We need to find new ways to talk about who we are, what we do, why and how we do it, and why and how it makes us different from banks. We need to find ways to talk about IMPACT, about mission – yes, we do – and about public policy, the reasons we exist and the unique roles we fill. Most of all, we need new language to talk about positive net revenue.

Income, in the language of taxation, is something that delivers measurable economic benefit to the underlying owner. Credit unions have no income. Period. Credit union owners do have dividend income, which does get taxed. Do we talk about that? We look and are taxed a lot like S Corporations, except our owners don't have any stock to sell. Do we talk about that?

Tax big credit unions? Because they “look like banks?” Which ones look like banks? How do they look like banks? Big commercial portfolios? Nope! Holding companies with investment banking subsidiaries? Not here. Billion-dollar stock dividends? Seriously? The ability to raise capital? That would be another no!

We need to redefine the terms of this debate to highlight what makes us different. Let's stop talking about income statements and profitability. Those terms describe for-profit companies. We have revenue, not income. We have margin, not profit. Words matter, and if we keep letting bankers choose the words that describe us, the battle is already half lost.

Chris Howard

SVP

Callahan & Associates

Washington, D.C.