SACRAMENTO, Calif.–Credit union leaders—and in many cases, CU members themselves—are not holding their tongues when it comes to stories being reported by the CU Daily, expressing outrage, disappointment, confusion and more as they express opinions across a wide range of issues.
The CU Daily has sought to build the most robust town square in the credit union community, including a constantly updated Opinions section, as well as in the opportunity to comment on stories the publication has reported via the Comment section at the bottom of every story.
Below are some of what’s being said in response to several recent stories. As always—and fittingly—the CU Daily welcomes reader input at any time.
Below are some of the comments posted after a number of recent stories, including by both members and others from within credit unions:
A couple of important notes:
- As the CU Daily reported earlier here, there have been considerable comments filed by credit union members related to the system outage caused by a cyberattack on TruStage. The original story and comments added since that reporting can be found here.
- Some light editing of responses has occurred, primarily to misspellings and missing punctuation that would otherwise cause a lack of clarity.
- Commenters have the opportunity to identify themselves. Where they have done so, names have been included. Otherwise, comments are anonymous.
Nearly $15 Million in Payouts to 5 Execs Part of Proposed Merger Between SAFE, BECU; Benefits to Members are Outlined
The Story
SACRAMENTO, Calif.–A new statement to members of SAFE Credit Unionhere reveals that as part of its plan to merge with Seattle-based BECU, based 750 miles north in Seattle, five executives will receive more than $14-million in benefits, there will be no direct payout to members, and it is applying to the state regulator to allow it to complete the combination even if a majority of members don’t vote in favor, as state law requires.
The Comments
‘Could’ve Stayed With Bank’
If I wanted to fall prey to crooked banks who only push for executive payouts, I would have stuck with my previous bank. This is ridiculous and offensive that it’s even being considered.
Crooked Credit Union
Crooked credit union
Overpaid nobody’s
Shame on becu
‘We Need Answers’
Great information! Why is SAFE paying these excessive amounts to executives who were in charge when a major data breach happened in December 2025. There is a class action lawsuit pending. It begs the question: was the credit union’s IT fraud detection inadequate? If it was, the CEO and the CTO should be terminated, not rewarded. Is this why they’ve merging? We need answers!
No Excuse for Massive Payouts
(Response to above.) To be fair, major data breaches can happen to any companies, regardless of how prepared you are or not… If it hasn’t yet, it will. Even the most secure and compliant business and companies in the nation have or will get hacked – so that really isn’t relevant. However,…that doesn’t explain or excuse these massive payouts or the conflict of interest concerns with executives and board members. –
A Conflict of Interest
Agreed, and the Board seats and excessive Board pay adds a unique and uncommon flavor to the conflict of interest topic on this one. SAFE will get almost 1/5th of the board seats with a little over 1/10th of the combined membership.
Not horribly uncommon, but hardly a given that a merging CU gets seats on the combined board, especially when the acquiring cu is seven or eight times larger. A 125,000 a year raise for Directors is a pretty powerful motivation to negotiate for seats, but I’d bet BECU offered them up front as a carrot – not conceded in a negotiation with SAFE.
Merger-related executive compensation like this seems to represent a clear conflict of interest. I wrote a book for board members of small credit unions, highlighting some of these concerns. Maybe some big CU board members need to read it too.
-Doug Wadsworth, CEO, Tri-CU
‘How is This Not a Money Grab?’
Tell me again, in a perfectly worded PR statement, how this was not an asset or a money grab.
BECU’s executive management team gets the prestige of announcing “the first merger in BECU history” and taking credit for how much they “grew the credit union.” In reality, they have spent an extraordinary amount of money with very little to show for it, other than a merger that makes no strategic sense. And SAFE’s leadership appears just as comfortable with the deal, so perhaps it is no surprise the two teams have gotten along so well.
This merger makes no sense for the members, yet they are the ones who will ultimately bear the consequences.
You can repeat “better rates and services” all you want, but as Kendrick put it: “Hey, Drake, they’re not dumb.” Members can go directly to both institutions’ websites and compare the rates themselves.
And positioning Member Advantage as a major selling point? Laughable. It is not an especially compelling product. Members can earn a higher rate by meeting additional engagement requirements, but that higher rate applies only to the first $500.
‘If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It’
I have been a SAFE CU member for almost 20 years. I joined because it was a local credit union with a good reputation. I will vote against the merger. As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke don’t try and fix it.” If the merger is approved I’ll move my assets elsewhere.
What is ‘Management Hiding’
As directed by SAFE CU staff, I have filled out an online request for information about the merger. I have not received a response. What is SAFE’s management hiding? Is this merger financially rewarding management? BECU compensates their Board members…will the SAFE board members be compensated after the merger?
As a SAFE member, I requested a copy of the merger agreement. So far, I have received nothing in response to my request.
–Jeanine Morse
‘I am 110% Leaving’
I am 110% leaving SAFE CU in early 2027 if and when this becomes an official “merger.”
Which bank or credit union will I go to? I have no clue.
