Street Capital Bank of Canada to be sold to RFA Capital; majority of shareholders withhold votes for CEO, forcing resignation from board | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Street Capital Bank of Canada to be sold to RFA Capital; majority of shareholders withhold votes for CEO, forcing resignation from board
June 21, 2019
7:24 pm
Doug
British Columbia, Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4201
Member Since:
December 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It's been awhile since I've updated everyone on Street Capital Bank of Canada, a Schedule I (domestic) federally-chartered bank, and its publicly traded parent company, Street Capital Group, Inc., for which I'm (unfortunately) a shareholder. For those that don't know who Street Capital Bank of Canada is, it's essentially the third-largest mortgage lender in the brokerage channel - it operates exclusively in the brokerage space, though it's starting to originate mortgages direct to consumers through its website as well, I believe. It has about $33 billion in mortgages under administration, which essentially means they're not on its balance sheet as it sells them to securitization trusts (primarily the Canada Housing Trust, through the Canada Mortgage Bond program) and it collects an upfront fee and then serves as the administrator, payment collector, and general servicer of the mortgage for which it earns annual servicing income. A couple years ago, they finally won their federal bank charter and they immediately started offering GICs through the deposit broker channel, with plans to offer GICs direct-to-consumer.

The plan was accelerated somewhat following macro-prudential changes with respect to mortgage amortization and qualification standards, not to mention the elimination of the federal government, through CMHC, no longer allowing banks to insure their non-CMHC mortgages with CMHC to remove most of the default risk (called "portfolio insurance," the bank, as opposed to the borrower, pays the CMHC premium) when the federal government didn't increase CMHC's authorized insurance limit. So, they planned to originate more mortgages direct-to-consumer and also to hold them on balance sheet, thus the need for GICs. Suddenly, without warning, in December 2018, Street Capital announced that they'd taken a large writedown of the amount they'd invested to a third-party to build them an online banking platform to be able to offer GICs and eventually HISAs as well. They terminated their contract with the third-party I.T. solutions provider and said they'd retain the intellectual property assets for the partially-complete online banking platform for potential future use at some point down the road.

Since then, the stock's been on a downward trajectory, closing as low as $0.48 a couple weeks ago. I should pause and say how I acquired the shares. I bought into Street Capital Group, Inc., in 2017 around the time of the Home Capital Group mini-bank run and capital adequacy event when Street, Home, and Equitable all sold off heavily. I was attracted to the fact that Street was, at the time, trading slightly below book value, most of the mortgages weren't on their balance sheet and thus minimal credit risk, and they'd been growing their mortgage book of business and revenues. I figured it was the safer move versus buying Home Capital Group, since no one knew how that story would end up. As well, they subsequently hired a new CEO in Duncan Hannay, who previously headed up Real Estate Secured Lending at Scotiabank and, before that, Scotia iTRADE. So, my cost base is $1.20 per share, for 5,000 shares, which are in my TFSA.

With the growing mortgage book (they're still originating billions in new mortgages and renewing the majority of their mortgages every year), growing revenue, and growing GIC deposits and on-balance sheet mortgages (call it $800 million, or about the size of Alterna Bank), but profitability was elusive, probably in part due to the I.T. investments. Anyway, with the lending book growing and their stock price falling, it'd been rumoured that they were looking for a buyer. They've found that buyer, for $0.68 per share, in RFA Capital Group, which is better in the sense I'm only going to be down $2,500 instead of $3,500-3,700, that's a privately-held boutique asset management firm for institutional and high net worth investors. In this article, it was noted that they plan to use their own internal mortgage investment corporation and investors as a source of funding to grow their on- and off-balance sheet mortgage originations from ~$6 to ~$10 billion per year. They might consider doing direct-to-consumer GICs and HISAs, potentially, in the future, but it sounds like that's off the table for at least a couple years. This Globe article somes it up this way, including this hint of urgency in that OSFI, the bank's regulator, had reportedly made some confidential inquiries and subsequently required a capital raise:

"Late last year, Street Capital changed course, halting investments to replace its core banking system and announcing a “realignment” plan that included job cuts. Days later, on Christmas Eve, board chair Alan Silber announced he would step down after more than 30 years with the company, and was replaced by director Lea Ray in the new year.

