© 2026 Arizent. All rights reserved.
Market Intelligence:
AI
Payments
Research
Industry Data
p19grrf4ds143hkgm1dsutn7su56.jpg

Are you passionate about credit unions? Do you feel strongly about where the community is moving? Credit Union Journal wants to hear from you — and now it's easier than ever to be heard.

At cujournal.com, you can do more than just read about the news — you can have your say about it, too. In addition to being able to submit letters to the editor for publication, you can leave comments on specific articles and spark a discussion and/or debate on the issues that mean the most to you.

CU Journal has always sought to be a forum for discussion of the issues that are important to credit unions, to facilitate a dialogue on the biggest trends, challenges and opportunities to face our readers. Click through to see what your colleagues' had to say on a variety of pressing issues.

p19grrf4edua1v551t2t1uf4gd07.jpg

On supplemental capital: Am I the only one who is concerned that supplemental capital will pave the way to the demise of our tax-exempt status?

Posted by AE (Rick) H |Feb. 25

Image: Bloomberg

p19grrf4efds01qod1oq716cpmli8.jpg

On banks returning to small business lending: Great article, and it is always good to promote credit union business lending successes. We do, though, have to be clear in understanding that there is a difference between small business lending and "small" balance commercial real estate. Banks never really left small business lending but did substantially restrict their commercial real estate programs. Credit unions were the beneficiaries of these changes for most of the past five years and now banks are making up for lost time with loose credit terms and super low rates. The real market change in small business lending comes not from banks but rather non-banks who have combined capital and amazing technology to provide the new small business generation with fast access to capital. Funded by investor money, there is a return on investment expectation that compels higher interest rates charged to the business owner — which often they are willing to pay. This is a great opportunity for credit unions to leverage. With programs not nearly as entrenched as banks, a naturally collaborative style and a lower cost of funding, credit unions can utilize these technologies and work together to generate new underwriting and delivery models that will truly create dominance with the next generation of small business owner.

Posted by William B | Feb. 27

Image: iStock

p19grrf4eg59ceer2irp851i7u9.jpg

On Michael Fryzel's article about the danger of losing small credit unions: I appreciate the sincerity in [Tom Pinnow's] article and believe in the article as a whole. Nice work, and I hope "everyone" sees this.

Posted by Shaun M | Feb. 27

p19grrf4eicqss6j109oes81pvsa.jpg

Another view on the danger of losing small credit unions: I firmly disagree with the premise that we need to retain small credit unions because they give one-on-one service and treat members like they are part of the family. If that was the case, small credit unions would be the fastest growing segment in the industry. That is not the case by any means. We have every reason to promote and retain CUs that give great member service and have a close relationship with their members. That, in fact, is how the market operates. It rewards CUs for providing members a high level of service that is relevant and valuable. The marketplace is telling us small CUs are more likely to fail because they are not relevant and valuable to their members. Why does Michael Fryzel say that we are losing treasured financial insitutions when the market says otherwise? Where is the data to support that claim? It is a bankers' dream to keep credit unions small so that they can't compete.

Posted by henryw | Feb. 27

Image: Fotolia

p19grrf4ei1r8l8q613ae59o157fb.jpg

On Marcus Schaefer's op-ed outlining why CUs aren't happy with NCUA's revised risk-based capital proposal: Marcus, I agree this new RBC illuminates the errors in thinking at NCUA. I believe it is more important to have specific issues raised regarding the new proposal. My biggest fear is that this is the "watch my right hand" while the left is proposing the [interest rate risk] rule. The two will have to be addressed as a whole. Unfortunately, we have to respond to the first rule without seeing the second. This makes no sense. I hope there is la lot going on behind the scenes, on as I haven't seen much in the way of public debate or recommendations yet. Like Obamacare, waiting for it to go into effect is not the way to find out if it's a total failure!

Posted by gdstockdale | Feb. 27

Image: Fotolia

p19grrf4ej197ljlcido4ll170ec.jpg

More on the fate of small credit unions: Thank you for helping raise awareness of the plight of small credit unions. My concern in raising the definition of small to $100M is that it will make CUs under $50M much less visible. When asked how big is big enough I have been told $100M. That appears to be where economies of scale make a difference. One could make the argument that is why $100M was chosen. My concern, selfishly, is for CUs under $50M and especially at our level of $24M. The fact is small CUs are struggling right now and need immediate help. Credit unions under $50M are in distress, and I hope the trade associations, all credit unions and our elected officials will lobby Congress aggressively to exclude these CUs from the very heavy burden of compliance that has been placed on us. This would be a good start. I feel that this is a more important issue than member business lending and risk-based capital. I recognize the importance of both items to larger credit unions, but not at the cost of overshadowing the dire situation of small credit unions. After all, 65% of all CUs are under $50M. A credit union is a credit union regardless of size, but right now small CUs are going down everyday. What can we all do to turn this around?

Posted by tpinnow | Feb. 28

Image: Fotolia

p19grrf4ek1pp81d4c6tv17hc1kad.jpg

On the new mentor program for small, minority and faith-based credit unions: This sounds great. Now I can learn what the heck I've been doing the past nine years. I have been hoping for this type of program for a long time. Excited for more information.

Posted by OWL | March 10

Image: iStock

p19grrf4el1dmfrpc1vpi1e3uhm7e.jpg

On NAFCU's call to NCUA to revamp its field of membership rules: NCUA should also consider changing the definition of a low-income credit union. The definition today is if 50% plus one member qualify as low income. That definition doesn't make sense. My CU has 180,000 members; 48% qualify as low income. Our 86,400 low-income members represent a huge segment of the low-income population in our area. Any CU that serves a significant number of low-income members should qualify as a LICU. Why not set the bar at a lower level and encourage more credit unions to serve low-income members? Much of NCUA's effort has been to chartered community development credit unions. In my 36 years of service I have seen many of them fail. Larger CUs have better resources to serve the underserved. I urge NCUA to give them more incentive to do so.

Posted by henryw | March 11

Image: Fotolia

MORE FROM AMERICAN BANKER
Load More