SAFE/BECU A Merger Of Equals?
Really? [link]
Nah,...bah... 🍌🍌🍌 Bananae!!!
"This deal is not good for SAFE members."
"1) Loss of total control and autonomy of their capital, pricing, where they invest, etc.
2) BECU has inferior rates, and a huge expense problem.
3)
Little future investment for SAFE.
4) SAFE's legacy culture will not be
acquired and assimilated.
5) SAFE members absolutely will lose what they are used to.
6)
BECU and others avoid hiring in CA because of messy labor laws. 7) No local authority or autonomy. "
I suppose most of those things are impacts to all acquired CU’s, but what’s unique is that SAFE a large, perfectly healthy CU. Why merge? Or, why not a true MOE where you don’t get 100% absorbed by a CU 9x your size where aside from saying “we’re both mission-driven” (aren’t we all), there is no apparent strategic benefit, no legacy SEG or fom commonality, no geographic synergy, etc. Boeing is now unable to grow organically, and this is there asset growth answer. So easy to see why they’d want to do it. No real reason SAFE should merge at all, and then pick a CU that’s using you to solve a math problem. If SAFE thinks this is drive growth and investment, I hope they understand the root of the problem (no growth) Boeing is trying to address here. Management? Culture? Strategy?
ReplyDeleteThink for yourself, or others will think for you without thinking of you.
ReplyDeleteHenry David Thoreau
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
ReplyDelete