's a very subjective term, which cuts across a number of areas," said McKechnie, "It was meant to be a guidepost for the industry; there's no appetite in Congress to come up with a definition."
One wonders if Franz Kafka, author of The Trial would have smiled at this bureaucratic shell game. The hero of his book, Joseph K., a bank clerk no less, is charged with a crime, but is not told the nature of the crime. Bankers and by inference, former Chairman Thomas, accuse credit unions of failing to serve-or document their efforts to serve-those of modest means, but neglect to define modest means.
For purposes of this report, we'll use the income definitions used by the banking regulatory agencies for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). We'll define modest means as low-, moderate-, and middle-come groups. The national household median income was $46,326 in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
* Low-income households have less than 50% of their local area median household income; about 20% of the population.
* Moderate-income households have at least 50%, but less than 80% of their local area median household income; about 20% of the population.
* Middle-income households have at least 80%, but less than 120% of their local area median household income; about 20% of the population.
* Upper-income households have at least 120% of their local area median household income; about 40% of the population.
Evolving Rationale for Tax Exemption
For much of its history, credit unionists claimed that the tax exemption was based on the cooperative and not-for-profit structure, not service to those of modest means.
When St. Mary's Bank in Manchester, N.H., the first credit union in the U.S., was chartered in 1909, affordable loans and HOPE for a better life were offered to working men and women. Credit unions offered cooperation, self help, and education so that working people could get control of their personal finances and improve their lives.
In the preamble to the Federal Credit Union Act of 1934, credit unions were established to "make available to people of small means credit for provident purposes, through a national system of cooperative credit, thereby helping to stabilize the credit structure of the United States."
A 'Congressional Finding'
When the Federal Credit Union Act was revised in 1998 with the passage of the Credit Union Membership Access Act, a "Congressional Finding" was added to give further guidance. The Congressional Finding is not a part of the Act, but is considered the congressional purpose behind the law. "Small means" was changed to "modest means," and the tax exemption was explicitly based on serving those of modest means as well as on a number of other requirements according to the Congressional Finding:
"Credit unions, unlike many other participants in the financial services market, are exempt from Federal and most State taxes because they are member-owned, democratically operated, not-for-profit organizations generally managed by volunteer board of directors and because they have the specified mission of meeting the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means."
Credit unions have the "specified mission" of meeting persons of modest means, but it is not an exclusive directive. Credit unions were not means to be poor people's banks, according to McKechnie.
"Congress, both rhetorically and in action, has the expectation that credit unions will cast a broad economic net over the economic spectrum," said McKechnie. "Congress expects credit unions to bring in low-income people since they lacked access to financial services. But credit unions were never intended to be exclusively poor people's banks; it wouldn't be economically feasible."
According to the Federal Credit Union Act, membership is limited to field of membership in three categories: single common bond, multiple common bond or community membership. There are a few exceptions, notably underserved areas which are available to be served by community chartered credit unions by application.
A Tipping Point-Nov. 3, 2005
The House Ways and Means Committee Review of the Tax Exemption on Nov. 3, 2005 was a tipping point in the debate of credit union service to low-income Americans (see related resource box.)
While there is little passion for rolling back the credit union tax exemption, Chairman Thomas, who is no longer in Congress, warned NCUA and the industry about their lack of both transparency and data that supports the credit union mission of serving people of modest means. A case can be made that the scolding that Chairman Thomas gave NCUA and the industry was a lone voice in the congressional wilderness.
"The other members of the Ways and Means Committee did not share Thomas's skepticism or hostility toward credit unions," said McKechnie. "Most members of Congress agree that credit unions' serving low-income people is a complicated issue; they don't see it as a black and white issue."
Even though a working definition was unavailable, Chairman Thomas called for collecting data that would support credit unions serving people of modest means along the lines of the CRA. Only two states require their credit unions to comply with CRA rules-Connecticut and Massachusetts. Both states analyze credit unions in their ability to deliver credit to specific areas. CRA performance evaluations are used to determine applications for mergers, expanded fields of membership and other requests made of the regulator.
Chairman Thomas and the Ways and Means Committee's demands, in part, resulted in the first of two government reports that were both published in November 2006 and appeared, at least to some observers, to contradict each other.
The Case of the Dueling Studies: NCUA & GAO
The NCUA study, "Member Service Assessment Pilot Program: A Study of Federal Credit Union Service," reported that it "analyzed 14 million member account records from 448 randomly selected federal credit unions." The overall finding was that federal credit unions primarily serve those people they have been chartered to serve-"working individuals," with 44% of their membership making less than the median family income of their metropolitan statistical area.
