No longer SAFE?
✔ As the SAFE Board and CEO see the merger!
By selling out: "We can assure that our success over the last 85 years ("a leader in the credit union space") will continue."
✔ As the financial experts see the merger!
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 ❎
Be prepared for turbulence...
ReplyDeleteI feel so bad for the employees at SAFE, BECU used to be a gem in the PacNW but the new executive team is all ex-bankers with little to no morals or care for humans. This merger will destroy SAFE just like they destroyed BECU.
ReplyDeleteAnd we thought it we had it bad. Good thing we chased out Hayes when we did
ReplyDeletehttps://goldmountaincanews.com/news/371886/future-of-safe-is-still-local/
ReplyDeleteSAFE is in full sales mode on the merger. Interesting that after the Faye video debacle they are bringing other voices to it. Not a coincidence. Same exact talking points, though.
They are aligned on community, members and shared values. @9:18, surely the Boeing board didn't intend to hire execs with misaligned values. It's easy to write a check for 1 million for the community - and they will certainly do that. You can't compare values on paper, though, and SAFE won't know if their values are really aligned until after the merger, in the same way the new execs can talk values when being hired, but only actions and behavior once you're hired matter.
For SAFE members there are two key issues they should be concerned about, especially with the messaging they are getting from leadership.
ReplyDelete1) They are being told the benefits and investments are only possible if they merger. That's deceptive and manipulative.
2) They aren't being told what they are going to lose. In no merger or system consolidation ever do you have all the best functionality plus more. There are ALWAYS takeaways. Even if there are more benefits than takeaways and a net gain, those takeaways are relevant to SAFE members and should be communicated prior to vote. SAFE and Boeing have been at this for months, comparing systems and products. These takeaways are known now but not being communicated.
Let's debunk the myth that SAFE can't afford all these great things their members will get UNLESS they merge with Boeing. Source is NCUA data for SAFE, comparing 1Q 2026 with 1Q 2025:
ReplyDelete*Net income up 44%
*Dividend expense down 13%
*$28.8 million in member equity added
*NW Ratio increased from 9.86% to 10.49%
Other relevant data, as of March 2026.
Fee / Other Income to AA
SAFE 1.45%
SAFE Peers: 1.10%
If SAFE held it's NW ratio flat from 1Q 2025 at 9.86% (which is high already), they would need ~$28 million less equity than they have today.
If they dropped their fee income to 1.05% of AA (below the 1.10% peer), it would cost $18 million in fee income. Add $1 million for community investment, 500,000 for grants, and we're up to 19.5 million. 8.5 left. Repricing loans, whatever that means - Boeing claimed 2.2 million in savings for their members. SAFE's loan portfolio is less than 1/5th the size of Boeing's, so assume $400k in lower interest. That leaves $8 million for branches.
They could have provided all those benefits to their members in the last year and still been at 9.86%, which is about 30 million in capital in excess of the regulatory requirement to be well-capitalized. Great job by SAFE managing risk - their charge-off ratio is about half the level of peers, but that says even 9.86% is too high in the first place given the risk on their balance sheet.
So these great and consistently touted benefits can only be paid for or afforded with Boeing's capital? Really?
SAFE does seem fee happy by comparison, so no doubt those will be lowered. SAFE isn't lying about the spend and benefits. That's not the point or accusation. The point is they can afford to do it on their own, and SAFE members should be demanding those changes now. It's their money.