You guys are worrying about a split which will add pennies to the price...why not worry more about selling the MHC stake and seeing this thing pop 10-20% overnight?
The "members" of the MHC, and the depositors of the bank are one and the same!
FYI - take a look at this useful backgrounder on mutual ownership in banking:
As "kkkkkkkia" said, the real question is: "Who are the Mutual Holding Company owners?"
Before 1988, People's was entirely a depositor-owned bank. When the MHC was put into place, that was the result of a partial demutualization to enable a public offering of shares for a fractional ownership interest in the bank (i.e. what anyone can buy today on NASDAQ as "PBCT"). Nevertheless, the remaining ownership interest, which is a majority interest and is managed by the MHC acting in a fiduciary capacity, still belongs (at least in principle) to the depositors. If there were ever to be a second-stage conversion, that ownership interest by the depositors would have to be reconciled in some manner. Typically that is done through subscription rights in the shares offered at the time of the second stage conversion.
I bet the owners are not the depositors, notthe community and definitley not the employees...its a select group of individuals, founding fathers of the mutual holding company, that will reap a fotune...watch and see
Greg is right and jbvo is wrong. The annual report goes on to say
"People's and Holdings are aware of regulatory orders issued in second-step conversions by certain mutual holding companies that have required dilution of the minority shareholders' interest to reflect the amount of cash dividends proeviously waived by the parent holding company."
The real question is: WHO ARE THE MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY OWNERS? The depositors, the community? Who? I'm surprised they have not set up a charitable foundation as most mutuals do.
I am not saying that you have to blindly accept whatever management says. But it is clear from your posts that you have never even bothered to read what People's management has said on the subject. You need to do at least that much - and you are free to dismiss or question what management says - before speculating about what might happen in the "what if" world.
the dividends are deferred, not waived - if it says waived, and I believe you that it does - does it give a definition of waived? waived forever? waiver permanently? waived until a leter date? I hope they are waived but I highly doubt it
don't believe everything management says, that will lead you into the investors poorhouse- they may intend and believe their never will be a conversion, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen - Annual reports are not all encompassing, I'm sure their are disclaimers
I don't entirely disagree with you.
My point is, those who choose to speculate about future conversion plans ought to take the time to read the most recent public statements made by the company, and factor that into their thinking. The poster to whom I originally replied clearly had not bothered to do that.