Some 60% of the membership in the average federal credit union has a median family annual income of less than $60,000, 82% less than $75,000, and 96% less than $100,000. On average, 82% of federal credit unions offer at least some of the following programs-credit-builder loans, first time home buyer program, micro-consumer loans, micro-member business loans and share-secured credit cards.
The NCUA study also noted that it was "unfair to draw any definitive conclusions about the success of federal credit unions serving individuals and groups outside their traditional membership base without fully focusing on whom they can legally serve." The common bond limitation is the overriding factor that impacts membership demographics.
Since many of community credit unions have converted charters from employee-based credit unions during the past few years, it will take a longer period of time to accurately access how effective credit unions are in serving low-income groups, the report concluded.
The study also said that federal credit unions designated as low income, or community chartered, have better opportunities to serve lower-income groups compared to those federal credit unions with more restricted fields of membership.
The Government Accounting Office's (GAO) study, "Credit Union Membership and Executive Compensation," uses data from the Federal Reserve's 2004 Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) and the NCUA's low-income program. One of the five objectives of the study was to review NCUA's efforts to expand credit union services to low- and moderate-income individuals.
The GAO Definition
As NCUA or the Federal Credit Union Act has not established definitions for modest means, the GAO report equates low- and moderate-income to "modest means." It doesn't include "middle-income" in its definition. By this definition, banks were serving more citizens of modest means. The report estimates that 14% of credit union members were low income; 17% were moderate income; or 31% were of modest means. For bank customers, 24% were low income; 16% were moderate income; or 41% were modest means.
Some 20% of credit union members were middle income, 49% were upper income, while 18% of bank customers were middle income and 41% were upper income. The trend, according to GAO, is that credit union upper income members are increasing. From 2001 to 2004 credit union upper income members grew in numbers from 43% to 49%.
The GAO report concludes that between the years of 2001 and 2004 the SCF data shows that credit unions continued to serve a higher proportion of middle- and upper-income households and smaller percentage of low-and moderate-income households than did banks
The GAO seconded Chairman Thomas recommendation that NCUA needs to do a better job of tracking credit union performance of federal credit unions in providing financial services to people of modest means. It recommended providing benchmark data and conducting more studies over time to assess progress over time.
GAO agreed with NCUA that because of relative newness of community charter expansions-most occurred within the past five years-it would be difficult to observe a significant increase in participation of low-income and underserved areas efforts, it would take time before changes in the income profiles of credit union members would be reflected in data.
'Surprised' At The Term
The release of both studies failed to clarify the question of service to modest means; rather it added kerosene to the flames of the debate. The National Federation of CDCUs' Cliff Rosenthal found NCUA's use of the term "working people" surprising.
"I'm rather surprised that they used this term," said Rosenthal. "Because this includes everybody who receives wages, including an investment banker who works on Wall Street. My concern is that financial services are not solely for those who work. Others need financial services; people who receive government benefits and people with disabilities."
If one were to boil down the essence of both studies, an interpretation of the GAO report is that federal credit unions are straying somewhat from their mission of serving low- and moderate-income groups while banks were do a better job of reaching these groups. NCUA disagrees and says that federal credit unions are true to their original charter and are serving working men and women, given the regulatory restrictions. Part of the difference is due to the difference in the data.
"The two studies used different data sets," said George Hofheimer, chief research officer for Filene Research Institute, Madison, Wis. "The GAO used the Survey of Consumer Finance, which incidentally oversamples wealthier households, while the NCUA uses primary member data directly from a random sample of federal credit unions."
The GAO database is very small, and does not allow analysis of what type of credit union a respondent belongs to, according to CUNA's Bill Hampel. "You can tell if a person uses a credit union, but you can't tell what type or charter." GAO reviewed about 4,000 records, and they define credit union members as those who primarily use a credit union, which is 20% of the respondents. That would equal about 800 records, said Hampel.
"The GAO data was not meant to reach definitive conclusions," said Dave Colby, chief economist for CUNA Mutual Group in Madison, Wis. "It is not a representative population that you can reach statistically valid conclusions; the data is skewed."
If one puts the GAO and NCUA findings together, however, there is a common conclusion. "The GAO study found a substantial increase in community charters over the past decade," said Hampel. "The NCUA report shows that, given time, community charters serve a great proportion of lower-income members. Today, most credit unions are occupationally based and most members come from working people. As more credit unions take on community charters, the more likely they will be able to serve lower income groups."
