FDIC QUARTERLY 51

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

Introduction The 2020 Summary of Deposits (SOD) Survey showed a 21.7 percent increase in deposits, 

the largest one-year percentage increase in nearly 80 years.1 The increase in deposits held 

by FDIC-insured institutions from June 2019 to June 2020 occurred primarily in the first 

two quarters of 2020, and was likely driven by reactions of individuals, businesses, and U.S. 

fiscal and monetary authorities to the COVID-19 pandemic.2

The survey also showed a decrease in the number of offices of FDIC-insured institutions. The number of bank offices declined nationwide between June 2019 and June 2020, 

continuing an 11-year trend, but the rate of decline was lower in 2020 than in the three 

previous years. The lower rate of decline in the number of offices was influenced by both 

a relatively high rate of office openings and a relatively low rate of office closures. The 

number of offices declined across all three county types—metropolitan, micropolitan, and 

rural—and the rate of decline was fastest among offices in metropolitan counties.

Total Deposits Grew 

at a Record Rate

Total deposits increased 21.7 percent, from $12.77 trillion to $15.54 trillion, between June 

2019 and June 2020 (Chart 1). This one-year rate of deposit growth was the highest in 

77 years. In the year ending June 30, 2020, the rate of deposit growth increased for community banks and noncommunity banks, for small, midsize, and large banks, for banks located 

in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties, and for all but one lending specialization.

The additional funds that individuals and businesses received from programs that 

were implemented in the first half of 2020 to alleviate financial hardship caused by the 

pandemic, paired with economic uncertainty resulting from the pandemic, drove individuals and businesses to save more, leading to the sharp increase in bank deposits.3 Actions 

by U.S. fiscal and monetary authorities included the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment 

Compensation Program, the U.S. Small Business Administration Paycheck Protection 

Program, the Federal Reserve Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility, Economic 

Impact Payments (coronavirus stimulus checks), and aggressive interest rate cuts by the 

Federal Reserve. Additionally, the Federal Reserve purchased U.S. Treasury securities, 

mortgage-backed securities, and other financial instruments to support the flow of credit 

to U.S. households and businesses and to promote financial stability.4

1 “Deposits” refers to deposits in offices of FDIC-insured institutions in the United States, U.S. territories, and 

possessions. U.S. offices of foreign institutions and their deposits are not included. The FDIC’s 2020 Annual Report 

shows growth in domestic deposits of 26.2 percent in 1942, 24.2 percent in 1943, and 46 percent in 1989, all of which are 

higher than the 21.7 percent deposit growth reported in the 2020 SOD survey. The high growth in 1989 is the result of 

the fact that 1989 was the first year in which deposits of institutions covered under both the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) 

and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) were included in the domestic deposit totals shown in the Annual 

Report. According to FDIC Call Report data, if institutions covered under both the BIF and the SAIF are included in the 

sum of total domestic deposits in 1988, deposit growth in 1989 would be much lower at 2.9 percent. Given that growth in 

domestic deposits in 1989 was driven by this change in how deposit totals were reported, 1943 is the most recent year in 

which deposit growth was higher than the growth shown in the 2020 SOD survey. Importantly, the Annual Report shows 

deposit totals as of December 31 of each year while the SOD survey reports deposit totals as of June 30 of each year, so 

year-over-year growth rates calculated based on these two sources would be similar but not identical. See FDIC Annual 

Report 2020: 138-140, https://www.fdic.gov/about/financial-reports/reports/2020annualreport/2020ar-final.pdf.

2 FDIC Call Report data from 2019 and 2020 show that domestic deposits of FDIC-insured institutions increased about 

1.8 percent in both the third and fourth quarters of 2019, by 8.2 percent in the first quarter of 2020, and 8.5 percent in the 

second quarter of 2020.

3 Total personal income increased in the second quarter of 2020, despite a decrease in employment income, because 

of increased government transfer payments. Savings as a percentage of disposable personal income increased from 

7.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019 to 26 percent in the second quarter of 2020. See U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, “Personal Income and Outlays, November 2020,” news release no. BEA 20-68, December 23, 2020, 

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/pi1120.pdf.

4 See Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act: H.R. 748 Section 2107; Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act: H.R. 748 Section 1102; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Paycheck Protection Program 

Liquidity Facility,” https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/ppplf.htm; U.S. Department of the Treasury, 

“Treasury, IRS Announce Delivery of 159 Million Economic Impact Payments,” June 3, 2020, https://home.treasury.

gov/news/press-releases/sm1025; Jane Ihrig, Gretchen Weinbach, and Scott Wolla, “How the Fed Has Responded to the 

COVID-19 Pandemic,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, August 12, 2020, https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2020/

august/fed-response-covid19-pandemic; and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Federal Reserve 

Announces Extensive New Measures to Support the Economy,” March 3, 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/

newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20200323b.htm.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

52 FDIC QUARTERLY

Both community and noncommunity banks reported high deposit growth rates in the year 

ended June 30, 2020 (Table 1). On both a merger-adjusted basis and a non-merger-adjusted 

basis, deposits increased faster at noncommunity banks than at community banks.5

Noncommunity banks reported year-over-year merger-adjusted growth of 22.6 percent, 

while community banks reported 16.5 percent growth.6

From 2019 to 2020, deposits at community banks increased much more on a mergeradjusted basis than on a non-merger-adjusted basis. Merger adjustment is a way of 

measuring the “organic growth” of a cohort of institutions—the portion of growth not 

attributable to mergers. In this case, the merger-adjusted deposit growth of community banks reflects changes in deposits over the previous year of the community banks 

that existed as of June 30, 2020. Non-merger-adjusted growth, by contrast, compares the 

performance of the 4,874 community banks that existed as of June 30, 2019, to that of the 

4,624 community banks that existed as of June 30, 2020.

