CEO's, Strike Three! "Yer Out ... Of Your Mind!"
BETTING THE HOUSE ON A RISKY MERGER:
Why Boeing Employees Credit Union is Wrong for Sacramento
by Jeanine Morse September 30, 2026
[About the author: Jeanine Morse served as CEO of the University of Hawaii FCU prior to her retirement. Morse has been a SAFE member since 2003 and currently lives in Elk Grove.]
Former SAFE Credit Union CEO Dave Roughton claims he “evaluated” the proposed takeover of SAFE Credit Union by Boeing Employees Credit Union with one guiding directive – “member benefit.” But in doing so he disregards the truth of this transaction: SAFE CREDIT UNION WILL CEASE TO EXIST WHEN THIS DEAL IS DONE.
The benefits he touts are illusory because SAFE Credit Union will be gone and all current SAFE members will lose an institution that successive generations have built up over eighty-one years. All SAFE resources will become the property of Boeing Employees Credit Union, including all member deposits and all member-owned income accumulated over the past eight decades. You cannot “fortify” an institution that no longer exists. And a credit union based in Washington state cannot “enhance the local communities” when it has no connections to our region.
As a former credit union CEO, I have carefully examined the financial benefits touted by Mr. Roughton, and they are neither immediate nor verifiable. I have analyzed and compared the publicly available financial and statistical data for both institutions, and the actual facts contradict his claims.
Mr. Roughton specifically makes claims of lower fees, higher deposit rates and lower loan rates. But SAFE management has deliberately not disclosed the math behind these claims, so I compared the NSF (bounced check) and returned check fees for both credit unions. My objective findings raise serious questions.
SAFE Credit Union’s NSF fee is $14, with a maximum of 2 NSF fees daily for a maximum charge of $28. Boeing Employees Credit Union’s NSF fee is $10, with a maximum of 5 NSF fees daily for a maximum charge of $50. In this hypothetical scenario, SAFE members end up paying an additional $22 with Boeing Employees Credit Union. Conclusion: Boeing Employees Credit Union actually charges higher NSF fees. The same is true for check deposits that are on hold. If checks try to clear against on hold deposits, both credit unions charge $10 with the same daily maximums as the NSF fee. If a member is charged the maximum daily limit at Boeing Employees Credit Union, they will pay an additional $52 more than at SAFE Credit Union.
The federal government has provided SAFE Credit Union with a low-income designation (LID). Boeing Employees Credit Union does not have this designation. A LID designation means the government has determined that a majority of SAFE's members have family incomes at or below 80% of the Sacramento area median, and that lower-income consumers are disproportionately more likely to incur overdraft and NSF fees, with frequent users experiencing substantially greater financial vulnerability.
On a separate note, on September 22, 2026, I met with SAFE CEO, Fay Nabhani for three hours. While cordial, the meeting was unproductive because Ms. Nabhani refused to disclose more specific details of the due diligence performed by SAFE. When I suggested that SAFE has the financial resources to reduce or eliminate some of their fees, she replied that SAFE could not afford to absorb a $7 million reduction in fee income. When I suggested that she could increase loan income to offset this expense, she replied that SAFE needed more capital to increase loan volume. I did not understand this illogical response. When I pointed out that SAFE’s rates were much better than Boeing Employees Credit Union, she stated there would be regional pricing after the merger. But the merger agreement does not mention regional pricing and there is no legally binding requirement for Boeing Employees Credit Union to provide this.
According to former CEO Roughton, “There would be a 30-percent increase in direct financial return. The estimated increase is based on an analysis of SAFE’s 2024 financial results and the projected value of combining with BECU, including benefits from lower loan rates, higher deposit rates and reduced fees compared to typical bank offerings…”
Mr. Roughton once again does not provide any data to support his contention that this merger will lead to a thirty percent increase in financial return.
To counter this unsubstantiated assertion, I compared the loan and deposit rates that are specified on each credit union’s website. Conclusion: SAFE Credit Union rates on both deposits and loans are clearly better than those of Boeing Employees Credit Union.
