FDIC Quarterly 26 2011, Volume 5, No. 4

(see Chart 1) and higher than the five-year compound 

annual growth rate for total deposits of 5.1 percent.3

The number of offices per million people fell 0.7 

percent to 314 for the year ending June 30, 2011, the 

lowest level for this ratio since 2005 (see Chart 2). 

3

 The compound annual growth rate is a methodology for smoothing 

annual growth over time. It can sometimes be a better indication of a 

trend than a single year’s growth, which may have been atypical. The 

compound annual growth rate is the nth root of the percentage 

change, where n is the number of years in the period. 

Each year as of June 30, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC) collects deposit data for branches 

and offices of all FDIC-insured institutions. The resulting Summary of Deposits (SOD) is a valuable resource 

for analyzing deposit gathering and branching trends, 

as well as domestic deposit market share.1 The SOD 

data are available on the FDIC’s Web site at http://

www2.fdic.gov/sod/index.asp. This summary highlights 

some key findings from the 2011 SOD, focusing on 

national trends in domestic deposits and banking 

offices, and presents information by state and metropolitan area and for selected institutions.

The Number of Offices Continued to Contract 

While Deposit Growth Accelerated

The number of offices operated by FDIC-insured institutions fell a modest 0.3 percent to 97,678 for the year 

ending June 30, 2011, a decline of 274 offices. This is 

the second consecutive yearly decline in offices, following a 1 percent (991-office) decrease in 2010. 

Contraction in the number of offices reflects the 

continuing decline in the number of FDIC-insured 

institutions. The number of FDIC-insured institutions 

declined by 317 during the year ending June 30, 2011, 

compared with declines of 365 and 256 in the previous 

two years, respectively. 

Despite a contraction in offices, FDIC-insured institutions reported strong deposit growth in 2011.2

 Total 

deposit volume increased 7.5 percent in 2011, well 

above the 1.7 percent growth rate reported in 2010 

1

 This analysis reflects updates in SOD data through October 4, 2011. 

All FDIC-insured institutions that operate branch offices beyond their 

headquarters must submit responses to SOD surveys to the FDIC. 

Institutions that previously filed the Branch Office Survey administered 

by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) are now required to file the 

SOD as of June 2011. Automated teller machines are not considered 

offices for the purposes of the survey. Call Report information on 

banks with a single headquarters office has been combined with 

branch office data to form the SOD database.

2

 The SOD covers offices in the 50 states and the District of Columbia 

but not those in U.S. territories. The SOD data include domestic 

deposits only, referred to in this report as “deposits.” 

Feature Article:

Highlights from the 2011 Summary of Deposits

Chart 1

Number of Offices Domestic Deposits (Trillions of Dollars)

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits and OTS Branch Office Survey.

The Number of Ofces of FDIC-Insured Institutions

Decreased While Deposit Growth Increased

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Number of Offices

Domestic Deposits

2011

Chart 2

Offices Per Million People

Domestic Deposits Per Office

(Millions of Dollars)

Sources: FDIC Summary of Deposits and OTS Branch Office Survey. 

Population data from the U.S. Census Bureau via Haver Analytics.

Deposits Per Ofce Increased While Ofces Per Million

People Decreased

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Offices per million people

Domestic deposits per office

2011
FDIC Quarterly 27 2011, Volume 5, No. 4

Summary of Deposits

reported the highest five-year compound annual 

growth rate in the number of offices, while “other” 

areas reported the only negative five-year compound 

annual growth rate in the number of offices of any 

geographic area. 

Number of Traditional Brick-and-Mortar Commercial 

Bank Branches Held Steady

Traditional brick-and-mortar offices represented 90 

percent of all commercial banking offices in 2011, a 

share unchanged from the previous year. The SOD 

survey covers all banking offices, including retail (e.g., 

offices in supermarkets or other stores), drive-through 

offices, and “other” office types. The “other” category, 

which primarily represents mobile or seasonal offices 

and those that provide back-office support for Internet 

deposit operations, was less than 1 percent of all offices, 

but was the fastest-growing office type for the third 

consecutive year. Retail offices grew 3.3 percent after 

declining 1.5 percent in 2010. Drive-through facilities 

were the only commercial office type to show a oneyear decline and the only commercial bank office category to show a negative five-year compound annual 

growth rate (see Table 2).

