SCU | Steinbach Credit Union | Discussion forum

find most of my experiences with FIs to be less than positive, but I follow the money and go where I can get the best rates. If there are problems, I deal with them.

SCU has had a new CEO come in and is now going through another change, and the place seems to be a little better under the new leadership. The rates are good, although not always the highest. on the chart

Just because the reviews aren't as positive as some other FIs doesn't necessarily mean they should be excluded from the charts. The charts are useful to me because even when you look at the highest rate offered through a deposit broker, there is often only a limited amount of money you can put at that rate while staying within the deposit-insurance limits.

For example, the difference on $100,000 isn't really that much. And if you gave a deposit broker $3 million, I don't know what the average rate would actually work out to be.

That's why I use a place like SCU. You can have everything covered at one FI by deposit insurance, and usually at a higher rate than you would get through a deposit broker. I suspect others here may be in a similar situation.

So why not just include them on the chart?

As I mentioned, their recent promotion of 4.6% on up to $500,000 wasn't bad. Where else could you get $500,000 at one FI, have all of it covered by deposit insurance, and earn 4.6%?

I understand that not everyone is interested in SCU, and I'm not saying it should be recommended over other FIs. I'm just saying that the rates are useful information, and I don't think they should be excluded simply because the reviews aren't as positive as some other institutions.

I don't understand why SCU would be considered impossible to chart reliably. There are other financial institutions with tiered rates on the charts, so tiered rates themselves clearly aren't an insurmountable problem.

The other issue is the apparent use of personal opinions or dislikes when deciding which FIs are included on the charts. Most financial institutions have had negative reviews or unhappy customers at one time or another. If an FI meets the criteria for the chart, shouldn't its rates be included regardless of whether an individual member has had a bad experience with it?

If you don't like or trust an FI, that's completely understandable—you simply don't have to use it. But that seems different from excluding its rates from a chart that is supposed to provide useful rate information.

There could be many FIs offering good rates that one particular person has had a problem with. If that alone is enough to exclude an FI, then it would be helpful to know whether there are other high-rate FIs that have been left off the charts for similar personal reasons.

I'm not arguing that SCU should be recommended over any other FI. I'm simply asking why its rates shouldn't be listed if they meet the requirements. If personal like or dislike is a factor in deciding which FIs appear on the chart, I think that's something members should know.

believe their one-year GIC rates are in the 3.55% to 3.60% range for the base rate, depending on the amount of capital. The bottom of the chart is around 2.35%, so I don't understand the argument that SCU isn't worth including simply because its base rates would rank in the lower half of the chart.

That's actually why I asked about other FIs that might not be included. There may be other institutions offering good rates that are being left off the chart for similar reasons.

What concerns me is that the discussion seems to be moving from whether an FI meets the criteria for the chart to whether individual members personally like or dislike that FI. If the rates meet the requirements, shouldn't they be listed regardless of someone's personal experience with the institution?

Negative experiences and reviews exist for almost every financial institution. That's useful information for people to consider, but it seems different from deciding whether the institution's rates should appear on a rate comparison chart.

I'm also wondering whether multiple members here have had issues with SCU, or whether some of these comments are coming from the same person using different handles. I may be completely wrong about that, but from the outside it is a little odd to see several strongly negative comments about the same institution without much discussion of the actual rates or chart criteria.

I'm not trying to promote SCU or argue that anyone should use them. I'm simply asking for consistency. If an FI meets the criteria, its rates should be included, and members can then decide for themselves whether they want to deal with that institution.

If personal experience or dislike is being used as a reason to exclude an FI, then I think it's reasonable to ask whether there are other FIs with competitive rates that are also being excluded for similar reasons.

Really, if there is something wrong with SCU that makes it unsuitable for the chart, why not just state what the problem is?

If there is an objective issue with their rates, terms, reliability, eligibility, or anything else that makes their rates difficult to chart, I'd like to know what it is. That's useful information.

But saying that people have had bad experiences with them or that the reviews aren't positive doesn't really answer the question. Those are reasons someone might personally choose not to use an FI, but they don't explain why its rates shouldn't appear on a rate comparison chart.

That's what I find puzzling about the discussion. If there is a legitimate reason to exclude SCU, just tell us what it is. Then everyone can judge whether that reason makes sense.

I understand that Peter has to decide how much effort he wants to put into maintaining the charts. What I question is the phrase “‘enough’ perceived value to the membership.”

Who determines what is “enough” perceived value to the membership? And do you speak for everyone here? You certainly don’t speak for me.

Do we vote on which FIs are included on the chart?

To be clear, I don't really care whether SCU is included or not. What I care about is knowing which FIs are being excluded and why, particularly when the reason isn't an objective issue with the rates, terms, eligibility, or reliability of the institution.

If I know that an FI has been left off the chart for reasons that I consider irrelevant, I can simply check that FI myself when I'm shopping for a GIC. That's actually the important information for me.

Otherwise, I may look at the chart, assume it represents the relevant competitive rates, and never realize that other institutions have been left out because of someone's subjective or irrational objection.

So my question remains: are there other FIs that are not on the chart even though they offer competitive rates, and if so, which ones and why?

I don't need every FI to be included. I just want to know what I'm not seeing so that I can make my own comparison.

That seems much more useful than arguing over whether one particular FI deserves to be on the chart.

am leaving this conversation now. Do as you will.