Deposit Growth Rates Increased More for Community Banks on a Merger-Adjusted Basis Than a Non-Merger-Adjusted Basis

Category

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Noncommunity Banks 5.6 6.3 4.9 3.7 4.0 22.6

Community Banks 4.4 5.2 6.2 4.8 5.3 16.5

All Banks 5.5 6.1 5.1 3.9 4.2 21.7

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Not Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Noncommunity Banks 5.9 6.6 5.5 4.3 4.5 23.9

Community Banks 2.7 2.5 2.9 0.9 2.2 8.9

All Banks 5.4 5.9 5.1 3.8 4.2 21.7

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 1

5 In this article, merger-adjusted performance measures the performance of the cohort of institutions as of June 30, 

2020. Merger-adjusted performance of institutions segregated by asset size, lending specialization, and community 

banks versus noncommunity banks all measure the performance of institutions that belonged to each cohort as of 

June 30, 2020.

6 Community banks are identified using criteria in the FDIC Community Banking Study, December 2012:1-2, 

https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/cbi/report/cbi-full.pdf.

Total Deposits Increased at a Record Rate From 2019 to 2020

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2005 to June 2020.

Dollars 

(Trillions) Percent Total Deposits (Le Axis)

Percent Change From the Previous Year (Right Axis)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2005 2010 2015 2020

0

5

10

15

20

25

Chart 1

Noncommunity Bank 

Deposits Increased 

Faster Than Community 

Bank Deposits
FDIC QUARTERLY 53

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

The fact that deposits of community banks grew more slowly on a non-merger-adjusted 

basis than on a merger-adjusted basis indicates that some community banks either were 

redesignated as noncommunity banks or were acquired by noncommunity banks.7 During 

the year ended June 30, 2020, noncommunity banks acquired 57 community banks, while 

community banks did not acquire any noncommunity banks. Further, 33 community banks 

were redesignated as noncommunity banks, while only 6 noncommunity banks were 

redesignated as community banks. In the same period, 161 community banks acquired 

another community bank, and 14 noncommunity banks acquired another noncommunity 

bank. In short, over this period it was more common for community banks to be acquired 

by or be redesignated as noncommunity banks than it was for noncommunity banks to 

be acquired by or be redesignated as community banks. As a result, deposits moved from 

community banks to noncommunity banks. Therefore, non-merger-adjusted deposit 

growth of community banks is less than merger-adjusted growth.

Noncommunity bank deposit growth was similar on a merger-adjusted and non-mergeradjusted basis every year from 2015 to 2020. Over this time, few community banks acquired 

noncommunity banks and few noncommunity banks were redesignated as community 

banks, so mergers and redesignations had less impact on deposit growth for noncommunity banks than for community banks.8

Large Banks Continue to 

Increase Deposits and 

Gain Market Share

On a merger-adjusted basis, total deposits have increased over the past five years for 

each of the bank asset-size groups in Table 2. From 2015 to 2020, deposits increased on a 

merger-adjusted basis the most for midsize banks—47.6 percent—followed by large banks 

at 46.7 percent and small banks at 46.4 percent.9

The difference between the non-merger-adjusted increase and the merger-adjusted 

increase in deposits for large banks from 2019 to 2020 is heavily influenced by two midsize 

banks merging to form one large bank, thereby shifting their deposits from the midsize 

bank category to the large bank category (Table 2). This merger also accounted for a large 

part of the difference between the non-merger-adjusted gain in market share by large 

banks and the merger-adjusted gain in market share by large banks, shown in Table 3, as 

well as the difference between the non-merger-adjusted and merger-adjusted reduction in 

market share for midsize banks.

Meanwhile, small banks consistently lost market share from 2015 to 2020 on a nonmerger-adjusted basis but have maintained a fairly consistent market share on a mergeradjusted basis. Large and midsize bank market shares have fluctuated over the same period. 

The merger-adjusted versus non-merger-adjusted results for large and midsize banks 

indicate that banks transferred into and out of these asset size categories from year to year 

because of organic deposit growth or through mergers and acquisitions.

7 “Redesignation” refers to a change in the designation of a community or a noncommunity bank that the FDIC uses for 

research purposes as noted in footnote 6. For an explanation of the reasons for and process of merger adjusting bank 

data, see Eric C. Breitenstein and Derek K. Thieme, “Merger Adjusting Bank Data: A Primer,” FDIC Quarterly 13, no. 1 

(2019):31-49, https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/quarterly/2019-vol13-1/fdic-v13n1-4q2018.pdf.

