"Listen up stupid or I'll have... ... a hissy fit!"
😎 “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
―
"✅ Anonymous comment: August 19, 2026 at 2:09 PM"
"All
you're doing, in addition to making yourself look stupid is setting
yourself up to have something to complain about when the regulator
approves this merger. Spare yourself and us the drama - we already know
exactly what your day after comment will be."
"Here are some truths you can start accepting:
1) There will NOT be a yes vote by the majority of SAFE members.
2) Of the votes, the majority will be a YES.
3)
Given the lack of engagement by SAFE members, the state will use its
specifically defined and lawful authority to approve the merger. In
doing so, it will implicitly defer to the members who voted yes, and to the Board, who voted to approve the merger, and have a fiduciary
duty to look after the best interests of members. Mark it down. It WILL happen that way."
✔ You're probably right on #1 & #2! A majority of SAFE members - approaching 100% - will be asked to vote on this merger without receiving sufficient information to make an informed business decision. It's not clear - and somewhat suspicious - that the SAFE Board and CEO have not even tried "to engage" the SAFE membership about this takeover. Why not?
✔ Where you fail is #3! a) In not finding fault with the cause of "the lack of engagement by SAFE members"; b) in failing to explain - given that you readily acknowledge the lack of member engagement - why the state should not use "its specifically defined and lawful authority" to reject the merger; and lastly c) in failing to be bothered by the fact this merger is simply not a sound business deal for SAFE members:
1] Better rates YES ◻ NO ❎
2] Lower operating costs YES ◻ NO ❎
3] Enhanced technology YES ◻ NO ❎
4] More branches/ATMs YES ◻ NO ❎
5] Retain local ownership/control YES ◻ NO ❎
6] Assured increase in community support YES ◻ NO ❎
7] In-state California regulation YES ◻ NO ❎
8] Return of capital to SAFE members YES ◻ NO ❎
9] Member dialogue prior to agreement YES ◻ NO ❎
10] Will strengthen the Sacramento area YES ◻ NO ❎
😎 “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ―
ReplyDeleteAs for 3, I don’t find fault in your so called lack of engagement.
Sorry Sam, it was you not me who predicted a low level engagement. Own it!
DeleteI did and I own it. Can you read? I do predict low voter turnout , because of voter apathy and indifference. There is a total of one member on record so far that opposes this. The apathy is because they haven’t been or won’t be engaged by SAFE leaders.
Delete9:31am Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot - or points higher up - when you honestly state in the above:
Delete"The apathy is because they haven’t been or won’t be engaged by SAFE leaders."
Sam, you have confirmed the obvious point... the SAFE leaders have refused to engage the members about the benefits of this merger muck-up.
Is it because the SAFE CEO and Board can't make their case? Seems so.
Thank you, by the way!
I don’t need to build a case for why the state should affirm the merger with a majority of yes votes.
ReplyDeleteSorry Sam, it's not because you won't, it's because you can't.
DeleteIf enough members don’t care enough to vote, the authority is needed.
ReplyDeleteSorry Sam, you are out in left field again. If SAFE members were well-informed, this merger would not make it to first base.
ReplyDeleteThe state regulator is protecting the SAFE members from themselves? Says a lot about you Sam!
The state has no justification or precedent to not affirm a yes majority among voters.
ReplyDeleteSorry Sam, the state is fully authorized by California statute to deny the merger proposal if a majority of all SAFE voters don't approve.
DeleteEven you agree on that fact!
I agree they have the authority to not approve. I can read the law.
ReplyDeleteSam, again thank you for confirming that the state has full statutory authority to deny the merger if the majority of all members do not vote approval.
DeleteAnd, why would the state approve a merger that forced SAFE members into a bad, out of state takeover?
Do you have a point of view on how the state would be justified in using their authority, given their role and scope, to disapprove the merger with in the event of a majority of yes voters?
ReplyDeleteWell Sam, it would seem that for DFPI - the California regulator - it's called the Department of Financial PROTECTION and Innovation for a reason, don't you think?
DeleteOr do you think it's just for show?
If 250,000 Californians will be adversely impacted by this merger muck-up, you suggest that DFPI should just wash it's hands and let it go?
just noting you didn't answer the question. If your answers is because their title includes the word protection, that's a really, really stupid answer. we're waiting. enlighten us.
DeleteEver step back for second and wonder why a washed up old CEO spends months blogging on the same topic about a credit union 3,000 miles away? You need therapy.
ReplyDeleteSam, yes I have thought about that!
DeleteAs to therapy, you may be right. Who do you use?