❋ Cheerleader for the SAFE Board of Directors, or advocate for SAFE members and the guardian of consumers and the laws in California?
Our commenter from yesterday [link] seems to believe that DFPI falls into the rubber stamp definition of regulators: "A mostly powerless yet officially recognized body that routinely approves or endorses programs and policies initiated by a controlling party." Mighty harsh critique!
😎 Certainly no need to lobby for "deregulation" in California if the rubber stamp label is accurate!
✅ DFPI likes to boast of its consumer protection, and that California is "the charter of choice" for credit unions. The SAFE Board evidently doesn't believe DFPI is all it's quacked up to be. Instead, the senior leadership at SAFE have chosen to give it all up - actually give it all away! - and move to Washington! So much for DFPI's charter of choice!
✔ If this merger mistake comes up for a SAFE membership vote, California and credit unions nationwide will have a chance to judge the true degree of regulatory rigor and the firmness of the promise to consumer protection at DFPI.
✔ As you've read, California law explicitly states that a majority of all SAFE members must vote in favor of this merger proposal for it to be approved.
✔ If the merger is not approved by a majority vote of all 250,000 SAFE members, then DFPI will have the choice to unilaterally approve or disapprove the merger proposal.
😎 DFPI alone will decide who really has the credit union "charter of choice" for 250,000 Californians. Will be interesting to see how DFPI justifies its' choice, when the majority of all SAFE members do not approve.
"It's a Big Club, and the Members Ain't in It"
ReplyDeleteSo if it comes up for a vote, then people can judge their rigor and the firmness of their consumer protection promise? What a ridiculous comment.
ReplyDeleteThey’ve already completed their process and have decided how they will apply their authority if necessary.
So the CA DFI disagrees with you about whether members will be harmed and need protection.
ReplyDeleteYour delusion comes from what you expect the DFPI to protect safe members from. You seem to think the regulator should play the role of the SAFE board and weigh in the social, community or general strategic issues. I hope the DFPI reads your posts - they would get quite a chuckle out of it.
ReplyDeleteAnd a blatant (and rather stupid) mischaracterization by saying they “alone” will decide the outcome. There are two legally defined approval paths ahead 1) the member vote, and 2) depending on the outcome and count of members voting, the DFPI. 2 paths, and the second one is conditional on the outcome of the first. It’s not the DFPI “alone”. A 3rd grader could understand that and an honest person would acknowledge that.
ReplyDeleteFor Federal Credit Unions, the NCUA allows a majority of voters, but at least 20% of the members have to vote.
ReplyDeleteAnd here in NC, our regulator requires only a majority yes vote by those that voted, not a majority yes vote by all members.
Delete10:30 am Pretty sure this is not true, but as a commenter you frequently fail the "you can trust what I say" test.
DeleteMight want to look it up
Don’t you see that you are undermining your own efforts? For any SAFE member that reads this blog, your misrepresentation of the states role gives false hope that the state will bail them out of this. Ain’t gonna happen.
ReplyDelete3:55pm Glad you at least agree that a bail out for SAFE members would be good.
DeleteYou’re making this about the state and that’s the wrong argument to make and clearly provokes a few of your critics, who actually agree with you on the core issue - that this is bad for SAFE members, they’re not getting anything they couldn’t already be given, and that while the SAFE board delivered a merger plan that met that statutory requirements for merger approval, the depth and quality of their due diligence, especially around the leadership and culture issues, is highly suspect.
Delete3:57. You’re misinterpreting my comment. I don’t think a bail FOR members would be good and it’s irrelevant because it won’t happen. It’s up to them and I do think them showing up and voting no would be good for them.
Delete4:10pm Hope you're not surprised that many will have problems with your lack of moral and ethical concern.
DeleteAssume that those two concepts have no value to you and are "irrelevant because it won’t happen."
"Irrelevant" even though you claim in 3:59pm:
"... actually agree with you on the core issue - that this is bad for SAFE members, they’re not getting anything they couldn’t already be given, and that while the SAFE board delivered a merger plan that met that statutory requirements for merger approval, the depth and quality of their due diligence, especially around the leadership and culture issues, is highly suspect. "
The state has no choice other than to approve a "bad deal", which is "highly suspect"?
4:59pm It’s never as easy as your hyperbolic, unsupported statements. First off, bad deal is a matter of perspective.
Delete5:40pm Was quoting YOUR PERSPECTIVE from 3:59pm not mine. "this is bad for SAFE members, they’re not getting anything they couldn’t already be given..."
DeleteOwn it or please stop posting. Wasting everyone's time with icredibility!
5:48pm We'll take one more stab and see if you can connect the dots. I think this is bad for SAFE members and I own it.
DeleteThe reason I think it is bad for them is because they are ceding control of their governance, strategy and capital, and taking a risk in trusting Boeing leadership, while assuming there is cultural alignment. They are doing all of that for nothing in return.
There are stated benefits being sold to SAFE members, like $500k in grants, 1 million in community $, lower fees by aligning with Boeing's fee structure, and some rate reduction thing. I believe those things to be true and that they will happen.
However, SAFE could do every single one of those things right now if they wanted. They don't need Boeing's capital and systems to do that.
That's why I think this is bad for them. They will cede control and yes, get tangible benefits, but those are member benefits they can give already; they don't need to merge to do it.
That's why I think their Board shouldn't have approved this, and why I think SAFE members should vote it down. Doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't make the merger illegal, immoral, or unethical.
10:00 pm An insightful analysis, a very gracious reply.
DeleteThank you.
It doesn't make sense to me either. If the current Safe membership votes against the merger, but the current leadership can decide to proceed anyway ... why is majority vote required? If that happens, the member-owners should take action to oust the current board/ceo and elect/hire new leaders. -c
ReplyDelete