Deposit Rates SAFE BECU
6 Month CD 2.25% 1.98%
24 Month CD 2.90% 2.23%
36 Month CD 3.00% 1.93%
48 Month CD 3.05% 1.69%
Checking
SAFE: 3% interest up to $3,000, = $90 a year in interest paid to members.
BECU: 3% up to $500, .10% after that = $17.50 paid to members.
Loan Rates SAFE BECU
New Car 5.19% 5.89%
Used Car 5.29% 6.19%
Credit Cards 15.29% 16.49%
Home Equity Line of Credit 6.75% 6.99%
In every scenario, members are better with SAFE Credit Union than with Boeing Employees Credit Union.
Takeaways:
1. Boeing Employees Credit Union has lower fees; however, the method in which they are applied results in members paying more when daily maximums are applied.
2. SAFE Credit Union charges less for loans and pays more for deposits. This is the number one reason for which credit unions exist. The truth is that Boeing Employees Credit Union profits much more from their members than SAFE.
3. The underlying strategy at Boeing Employees Credit Union is obvious: Lower fees counterbalanced by higher loan rates and lower deposit rates. That is a for-profit mentality. While there is no way to verify the $7 million in fee savings, it is clear that SAFE members will pay more for loans and earn less on deposits. And given SAFE’s LID designation, higher loan rates are a certainty for members who fall into the designated low income category.
Summary - SAFE Credit Union has $4.4 billion in assets and $3.9 billion in member deposits. Given its size, its well-documented financial strength, and an objective analysis of its fee and rate structure, there is no logical argument to be made for a “merger” that terminates the existence of a treasured local institution and transfers all of its assets to an-out-of-state organization with no ties to the Sacramento region.
Former CEO Dave Roughton touts the elimination of $7 million in fees for SAFE members during the first year after the takeover, but he does not disclose the methodology that would substantiate this figure. As with most of the information SAFE management has provided, members have no way of knowing if they will end up paying more and getting less. Mr. Roughton’s claims are impossible to verify and this appears to be by design.
SAFE Credit Union has been a valued financial services provider in our community for over eighty years. As a member of SAFE since 2003, I believe it is essential that we keep SAFE healthy and strong, while its leadership and headquarters remain in the Sacramento region.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NeJZ8M80_Lc
ReplyDeleteAnother excellent post. Now the Boeing CEO is on the save podcast that Faye, the SAFE CEO was on - which was a total train wreck. The Boeing CEO is articulate, thoughtful and summarily breaks down every believe or myth as to why people think this is bad for SAFE, and is in part why SAFE voters will be strongly in support of the merger.
Callahan just released their member return ranking, Simone should find out how Boeing and SAFE in that independent, objective, metric. It’s unclear which metric Roughton is referring to. Must be a bullet point fed to them by Boeing. Has SAFE ever quantified and told tell their members how much they are saving compared to banks? Now all of the sudden, some number they never heard of is going up over 30%?
ReplyDeleteIt's great for SAFE members that they have someone knowledgeable to call BS on all this.
ReplyDelete"When I suggested that she could increase loan income to offset this expense, she replied that SAFE needed more capital to increase loan volume. I did not understand this illogical response."
Illogical, at best!!! Let's explore that.
SAFE's line (lie) is that they can't afford all these benefits unless they merger. Profits are up 40%in the last year, and the NW ratio is 10.86%, up from 10.15% just a year ago.
So need, more capital for lending, eh?
Current loan-to-share ratio is 79%, below the national average. Plenty of room to lend right now.
Let's say capital was held at where it was just a year ag0 at 10.15%. That supports assets of about $4.7 billion. Hold the loan-to-share ratio constant (even though it is too low), and that supports a loan portfolio of $3.76 billion, compared to $3.14 billion currently. That's capacity for $600 million, or about 20% more in loan balances.
How many different ways are they going to invent to mislead members about the necessity of this merger? Can't lend, can't afford 500,000 in grants, can't lower fees, even though the NW ratio is at modern-day record level and is $168 million excess of the 7% minimum to be considered to be well-capitalized.
That's why her answer is illogical, and is in fact dishonest, and she tried to blow it by the wrong person in Ms. Morse.