The SAFE/BECU Mega Merger: The SAFE Annual Meeting - "Showtime In Sacramento!"

                                                             🎉🎉🎉  The 2026 SAFE Credit Union Annual Meeting 🎉🎉🎉                       Tuesday April 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. [link]                                                All current SAFE members are invited to attend!

✅ Credit Union mergers have become the most controversial topic within the credit union movement - signaling the end of an era, the end of an idea? The SAFE/BECU merger - surprise announced without SAFE member input in November, 2025 - has become the poster child for that debate. 

The SAFE CEO and Board have refused to release financial details of the proposed agreement to the SAFE members - the owners and shareholders of the credit union!  SAFE member-owners had never called for the merger, nor has any member group advocated that it be pursued. Who actually benefits from this merger?

The SAFE Annual membership meeting tonight should shed some much needed light on the controversy. Merger critics from the SAFE membership have broadly sounded the alarm all across California!

 ✔ Get ready, get out the popcorn, it looks to be "Showtime in Sacramento"...!

😎 According to the management "Me's", the pluses: 

 "This partnership is a powerful alignment of purpose and potential that leverages our strengths and recognizes our shared values," said Faye Nabhani, President and Chief Executive Officer of SAFE Credit Union. 

😎 According to the SAFE "member mutineers", the minuses:

1. The loss of California regulatory jurisdiction and consumer protection. The transfer of $4.3 billion in assets belonging to 245,000 SAFE member-owners to an out-of-state credit union and the termination of SAFE’s charter will completely eliminate DFCI oversight. Consumer protection under the BECU charter will become the responsibility of the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). There will be no accountability to former SAFE members, all of whom are citizens of California.

2. The transfer without member-owner compensation or benefit of all current resources and future earnings of a successful, locally supported eighty-five year financial enterprise has no economic rationale. The gifting of all SAFE assets, all future control, and all future earnings to BECU based solely on vague future promises is nothing less than a legally sanctioned theft of SAFE member resources. The true market value of SAFE Credit Union is $600 million to $800 million.  SAFE members-owners will receive nothing from this transaction. All $4.3 billion in SAFE Credit Union member-owner assets will be handed over to BECU. All $345 million in member-owner equity will be taken from member-owners without compensation.

3. The loss of critical competitive advantage and local owner governance. 
SAFE Credit Union’s competitive advantage is its unique responsiveness to its member-owners and the priorities of the local community. This has enabled SAFE to establish a dominant regional market position that cannot be easily replicated. When SAFE becomes a branch operation for BECU, this will be lost. Governance will be relinquished to an out-of-state entity which will dictate all services, products and pricing. The interests of SAFE Credit Union member-owners and the Sacramento region will become a secondary consideration for BECU. BECU’s sole interest is in gaining control of an established institution without investing the time and resources necessary to secure a market position in a major metropolitan region outside of its current service area.

4. Breach of fiduciary duty and a manipulated democratic voting process
A violation of fiduciary duty has occurred because the SAFE Credit Union Board of Directors deliberated in secrecy and has not acted in the best interests of the member-owners. The fiduciary duty of care and loyalty to the membership has been disregarded. This board does not represent the best interests of the member-owners because it has subverted and manipulated the democratic election process by deliberately excluding the membership from board representation. 

  "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of a cancer cell." 

 

The SAFE/BECU Mega-Me Merger: Another Blue Light Special?

      +++                                     The Original Mega-Me?

 [2005] "A resurgent Kmart, home of the blue light special, is buying the once-dominant Sears department store chain in a surprising $11 billion gamble. The combined company is expected to have $55 billion in annual revenues, 2,350 full-line and off-mall stores, and 1,100 specialty retail stores."

Kmart CEO Ed Lampert and Sears chairman Alan Lacy, in announcing the deal on Wednesday, promised up to $500 million a year in savings within three years from store conversions, back-office job cuts, more efficient buying of goods and possible store closings.  

