Comment on "The Godfather Mergers - Part1" [link] from the troll-itariat: "Really big misread on this. You have it backwards.
There is nothing in this for existing BECU members. Their capital is
diluted by taking SAFE on, it will be a management distraction, and it
will drop BECU’s OpEX from 3.43 to 3.30%"
Under the fair payout merger proposal, each SAFE FCU member receives @$1,639 and membership in the combined BECU. The combined capital ratio after the merger is a very strong 11% (the average for all CUs > $10 billion is 10.38% according to NCUA).
The trollish comments - "nothing in this for existing BECU members" and "it will be a management distraction" - are simply amateurish. Criticism of BECU management is completely unjustified. They're "making out like bandits", so to speak.
But our anonymouse troll saves the worse for last in decrying the fact that the proposed merger "will drop BECU’s OpEX from 3.43 to 3.30%"
Say what?... that the cost of operating BECU will be lowered from 3.43% to 3.30% is a bad thing? If you go to the grocery store and pay $3.30 for a pound of hamburger rather than pay $3.43, that's a bad thing? This little troll might want to get checked out for "financial microcephalia".
In case you would like the truth: SAFE FCU's cost of operations (troll talk - "OpEX") is a steady 2.50%, while BECU's cost of operations is a persistently rising 3.33% (according to NCUA). In other words, it costs the folks at BECU a third more in operating costs to run BECU, than the cost of running SAFE.
SAFE is more efficient than BECU and cost wise is the better value for members.
** For the entire Godfather series click the "Godfather" button at top.
Where’s the rest of my post? Guess it would make your post look really silly, so not surprised you edited it.
ReplyDeleteThere have been hundreds of mergers, and this one isn't really unique. If you're concerned about who advised the SAFE board and their fiduciary duty and personal liability, how come there are only very rare cases where members have taken a cause of action against a Board for a merger decision? If effectively in every merger, a Board literally gives away a credit union (your words), why members have neither brought nor prevailed in actions against Boards for violating their fiduciary duty by simply voting to be merged? Is it because members vote to approve the mergers? Or, perhaps because CU's aren't actually given away and their capital isn't loote
ReplyDeleteThere is one CU in the whole industry big enough to "acquire" us.
ReplyDeleteYep. And do you think they would be willing to do a merger with us if they had to take on all our assets with no capital? And then our 2.9 members get our share of the capital their members had before the merger?
Delete