The SAFE Mega-Me Merger: Who Should DFPI Be Cheering For? How About California?

  

❋ Cheerleader for the SAFE Board of Directors, or advocate for SAFE members and the guardian of consumers and the laws in California?  

Our commenter from yesterday [link] seems to believe that DFPI falls into the rubber stamp definition of regulators:  "A  mostly powerless yet officially recognized body that routinely approves or endorses programs and policies initiated by a controlling party."  Mighty harsh critique! 

😎 Certainly no need to lobby for "deregulation" in California if the rubber stamp label is accurate!

✅ DFPI likes to boast of its consumer protection, and that California is "the charter of choice" for credit unions. The SAFE Board evidently doesn't believe DFPI is all it's quacked up to be.  Instead,  the senior leadership at SAFE have chosen to give it all up  - actually give it all away! -  and move to Washington! So much for DFPI's charter of choice!  

 ✔ If this merger mistake comes up for a SAFE membership vote, California and credit unions nationwide will have a chance to judge the true degree of regulatory rigor and the firmness of the promise to consumer protection at DFPI.  

 ✔ As you've read,  California law explicitly states that a majority of all SAFE members must vote in favor of this merger proposal for it to be approved.  

 ✔ If the merger is not approved by a majority vote of all 250,000   SAFE members, then DFPI will  have the choice to unilaterally approve or disapprove the merger proposal.

😎  DFPI alone will decide who really has the credit union "charter of choice" for 250,000 Californians. Will be interesting to see how DFPI justifies its' choice, when the majority of all SAFE members do not approve.

  In all this, DFPI's  latest "innovation" may be to achieve what was once thought impossible... making NCUA look good!

Why Won't A Majority Of All SAFE Members Vote To Approve This Mega-Me Mirage?

   "Listen up stupid or I'll have...                ... a hissy fit!" - Yosemite Sam

😎 “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.  

 "✅ 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:

 ✔ Financial experts see these merger benefits 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.” ― Aldous Huxley 

  And of course, as you well know ... "Ignorance is bluster!"