Large Institutions Reported the Strongest 

Deposit Growth

Large institutions (those with more than $10 billion in 

total deposits) continued to report the largest share of 

banking offices and deposits among FDIC-insured institutions. In addition, large institutions reported much 

higher deposit growth than small (those with less than 

$1 billion in total deposits) or midsize (those with 

between $1 billion and $10 billion in total deposits) 

However, due to overall growth in deposits, total deposits per office grew 7.8 percent to $84 million in 2011, 

which was the highest year-over-year growth rate since 

2003 and well above the five-year compound annual 

growth rate of 4.3 percent.

Metropolitan Areas Report Strong Deposit Growth

Deposits and offices continue to be concentrated in 

metropolitan areas. As of June 30, 2011, about 78 

percent of deposit-taking offices and 90 percent of 

deposits were held by insured institutions in metropolitan areas, compared with 77 percent of deposit-taking 

offices and 89 percent of deposits in the prior year. All 

types of geographic areas reported deposit growth and 

office contraction from 2010 to 2011. Deposit growth 

was centered in metropolitan areas, while office 

contraction was more pronounced in micropolitan and 

“other” areas (see Table 1).4

Deposits held within metropolitan areas grew 8.3 

percent in 2011, a rate significantly higher than in 

micropolitan and “other” areas. Deposit growth in 

metropolitan areas was also much higher than the 

five-year compound annual growth rate, while deposit 

growth in micropolitan and “other” areas was well 

below their five-year compound annual growth rates. 

The number of offices in metropolitan areas fell 0.2 

percent from 2010 to 2011, compared with declines of 

0.7 percent and 0.6 percent for micropolitan and 

“other” areas, respectively. Metropolitan areas 

4

 Metropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters of greater than 

50,000 inhabitants. Micropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters 

of between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants. “Other” areas have populations of 10,000 or fewer inhabitants.

Table 1

Metropolitan Areas Experienced the Highest Deposit Growth and Slowest Rate of Office Decline

Metropolitan Areas Micropolitan Areas Other Areas 

Number 

of Offices

Domestic 

Deposits 

($ billions)

Number 

of Offices

Domestic 

Deposits 

($ billions)

Number 

of Offices

Domestic 

Deposits 

($ billions)

June 2011 75,204 $7,358 12,061 $510 9,682 $327

June 2010 75,362 6,794 12,145 506 9,740 321

June 2006 71,510 5,663 11,941 443 9,757 281

1-Year Growth Rate -0.2% 8.3% -0.7% 0.7% -0.6% 1.9%

5-Year Compound Growth Rate 1.0% 5.4% 0.2% 2.9% -0.2% 3.1%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits and OTS Branch Office Survey. 

Note: Includes deposit-taking offices only. Metropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters of greater than 50,000 inhabitants. Micropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters of between 

10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants. “Other” areas have populations of 10,000 or fewer inhabitants. See U.S. Census Bureau definitions for greater detail.
FDIC Quarterly 28 2011, Volume 5, No. 4

tions in the year ending June 30, 2011, 179 were small, 

17 were midsize, and two were large. Of the 119 that 

failed in the same period, 114 were small and five were 

midsize. 

The same factors that affect deposits can affect office 

growth as well, although local market conditions and 

competitive issues also play a role. Local factors could 

explain why small institutions was the only category 

that experienced a slight increase in offices (23 offices, 

or a growth rate of 0.1 percent) for the past year, 

despite the decline in deposits for these institutions.

