The opinion
BURGER, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur fully with Chief Judge MILLER’S opinion. The essence of appellant’s claim is that under the challenged regulations federal savings associations are permitted to look and act more and more like banks and should be deemed therefore to be engaged illegally in banking business. I am constrained to con-; cede that these associations are indeed 1 , coming to be regarded by the public much! as the equivalent of a bank. For a great number of people they are a substitute' for a bank and in that sense compete ■■ directly with banks. But Congress was ^ and is well aware of these factors.
We are not like a “super trade commis- • sion” charged with duties relating to advertising practices or even operating practices 1 of these associations. The superficial similarities of the associations \,. to banks is admittedly very great. But, we are concerned not with appearances, but with legal realities; it is here that the differences are marked as Judge -j Miller has pointed out. The capital of a federal savings association is raised by payments on share interests. Calling • them “payments” on “savings accounts” does not alter their legal status. That the payment may be regarded by the customer as a “deposit” or even called at times a deposit by the association does not make it a legal counterpart of a deposit in a bank. The “depositor” in a . federal association is not a creditor as is the depositor in a bank. Anderson Nat. Bank v. Luckett, 1944, 321 U.S. 233, 241-242 , 64 S.Ct. 599 , 88 L.Ed. 692 . He is an investor, as the very language of Section 5(b) of the Home Owners Loan Act describes the relationship. The owner of , a “savings account” in the association is entitled to vote, in much the same way as a stockholder in a corporation, to elect • *718 the management. The Act under which they exist recites the congressional purpose which emphasizes the “investment” character of these shares and distinguishes them from the creditor debtor relationship between a bank account depositor and a bank. Congress authorized the Board to create these associations.
“In order to provide local mutual thrift institutions in which people may invest their funds and in order to provide for the financing of homes * * *.” 12 U.S.C.A. § 1464 (a). (Emphasis added.)
The contentions urged upon us by appellants are essentially economic arguments which might better be addressed to the Legislative Branch under whose authority these associations exist.
. There is no claim that the associations are violating the regulations.