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?

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