Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this9:29 pm
February 27, 2018
Offline
Is there a vote to have Outlook increase their savings rate?
Outlook years ago, was very competitive. I moved a lot of my assets there. Nowadays, i feel they should rebrand themselves to the name, "Lookout" or maybe "Look Elsewhere"
I've noticed, this thread is longer than the actual merger agreement. Has anyone here ever heard of "Coles Notes?" War and Peace was condensed down to 35 pages. The bible down to 7 words, "in the beginning there was an end"
3:02 am
October 21, 2013
Offline
Bill said
To clarify virtue signaling, dealing with a non-profit can be virtue-signaling because society (often falsely, e.g. see Pace) views non-profits such as CU's as more ethical, etc, than for-profit businesses. An expression of that view was just stated here, that not having profits to pay shareholder dividends (i.e. unlike banks) represents a "higher standard" (at least in some folks' opinions).Dealing with for-huge-profit big banks is not seen as an ethical, etc choice, thus it's not possible to virtue-signal via being a big bank customer. Only works one way, for CU customers.
Not true.
The decision to support a big bank is just as much an ethical decision as one to support CUs. The difference is in the ethical criteria applied by the decision-maker. The person who decides in favour of banks supports the ethics of that system. AltaRed has clearly illustrated this in his defense of banks that plow some money back into the economy. Thus, either decision qualifies as "virtue signalling".
4:35 am
September 7, 2018
Offline
My decision today to move my funds out of Saven Financial an online CU to a big bank has absolutely nothing to do with ethics or ethical decisions. I am doing the switch because I find my experience with Saven dismal - dealing with this CU is not user friendly, has a dysfunctional APP that cannot take cheques from a number of FIs, has a weird manner for accounting for transfers in process, is not easy to reach an agent, no response to email and they have lowered their interest rate overnight from 1.55 to 1.35. Ethics, Shmethics - who cares!
10:06 am
October 27, 2013
Offline
Loonie said
The decision to support a big bank is just as much an ethical decision as one to support CUs. The difference is in the ethical criteria applied by the decision-maker. The person who decides in favour of banks supports the ethics of that system. AltaRed has clearly illustrated this in his defense of banks that plow some money back into the economy. Thus, either decision qualifies as "virtue signalling".
I think my post's message was there is not much difference between CUs and banks in community support. CUs and their members don't have a 'holy grail' hold on supporting the communities in which they operate. Brick and mortar banks and their individual shareholders do similarly. There is nothing much to 'defend' as you put it.
I have been with banks over my lifetime primarily due to their depth and national scale/presence. Seamless transitions have served me well in all the ~10 places I have lived in Canada from coast to coast (NF to BC) in my career. It has nothing to with ethical decisions, virtue signalling, or anything else.
11:22 am
September 11, 2013
Offline
You don't have to go far on the Canadian Credit Union Association website to see sentiments like this: "By choosing to bank with a credit union, you are choosing to bank with a conscience." Couldn't be clearer, you're choosing your conscience IF you choose a CU, according to the Association. Unlike with the banks, that sentiment infuses the CU industry, is the obvious point. Great marketing technique.
That's not to say there are many folks like canadian.100 and AltaRed who are unaffected by that schtick. On the other hand, it's been noted on here by some of the Pace "victims" that they were surprised/shocked that a CU would rip them off, was not acting to their expected ethical "higher standard" compared to the big banks. In short, the CU marketing message resulted in folks' guards being down, in relaxing their trust, because they were dealing with a CU. (Actually, my guess is no-one is as regulated and scrutinized as, say, RBC vs any particular credit union, so my diligence level would be even higher in dealing with a PACE.) Not sure if mergers into larger CU's would increase their regulation, scrutiny, etc - if so another reason for CU mergers to be welcomed.
12:40 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
It could be argued that all such decisions about where to put one's money have an ethical dimension, but customers/members may not be consciously aware of it. Those who have not given it much thought would quickly become aware of it though if something negative happened, such as with PACE or if their elderly mother were financially abused by a bank as happened to mine. I could make that argument in greater detail, but it's not really worth the effort on this forum. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind here.
It's no secret that CUs use marketing statements that they think will identify their edge. Every business does this, or tries to. These efforts should not be confused with the ethical criteria used by customers and members in decision-making.
1:52 pm
October 27, 2013
Offline
Loonie said
Those who have not given it much thought would quickly become aware of it though if something negative happened, such as with PACE or if their elderly mother were financially abused by a bank as happened to mine. I could make that argument in greater detail, but it's not really worth the effort on this forum. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind here.
That clearly affects one's viewpoint. It is simply human nature to do so. Just like I will never buy another 'American brand' vehicle, especially not a Dodge/Chrysler product.
Please write your comments in the forum.