✅ "It's an opportunity to transform two companies that once were great, into a great company relative to the 21st century. A key part of increasing productivity at the stores will be in the cross selling of the brands." 

"I think there's a presumption that you're going to see a lot of store closings. That's a wrong presumption, .... while some layoffs will be announced by the end of April, the vast majority of the work force of 400,000 will keep their jobs, Lampert said.  We are determined to be successful."

Company officials said the merger would help make their properties more profitable through a broader retail presence and improved operational efficiency in areas such as procurement, marketing, information technology and supply chain management. "The combination will greatly strengthen both the Sears and Kmart franchises, " Lacy said. "This will clearly be a win for both companies' customers, while significantly enhancing value for all shareholders."  

"CEO Alan Lacy will pocket about $27 million as a result of the merger." 

 "This partnership is a powerful alignment of purpose and potential that leverages our strengths and recognizes our shared values," said Faye Nabhani, President and Chief Executive Officer of SAFE Credit Union. 

😎 There are 5 Sears stores left in the United States as of September 7, 2025. The following stores were closed in 2021: Sacramento, CA, Boyle Heights, CA, Clovis, CA, Downey, CA, Long Beach, CA, Los Altos, CA,  Orange, CA, Pasadena, CA  Rancho Cucamonga, CA. Tukwila, WA was closed in 2024!

😎 As of November 6, 2025, there are only 3 remaining US Kmart store locations still open with only 1 in the contiguous United States in Miami, Florida.  

 Just sayin'...  

The SAFE/BECU Mega-Mess Merger: "Bullish for Sacramento" ?

                   ...  or just "Breaking Stuff"?

                                   "Yada, more yada, and effusive ephemera, but..."

 ✔  "In your system, credit unions are sold — politely grabbed with paperwork — but sold, nonetheless. That is not cooperation. That is market logic wearing a cooperative costume.'

✔ "Worst of all, you have forgotten that credit unions were not built to win a market share war. They were built to change the rules of the game."

✔  "The cooperative movement was never meant to be efficient at the cost of being just. It was meant to be just even when inefficient. Because justice is the point."

      🎉🎉🎉  The 2026 SAFE Credit Union Annual Meeting  🎉🎉🎉  [link] 

                          Tuesday April 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m.

                All current SAFE members are invited to attend!

 "Double BS"?... Bad for SAFE and Bad for Sacramento?

 

 

SAFE/BECU Mega-Me Merger: California CU Regulator Asheep At The Wheel?

   

The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation? [DFPI]

✅ Opponents of the SAFE/BECU Mega-Me have voiced concerns to the SAFE CEO [CUDaily story here], with their legislators, and in the Sacramento press. On January 21, 2026, a thoughtful, detailed 11-page letter was also sent to California's state credit union regulator - DFPI.

✔ DFPI must approve the SAFE merger on behalf of the 245,000 SAFE members and the State of California. 

  There has been no public acknowledgement nor response by DFPI to the merger, which SAFE announced in November, 2025. Who does DFPI represent - the best interests of the SAFE CEO and Board or the best interests of SAFE members and the citizens of California? 

✔ The following is the summary of the four major areas of concern expressed to DFPI: 

"1. The loss of California regulatory jurisdiction and consumer protection.

 The transfer of $4.3 billion in assets belonging to 245,000 SAFE member-owners to an out-of-state credit union and the termination of SAFE’s charter will completely eliminate DFCI oversight. Consumer protection under the BECU charter will become the responsibility of the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). There will be no accountability to former SAFE members, all of whom are citizens of California."

  DFPI doesn't appear to be aware of, or concerned by, the national precedence the take-over of SAFE will have on all credit unions - large and small, in every state. Asleep at the wheel?

"2. The transfer without member-owner compensation or benefit of all current resources and future earnings of a successful, locally supported eighty-five year financial enterprise has no economic rationale.