8 The tendency of community banks to be acquired by or be redesignated as noncommunity banks at higher rates was 

evident from 2015 to 2020. Over that period, noncommunity banks acquired 320 community banks and community 

banks acquired six noncommunity banks. Further, 130 community banks were redesignated as noncommunity banks, 

while 33 noncommunity banks were redesignated as community banks. Meanwhile, 808 community banks were 

acquired by other community banks, and 110 noncommunity banks were acquired by other noncommunity banks.

9 For this article “midsize banks” refers to banks with total assets between $10 billion and $250 billion. “Small banks” 

have total assets less than $10 billion, and “large banks” have total assets greater than $250 billion.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

54 FDIC QUARTERLY

On a merger-adjusted basis, deposits increased from 2019 to 2020 for banks in all lending 

specializations (see Table 4 for definitions of lending specializations). Deposits increased 

the most—31.3 percent—for banks with a mortgage specialization, followed by banks 

with an international specialization (27.9 percent) and a consumer lending specialization 

(27.0 percent), as shown in Table 5.

If an acquisition results in a change in portfolio composition, the resulting organization 

may no longer meet the concentration thresholds defining a lending specialization category, without any underlying change in its lending volumes or strategies. Accordingly, the 

merger-adjusted data in Table 5 better reflects deposit growth by lending specialty.

Total Deposits Increased More for Large Banks on a Non-Merger-Adjusted Basis Than a Merger-Adjusted Basis

Bank Asset Size

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2015 to 2020

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Large: Assets More Than $250B 4.3 5.3 5.6 3.0 2.9 24.5 46.7

Midsize: Assets $10B to $250B 8.6 7.7 3.6 4.8 5.6 19.6 47.6

Small: Assets Less Than $10B 3.4 5.8 6.3 5.0 5.6 17.5 46.4

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Not Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Large: Assets More Than $250B 10.9 8.8 4.7 2.0 3.9 41.2 70.3

Midsize: Assets $10B to $250B 0.2 4.3 8.5 10.5 7.0 3.1 37.9

Small: Assets Less Than $10B 2.9 2.4 0.8 -3.0 -0.4 10.8 10.5

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 2

Large Banks Gain Deposit Market Share While Small Banks Continue to Lose Market Share

Bank Asset Size

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Share of Total Domestic Deposits, Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Large: Assets More Than $250B 52.5 52.1 52.3 51.9 51.2 52.4

Midsize: Assets $10B to $250B 30.8 31.2 30.8 31.1 31.5 30.9

Small: Assets Less Than $10B 16.7 16.7 16.9 17.1 17.3 16.7

Share of Total Domestic Deposits, Not Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Large: Assets More Than $250B 45.0 46.2 46.1 45.3 45.2 52.4

Midsize: Assets $10B to $250B 32.8 32.4 33.4 35.5 36.5 30.9

Small: Assets Less Than $10B 22.1 21.4 20.5 19.2 18.3 16.7

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 3

Deposits Increased Across 

All Lending Specializations
FDIC QUARTERLY 55

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

Asset Characteristics of Banks With Lending Specializations

Lending Specialization Asset Characteristics

International Assets exceed $10 billion. More than 25 percent of total assets are in foreign offices.

Agricultural Agricultural production loans, added to real estate loans that are secured by farmland, exceed 

25 percent of total loans and leases.

Credit Card The total of credit card loans and securitized receivables exceeds 50 percent of total assets plus 

securitized receivables.

Commercial Lending The total of commercial and industrial loans, real estate construction and development loans, and 

loans secured by commercial real estate properties exceeds 25 percent of total assets.

Mortgage Lending The total of residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities exceeds 50 percent of total assets.

Consumer Lending The total of residential mortgage loans, credit card loans, and other loans to individuals exceeds 

50 percent of total assets.

Other Specialized < $1 Billion Assets are less than $1 billion. Loans and leases are less than 40 percent of total assets.

All Other < $1 Billion Assets are less than $1 billion, and the institution does not meet any of the definitions above. There is 

significant lending activity with no identified asset concentrations.

All Other > $1 Billion Assets are greater than $1 billion, and the institution does not meet any of the definitions above. There 

is significant lending activity with no identified asset concentrations.

Source: FDIC Statistics on Depository Institutions Glossary.

Note: Groups are hierarchical and mutually exclusive.

Table 4

Total Deposits Increased for Every Lending Specialization on a Merger-Adjusted Basis

Lending Specialization

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Merger Adjusted (Percent)

International Specialization 4.6 3.4 3.9 1.9 2.3 27.9

Agricultural Specialization 2.3 2.7 3.8 3.9 2.8 13.1

Credit Card Specialization 27.0 14.9 7.9 10.7 10.6 3.7

Commercial Lending Specialization 6.1 5.9 4.9 3.9 5.1 18.9

Mortgage Lending Specialization 9.6 12.8 12.2 12.2 3.0 31.3

Consumer Lending Specialization 6.0 18.6 -5.2 4.9 9.1 27.0

Other Specialized < $1 Billion 2.9 3.4 3.1 2.2 1.6 15.8

All Other < $1 Billion 2.2 2.9 3.2 1.2 1.8 13.0

All Other > $1 Billion 4.0 6.8 5.4 3.7 3.7 22.9

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Not Merger Adjusted (Percent)