The Number of Banking Organizations Operating in 

15 or More States Was Unchanged

The number of banking organizations operating in at 

least 15 states remained unchanged from the previous 

year at 15 institutions (see Table 4). As of June 30, 

institutions in the year ending June 30, 2011. Large 

institutions reported deposit growth of 11.5 percent 

over the past year, midsize institutions reported growth 

of 1.6 percent, and small institutions reported a decline 

of 2.8 percent. The one-year growth rate of deposits at 

large institutions was considerably higher than the fiveyear compound annual growth rate, while deposit 

growth at midsize institutions was below the five-year 

compound annual growth rate (see Table 3).

Deposit growth is affected by a number of factors, 

including prevailing macroeconomic conditions and 

normal organic growth of individual institutions, as 

well as longer-term trends such as mergers and acquisition activity and institution failures. As in previous 

years, most institutions that have failed or been 

acquired have been small and midsize institutions, 

depressing growth for these categories. For example, of 

the 198 institutions acquired through merger transacTable 2

“Other” Banking Offices Increased at the Fastest Rate for the Second Year

Brick and Mortar 

Offices Retail Offices

Drive-Through 

Facilities

“Other” Office 

Types Total

June 2011 77,997 5,433 2,473 805 86,708

June 2010 77,996 5,258 2,479 762 86,495

June 2006 71,120 4,627 2,600 617 78,964

1-Year Growth Rate 0.0% 3.3% -0.2% 5.6% 0.2%

5-Year Compound Growth Rate 1.9% 3.3% -1.0% 5.5% 1.9%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits.

Note: Includes only deposit-taking offices of commercial banks and thrifts that file Call Reports. Excludes U.S. branches of foreign institutions. For the first time, 2011 SOD data now show 

similar office breakdowns for thrifts, so comparisons of trends in thrift office types prior to 2011 are not available. Of the 10,229 thrift banking offices reported in 2011, 9,533 were brick and 

mortar offices, 517 were retail offices, 92 were drive-through facilities and 87 were “other” office types.

Table 3

Large Institutions Reported Strong Deposit Growth This Year in Contrast to Other Institutions

Large Institutions Midsized Institutions Small Institutions

Number of 

Institutions

Number of 

Offices

Domestic 

Deposits 

($ billions)

Number of 

Institutions

Number of 

Offices

Domestic 

Deposits 

($ billions)

Number of 

Institutions

Number of 

Offices

Domestic 

Deposits 

($ billions)

June 2011 77 46,886 $5,728 440 18,974 $1,151 6,985 31,077 $1,296

June 2010 76 47,016 5,138 438 19,120 1,133 6,967 31,054 1,334

June 2006 76 45,846 4,294 431 17,325 934 6,629 27,849 994

1-Year Growth Rate 1.3% -0.3% 11.5% 0.5% -0.8% 1.6% 0.3% 0.1% -2.8%

5-Year Compound 

Growth Rate 0.3% 0.4% 5.9% 0.4% 1.8% 4.3% 1.1% 2.2% 5.4%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits and OTS Branch Office Survey.

Note: Merger-adjusted data. Deposit-taking offices only. Excludes U.S. branches of foreign institutions. Small = Institutions with consolidated deposits less than $1 billion. Midsize = Institutions 

with consolidated deposits of $1 billion to $10 billion. Large = Institutions with consolidated deposits greater then $10 billion.
FDIC Quarterly 29 2011, Volume 5, No. 4

Summary of Deposits

increase in the total number of offices, while states in 

the Midwest and Southeast experienced office contraction (see Map 1). Delaware, Maine, California, and 

West Virginia experienced the highest percentage 

increases in the number of offices from 2010 to 2011 

and were the only states to experience growth of more 

than 1 percent. Office growth in these states can be 

attributed to branch network expansion made by a few 

large institutions. 

The number of banking offices grew in 16 states and 

declined in 30 states over the past year. The number 

of offices was unchanged in four states and the District 

of Columbia. Several states that experienced office 

contraction from 2010 to 2011 experienced office 

expansion over the past five years. For example, Texas, 

South Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and Wyoming 

experienced more than a 1 percent decline in the 

number of offices between 2010 and 2011, but have 

each experienced more than a 1 percent increase in the 

number of offices over the past five years. No state 

experiencing office growth in 2011 experienced office 

contraction over the past five years. 