This is backstabbing and against member interest. Who is getting paid for this and how much? That’s what I want to know. Because we sure aren’t.
Even As it Plans to Appeal to State Regulator on Voting Requirements, SAFE CU Opens Vote on Merger With BECU
The Story
SACRAMENTO, Calif.–Even as it says it plans to appeal to state regulator should the vote not meet state requirements, SAFE Credit Union has officially opened voting to members on its proposed merger with Seattle-based BECU with a message that says casting a vote also means the opportunity to direct $250,000 in donations.
The Comments
Lack of Disclosure Alleged
The official member merger notice from the SAFE CEO discloses the credit union’s intent and the regulator’s authority, under California Financial Code Section 15201(b) to approve this merger in event not enough members vote. This is a REQUIRED disclosure.
“The Merger must be approved by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members of SAFE, or by such lesser vote of the members of SAFE as may be approved by the Commissioner of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (the “California Commissioner”) pursuant to applicable law.”
The website they just posted has entire page about voting and an extensive voting FAQ. To the question, “What happens if I don’t vote”, they have the following specific language:
“If you are eligible to vote and do not submit a ballot, your vote will not be counted in the member vote on the proposed combination. The outcome will be determined based on the ballots properly received. ”
This is confusing and deceptive. Will the outcome will be determined by the ballots properly received, or will the outcome be determined by the SAFE Board ignoring the will of the members and voters and ask the regulators to approve it directly?
In an extensive Q&A and detail about the voting process, why are they not re-disclosing the same thing in the member letter? The specific answer is they aren’t required to as the website is not the official notice of merger. But in a merger that was hid from members and has no apparent benefit to them, instead of doing the right thing, SAFE sticks to the letter of the law and conveniently leaves that disclosure off the website and then leads members to believe the outcome will be decided ONLY BY THEIR VOTE.
Sold Down the River
SAFE seems to be overtly deceiving their members. The Execs are already counting their money, but I hope SAFE members vote no and take this decision out of the hands of their CEO and Board who have sold them down the river for a payday
‘Kinda Baloney’
More products and services at a big CU? That is kinda baloney… “…merger gave FCU members access to services the smaller institution could not offer on its own, including credit cards, larger lending limits for businesses and a new digital banking platform.”
Most small CUs are able to offer credit and debit cards… and they already had online banking? So, the only merger benefit was “larger lending limits for businesses?”
So, what about all the local common folk and underserved who don’t own businesses… you know, the “Little guy” that credit unions were designed to serve? They lost their local institution – and the friendly, personal, with the hyper-local flexibility that provided. So now they have a “big bank” instead. Was that worth it?
The Story
KENNEWICK, Wash. — A small-credit-union advocacy group is asking newly sworn-in National Credit Union Administration Chairman John Crews to establish a nationwide policy allowing CEOs or other senior officials at smaller credit unions to attend examiner interviews with supervisory committee members and other volunteers, unless those officials request to meet privately.
The Comments
More Data Needed
The issue you need to get is that “it happened one time at my credit union” shouldn’t equate to broad policy. What data do you have, which excludes an anecdote from your own one off that supports the assertion that small CU directors, at the industry level, are quitting because NCUA examiners are being mean to them?
‘Small CU Victim Mentality’
Not awkward in the least. You’re just kidding the point. If you can’t acquire the skills and resources to comply with regs, that should tell you something about the long-term viability of small credit unions. As for competition, well that’s an even louder signal about the viability questions. And, while I realize your small cu victim mentality requires you to blame large CU’s, I hope you realize that all of your member’ kids won’t even use fiat currency eventually, so you might also think about banks, fintechs, neo-banks, figure, SOFI, and a plethora of PE-backed entities getting bank charters.
You realize that even if the NCUA lays down for you and you solve this “suffocating regulatory burden” that it is nowhere near enough to sustain your viability, right? Not even close.
Pay Isn’t Relevant
What does paid or unpaid have to do with? Does a non-paid director have less of a fiduciary duty than a paid director?
Needs to be ‘Proportionate’
I would agree it needs to be proportionate to their risk, meaning the CU’s risk in absolute terms, not the risk they represent to the system. Risk. Not size.
‘Great Points’
Great points – small credit unions need a strong internal control structure, but it needs to be appropriate for their size – we need to stop overburdening small CUs. Supporting our Board and Supervisory Committee volunteers during exam as described does NOT weaken this structure.
The Implications & The Drivers
Who is dictating what? Where does that come from? Just data point, which suggests only slightly more than the majority of small credit unions offer core products to their members. The implication of that is that they are made to go somewhere else to have their product needs met. You might consider that one of drivers as to why small credit unions can’t grow. It doesn’t mean they don’t add value on the products they do offer.
I have never used the term one-size fits all. There is steady relief – you aren’t regulated by the CFPB, you don’t have to do capital planning and stress testing. They invented a CECL Excel model for you.