International Specialization 3.4 8.3 7.3 1.9 4.4 27.9

Agricultural Specialization 2.5 4.5 3.8 1.9 1.6 -3.2

Credit Card Specialization -15.2 0.6 -3.1 31.5 -4.3 0.0

Commercial Lending Specialization 3.4 15.1 0.2 4.3 6.3 17.5

Mortgage Lending Specialization -1.1 -6.6 -9.8 -2.2 -0.5 92.8

Consumer Lending Specialization -14.1 15.1 26.1 -18.5 3.1 -40.7

Other Specialized < $1 Billion -5.6 -6.5 -13.2 -19.6 -5.4 1.0

All Other < $1 Billion -11.6 -14.8 -6.6 -16.4 -7.7 14.6

All Other > $1 Billion 13.5 -3.1 11.7 4.7 3.1 25.0

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 5
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

56 FDIC QUARTERLY

As shown in Table 6, total deposits have increased for bank offices in all three county 

types—metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural.10 Table 6 also shows that an overwhelming 

majority of deposits—roughly $14.53 trillion (93.5 percent) out of $15.54 trillion—are held 

by bank offices in metropolitan counties. The share of total domestic deposits in metropolitan counties ranged from 92.4 percent in 2015 to the five-year high of 93.5 percent in 2020. 

Not surprisingly, bank offices in metropolitan counties accounted for most of the increase 

in domestic deposits in the United States.

Metropolitan counties had the most pronounced increase in total deposits in 2020—

22.3 percent year-over-year. Between 2015 and 2019, the year-over-year percentage change 

in total deposits in metropolitan counties ranged from 3.9 percent to 6.2 percent.

Total deposits in micropolitan counties also grew rapidly in 2020. Micropolitan county 

year-over-year percentage increases in total deposits ranged from 2.3 percent to 3.4 percent 

between 2015 and 2019, but deposits increased 15.3 percent in 2020. The share of domestic 

deposits in micropolitan counties declined from 4.3 percent in 2015 to 3.8 percent in 2020.

Total deposits increased the least in rural counties: 22.6 percent between 2015 and 2020, 

compared with a 48.1 percent increase in metropolitan counties and a 28.6 percent increase 

in micropolitan counties. Between 2015 and 2019, rural counties’ year-over-year percentage 

change in total deposits ranged from 1.4 percent to 3.1 percent, but in 2020, total deposits 

in rural counties increased 11.6 percent. The percentage increase in deposits in rural counties was less than the percentage increase in metropolitan and micropolitan counties, and 

consequently the share of total domestic deposits in rural counties declined slightly, from 

3 percent in 2019 to 2.7 percent in 2020. The share of domestic deposits in rural offices 

declined slightly each year from 2015 to 2020, from 3.2 percent in 2015 to 2.7 percent in 2020.

Total Deposits and Year-Over-Year Percent Change Increased for Every County Type

County Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Percent Change 

2015 to 2020

Metropolitan

Total Domestic 

Deposits 

($ Thousands)

9,811,277,966 10,421,196,119 10,965,395,803 11,395,933,075 11,881,610,748 14,532,213,568 48.1%

Year-Over-Year 

Percent Change – 6.2% 5.2% 3.9% 4.3% 22.3% –

Micropolitan

Total Domestic 

Deposits 

($ Thousands)

458,714,275 470,798,099 486,877,782 498,100,344 511,496,980 589,863,257 28.6%

Year-Over-Year 

Percent Change – 2.6% 3.4% 2.3% 2.7% 15.3% –

Rural

Total Domestic 

Deposits 

($ Thousands)

344,784,355 349,564,466 360,270,967 368,324,735 378,823,452 422,618,792 22.6%

Year-Over-Year 

Percent Change – 1.4% 3.1% 2.2% 2.9% 11.6% –

All

Total Domestic 

Deposits 

($ Thousands)

10,614,776,596 11,241,558,684 11,812,544,552 12,262,358,154 12,771,931,180 15,544,695,617 46.4%

Year-Over-Year 

Percent Change – 5.9% 5.1% 3.8% 4.2% 21.7% –

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 6

10 Counties are labeled metropolitan, micropolitan, or rural depending on whether they are in areas designated by the U.S. 

Census Bureau as metropolitan statistical areas or as micropolitan statistical areas. Metropolitan statistical areas have 

a core urban area with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Micropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters with 10,000 to 

50,000 inhabitants. All other areas are considered rural.

Metropolitan 

Domestic Deposits 

Lead Deposit Surge
FDIC QUARTERLY 57

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

Average Deposits of 

FDIC-Insured Institutions 

and Offices Increased

The number of FDIC-insured institutions decreased from 5,303 to 5,066 between June 

2019 and June 2020, and the number of offices decreased from 86,382 to 85,040. Average 

deposits per institution and office increased from 2019 to 2020 at higher rates than they 

did from 2018 to 2019. From 2015 to 2020, the number of FDIC-insured institutions declined 

20.2 percent while the number of offices declined 8.8 percent. These declines increased the 

average number of offices per institution from 14.7 offices in 2015 to 16.8 offices in 2020 

(Table 7). Similarly, the number of institutions declined at a higher rate than the number 

of offices from 2019 to 2020. As a result, deposits per institution increased at a higher rate 

than did deposits per office.