The gifting of all SAFE assets, all future control, and all future earnings to BECU based solely on vague future promises is nothing less than a legally sanctioned theft of SAFE member resources. The true market value of SAFE Credit Union is $600 million to $800 million.2  SAFE members-owners will receive nothing from this transaction. All $4.3 billion in SAFE Credit Union member-owner assets will be handed over to BECU. All $345 million in member-owner equity will be taken from member-owners without compensation.".

  DFPI doesn't appear to be concerned with the expropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars from 245,000 SAFE members in California. Is this the current definition of "financial protection" in Sacramento?

"3. The loss of critical competitive advantage and local owner governance. 
SAFE Credit Union’s competitive advantage is its unique responsiveness to its member-owners and the priorities of the local community. This has enabled SAFE to establish a dominant regional market position that cannot be easily replicated. When SAFE becomes a branch operation for BECU, this will be lost. Governance will be relinquished to an out-of-state entity which will dictate all services, products and pricing. The interests of SAFE Credit Union member-owners and the Sacramento region will become a secondary consideration for BECU. BECU’s sole interest is in gaining control of an established institution without investing the time and resources necessary to secure a market position in a major metropolitan region outside of its current service area."

  There has been no call by DFPI for an open, public dialogue/forum on the proposed merger of SAFE among the 245,000 existing SAFE members, nor the 5.4 million potential SAFE members in California. Why hasn't DFPI demanded a full and fair disclosure to all SAFE members?

"4. Breach of fiduciary duty and a manipulated democratic voting process
A violation of fiduciary duty has occurred because the SAFE Credit Union Board of Directors deliberated in secrecy and has not acted in the best interests of the member-owners. The fiduciary duty of care and loyalty to the membership has been disregarded. This board does not represent the best interests of the member-owners because it has subverted and manipulated the democratic election process by deliberately excluding the membership from board representation." 

  Good governance, transparency, fiduciary responsibility? Why is DFPI being so sheepish, when so much is at stake for California - and beyond?

  Good governance, transparency, fiduciary responsibility... might add "DFPI credibility' to that list!

 

 

 

The SAFE/BECU Merger: Fiduciary Duty

    

  April 13, 2026: "Public Objections to Proposed SAFE/BECU Merger" [link] "...  disagreements over transparency, governance and the potential impact of the deal on members and the Sacramento community."

😎 Which picture best reflects the effectiveness of the Board in safeguarding the financial interests of SAFE members and the Sacramento community?

A.)

B.)

C.)

D.)

E.)

F.)

G.)

H.)

 

 

I.)  

All of the above? 

 

The SAFE/BECU Mega-Me Merger: Nothing to Write Home About!

   Amen! Home is where the heart is...

In a recent post [link] we took a look at some financial measures (loans, deposits, assets, capital, operating expenses), which compared the successful performance of SAFE versus its proposed merger partner from Washington State BECU.   

Remarkably, BECU is not outperforming SAFE in any significant measure except in the most important one! BECU is far more costly to operate! 

That doesn't seem to make sense. If the SAFE CEO and Board have thrown in the towel on their credit union, were there no other merger candidates available? What about large local CUs in California? No one was interested, or no one was asked?

Take a quick look at this list of California CUs. All are prospering in terms of loans, deposits, and assets; all are well-capitalized above the regulatory measure of 9%++.  So, let's focus on the key "where-the-rubber-hits-the-road" measure "operating costs" (OpEx). Do any of these California CUs perform better than BECU's OpEx of 3.33% at December, 2025? 

Golden 1 (Sacramento)         Assets: $21B   OpEx: 2.20%  Br: 62

SchoolsFirst (Tustin)             Assets: $35B   OpEx: 1.81%   Br: 69

Patelco (Dublin)                   Assets: $10B    OpEx: 1.84%   Br: 37

First Tech (San Jose)             Assets: $30B   OpEx: 2.83%   Br: 56 

San Diego County (S. D.)       Assets: $10B   OpEx: 1.84%   Br: 44

Redwood (Santa Rosa)          Assets: $10B    OpEx: 2.28%   Br: 21

Logix  (Valencia)                   Assets: $10B    OpEx: 1.84%   Br: 37

Star One  (Sunnyvale)           Assets: $10B    OpEx: 0.73%   Br: 7

All the @$10+ billion asset CUs in California operate at a significantly lower costs to members than BECU! Threw in the number of branches as a bonus, since that was claimed as one of the advantages of the SAFE/BECU merger. Question is : "Would SAFE members prefer to have 50 or 60 more branches in California or a new branch in Tukwila?"

