Letter: Abacus responds on advertising campaign
Louise Petschler, CEO, Abacus - Australian Mutuals, writes:
Your story "Savings contested on credit union loans" (15 June) paints an inaccurate picture by critics of our industry-awareness campaign. While I appreciate that there are different views on the methodology for the 'point in time' comparison, to suggest a conspiracy by mutuals to confound the big banks is ridiculous.
Firstly, we don't need to make things up - CUBS offer consistently better rates than major banks.
Secondly, our timing (as I explained, including providing Banking Day with dated documents) was driven by the production schedule for the ads, not our views on interest rates.
Thirdly, we're just not that evil or that silly.
Credit unions and mutual building societies are bound by high standards of conduct such as member-benefit and integrity. Our relatively small campaign aims to increase consumer awareness of the mutual banking alternative. In relation to specifics:
* We stand by the Infochoice research, their analysis and the use of a point in time comparison as a way of giving consumers a sense of CUBS competitiveness.
* We chose independent and public references for rate comparisons. Canstar Cannex data today shows the average SVLR offered by a credit union is 33 bps lower than major banks, and building societies 31 bps lower than the big banks.
* Often CUBS do move their home loan rates up more slowly than the big banks, sometimes they don't pass on the full rate rise either. This is not part of an orchestrated plan.
I'm surprised that our modest efforts to remind people that we exist and offer a great alternative have caused the holders of 90 per cent of the retail market concern and some commentators to suggest conspiracies.
Our aim is to inform consumers and increase awareness and we have worked hard to present our information fairly and clearly. See www.comesbacktoyou.com.au for more detail.
We might need to do some more work on this, as if our sector were better understood commentators might be less likely to ascribe motives to us that we don't have and wouldn't endorse.