From 2015 to 2019, average deposits per office increased at an average rate of 6.8 percent, 

and in 2020 average deposits per office increased 23.6 percent. The average annual increase 

in deposits per institution from 2015 to 2019 was 9.6 percent, and in 2020 average deposits per institution increased 27.4 percent. Average deposits per institution in 2020 was 

$3.1 billion, and average deposits per office was $182.8 million (Table 7).

Deposits per Institution and Office Increased in 2020

Year

Number of 

Institutions

Number of 

Offices

Offices per 

Institution

Total Deposits 

($ Thousands)

Deposits 

per Institution 

($ Thousands)

Deposits 

per Office 

($ Thousands)

2015 6,348 93,262 14.7 10,614,776,596 1,672,145 113,817

2016 6,058 91,824 15.2 11,241,558,684 1,855,655 122,425

2017 5,787 89,839 15.5 11,812,544,552 2,041,221 131,486

2018 5,541 88,065 15.9 12,262,358,154 2,213,023 139,242

2019 5,303 86,382 16.3 12,771,931,180 2,408,435 147,854

2020 5,066 85,040 16.8 15,544,695,617 3,068,436 182,793

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 7

Using SOD Deposit Data for Geographic Research Requires Caution

The Summary of Deposits (SOD) is a unique source of information about the number and physical locations of the tens of 

thousands of bank offices across the United States. The SOD data also include a dollar amount of deposits for each bank 

office. Methods used by banks for attributing deposits to bank offices may differ considerably from bank to bank, as 

described below. Accordingly, researchers should be cautious about using SOD data to draw firm conclusions about the 

geographical distribution of banking activity.

The full reporting instructions for the SOD can be found at https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/call/sod/2020-

06-sod-instructions.pdf.

The relevant reporting instructions are below.

Institutions should assign deposits to each office in a manner consistent with their existing internal record-keeping practices. The following are examples of procedures for assigning deposits to offices:

· Deposits are assigned to the office in closest proximity to the account holder’s address.

· Deposits are assigned to the office where the account is most active.

· Deposits are assigned to the office where the account was opened.

· Deposits are assigned to offices for branch manager compensation or similar purposes.

Other methods that logically reflect the deposit gathering activity of the financial institution’s branch offices may also 

be used. It is recognized that certain classes of deposits and deposits of certain types of customers may be assigned to a 

single office for reasons of convenience or efficiency. However, deposit allocations that diverge from the financial institution’s internal record-keeping systems and grossly misstate or distort the deposit gathering activity of an office should 

not be utilized.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

58 FDIC QUARTERLY

The number of offices of FDIC-insured institutions declined 1.6 percent between June 

2019 and June 2020, a slower rate than the past few years (Chart 2). The number of offices 

declined 2.7 percent among community banks and 0.9 percent among noncommunity banks. On a merger-adjusted basis, between 2019 and 2020, 471 banks (9.3 percent) 

increased their number of offices, 4,259 banks (84.1 percent) maintained the same 

number of offices, and 336 banks (6.6 percent) decreased their number of offices. Banks 

that increased their number of offices had a total increase of 668 offices, and banks that 

decreased their number of offices had a total decrease of 1,945 offices, for an aggregate net 

decrease of 1,277 offices on a merger-adjusted basis.11

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

2005 2010 2015 2020

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Total Oices Declined at a Slower Rate Than in Recent Years

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2005 to June 2020.

Oices Percent Total Oices (Le Axis)

Percent Change From the Previous Year (Right Axis)

Chart 2

As shown in Table 8, full-service brick-and-mortar offices represent almost 92 percent 

of all banking offices, and this office type accounted for most of the total decrease in the 

number of offices, with a net decrease of 977 offices in the 12 months ending June 30, 2020. 

Full-service brick-and-mortar offices had the lowest rate of decline (1.2 percent) among 

all office types. The rate of decline in full-service brick-and-mortar offices was the lowest 

since 2013, and the relatively low rate of decline in this office type drove the slower overall 

pace of decline in bank offices nationwide in 2020. The rate of decline in limited-service 

offices was only slightly lower than in 2019. Home banking and full-service retail office 

types declined at faster rates in 2020 than in 2019.12 The rate of decline in the number of 

full-service retail offices was the highest of all office types at 5.8 percent. Full-service 

retail offices represent a little less than 5 percent of bank offices.

11 The number of offices declined by 1,277 on a merger-adjusted basis and by 1,342 on a non-merger-adjusted basis. The 

difference is because 65 offices belonged to banks that were acquired by nonbanks between June 2019 and June 2020. 

Those offices could not be counted in merger-adjusted analysis since they could not be assigned to an acquiring bank in 

the 2020 SOD data.

12 The SOD survey collects information on the service type of each office:

∙ Full-service brick-and-mortar—locations owned or leased by a bank at which customers can open and close 

accounts, apply for loans, deposit and withdraw funds, and receive other banking services.

∙ Full-service retail—full-service offices in a retail facility such as a store or supermarket.

∙ Home banking—full-service offices that customers can access on a website or by telephone.

