" their tangible book value per share has doubled even though they bought a bunch of banks and insurance businesses at premiums to tangible book value."
You'll have to show me the math on this one Norm.
In 1995 BV was 15.52$ Now there was +ve GW and -ve GW in that BV number back then and I didn't unpick it in detail but it seemed like a wash from the quick look -- so in this case BV and T-BV /sh seems reasonably close. If you show me the math where T-BV is materially lower in 1995 I'm happy to revisit.
For 2010 T-Bv sh $15.43
So over the 1995-2010 period (same period you used for your PPTI 12x comment upthread [vs actual of 108% per share]) seems flat to me.
You need this bank cheap - It hasn't got a good history and Kingster doesn't fill me with confidence.