Street Capital has been looking to raise money ever since. But the hunt for a lifeline took on greater urgency earlier this year when the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) intervened with the lender, inquiring about its plans to recapitalize, according to sources who were not authorized to discuss the matter." [emphasis added]

Then, yesterday, Street Capital Group announced their annual director election results via press release (normally a routine affair, with directors re-elected with banana republic size majorities in the high 90 percent range, typically). Not surprisingly, given the stock's performance, the number of votes "withheld" for all the directors was quite high. Note the following:

Nominee | Votes For | % For | Votes Withheld | % Withheld
Ronald Appleby, Q.C. | 27,920,300 | 62.85 | 16,500,422 | 37.15
Tom Bermingham | 29,047,846 | 65.39 | 15,372,876 | 34.61
W. Edward Gettings | 33,436,732 | 75.27 | 10,983,990 | 24.73
Duncan Hannay | 15,873,232 | 35.73 | 28,547,490 | 64.27
Ron Lalonde | 27,895,350 | 62.80 | 16,525,372 | 37.20
Morris Perlis | 26,955,314 | 60.68 | 17,465,408 | 39.32
Lea Ray | 28,658,448 | 64.52 | 15,762,274 | 35.48
Carrie Russell | 22,984,948 | 51.74 | 21,435,774 | 48.26

Despite the high votes withheld, including one where the votes withheld exceeds the votes for (which rarely happens), the company said they were all elected except that, under their corporate rules and the Toronto Stock Exchange rules, President & CEO had to immediately offer up his resignation from the Street Capital Group board (though not necessarily the Street Capital Bank of Canada subsidiary board, because that is a subsidiary and the parent company board would appoint its directors), for which the parent company board's Governance, Conduct Review, and Compensation Committee is to review his resignation and determine whether to accept it, for which it'll report to the board and the board promises to make a decision with 90 days.

Cheers,
Doug

June 21, 2019
7:47 pm
Brimleychen
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 258
Member Since:
September 5, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This story reminds me the HCG crisis exactly 2 years (May / Jun 2017), and we discussed at the forums, and I was not really worried about my GIC’s then because of CIDC insurance.

We know of the obvious housing bubbles in Canada, and most of mortgage lenders will have to face certain write down, but we are not the investors & gamblers ( aka share/bond holders), and we are just savers.

Thanks for the news, and I hope they are looking to get more deposits, and offer better rates like Home Trust did last time:-)

June 21, 2019
8:54 pm
Bud
Member
Banned
Forum Posts: 1375
Member Since:
February 20, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The nominee directors are those their shares held personally or are they representing other shareholders?

June 22, 2019
8:41 am
Doug
British Columbia, Canada
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4201
Member Since:
December 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

hotmony said
The nominee directors are those their shares held personally or are they representing other shareholders?  

They don't break that down. You'd have to see who the major Street shareholders were and, if they were mutual fund or ETF managers or publicly-traded companies, you can go to their respective websites to see their proxy voting histories. But to answer your question more broadly, the shares voted "for" and those "withheld" were those shares that were actually voted (many people simply do not vote their shares, or instruct their brokerage firm to cast their ballot in a certain way - the brokerage firm cannot cast a ballot that you don't send them/electronically submit). If you add up those shares "for" and "withheld," they are less than the current shares outstanding and, crucially, the shares outstanding as at the record date for eligibility to vote. However, they would definitely include the shares held by the executives and board members and you could likely conclude the executives and board members voted "for" those nominees. 😉

Many institutional investors, such as pension and mutual fund/ETF managers, will often follow the voting recommendations either of management or of one of several proxy advisory firms (the two main ones being Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis & Company). ISS and Glass Lewis, I believe, publish their voting recommendations for every company that they provide recommendations for, so unless a specific fund manager has diverged from those recommendations, it's reasonable to conclude how major shareholders voted.

Cheers,
Doug

June 30, 2023
4:11 pm
hwyc
GTA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1160
Member Since:
September 30, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

This is an old thread which comes up when I search for RFA Bank of Canada. Their deposit products are GIC only.

RFA Bank of Canada is a member of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. We offer Guaranteed Investment Certificates through a national network of Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) regulated deposit dealers.

Can the term "deposit dealer" and the term "deposit broker" be used interchangeably? Can one wear both hats at the same time. If not, which one is more rigorously regulated?

July 1, 2023
11:03 am
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 6679
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"IIROC investment dealer" and "deposit broker" are not the same.

IIROC investment dealers, like BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., are under provincial regulation and can hold client assets in their own name. There is CIPF coverage in case client assets are missing when an IIROC investment dealer fails.

Deposit brokers are not regulated directly. They are regulated indirectly as intermediaries of the regulated deposit taking institutions. Deposit brokers are not allowed to hold client assets in their own name.

Please write your comments in the forum.