😎 If the SAFE CEO and Board feel they can no longer lead; perhaps rather than just give it all away, they should consider leaving their heart in San Francisco... or maybe "Do you know the way to San Jose?"

  Most folks feel SAFE... at home.  

 

The SAFE/BECU Merger: Of What In The Future Are SAFE Leaders Afraid ?

   "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!"

  ... or is it just a lack of focused-thinking, courage, and heart?

✅ Who raised the alarm and said they couldn't cope with the future at SAFE?

💢💢 "Uncertainty, irrelevance and AI,                 ... oh my!" 💢💢 !!!

☒  CEO Faye Nabhani? (1 SAFE member)

☒  The SAFE Board? (11 SAFE members)

⛶  SAFE Employees? (800 SAFE members)

⛶  The SAFE Member-Owners? (245,000 SAFE members)

⛶  The Greater  Sacramento Community (5.4 million potential SAFE members)  

😎 ... perhaps its time to discuss the future of  SAFE Credit Union with the real majority of stakeholders? 

  And regardless of what you've been told, Seattle/Tukwila is probably not The Emerald City! 

The SAFE/BECU Mega-Me Merger : SAFE Members First Blind-sided And Now Blind-folded?

              Helping SAFE Members Make An Informed Choice?

      By California law: 15201. (a) The merger shall be made pursuant to any plan agreed upon by the majority of the board of directors of each credit union joining in the merger, and approved by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members of the disappearing credit union, in person or by proxy, at a meeting of the members called for that purpose... "

" Notice of the meeting shall be given to the members, either personally or by first-class mail, not less than 30 days prior to the date of the meeting." 

  CEO Faye Nabhani has refused to release 1) an explanation of why a merger is required for SAFE at this time, 2) a copy of the "definitive" [her words] agreement to merge with BECU, 3) any supporting documents  from "her consultants" [her claim] which analyzed the pros/cons of the proposed merger, 4) any explanation of why BECU was chosen as the best merger partner, and 5) [once the necessity to merge was identified ] what other proposals were solicited and evaluated.  

✅ With no merger vote meeting date yet announced, plenty of time remains for CEO Nabhani and the SAFE Board to correct the unseemly, undemocratic and unforced governance error of ignoring the SAFE members rights to be fully informed on why their credit union is being "sold out" - actually, given away! 

✔ The California  Department of Financial Protection and Innovation - the credit union regulator - should act also to require full disclosure to protect SAFE members, all state-chartered credit unions, and the State of California.

 SAFE members deserve better than an unconcerned CEO, a SAFE Board ignorning fiduciary duty... and, heaven forbid, a rubber-stamping regulator, oblivious to the best interests of California.

The SAFE/BECU Mega-Me Merger: CEO Nabanhi Ignores SAFE Members, Now Going To Refuse To Listen?

  Don't Worry, Be Happy! Trust Me-Me! 

✅ SAFE CEO Faye Nabanhi chose "shock and awe" over member dialogue, in her "surprise/surprise"  announcement of the mega-me merger between SAFE and BECU in November, 2025

✔ Here's how that came down for long-time member Scott Rose in The Sacramento Bee newspaper [link]: 

"On April 16, 2025, I attended the SAFE Credit Union Annual General Membership meeting. There was no mention on the agenda of any on going merger discussions."

"On November 18, 2025, SAFE Credit Union announced a “merger” with Boeing Employees Credit Union (BECU). "

"On February 28, 2026, I was stunned to hear of this agreement, which was described by SAFE CEO Faye Nabhani as “definitive”. - Scott Rose, SAFE member since 2002.