Compliance with all else – BSA /AML, KYC, TILA / RESPA, GAAP, HMDA (and so on, and so on) shouldn’t be asset size specific. Consumer protection doesn’t matter less to a member of a smaller credit union, and safety and soundness isn’t less important for a small credit union just because of their asset size. We can qualify it want relief for only healthy small cu’s, which makes sense. When do the most safe and sound large cu’s get regulatory relief the others don’t get?
You don’t address the systemic issue of small CU frauds and failures. The incidence of that is troubling. It’s not a systemic impact financially – even though large cu’s have to pay for it, but it’s an issue that can’t be chalked up to a few bad apples. Yet we lobby for more lax regulations. I’ve not heard any credible rationale that reconciles that.
Maybe it’s not about big v. Small cu’s – big ones already have far more regulations and cost. So legit questions, what right-sized regulations does a community bank your size get that you don’t get? What regulatory relief are you asking for or have gotten that they don’t get.
‘What is the TRUE Issue?’
Data points are always helpful, but what is the TRUE issue at hand? It is about whether or not the small credit union returns *value* to members (especially underserved and minorities), in such a way to justify its existence. If they are failing to do so, then yes, they should merge. However, you don’t get to dictate what products or services they *should* have in order to define the value of that unique hyper local institution.
And, if they *are* valuable to their members and financially healthy (even if they don’t provide business loans or mortgages or whatever)… why shouldn’t they deserve right-sized regulations that make sense? Why are you so hell-bent on “one-size-fits-all” regulations? Is it to eliminate the small competitors? Just an urge to “cull the herd?” That’s not very cooperative, and not very “not for profit” sounding, is it? Of course, as you keep mentioning, you don’t believe this is a movement anyway.
-Doug Wadsworth
What the Data Reveal
Some data points. As of 3/2026, there were 2,466 credit unions with <=$100 million in assets. Of those, only:
*48% offer credit cards
*57% offer mortgages
*50% offer a home equity product
*13% offer business accounts
*17% offer their members point-of-sale auto financing (therefore making it less convenient)
*91% have 3 or less branches, while 45% have only 1 branch.
‘Sure Hope the Bank Lobby Doesn’t Read This’
Every single credit union, large and small, had regulator horror stories. But we special rules for small credit union directors because they get their feelings hurt and need help with acronyms? Sure hope the bank lobby doesn’t read this. Their talking points for the next hill visit are being written word for word.
No Solution for Fraud Taking Place
Not exactly. The solution is to stop the fraud and failures among small credit unions, all the while asking for a special set of rules and lax regulations. That would be a huge start, the market forces will determine the rest.
Better Candidates, Not Different Rules
Yes, sure, It’s unreasonable for a director that has a legal fiduciary duty of care to know acronyms like CECL, PCA, ROA, BSA / AML. The root here is director qualification, onboarding and training. There is a reason the NCUA has guidance on director qualifications. How about having directors up for the job, not reshaping the rules and making excuses for them when they aren’t?
New Requirement for New Examiners
Without reading all of this, The NCUA, nor the state examiners, let the president/CEO meet with Supervisory Committee, thus they (Supervisory Committee) have no real idea on what is going on at the CUs. – They (Gov’t) want our Supervisory Committee dummied down so no one can argue with their fake findings. (NCUA & State Examiners should be hired after they have been at least 10 yrs working at a credit union.)
The Wrong Problem
This is a very poor solution to the wrong problem, and if it made sense to allow it, what does it have to do with asset size? Indicative of what must be cat state of affairs of the quality of small CU boards when they have to be babysat and handheld. Can’t find board members with enough smarts or moxie to deal with regulators and fulfill their fiduciary duty, and the answer is to coddle them?
As Seasons’ Kick-Offs Near, Here’s How CUs are Looking to Score Both On and Off the Field
The Story:
MIAMI, Fla.–With the college football season set to officially kick off this weekend (since that silly “Week 0” doesn’t count), and the NFL season just a week away, credit unions across the country have announced a number of new promotional and sponsorship tie-ins, on the field and off.
The Comments
‘What People Fail to Realize’
I think what a lot of people in the industry fail to realize is that a lot of these sponsorship include more than just their logo on a jersey, stadium or field. They are very complex agreements that give a lot to the org a lot of times “real education” is included and not just “expensive sports advertising.”
The often times include fin ed for the students, athletes or the people working for the team (oh like workplace or partner banking). They partner with the orgs to do really amazing things in the community.
Are all deals a slam dunk? No, but you could say that about any marketing strategy. They can be a really great vehicle for a CU to not only market to their community but move things forward that supports their mission and values.
You can support a large team or a small team and have a similar goal or outcome. Just because it is a pro or college team and not youth or high school doesn’t mean it’s less effective.
The hate around credit union sponsorships is really misguided.
About Real Education
Meanwhile, Ocala Community Credit Union supports Marion District Schools to assist them in:
- Providing High Schools with “MainStreet” Financial Educational Materials so Seniors can meet the graduation requirements for financial courses.
- Providing Elementary school(s) over the years the tools they need to pull school grade up to “A” schools.
It’s more about real education and not just expensive advertising at sporting svents.
