I know a lot more about banks and thrifts than I do about CUs. So I don’t want to go too far with my assumptions. I don’t know if this is a policy decision from the regulator, or if one CU has a really sharp lawyer that’s spotted a loophole (or thinks that he has).
I’d make sure I wasn’t over the $250K limit (not a problem for me) and I’d consider helping them with their reserve requirements by moving some money to another CU if I could do so without hurting myself.
I’ve been with these folks since I graduated college, over two decades ago. They issued my very first credit card, and approved me to buy my very first new car. I’ve stuck with them despite no longer being employed by the company through which membership was available, back when limitations such as this were required. I’m sentimentally attached. This bothers me.
I really doubt that it's either of those. Much more likely is that a new inside or outside accountant noticed that this CU wasn't exploiting a loophole that practically every other CU in the country has been exploiting for a long time. Fixing that makes sense, since failing to fix it simply lowers the CU's profitability, and thus reduces the interest it can afford to pay to its member-investors.