Albina Community Bancorp (ACBCQ)

[rjbluesky]

56Chevy, I'm not discounting the possibility or fact as you suggest that If a merger is how this plays out for ACBC that there will be new shares issued but the dd suggests this is a different type of bank with a different type of owners who have the personal financial resources to bypass the standard fund raising thru stock that the typical companies do on Wallstreet during recapitalizations. I have to consider other possibilities based on what I see in the dd. I never said in my post that they would not be taking the "voting right" shares from Albina as I have also read that will happen. I think those voting shares are currently held by Albina Bank's Holding Company Albina Community Bankcorp.

We know that Kat Taylor and Tom Steyer started One PacificCoast Bankcorp with their own money. It is currently private. We also know that the voting shares of One PacificCoast Bankcorp that were owned by Kat Taylor and Tom Steyer were given to One PacificCoast Foundation as a "donation" in order to pass on the legacy of how they want the bank to operate in the future. I assume they will do the same with Albina's "voting shares."

When the bank was created, the founding team donated all the economic shares to the One PacificCoast Foundation. That means the Foundation owns all of the economic rights of the Bank -- when profits of the Bank are distributed, they can only be distributed to the Foundation which is mandated to reinvest those proceeds back into the communities and the environment on which we all depend. In our theory and experience, this ownership model aligns our incentives with the triple bottom line and the values of our bank customers.

http://onepacificcoastbank.com/beneficial-banking.aspx

The 90% offer is likely a $financial infusion to shore up the operations to meet the Federal requirements and then some. Not a gift but an exchange for the voting shares of Albina's Bank Holding Company Albina Community BanCorp. And, likely the 90% represents the purchase of the common shares as I have read in a link somewhere. So I have to ask whether issuing more shares is necessary when the primary insiders are not noted to be folks that take but give. Again, this is an unusual set-up given the wealth and Philantropic goals of Kat Taylor and Tom Steyer rather than a goal of getting richer by issuing a bunch of new shares.

We will have to see how this plays out but I'm inclined to believe little or no change to the share structure. But that is speculation on my part.