Financial institution ratings are important for CD owners. And that goes double for credit union ratings, especially now as the pandemic rages on.
Nevertheless the NCUA continues to dawdle. Their Q2 call report should have been released last week at the latest. That did not happen. I wonder if they will get it out today, or will we tomorrow officially venture into “two months late” territory. Not that it makes any significant difference. And the report is really only, at most, a week late.
Thing is, when we all finally are able to see the new CU ratings, they will be based on data which is two months old. There has to have been some additional deterioration since end of June, and to that we shall remain blind.
Bottom line, the clowns at the NCUA need to get their act together. I hope it happens today.
I find the GTE attempt interesting - probably more so than usual because I have an addon CD with them -.
I understand why they withdrew the announcement but I do not understand why they did not send 30-day letter if they are legally allowed to change terms unilaterally. I mean, they could have gone. Oops we need to give you 30 days notice but we’ll go through with this after that period.
Is it indicative that they changed their minds about doing it, that they were afraid to attract too many new funds (or possibly lose deposits already in), or that their legal team found that it’d be risky to proceed with the addon termination?
In any case, if a bank or CU did NOT give you 30-day notice, what is the way to challenge the decision legally? Could you sue them after the fact arguing that you’re rights were breached under the NCUA rules for announcing term changes?
In the two instances in my experience, neither financial institution sent out the required 30 day letter . . . at first. This was most likely because neither knew the rules.
The failure to follows NCUA rules resulted in complaints being filed there (including one from me) and, in the case of USCU, legal challenge. The situations were eventually resolved, in both instances, by earlier rescission of the add-on privilege first being revoked, followed immediately by a 30 day notice being given that the privilege would be gone thereafter. In essence, in both cases, once the NCUA became involved the 30 day rule was enforced. However, that did not happen instantly. It took the NCUA time to impose their enforcement action.
I suspect GTE also acted in haste without consulting the NCUA rules. There was of course a furor, as you would expect. Rather than be chastened by the NCUA, GTE decided to just forget the whole thing . . . . for now.
I just found odd that they did not re-implement that termination after learning of the NCUA notification requirement. I was expecting them to come back a month later with a proper notification of termination of the addon features of those two CDs say 35 days after the notice went out.
Maybe a case of trying to pull a fast one and after failing to slip it unnoticed, realizing the move was not worth it.
That certainly was a possibility. It remains a possibility even now regardless their statements to the contrary.
Agreed. From a customer relations standpoint, and also from a public relations standpoint in GTE’s hotly competitive Tampa market region, management could have taken the furor to heart and decided the whole thing was not, as you say, worth it . . . not a good direction to take their credit union; not a good look.
This VERY LATE release should trigger the “big three” evaluators of credit union financial health, Ken, Bauer, and Weiss, to move forward with their new CU ratings based on Q2 data.
Note this is ridiculously late. The new bank ratings, based on Q2 data, have been available for a couple of weeks!! The FDIC clearly was working while the NCUA slept. This is annoying for me personally because almost all of my money is on deposit with this or that credit union, and it is the CU ratings I need. Bank financial health ratings do not help me.
Anyway, the long delayed end of Q2 ratings will reveal to all of us impact of three full months of pandemic, April, May, and June. Such ratings are an important component of the decision matrix used to guide possible movement, whether voluntary or involuntary, of our CD funds.
Navyfcu has said as long as I know " An Automated Clearing House (ACH) transfer can only be completed out
of a checking account. They cannot, due to regulations by the Federal
Reserve Bank, be sent out of a savings account. The Federal Reserve
Bank does not consider a savings account to be a transactional account."
Is this correct? I do loads af ach in and out of online savings , not moneymarkets, savings definitely. Fed limited to 6 per month, but they went thru fine. Do ach transfers in and out, initiated at external banks, actually work at navy fcu ?
Sorry, zjts. I’m by no means knowledgeable regarding NFCU. And I’m not able to see whatever post of mine it was that apparently prompted your inquiry. It must have been a while back. And you did not quote whatever I wrote, so I’m at a loss.
The most informed poster we have regarding NFCU is Argyll. Perhaps he would be able to answer you. Sorry, I cannot.
Navyfcu has said as long as I know " An Automated Clearing House (ACH) transfer can only be completed out
of a checking account. They cannot, due to regulations by the Federal
Reserve Bank, be sent out of a savings account. The Federal Reserve
Bank does not consider a savings account to be a transactional account."
Is this correct? I do loads af ach in and out of online savings , not moneymarkets, savings definitely. Fed limited to 6 per month, but they went thru fine. Do ach transfers in and out, initiated at external banks, actually work at navy fcu ?8
Couple of years ago, I attempted to set up ACH transfer to/from NFCU savings. The other bank made 3 small test deposits successfully, but it was unable to withdraw those deposits afterwards, as is customary. NFCU told me at the time that withdrawals via ACH were not allowed from savings.
Yep, NFCU doesn’t let you ACH pull out of your savings account. I had the same experience hwen I opened my account 9 or 10 years ago. Haven’t tried again.
The three services probably use differing analytical methods and approaches. When checking out a particular financial institution I always consult all three since it is free to do so.
Course right now Weiss is tardy. I’m watching and waiting for their take since I’ve always thought Weiss is the toughest grader. You should know other people disagree with me on that. Nevertheless, it’ll be interesting to see what Weiss eventually produces.
Weiss also offers a helpful, and free, watchlist feature which I like and use.
I really wonder what’s going on with Weiss on this. Is it because they’re having trouble getting a clear picture and don’t want to guess at the risk of misleading investors? But we’re near the end of Q3 so Q2 data should have had plenty of time to get compiled and analyzed by now so it seems odd.
Either way, thanks for keeping us updated on when these services update their ratings.