Better Data, But No CRA
Those interviewed told the Credit Union Journal they agreed that better data on the effectiveness of credit unions service to modest means is needed. The NCUA and GAO studies were viewed as a good first step, perhaps a benchmark data for some. Other types of data need to be analyzed.
"You need to look at more than just income levels; you need to look at how you are serving people," said Tun Wai, NAFCU's director of research. "You need to look at outreach programs-financial education, quality of services, easy access, size of loan amounts - which are hard to quantify."
There is also a consensus in the credit union industry that a need for better information fails to segue into a CRA-like regulation for credit unions. The zeal that past NCUA Chairman Norm D'Amours had for a "CRA-lite" regulation is no longer found within the industry. "CRA was a bank solution for a bank problem," said Wai. "Some banks had a history of redlining; there is no evidence of any credit union redlining. Former Senator Phil Gramm said that you can't have redlining in a defined field of membership."
One way to measure credit union effectiveness in serving low- and moderate-income communities is by mining the Federal Reserve's Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) numbers.
As previously mentioned, the data is skewed for those who apply for mortgages; poor and low-income citizens are under-represented. The advantage is that every financial institution above $30 million in assets is required to submit information on its mortgage applications to the government.
"Credit unions have always had a higher mortgage approval rating for low income and minorities than banks, but until recently banks made a greater proportion of their loans to lower-income borrowers," said Hampel. "This was because of field of membership restrictions that made access to credit unions more difficult for lower-income borrowers."
After a look at the HMDA numbers and calculations by CUNA, it is hard to argue with Hampel. The table at upper left (Mortgage Denial Rates) shows the denial rates to low- and moderate-income borrowers.
As the table shows credit unions are less likely to deny a mortgage application from a low- or moderate-income applicant than are other lenders. Low- and moderate-income applicants are only about half to two thirds as likely to be denied by a credit union as other lenders.
The table below, center presents credit union mortgage approval rates.
The opposite is the case with low- and moderate- income people concerning approval rates. Low- and moderate-income applicants are about a half again as likely to be approved by a credit union as by other lenders.
In the table at left, bottom, the data reflects the credit union share of the low- and moderate-income originations.
That data shows a slow increase in percentage of mortgage originations by credit unions. Until recently, other lenders had a greater proportion of their mortgage loans to low- and moderate- income borrowers. This was due to field of membership restrictions, according to Hampel.
"Many low- and moderate-income applicants haven't had access to credit unions, although those that do and take advantage of it are much more likely to have their mortgage loans approved," said Hampel. "The lack of access is changing because of the gradual expansion of community charters, and probably the addition of underserved areas so that now credit unions make a greater share of their loans to low- and moderate income borrowers than do other lenders."
A Pending Filene Study
The GAO report based part of its methodology on the Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) data. In a Filene Research Institute study to be released during the second quarter of 2007, Jinkook Lee, a professor at Ohio State University, re-examined the SCF data by using a longer time frame-1995, 1998, 2001, 2004-to get a better read on consumer use of credit union and other financial intermediaries products and services.
One of the drawbacks to the SCF numbers is that the surveys are conducted once every three years and annual changes cannot be detected. By examining SCF data over a longer period of time, a more accurate picture of consumer use of financial products emerges.
Professor Lee examines the market share of credit unions and other financial institutions for each product for all households and the households by using two thresholds: with 80% of median household income-moderate income-and with 120% of median household income-middle income.
For an overview of financial institution marketshare by income level, see table on page 20.
Credit union product market share among moderate- and middle-income households is declining in credit cards and mortgages, while checking, auto loans and savings are showing substantial increases, according to Lee's research. Use of multiple financial institutions among these two income groups is low.
* Checking accounts. Credit union market share in checking accounts shows significant increases among moderate- and middle-income households. This is particularly noteworthy because a checking account often leads to a consumer's choice of a primary financial institution, or in the parlance of marketers-a "sticky" relationship. Once the checking relationship is established, it is typically maintained, unless the financial institution commits gross incompetence in the consumer's perception.
For moderate-income households, credit union market share increased almost 200 basis points from 10.62% in 1995 to 12.60% in 2004. For middle-income households, the market share increased more than 200 basis points, from 10.77% in 1995 to 13.10% in 2004. For all households, credit union market share increased 185 basis points from 11.41% in 1995 to 13.26% in 2004.