✔ Back in November, Ms. Nabanhi had told the Sacramento Bee: “Our members will see a direct financial benefit in their day-to-day lives, and we’ll be able to do more in the community and for our workforce.” 

But subsequent analysis of those "financial benefits" cast doubt on that assertion [link]. Ms. Nabhani countered with a statement to the Bee last month that: “This isn’t about an efficiency play.” [link]  😎 Which seemed to confirm the doubts of members like Scott Rose!

✅ But the good news out of all this confusion could be:

    ** The 2026 SAFE Credit Union Annual Meeting ** [link] 

                 Tuesday April 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m.

 🎉🎉🎉 "All current SAFE members are invited to attend!"  🎉🎉🎉

      [ Location: SAFE Corporate Office, 2295 Iron Point Road Folsom, California] 

 Will Ms. Nabhani allow SAFE  members to speak and have an open forum on the mega-me merger? Will it be live-streamed for members who can't atten to participate? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

link   response from safe 

 

The SAFE/BECU Mega-Me Merger: What Was The SAFE Board Thinking?

                      One has to wonder! 

✅ In a recent post, we took a look at several financial asset-type comparisons between SAFE and BECU [link]. There appeared to be little compelling reason for SAFE to merge, as it matched or out-performed BECU in almost all respects. The cruncher was that the operating efficiency of SAFE was far superior - being about -35% lower than BECU! 

To prove the point further, take a look at how BECU compares to other very large credit union peers in operational performance [according to NCUA - link]!  In terms of loans, on average BECU appears to charge members more than peer credit unions while paying members less on their savings. 

The difference in what BECU savers earn (overall referred to as an "average cost of funds" in CU regulatory-speak ) is 1.21%, while at large peer CUs their members' "average cost of funds" is 1.73%... about 50% more! 

😎 Credit Unions generally quote savings rates in terms of "APY"- Annual Percentage Yield. BECU appears to instead be using "APS" - Ain't Paying Squat!

✅ Why do members of BECU, on average, pay more for loans and earn a whole lot less on savings? Yep. you guessed it! The cost of operating BECU is @+15% higher than all other CU peers!

😎 What in the world was the SAFE Board thinking? Gaining "economies of scale" by merging with a larger, out-of-state credit union?... that looks a bit fishy!

 But then again... “No wise fish would go anywhere without a porpoise. - Alice”                                                    

We Can Resurrect The Fight On Monday, But...

  

... for today, peace sounds like a plan. 

The SAFE/BECU Mega-Me Merger - A Good Friday Look At Goodwill!

    

       Are the SAFE Board and CEO fissilingual?

✅ Been looking at the question of: "Why has the leadership of SAFE voted to give away a thriving $4 billion local credit union to out-of-state interests (BECU)? - at an immeasurable loss to the Sacramento community and at a very measurable cost of over $400+ million to 245,000 SAFE member-owners.

✔ Does the SAFE Board and CEO know what they are doing?  THEY SHOULD!!!

😎 Here's why. Take a look at these three excerpts from SAFE's most recent audited financials: 

"SAFE CREDIT UNION
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 2025" 

1) "NOTE 1 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND NATURE OF OPERATIONS:"

"Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets: Identifiable assets, liabilities, and contingent liabilities in entities acquired are measured at fair value at the date of acquisition. Identifiable intangible assets are recognized if they can be separated or arise from a contractual right and the fair value can be reliably measured. Any excess of the cost of business combination over the fair value of the acquired identifiable assets, liabilities,and contingent liabilities is recognized as goodwill. "

✔ Not to make you a CPA or anything like that, but the layman's translation is: if a credit union acquires any business - including another credit union - at a cost more (or less!) than fair value, then the difference in value is shown on the CUs books as "goodwill".  [if you want to check out SAFE's complete financials - here's the link]

😎 So what happens if a credit union acquires another credit union at less than "fair value"? **

2) "NOTE 6 - GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS:"
The [SAFE!] Credit Union completed a merger transaction with American River HealthPro Credit Union that became effective on July 1, 2009. This merger was accounted for as a purchase business combination. As the purpose of this merger was to achieve growth and economies of scale among these mutual enterprises, no payment considerations were involved, contingent or otherwise. The goodwill of $13,282,000 associated with this merger..."  

