✔ As the financial experts see it!:
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 ❎
✔ If 122,501 SAFE member-owners do not vote in favor of this "nothing-but-nonsense" merger, will DFPI follow the law and disapprove the merger or overrule SAFE members and the best interests of the people of California?
😎 
Who are the impartial financial experts? DFPI won’t considere them, whoever they are.
ReplyDeleteWhy not>
DeleteWhy would they? How is the opinion of a third party relevant for the DFPI? And what impartial final experts exist? Who other than SAFE or Boeing, who aren’t impartial, commissioned financial experts to assess this?
DeleteOther than being anti-merger, apparently in all situations, I don't understand why you insist on misrepresenting the DFPI's role and scope in this.
ReplyDelete7:22am Good morning! You're up and off to the rant races early prior to the weekend.
DeleteI'm not anti-merger at all. Why do you think so?
I am against stealing, aren't you? "Others" in the past have supported that principle too.
... y'know that old "thou shall not" list for example.
:
8:01am You never answered about your views on stealing... for or against?
DeleteIn Response to a comment by Unknown
I’m against stealing. Has nothing to do with this topic. Nothing is being stolen.
DeleteWho has a duty here to protect the best interests of the people of California? The DFPI sure doesn’t. The SAFE Board doesn’t. There is a duty only to SAFE members - which is the responsibility of the SAFE board
ReplyDelete7:24am Would you please repeat that!?
DeleteAre you sure the SAFE Board and Faye Nabhani agree with you that they have no "duty to protect the best interests of the people of California"?
And if "The DFPI sure doesn’t", then what do you believe their role is an agency of California state government?
I don’t care if the SAFE board or Faye agrees with me. The SAFE Board has a duty only to SAFE Members, not the “people of California”
DeleteThe DFPI’s role is to oversee SAFE and make sure they follow laws and regs and maintain safety and soundness. That’s it. Not their job to do anything for the “people of California” outside of that context.
DeleteAccording to the DFPI website, your "think" is not clear [see 8:25am below]:
Delete"DFPI Mission"
"Serve Californians by effectively overseeing financial service providers; enforcing laws and regulations; promoting innovation and fair and honest business practices; enhancing consumer awareness; and protecting consumers by preventing potential marketplace risks, fraud, and abuse."
Looks like DFPI believes has a duty to all Californians...
8:22am Also failed to acknowledge that the DFPI website "clearly" indicates your "think" is not clear. Right?
Delete7:24am "Who has a duty here to protect the best interests of the people of California? The DFPI sure doesn’t"
DeleteYou did read their website and agree your comment is totally not clear "think" - right?
Got news for you - no one from the DFPI is reading this blog and cares what you think.
ReplyDelete7:27am Dear "Got news" ... you may be half right, but you're definitely half wrong.
DeleteThe good news is, being half right is well above your "normal" batting average! Congrats!
You’re an idiot if you think you can influence the DFPI with your stupid points of view. The CA DFPI is not reading your blog. Indeed, I only need half a brain to know they will approve this merger, and I know exactly why they will. Your lies about the law don’t matter to anyone. For somone who seems to be advicating for SAFE members, you’re too stupid to see that you’re hurting them by leading them to believe the DFPI might bail them out of their responsibility. If they (not you) don’t like this merger, they need to vote, if they don’t they deserve to get screwed.
Delete7:59am Whoops! You may have had too much coffee this morning and need to go back to bed.
DeleteWant me to check back in with you later today when your thinking has cleared?
Get some rest!
My think is clear
Delete7:27 am If you are convinced your "think is clear" and DFPI is missing out on the discussion be sure to send them this link:
Deletehttps://www.secujustasking.com/2026/06/the-safe-mega-me-merger-mess-depends-on.html
Thanks! Know we agree on full disclosure and transparency.
There is no real precedent or cause to not approve this merger, even if it isn't beneficial to the local community and members. That's not their scope.
Delete8:25 am Like I said ... get back in bed!
ReplyDeleteA least until your "think" is clearer.
Check out this impartial, outside opinion:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.creditandcollectionnews.com/safe-credit-union-takeover-demands-scrutiny-from-state-regulators/
You said DFPI will determine among “impartial financial experts”. Who are they? This isn’t it. You’re ignorant and naive and don’t know the first thing about the CA regulator, or even mergers, for that matter.
Delete8:41pm Yes, DFPI's opinion on the transaction is crucial.
DeleteIf you haven't figured this out yet, the majority of all SAFE members must vote on the merger proposal, Most folks agree that the result of that member majority vote will be the merger will not be approved.
Given the failure of the SAFE members to approve the merger, the BIG QUESTION is whether DFPI will honor the SAFE member vote and reject the merger... or will DFPI, acting on its own undisclosed benchmarks overrule the SAFE members disapproval?
What do youy think? Why would DFPI act to override, when every financial analysis confirms this is a bum deal for SAFE members, Sacramento... and all of Californa?
Who should decide? SAFE members or DFPI?
10:03 ...the SAFE members have the right to vote and they should decide. You just don't seem to understand that a non-affirmation of majority is not considered a disapproval. An abstention is not a no vote.
Delete8:16am Sorry, according to California state law it is... "a majority of all members MUST approve"... not some minority of all members..
DeleteThe fate of SAFE will be determined by DFPI... not by SAFE members. Nothing democratic about it, so get over it.
Life will go on, SAFE will not.
Nothing democratic about it? A vote is held for all membership. A 100% pure democratic process.
Delete8:40 am The resounding rejection of the merger proposal in, as you say, a member vote required by law, is then overturned by a government official... that's "100% pure democratic process"?
DeleteSounds more "soviet" than democratic...
8:40am "If the kirza fits wear it"! Own up and own it.
DeleteBECU has hired an impartial, outside financial expert:
ReplyDeleteFrom their news release on merger: "Jefferies LLC is serving as exclusive financial advisor to BECU."
Want more factual data on what SAFE members are losing? Check this:
https://www.secujustasking.com/2025/11/credit-unions-godfather-mergers-part-iv.html
You’re joking, right? By very definition they Jefferies is not impartial. They were hired by Boeing!
DeleteLike I said - you’re just ignorant and are really stretching this now in an unsuccessful attempt to save face.
2:13pm Well, guess you could be right about that.
DeleteJefferies is a hired gun for Boeing, but they are being paid by BECU to provide an impartial - maybe "professional" is a better word - assessment of the financial value to Boeing of the merger with SAFE.
As you know, Jefferies is a top-tier global expert in such assessments. You can bet their valuation will be both impartial and professional - not "partial", not "half-A", amateurish.
Without even seeing the actual report, it's pretty easy to guess the bottom line summary : "For Boeing, the merger with SAFE is a steal!"
BTW, do you know which national professionals the SAFE Board used in their important, fiduciary decision?
Just asking...
Thank you. Yes, impartial is the wrong word. Jefferies is indeed orifessional and would have enthusiastically recommenced this to the Boeing board, and will get a fee based on.a % of the value of the deal. Not sure if SAFE hired someone to help with due diligence, but if they did, they should get their money back.
DeleteIf they didn't look for the law suit, incomptence or fraud.
Delete2:52pm " Not sure if SAFE hired someone to help with due diligence, but if they did, they should get their money back."
DeleteSo at least we both agree that the merger is a really bad deal for SAFE members.
Take it you too would vote "NO" if you were a SAFE member!
Yes, IMO its bad for both SAFE members and Boeing members. As a SAFE member I would absolutely vote no.
Delete10:23am !!!
Delete"Methinks he doth protest too much"
ReplyDelete