* Credit Cards. Credit union market share in credit cards is slowly declining-one can argue-because of the trend for credit unions selling their card portfolios. The resources and aggressive marketing tactics of the large credit card companies are also difficult for credit unions or smaller financial institutions to match.
For moderate-income households, credit union market share dropped slightly from 5.91% in 1995 to 5.07% in 2004. For middle-income households, the market share dropped almost 138 basis points, from 7.01% in 1995 to 5.63% in 2004. For all households, credit union market share dropped almost 200 basis points from 7.60% in 1995 to 5.66% in 2004.
* Auto loans. As the mainstay of the lending portfolio, auto loans are critical for the industry.
For middle-income households, credit union auto loan market share gained more than 300 basis points from 14.55% in 1995 to 17.61% in 2004. For moderate-income households, the market share increased almost 400 basis points, from 13.05% in 1995 to 17.26% in 2004. For all households, market share dropped almost from 18.65% in 1995 to 17.81% in 2004.
* Savings accounts. Credit union market share increased in all three categories, which is significant since in 2005, the national savings rate reached a negative growth rate for the first time since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It was negative again in 2006 (see related story, page 24).
For moderate-income households, credit union market share in savings increased more than 700 basis points from 10.83% in 1995 to 18.52% in 2004. For middle-income households, the market share jumped a similar amount from 11.21% in 1995 to 18.12% in 2004. For all households, market share increased about more than 450 basis points from 12.29% in 1995 to 16.63% in 2004.
* Mortgages. This category of loans continues to be the poor cousin in the credit union lending portfolio. Market share continues to be small and there were declines in moderate-and middle-income, while all households were about the same.
This may seem a contradiction to the HMDA data cited in this report. The conclusions are based on two different data sets, just as the GAO and NCUA studies are. The HMDA data is based on the Census statistics and is not a survey. The Survey of Consumer Finance is based on a survey sample of about 4,000 households. And the areas being measured differ - approval, denial and originations - while the Filene study is simply examining market share.
For moderate-income households, credit union mortgage market share declined almost 100 basis points from 4.74% in 1995 to 3.69% in 2004. For middle-income households, the market share dropped about 60% basis points 4.41% in 1995 to 3.88% in 2004. For all households, credit union market share stayed about the same from 4.10% in 1995 to 4.15% in 2004.
One Intriguing Finding
One of the consistent findings throughout Lee's research is that the poor-, moderate- and middle-income groups tend not to use multiple financial institutions. In the table that is shown on page 20, for those moderate-income households who had checking accounts, only 4.63% to 5.53% used multiple financial institutions. For middle-income households, it ranged from 6.42% to 6.46% while all households had a range of 10.43% to 11.04%.
The exception is for the moderate-income households who hold credit cards. Some 17.58% used multiple institutions in 1995, but dropped to 13.51% in 2004. Middle-income households gave a similar reading from 18.96% in 1995 to 16.94% in 2004. All households stayed about the same at approximately 22%.
The Trifecta
While the debate of whether credit unions are adequately serving citizens of modest means suggests a need for better data and more study, there are implications for credit unions.
As noted earlier, there is a lack of Congressional will to change the tax exemption. But according to the Congressional Finding, the tax exemption is based, in part, on service to those of modest means.
A growing number of credit unions are heeding the congressional call by viewing service to modest means as a trifecta strategy of market opportunity, fulfilling a mission and justifying the tax exemption.
There are challenges to overcome, of course. Hampel estimates that in 2005, 19% of the population who were non-members believed themselves to be ineligible, another 12% were non-members who didn't know if they were eligible or not. That's 31% of the population who are for all practical purposes ineligible for membership. In 1994, that number was 38% according to Hampel.
"Fewer people believe they no have access to a credit union, but we still have a long way to go," said Hampel.
MORTGAGE DENIAL RATES TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME BORROWERS
Year CUs Others CUs/Other
2001 13.6% 26.0% 52%
2002 12.4% 21.9% 57%
2003 11.6% 21.2% 55%
2004 13.2% 24.0% 55%
2005 18.2% 28.0% 65%
Source: CUNA calculations based on
Federal Reserve HMDA Data
MORTGAGE APPROVAL RATES TO LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME BORROWERS
Year CUs Others CUs/Other
2001 74.4% 47.1% 158%
2002 75.6% 47.5% 159%
2003 75.3% 48.5% 155%
2004 74.1% 51.1% 145%
2005 70.8% 46.3.0% 153%
Source: CUNA calculations based on
Federal Reserve HMDA Data
CU SHARE OF MORTGAGES FROM LOW-, MODERATE- INCOME BORROWERS
Year CUs Others CUs/Other
2001 24.6% 26.8% 92%
2002 25.3% 26.5% 96%
2003 25.9% 25.5% 102%
2004 27.6% 26.6% 104%
2005 26.7% 24.0% 111%
Source: CUNA calculations based on
Federal Reserve HMDA Data
The 1930s
Average Income in 1932: $1,500
Beef, prime rib: 29¢/lb.
