Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

That-Relation-5846 t1_je7o8jy wrote

Reply to comment by KenGriffinsDaddy in $FRC - Puzzle Pieces by PussyBreath007

>Pretty sure Moody’s just said unrealized losses represent almost 40% of the money FRC set aside to absorb losses and they would also take losses on a large amount of residential mortgage loans, which is why they downgraded them to That hasn’t changed. It’s alarming that they needed the 30 billion schneebs from their buddies to survive, no? There is more to this than they are leading on for sure but what we see and know is more than enough to stay away. The fucking thing was trading at $147/share less than 2 months ago. Big depositors and smart money left/sold and I have my doubts it was simply because “they unfairly lost confidence”

FRC is an SF bank; there's a lot of overlap between their customer base and SVB's customer base. When SVB went down, it was inevitable that the jitters would spread to the other local bank that services a ton of rich people in the same area.

2

diqster t1_je85h8l wrote

FRC is on the east coast, too. New England and Florida.

SVB was solely the Bay Area.

2

sf_warriors t1_je8l2w9 wrote

FRC has presence in coasts like LA, Boston, Florida and NY. 40% of their customer base is non-bay area

2

That-Relation-5846 t1_je955cl wrote

When 60% of customers are in the same area with a lot of direct and indirect customer overlap, it doesn’t surprise me that FRC saw a more severe bank run after SVB than, say, WAL. I believe FRB offers a differentiated level of service (as SVB did) and will see deposits slowly flow back, so anything that buys them time increases the likelihood of them solving this without diluting shareholders, selling the whole thing at a discount, or taking heavy losses over an extended period. The P/L will be harmed for a while, but they offer too good a product to not recover over time. They were valued at a significant premium over book for good reason.

2