My career has mostly been in the U.S. credit union system. In fact, most of my life has revolved around the U.S. credit union system. My first credit union account was opened by my aunt when I was just six months old, which led me to be an NCUA Examiner, executive at a credit union, and now CEO of a CUSO.

My first bank account wasn’t opened until I was 16 years old when I was at a PGA golf event with my dad. We had been walking the tournament all morning, when we saw a Bank of America booth. My dad said I should get a credit card, and I immediately jumped at the nudge. After signing up, they handed me a free foldable stool, which my dad immediately took and used throughout the day. A story I tell and laugh at frequently. 

Recently, I’ve been spending more time connecting with the Canadian credit union system. Consultants, fintechs, startups, large companies. And the more conversations I have, the more the curiosity has increased. 

My assumption over the decades has been rather simple: different countries equals far different systems. What I’ve found is that while there are absolutely material differences, there are important similarities.

Scale and Structure 

Before we jump into the actual systems, it’s important to lay out population statistics.

The United States has roughly 335 million people. Canada has roughly 40 million. The difference in scale is important as we move into the number of institutions and total assets.

The credit union system structure is very similar. Same cooperative model. Same core principle. Member-owned financial institutions built to serve people, not external shareholders.

As of 2024, the U.S. had about 4,400 credit unions holding roughly $2.3 trillion in assets. Comparatively, Canada had roughly 100-400 credit unions holding roughly $680 billion CAD in assets, depending on the classification.

What do I mean by classification? In Canada, they have caisses populaires (KESS pop-you-LAIR). The term translates to “people’s savings funds” and are credit unions in French-speaking Canada. Many caisses populaires operate within large federated systems, with the most well-known example being the Desjardins Group. 

Under this federated model, individual caisses remain separate, member-owned credit unions, but they share a centralized operating structure. Core technology, payments, risk oversight, compliance, and much more are often provided at the federation level. 

This structure can make them feel more “bank-like” as operations are typically standardized. Structurally, however, caisses are still credit unions. In some statistics, the individual federations get counted as one credit union.

Story continued below…

A workable parallel is perhaps the U.S. CUSO model, with an important caveat. The federation isn’t viewed as an add-on; but rather, core infrastructure allowing credit unions to operate at scale.

Using simple averages from the numbers above, the typical U.S. credit union is around $520 million in assets, while the typical Canadian credit union is closer to $1.7 billion CAD.

Simple averages perhaps skew the numbers in a system with over 4,400 credit unions, as we know U.S. credit unions range from thousands in assets to hundred-plus billions.

But the numbers also drive the point that the U.S. system is wide and fragmented, with thousands of institutions spread across a long size spectrum. The Canadian system is far more concentrated, with fewer institutions operating at a larger average scale.

Consolidation

Another similarity, and perhaps not surprising, is that both systems are experiencing material consolidation. The U.S system has experienced a roughly 60% decline in the number of credit unions over the last 30 years, and a roughly 40% decline over the last 15 years.

The Canadian system has experienced slightly higher consolidation at around 70% over the last 30 years. If we roll up the individual credit unions to the federation level, the consolidation is even greater.

When we realize that technology requirements, member expectations, and regulatory burden are similar, the consolidation trends should not be surprising. In other words, the demands and pressure are not materially different.

Outlook

When doing a high-level comparison on the systems, there are two lenses we can look through. The first lens sees similar challenges, and gets discouraged. Doom and gloom. And perhaps starts to contemplate if the cooperative model has failed.

The second lens sees similar challenges and sees opportunity. I choose the second lens. The concept of a credit union has not failed. Instead, in a system that’s built on a cooperative model, perhaps there’s opportunity for collaboration between the systems. Shared lessons on successes and failures.

As an industry, the second lens is who we are.

While there are differences, the mission is still the same in both countries.