Dr. Denton's: $1
House: 6 rooms, 1 car garage: $7,200
1934: The Pullman Porter Strike settled; average Porter's annual income: $880.
1935: In FDR's first Fireside Chat, he reassures Americans that the "banking" crisis" has passed. From 1920-1930, 9,000 banks, 86,000 businesses failed. Number of failed CUs: 0
The 1940s
Average Income in 1944: $3,600
A 1940 new Pontiac, DeLuxe Torpedo Six: $828
Electric Washing machine: $109.95
Eggs: 45¢/dozen
House: 5 rooms: $4,200
August 6, 1945: First nuclear bomb dropped at Nagasaki. Baby Boom begins with end of World War II.
NOTE: Income on these pages is in real dollars; not adjusted for inflation.
The 1950s
Average Income in 1952: $3,890
Average Cost of new house: $8,450
Sugar: 42¢ 5 lb./bag
Kelvinator Refrigerator: $75
New Henry J Ford: $1,299
RCA Color TV in 1956: $495
Stromburg B&W TV: $249
Cost of a gallon of gas: 18 cents
Ball Point Pen: 25¢
Samsonite Case: $25
Clock Radio: $59.95
The 1960s
Average Income in 1962: $5,956
New Rambler Deluxe, 2 door: $1,845
Bread, cracked wheat: 23¢ lb/loaf
Average cost of new house: $12,700
Average rent: $98
Gas per gallon: 25¢
Can of Beef Ravioli: 30¢
Loaf of Bread: 20¢
Average Inflation Rate: 1.46%
Data on these pages compiled by
Carol Anne Burger
The 1970s
Average Income in 1970: $9,867
Average Income in 1978: $17,640
1970 New Ford, Galaxie 500, $3,176
Men's Florsheim shoes: $32.95
Bi-Level Home in Rockaway, N.J., 4 bedrooms: $28,900
Orange Juice: 39¢/half-gallon
The 1980s:
Average Income in 1980: $21,023
Average Income in 1987: $26,061
New Home: $76,400
New BMW in 1987: $22,000
Color Television, 19": $379
Sharp microwave oven: $499
Gas: $1.25 gallon; Milk: $2.16 half-gallon
The 1990s:
Median Household Income: $39,973
Cost of a new home: $195,800
New Chrysler New Yorker in 1990: $16,586
Cost of a first-class stamp: 33¢
Cost of a gallon of regular gas: $1.17
Cost of a dozen eggs: $1.08
Cost of a gallon of Milk: $3.32
1995: Oklahoma City bombing kills 168, destroys Federal Employees CU
1998: CUMAA passes Congress
The 2000s:
Average Income in 2000: $50,732
New Nissan Pathfinder 4X4: $27,999
New Home in Lake Parsippany, 4 bedrooms: $340,000
Salary of an office manager: $32,000
Dell Dimension Computer, 64 MB, 15" monitor: $899
Gallon of gas, 2004: $1.85
Gallon of gas, 2005: $2.27
Mid-2006: Dow Jones surpasses 12,000
HOW TO SHARE FEEDBACK ON THIS REPORT & WHERE TO GET MORE INFO
What do you think about credit union service to people of "modest" means? What income levels to you believe should qualify as "modest?" Should there be a link between such service and the credit union tax exemption?
Credit Union Journal readers are encouraged to offer their feedback to this story and others. It's easy to do so. Just visit www.cujournal.com, click on the "Letters to the Editor" button in the left navigation bar, and share your thoughts.
Seeking more information on the subject of credit union service to people of "modest means" and other underserved markets? Looking for examples of the products and strategies other credit unions have developed in response? Subscribers to the Credit Union Journal can get answers to both by visiting www.cujournal.com, going to the Search button in the left navigation bar, and entering any of a number of related keywords to retrieve all CU Journal reporting on these issues.