∙ Limited-service—offices that exist for the sole purpose of cashing payroll checks or conducting administrative 

services for the bank, or that accept deposits but do not provide any other services.

See pages 31-32 of the Summary of Deposits Reporting Instructions, https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/call/

sod/2020-06-sod-instructions.pdf.

The Number of Bank 

Offices Declined at a 

Slower Rate Than in 

Recent Years
FDIC QUARTERLY 59

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

The Low Rate of Decline in the Number of Full-Service Brick-and-Mortar Offices Drove the Overall Rate of 

Decline in the Number of Offices to a Four-Year Low

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Full-Service, Brick-and-Mortar 84,295 83,236 81,760 80,425 79,054 78,077

Change, number – -1,059 -1,476 -1,335 -1,371 -977

Change, percent – -1.3% -1.8% -1.6% -1.7% -1.2%

Full-Service, Retail 5,261 5,014 4,706 4,441 4,250 4,005

Change, number – -247 -308 -265 -191 -245

Change, percent – -4.7% -6.1% -5.6% -4.3% -5.8%

Full-Service, Home Banking* 179 179 189 192 194 190

Change, number – 0 10 3 2 -4

Change, percent – 0.0% 5.6% 1.6% 1.0% -2.1%

Limited-Service Offices 3,527 3,395 3,184 3,007 2,884 2,768

Change, number – -132 -211 -177 -123 -116

Change, percent – -3.7% -6.2% -5.6% -4.1% -4.0%

All Offices 93,262 91,824 89,839 88,065 86,382 85,040

Change, number – -1,438 -1,985 -1,774 -1,683 -1,342

Change, percent – -1.5% -2.2% -2.0% -1.9% -1.6%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

*Home banking offices are sometimes called “cyber offices” since they are typically accessed online.

Table 8

Office Closings Are 

Widespread Although 

Relatively Less Frequent 

in Rural Counties

As shown in Table 9, the total number of bank offices declined across all three county 

types—metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural. Table 9 also shows that an overwhelming majority of bank offices—roughly 67,000 out of 85,000—are in metropolitan counties. 

Between 2015 and 2020, the number of offices in metropolitan counties declined 9.3 percent 

and accounted for most of the total reduction in the number of offices in the United States.

The ongoing office reduction trend has been particularly pronounced for community banks 

in metropolitan counties, with a decrease of 3,322 in the past five years. While noncommunity banks operating in metropolitan counties reduced their number of offices by 

3,536, this amounted to a 6.7 percent decrease over the past five years, less than half the 

15.9 percent decrease for community banks.

The difference in office reduction rates between community banks and noncommunity 

banks in metropolitan counties is considerably different on a merger-adjusted basis. On 

a merger-adjusted basis, the number of community bank offices increased 4.1 percent 

from June 2015 to June 2020, while the number of noncommunity bank offices decreased 

13 percent. This result indicates that the declining number of community bank offices in 

metropolitan counties is heavily influenced by the relatively high rate at which community 

banks were acquired by, or redesignated as, noncommunity banks from 2015 to 2020.

The number of bank offices has declined the least in rural counties: 526 (5.9 percent) 

between 2015 and 2020. The number of community bank offices in rural counties declined 

5.6 percent, while the number of noncommunity bank offices in rural counties declined 

6.8 percent (Table 9). While the smallest decline in office numbers occurred in rural counties, office closures in rural counties are felt more keenly by those communities than are 

closures in metropolitan counties, since rural bank offices are fewer in number and often 

serve large geographic areas.13

13 For a discussion of closures of banking offices in rural areas, see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 

“Perspectives From Main Street: Bank Branch Access in Rural Communities,” November 2019, 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/bank-branch-access-in-rural-communities.pdf.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

60 FDIC QUARTERLY

Most offices in rural counties (72.5 percent) and micropolitan counties (57.2 percent) are 

operated by community banks. Community banks have reduced their number of offices at 

slower rates than noncommunity banks in rural counties. Similarly, the five-year reduction 

rate in the number of bank offices in micropolitan counties is higher for noncommunity 

banks (9.5 percent) than for community banks (7.1 percent).

Although community banks have reduced their number of offices at a slower rate than 

noncommunity banks in micropolitan and rural counties, their share of offices in those 

counties remained fairly stable from 2015 to 2020. Community bank offices represented 

56.6 percent of offices in micropolitan counties in 2015, compared with 57.2 percent in 2020. 

Similarly, community bank offices represented 72.2 percent of offices in rural counties in 

2015, compared with 72.5 percent in 2020. Community banks continue to serve an essential 

purpose by providing banking services in less-populated counties and counties with few 

bank offices.