😎 So, you see SAFE CU has previously merged with another CU in 2009 and booked a goodwill gain of $13.2 million!  The $13.2 million "shares" SAFE CU "acquired", "as a purchase" was the remaining member equity value of the old HealthPro CU.  SAFE CU "purchased" HealthPro  for $13.2 million less than its "fair value". To this day, that goodwill gain,  that gift of $13.2 million still shows on SAFE's books!! [So, the SAFE Board knows how "this little game" works - or should!] 

3) "NOTE 18 - PENDING MERGER (UNAUDITED):" [to be completed in 2027]

"Under the terms of the agreement, upon completion of the merger BECU will assume all assets, liabilities, and member shares of the [SAFE!] Credit Union. "

😎 If this mega-me merger between SAFE/BECU is permitted to occur, BECU will post a goodwill gain of somewhere between +$400 million to +$800 million from the purchase - having acquired SAFE CU from its member-owners as a gift - far, far below "fair value". [link] 

 ** The reason CPAs don't normally note the possibility of any business being sold at less than fair value is that would be financially irresponsible - either a case of incompetency, insanity or stealing!

SAFE/BECU Mega-Me: A Merger Of Equals? Or The Pits?

😎Kinda depends on your point of view...

  ... and perhaps whether you're up the coast in Tukwila or down below in California.

   "Member Who Has Raised Objections to SAFE/BECU Merger Presses Legislators to Nix Combination"   [take a look at the latest story - link] .

Here's a comparison of financial performance of SAFE and BECU over the most recent 5-year period, based on NCUA regulatory reports.  The last 5 years seem reasonable as both CUs were coming out of the pandemic, the economy was in recovery, job market strong... "the best of times, the worst of times".

Most folks look at the same few financial numbers: loan/deposit/asset growth, capital levels, and operating costs.

1) SAFE Loans        2020 $2.4 B     2025 $3.1 B    +$700 M (+28%)

    BECU Loans       2020 $13 B    2025 $20.5 B  +$ 7.5 B  (+58%)!

2) SAFE Deposits    2020 $3.4 B     2025 $3.9 B    +$500 M (+15%)

    BECU Deposits    2020 $22.5 B   2025 $25.3 B  +$ 2.8 B  (+12%)

3) SAFE Assets        2020 $3.8 B     2025 $4.4 B    +$600 M (+16%) 

    BECU Assets       2020 $26.7 B   2025 $29.4 B  +$2.7 B (+10%)

5) SAFE Capital      2020  8.57%     2025 10.37%    +UP 21%

    BECU Capital      2020  10.11%   2025 12.39%    +UP 23% 

6) SAFE Net OPEX  2020 2.72%    2025 2.56%     +Down 6%

    BECU Net OPEX  2020 2.30%    2025 3.33%   +UP 48% !!  

✔ What is most notable is the similarity of financial performance between the two credit unions, except for the surge in lending at BECU. Both are doing well. 

✔ BECU is not outperforming SAFE in any significant measure except in the most important one! BECU is far more costly to operate - over 30% higher operating costs! - than SAFE. More importantly, over the last 5 years, as the two credit unions have grown at the same pace; BECU's operating costs have soared by +48%, while SAFE has lowered its cost ratio by -6%!

😎 Higher operating costs come directly out of the members' pockets. And it is SAFE to say, inefficiency always results in poorer rates and fewer services for member-owners.  There is too much "overhead" in this merger! 

   Sit tight! Looks like this merger may be digging a hole for the members of SAFE!

Credit Union Mega-Me Mergers...

                "Is This SAFE?"

  

... or a bit of governance pur-r-r- fidity?

 

  To fully-informed SAFE members, looks like...  a Washington state led "husky hustle"!