On April 13, CU Daily reported on a conversation that SAFE CU long time member Scott Rose had with the CEO Faye Nabhani. The article detailed Scott’s objections and the CEO’s response on SAFE’s new merger effort. (link)
The proposal to transfer control of the $4.4 billion SAFE and its 245,000 Sacramento area members to Boeing Employees Credit Union has had coverage in the local press (Sacramento BEE) and on blog sites. For example this post on SECU Just Asking lists four fundamental objections to the surrender of the state charter. It poses the question whether the California CU Regulator is Asheep at the Wheel? (link)
Much information has been provided by Scott and others about what this charter loss would cost SAFE members and the community. Less analysis has been provided about BECU’s leadership and financial trends. Nothing has been in the SAFE’s press releases about BECU’s performance, leadership culture, or strategy.
Last week I wrote a post describing BECU’s high cost culture resulting in an operating expense to asset ratio of 3.33%, much higher than the large credit unions in California. The nine BECU directors were paid an average compensation of $118,000 in 2024 with he Chair receiving $154,000. In California, state regulation prohibits director compensation which is the federal credit union legal situation
Insiders’ Opinions on BECU’s Culture and CEO
But what was new about the situation was the almost dozen responses to the CU Daily article by readers, They all describe a very disturbing leadership environment at BECU.
They report situations that only employees would be aware of. Have these issues been discussed by the SAFE board? Has there been any onsite due diligence? Is this a leadership culture that one would want in charge of 245,000 members’ future?
Whatever the full story might be, there is a lot more for members to know if their future should be put in hands of the BECU board and their
CEO’s recently arrived senior team.
11 Responses (link)
Performative at best.
Glad these conversations are happening and that he’s asking the right questions—he’s pushing in the way more people should.
What’s becoming clear, though, is that the credit unions don’t really have strong answers—they just have strong PR. BECU, in particular, is very good at managing perception.
Underneath that, the leadership approach feels far more like a traditional bank than a credit union. The new CEO comes across as performative at best—saying the right things publicly, but not reflecting that same philosophy behind closed doors.
Internally, employees have described leadership as political and calculated—always saying the right thing publicly, but the moment anyone questions it, they’re pushed out, fired, or laid off.
BECU isn’t new to working the layoff systems with minimal NDA’s and severance packages. Last April, several employees were let go, and shortly after, nearly identical roles were reposted and filled—often through existing networks or familiar circles. All while moving forward with a costly (millions!) and terribly structured naming rights deal.
You can’t claim credit union values while operating like that.
100% a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Just because you “meet them and they said all the right thungs” doesn’t mean they are not well coach and performative AF. What that leadership teams says in public and what they do behind thr scenes are two very different things. . .
Anonymous says:
Someone from SAFE should ask why BECU’s General Counsel, Chief Auditor, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Impact Officer, and Chief Business Officer all decided to leave, more or less at once. Nothing normal about that.
Don’t forget the ENTIRE executive team that left within months of the new CEO coming on. It’s a revolving door in the C-Suite for a reason.
Most of the employees at BECU were very excited with this hire even knowing the CEO came from Wells Fargo, she seemed to say all the right things, talk about the movement, the members first philosophy, actually we all felt a little inspired and then reality hit.
3.5 years later BECU is a shell of what it was and there is no stewardship towards the CU movement AT ALL behind closed doors, it’s 100% toxic and performative. They have pushed out so many of the employees and leaders that made that place special.
So I am so glad Faye liked her and that Bev said “all the right things” but it is shallow and performative just like others have mentioned. She is a very very good actor in public, she very much slips up behind closed doors. To having the table slammed in front of you while profanities were flying to lying about how she was “listening” to employees with “listening sessions” but behind closed doors was saying “Gotta go pretend that I care about what they say” (jaw dropping really….) to being shushed in meetings for no reason, to tearing people up because they got one thing wrong in a speech she was giving.
The executive team is no longer local to Seattle, they live in Atlanta, New York, and LA – flying in on the companies dime with no connection to the region or any care about moving the community forward. Yes, they EMT and Board are being incentivized for a merger, so they chose a “SAFE” merger (pun intended) to get their bonuses and show they increased they asset size, cause their net growth is not great.
Good someone is asking the right questions. Fact is, Bev Anderson and her cadre of big bank execs she brought on Talk the Talk but don’t Walk the Walk when it comes to credit union values. She gutted the original EMT and slowly but surely pushed every exec who challenged what new operating values and the way people are treated out the door.
As another commenter said here, she’s amazing in public but behind closed doors treats people terribly. There is a verb in use at BECU now that you’ve “been Bev’d”, and that means she cursed at you, yelled threw a tantrum and most likely in front of your peers or even subordinates. Very inappropriate. Not to mention the Wells Fargo and Equifax background, hiring of other execs who have no clue about what Coops mean and ongoing performative gymnastics. It’s sad what BECU has become over the past few years. The board should be ashamed of themselves.
The 18 month no layoff should be little assurance. BECU needs those employees until they get on the same system. After they do, and when the SAFE CEO leaves at 18 months, there won’t be local leadership and no one to protect the local employees and community. Since BECU’s expense issue is so severe, there will be a lot of job reductions in CA.