The Number of Banking Offices Declined for All Bank and County Types From 2015 to 2020

County Type Bank Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Percent 

Change 

2015 to 2020

Metropolitan

All Banks 74,058 72,889 71,213 69,731 68,301 67,200 -9.3%

Noncommunity Banks 53,158 52,749 51,887 50,985 50,127 49,622 -6.7%

Community Banks 20,900 20,140 19,326 18,746 18,174 17,578 -15.9%

Micropolitan

All Banks 10,290 10,129 9,931 9,755 9,592 9,452 -8.1%

Noncommunity Banks 4,463 4,365 4,309 4,204 4,076 4,041 -9.5%

Community Banks 5,827 5,764 5,622 5,551 5,516 5,411 -7.1%

Rural

All Banks 8,914 8,806 8,695 8,579 8,489 8,388 -5.9%

Noncommunity Banks 2,478 2,409 2,389 2,311 2,293 2,310 -6.8%

Community Banks 6,436 6,397 6,306 6,268 6,196 6,078 -5.6%

All

All Banks 93,262 91,824 89,839 88,065 86,382 85,040 -8.8%

Noncommunity Banks 60,099 59,523 58,585 57,500 56,496 55,973 -6.9%

Community Banks 33,163 32,301 31,254 30,565 29,886 29,067 -12.4%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 9

Office Closings Outpaced 

Office Openings in 

Metropolitan Areas

Over the past year, the number of bank office closings outpaced bank office openings in 

metropolitan counties (Table 9). Metropolitan counties had a net decrease of 1,101 bank 

offices between June 2019 and June 2020. In 2020, the New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJPA (New York City) metropolitan area had 4,916 bank offices, the most of any metropolitan 

area. It also led the United States in metropolitan area bank office openings (48) and office 

closings (261), for a net decrease of 213 bank offices. Most of the New York City metropolitan 

area’s net decrease in bank offices were in New York County, New York (34 offices), Bergen 

County, New Jersey (33), and Suffolk County, New York (23).

Five of the metropolitan areas with the highest number of office closures accounted for 

a higher share of total office closures than their share of total offices among all metropolitan areas nationwide: New York City; Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI (Chicago); 

Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA–NJ-DE–MD (Philadelphia); Phoenix-MesaChandler, AZ (Phoenix); and Cleveland-Elyria, OH (Cleveland). In each of these areas, the 

high number of closures was driven by just one or two institutions. For example, New 

York City accounted for 12 percent of office closings among all metropolitan areas nationwide and 7.3 percent of total offices in metropolitan areas nationwide as of June 30, 2020. 

Of the 42 banks that closed offices in New York City, two banks accounted for nearly half 

(46 percent) of the 261 office closures. Similarly, Chicago accounted for 6.5 percent of office 

closures in metropolitan areas and 3.7 percent of offices in metropolitan areas nationwide 
FDIC QUARTERLY 61

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

in 2020. While 22 banks closed offices in Chicago, one bank accounted for 34 percent of the 

closures. Philadelphia accounted for 3.2 percent of closures in metropolitan areas nationwide and 2.4 percent of offices in metropolitan areas in 2020. Nineteen banks closed offices 

in Philadelphia and one bank accounted for 32.8 percent of closures. Similarly, Phoenix 

accounted for 1.5 percent of closures in metropolitan areas nationwide and 1.1 percent 

of offices in metropolitan areas in 2020. Of the 11 banks that closed offices in Phoenix, 

two banks accounted for 54.5 percent of office closures. Finally, Cleveland accounted for 

1.3 percent of closures in metropolitan areas and 0.9 percent of offices in metropolitan areas 

in 2020. Eight banks closed offices in Cleveland, and one bank accounted for 51.7 percent of 

the closures.

As shown in Tables 10 and 11, eight metropolitan areas were in the top ten metropolitan 

areas for total office openings and were also in the top ten for total office closings. Four of 

the eight metropolitan areas reported a net gain of bank offices over the past year: DallasFort Worth-Arlington, TX (Dallas) (11); Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (Houston) 

(6); Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH (Boston) (5); and Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (Washington, DC) (1). Office openings by a single bank drove 

the net gain in bank offices in three of these four metropolitan areas. A single bank opened 

10 (28.6 percent) of the 35 offices opened in Houston. In Boston, a single bank opened 

14 (38.9 percent) of the 36 offices opened, and in Washington, DC, a single bank opened 

23 (59 percent) of the 39 offices opened. By contrast, in Dallas no single bank accounted for 

more than 3 (7.3 percent) of the 41 total office openings.

The Dallas metropolitan area led the United States in net bank offices gained, with 11 bank 

offices: 41 office openings and 30 office closings. Dallas County, Texas, contributed to a net 

gain of 7 bank offices. In the Dallas metropolitan area, 23 banks had a net increase, 3 banks 

had no change, and 8 banks had a net decrease in their numbers of bank offices.

In the Houston metropolitan area, 15 banks had a net increase, 2 banks had no change, 

and 9 banks had a net decrease in their numbers of offices. In the Boston metropolitan 

area, 17 banks had a net increase, 2 banks had no change, and 10 banks had a net decrease 

in their numbers of offices. In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, 6 banks had a net 

increase, 1 bank had no change, and 13 banks had a net decrease in their numbers of offices.

New York City Leads the Metropolitan Areas With the 

Most Office Openings From 2019 to 2020

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Offices 

Opened

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 48

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 41

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 39

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 36

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 35

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 35

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA 30

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 27

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 23

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 22

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2019 to June 2020.

Note: The metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) are based on the 2010 U.S. Census. 

These areas correspond to the state and county relationships as defined by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 10

New York City Leads the Metropolitan Areas With the Most 

Office Closings From 2019 to 2020

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Offices 

Closed

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 261

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 141

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 70

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 54

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 40

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 38

Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 33

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 31

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 30

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 29

Cleveland-Elyria, OH 29

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2019 to June 2020.

