It is clear from the legislative history surrounding the passage of the FCUA in 1934 that Congress saw the common-bond requirement as critical to the success of credit unions:
The particular case at issue involved the AT&T Family Credit Union and the NCUA's interpretation of the 1934 FCUA allowing multiple common bonds of membership.
That argument makes for a great sound bite, but Keating needs to read the FCUA more closely before he makes such grandiose claims of statutory violation.
Nowhere in the FCUA does it say credit unions can only serve consumers of modest means.
As I look out at a credit union system that is operating in an increasingly complex marketplace, I believe the best way to honor the FCUA is to ensure that credit unions survive and thrive well into the future.
This is among the most critical steps NCUA is taking to help the credit union system complete its recovery, thrive well into the future, and honor the intent of the original FCUA.
Shortly before legislators finalized the FCUA in 1934, workers completed the Empire State Building.
which would give credit unions an additional tool to promote sufficient capital stability by amending the definition of "net worth" in the FCUA