SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Former Golden 1 Credit Union CEO Stan Hollen has become the latest former CU CEO to question the proposed merger of California-based SAFE Credit Union with Washington-based Boeing Employees Credit Union, arguing the combination offers insufficient benefits to SAFE members and would weaken local control.
As the CU Daily reported here, former American Airlines FCU CEO John Tippets also flagged concerns he has over the merger in an op-ed that was published in the Gold Mountain News.
The CU Daily has reporting on the proposed merger here. As the CU Daily also reported here, the merger proposal includes nearly $15 million in payouts to five members of SAFE CU’s management.
Hollen, who led Golden 1’s statewide expansion from 1984 through 2001, questioned why SAFE would merge with Tukwila, Wash.-based BECU rather than another California credit union.
A combination with a California institution such as Golden 1 could expand members’ branch access while preserving local focus and control, he argued. He also questioned whether SAFE explored other California merger partners.
“SAFE is large enough that economy of scale cannot be a reason to seek a merger into a larger credit union,” Hollen wrote.
Member Approval Provision Draws Criticism
Hollen also criticized language in SAFE’s merger ballot advising members that its board would seek state regulatory approval if a majority of all SAFE members did not vote to approve the transaction.
According to the ballot language reproduced in the op-ed, the board would apply under California Financial Code Section 15201(b) for merger approval if that threshold was not reached through votes cast at the member meeting, by mail or online.
Hollen characterized the provision as signaling an intent to seek an exemption from the majority-vote requirement, calling that approach contrary to credit union philosophy.
The quoted language refers to approval by a majority of all SAFE members, rather than a majority of those casting ballots.
Questions About Local Focus
Hollen argued that members would lose local control, SAFE’s Sacramento focus and community support, and control over reserves accumulated during the
Tippets and Hollen aren’t alone in questioning the merger, as the CU Daily has reported here. SAFE CU’s CEO has defended the combination, as is reported here.
He questioned executive payouts associated with the proposed merger and argued that a combination with another California credit union would offer greater benefits to members.
“Boeing Employees Credit Union does not need this merger,” Hollen wrote. “I question why they are seeking this kind of expansion.”
The op-ed did not include responses from SAFE or BECU to his criticisms.
After leading Golden 1, Hollen served three years as CEO of Liberty Enterprises, a supplier of data services to credit unions. He later served as president and CEO of CO-OP Financial Services until retiring in mid-2016.
One Response
Stan poses a good question – why does BECU need this merger? The answer is that they can’t grow assets and deposits. Assets ended 2025 lower than in 2021. Their ROA is horrible because their Opex has increased to nearly 3.50%. Their rates are far inferior, and their capital is well over 12%. Instead of giving their own members their money back in the form of better rates, they are using it to buy off SAFE leadership and entice SAFE members and the Sacramento – as if SAFE couldn’t find 500,000 to provide home grants to their own members with out using BECU member capital.
The massive expense problem is at odds with their profit goals. Members get a raw deal, and no growth is credit. First their capital was hoarded, now it’s being exported.
The merger is the only answer to being unwilling or unable to achieve organic growth. A lot of chatter about how SAFE members will get screwed here, but who is asking how BECU members will benefit from this merger? What possible justification is there to have their capital spent in another market instead of being given back to them?