Note: The metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) are based on the 2010 U.S. Census. 

These areas correspond to the state and county relationships as defined by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 11
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

62 FDIC QUARTERLY

As discussed earlier, the rate of decline in the number of offices was lower in 2020 than in 

the three previous years because the rate of office openings was relatively high and the rate 

of closures was relatively low (Table 12). While the percentage decrease in the number of 

offices was lower in 2020 than in the previous three years, it was slightly higher than the 

average percentage decrease from 2010 to 2020 (1.4 percent).

A Higher Rate of Office Openings, and a Lower Rate of Office Closings, Contributed to the Lower Rate of Decline 

in the Number of Offices

2009 

to 

2010

2010 

to 

2011

2011 

to 

2012

2012 

to 

2013

2013 

to 

2014

2014 

to 

2015

2015 

to 

2016

2016 

to 

2017

2017 

to 

2018

2018 

to 

2019

2019 

to 

2020

Starting Number of Offices 99,540 98,510 98,184 97,331 96,330 94,715 93,262 91,824 89,839 88,065 86,382

Offices Opened 2,406 5,160 1,556 1,462 1,272 1,100 1,121 972 1,027 1,180 1,213

Percent Change in 

Office Count Due to 

Office Openings

2.4% 5.2% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4%

Offices Closed 3,436 5,486 2,409 2,463 2,887 2,553 2,559 2,957 2,801 2,863 2,555

Percent Change in 

Office Count Due to 

Office Closings

-3.5% -5.6% -2.5% -2.5% -3.0% -2.7% -2.7% -3.2% -3.1% -3.3% -3.0%

Net Change in Number of 

Offices -1,030 -326 -853 -1,001 -1,615 -1,453 -1,438 -1,985 -1,774 -1,683 -1,342

Percent Change in 

Number of Offices -1.0% -0.3% -0.9% -1.0% -1.7% -1.5% -1.5% -2.2% -2.0% -1.9% -1.6%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 12

One factor that influenced the lower rate of decline in the number of offices in 2020 

compared with previous years is that a smaller percentage of offices that were acquired 

through mergers subsequently closed. As shown in Table 13, 4.5 percent of offices that 

were acquired through mergers between June 2019 and June 2020 closed before June 30, 

2020. By comparison, from 2010 to 2019, 28,939 offices were acquired in mergers and 3,559 

(12.3 percent) of those offices closed before the next SOD filing. The average annual closure 

rate for offices acquired in a merger from 2010 to 2019 was 11.7 percent.

Offices Acquired in Mergers Closed at Lower Rates in 2020 Than in Previous Years

2009 

to 

2010

2010 

to 

2011

2011 

to 

2012

2012 

to 

2013

2013 

to 

2014

2014 

to 

2015

2015 

to 

2016

2016 

to 

2017

2017 

to 

2018

2018 

to 

2019

2019 

to 

2020

Number of Offices 

Acquired in Mergers 9,304 2,534 2,439 1,767 2,053 1,769 2,353 2,676 2,100 1,944 3,195

Number of Offices Acquired 

in Mergers That Closed 

Before the Next Summary 

of Deposits Filing

1,231 406 285 140 254 133 215 442 285 168 145

Percent Closed 13.2% 16.0% 11.7% 7.9% 12.4% 7.5% 9.1% 16.5% 13.6% 8.6% 4.5%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 13

The Rate of Decline in 

the Number of Offices 

Was Lower in 2020
FDIC QUARTERLY 63

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

The rate of growth in total deposits of domestic offices of FDIC-insured institutions 

between June 2019 and June 2020 was the highest in nearly 80 years. This increase occurred 

primarily as a result of consumer, business, and fiscal and monetary policy responses 

to the coronavirus pandemic. Deposits increased for community banks and noncommunity banks; for small, midsize, and large banks; for banks with a wide variety of lending specializations; and for banks in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties. 

On a merger-adjusted basis, the largest increases in deposits occurred among offices of 

noncommunity banks and midsize banks, and among offices of banks with a mortgage, 

international, or consumer lending specialization. Offices in metropolitan counties had 

higher rates of deposit growth than offices in micropolitan or rural counties.

The trend of net decreases in the number of bank offices nationwide that began more than 

a decade earlier continued, albeit at a slower rate than in recent years, as fewer offices that 

were acquired through mergers closed before the next SOD survey. The number of community bank offices declined at a higher rate than the number of noncommunity bank offices 

from 2015 to 2020. This trend was driven by a reduction in the number of community bank 

offices in metropolitan counties. Decreases in the number of community bank offices have 

also been influenced by the tendency of community banks to be acquired by noncommunity 

banks or be redesignated as noncommunity banks at relatively high rates.

Community banks operate more offices than noncommunity banks in rural and micropolitan counties, and have closed offices at slower rates in those counties. The relatively large 

presence of community banks in rural and micropolitan counties reflects their important 

role in serving their local communities.

Authors:

Joseph R. Harris III

Economic Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

Caitlyn R. Kasper

Economic Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

Camille A. Keith

Economic Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

Derek K. Thieme

Financial Economist

Division of Insurance and Research

Conclusion