Talk:Banc of California
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is it a bank, or a 'banc'? edit
According to Banq, 'banc' and 'banq' are terms used by financial institutions which do not meet the legal restrictions on the term 'bank'. Is that not the case here? They refer to themselves as a bank that provides banking services several times on their website, so I would suppose not, but it seems awfully fishy. Walkersam (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- The company's name is "Banc of California" (see the NIC listing), with the "banc" originating from "Bancorp". The bank is still a real bank, but is just branded this way to sound hip and modern, probably. SounderBruce 21:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like the article to explain why the different spelling. --Error (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Seconded, I think it's probably to sound cool/help SEO; but if we had a source to explain it, that would be worth including in the article. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I believe I may be able to assist on this matter. While not an incredible source, this explains it properly. What’s the Difference Between a Banc and a Bank? (Originally from Bloomberg here.) M3ryder (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seconded, I think it's probably to sound cool/help SEO; but if we had a source to explain it, that would be worth including in the article. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like the article to explain why the different spelling. --Error (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
CLOs edit
From The Looming Bank Collapse:
- A couple of midsize banks—Banc of California, Stifel Financial—have CLOs totaling more than 100 percent of their capital. If the leveraged-loan market imploded, their liabilities could quickly become greater than their assets.
I guess it could be referenced with the bank's public accounts and the Atlantic's article. --Error (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Controversy or not notable History edit
This is definitely undue weight for what is written. First sentence is an allegation. Second sentence negates the first sentence by saying that there was no legal issue but then includes an additional opinion. The third sentence comes from an article that violates WP:NPOV and does not give appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. It is an opinion. I apologize for not including a talk page justification of when I included the new section.--HZNLincoln (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)