The immediate street reaction to the Crosby appointment has been a harsh negative. It appears that the board made little effort to regain credibility on the street after the HSBC fiasco. The board either failed to, or made no attempt to, hire a CEO with strong banking credentials.
I don't have any insights into Crosby's leadership ability, but that's really the point. The market would have preferred to see an appointment of an individual with a strong track record. Crosby may wind up being an ok selection, but the lack of a "home run" appointment says something about the board & its vision. Did the board not recognize that their choice was going to be perceived as either a home run or a strike out?
It's been about 9 months since Koelmel's departure. I had thought 6 months would be sufficient to recruit, interview, vet & announce a permanent replacement. They've certainly not delayed making several executive appointments in the meantime, which will limit a new CEO's ability to assemble his/her team. Makes me wonder whether the board is just extending the interim CEO's tenure to see how he handles the job, before offering it as a permanent appointment, or whether the board is considering offers to sell the bank.
Maybe it's just a careful, deliberative process...but the absence of any news in 9 months is noteworthy.
Thanks for the post. Joe F. has argued, in the conference calls, that the quality & consistency of NYCB's revenues (heavily based as they are in NYC rent-controlled apartment loans) should warrant the bank's being permitted to maintain its divvie even if the bank exceeds the 50M theshhold. I suspect that NYCB & the feds have already discussed this matter in detail & that NYCB's care in choosing its next acquisition is related to meeting the necessary elements to maintain the dividend.
PBCT has slowly been raising its divvie since its second stage conversion (even during the depths of the banking crisis) & has been continuing to repurchase its shares. It would be pretty bone-headed, in my view, if PBCT management now elects to (or is required to) reduce its dividend largely due to the actions that the bank has taken since its second step.
The stocks of both these banks would likely take a significant hit if their payouts are reduced, especially since it's not apparent that meaningful loan growth or NIM improvement are on the horizon. As has been noted by many elsewhere, a number of banks (including NYCB & PBCT) are now trading primarily as dividend plays.