March 3, 2003


Comments

 
 
 
  • comment2,
    name
     
     
     
  • So if the membership polls to drop loan rates to 25 over the US treasury and share rates 25 over, you would do that? Oh ridiculous.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • I ALWAYS WONDERED WHY A CREDIT UNION WOULD WANT PRIVATE INSURANCE. I NOW UNDERSTAND.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • The ballot question was misleading. It should have included clear language stating that the insurance would no longer be backed by the US government.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • There are 130,000 members who didn't vote who probably don't know the impact of converting to private insurance. The dual chartering argument isn't valid.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • Patelco is still subject to examination from the state of California as its regulator and ASI as its insurer.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • While mildly interesting, this article is not very timely considering it has been more than 6 months since the conversion. I might think differently if the article offerred some new information, but it does not.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
  • Of course I suppose now they are not subject to examinations from NCUA either. But I am sure that had no bearing.
    Anonymous
     
     
     
 
Advertisement