South Carolina, South Dakota, and Arizona were the 

only states to experience a decline in total deposits 

from 2010 to 2011 (see Map 2). All other states and 

the District of Columbia experienced deposit growth 

over the past five years. State-specific deposits often do 

2011, Bank of America Corporation remained the only 

organization reporting more than a 10 percent share of 

aggregate domestic deposits; its share increased to 13 

percent of domestic deposits versus 11.9 percent in 

2010. Of the three organizations with the greatest 

share of domestic deposits—Bank of America Corporation, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo—two experienced double-digit deposit growth over the past year. 

Domestic deposits at Bank of America and JPMorgan 

Chase grew 16.4 percent and 17.8 percent, respectively, from 2010 to 2011, while domestic deposits at 

Wells Fargo grew 5.9 percent over the same period. 

The total number of deposit offices at Bank of America 

and Wells Fargo declined 3.3 percent and 2.6 percent, 

respectively, while the total number of deposit offices 

at JPMorgan increased 3.3 percent. Toronto-Dominion 

Bank was added to the list and Capitol Bancorp was 

eliminated from the list in 2011. Toronto-Dominion 

Bank reported operations in 16 states in 2011, 

compared with 13 states in 2010. Capitol Bancorp 

reported operations in 14 states in 2011, compared 

with 16 states in 2010.

Office Growth Was Strongest in the Northeast and 

West, Weakest in the Midwest and South

Changes in the number of banking offices within each 

state were mixed between 2010 and 2011. In general, 

states in the Northeast and West experienced an 

Table 4

The Same Number of Banking Organizations Operate in 15 or More States as Last Year

Name of Company

Number of States 

with Deposit Offices

Reported Number of 

Deposit Offices

Domestic Deposits

($ billions)

Share of Total 

Domestic Deposits 

(%)

Wells Fargo & Company 40 6,386 $793.6 9.7%

Bank of America Corporation 36 5,841 1,066.7 13.0%

U.S. Bancorp 25 3,135 198.5 2.4%

JPMorgan Chase & Co. 24 5,404 769.0 9.4%

Beal Bank SSB 21 34 2.5 0.0%

BNP Paribas 20 713 50.3 0.6%

First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. 18 427 17.7 0.2%

Woodforest Financial Group, Inc. 17 765 3.0 0.0%

Dickinson Financial Corporation 17 167 1.8 0.0%

Northern Trust Corporation 17 83 30.4 0.4%

PNC Financial Services Group 16 2,588 180.8 2.2%

Regions Financial Corporation 16 1,768 98.4 1.2%

Toronto-Dominion Bank 16 1,293 151.5 1.8%

Citigroup Inc. 16 1,057 316.8 3.9%

KeyCorp 15 1,053 59.8 0.7%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits and OTS Branch Office Survey.

Note: Deposit-taking offices only. See SOD instructions for definition of deposit offices. 
FDIC Quarterly 30 2011, Volume 5, No. 4

concentrated” range, and another 16 metropolitan areas 

had an HHI in the “moderately concentrated” range 

(see Table 5). The number of metropolitan areas with 

HHI scores in the “highly concentrated” range stayed 

the same, while those in the “moderately concentrated” 

range increased by one compared with last year’s HHI 

scores.6 In addition, HHI scores for 18 of the 25 largest 

metropolitan areas increased during the year ending 

June 30, 2011, versus 15 markets experiencing increased 

HHIs in 2010. 

Because of changes in population, the San AntonioNew Braunfels, TX, metropolitan area was added to the 

list of large markets in 2011, and the CincinnatiMiddletown, OH-KY-IN, metropolitan area was taken 

off the list. The HHI score for the San Antonio-New 

Braunfels, TX, metropolitan area is the highest of any 

of the top 25 metropolitan areas in 2011, and increased 

from 4,066 in the previous year to 4,483. Its high HHI 

score reflects the volume of deposits reported by USAA 

Federal Savings Bank, an institution that has a nationwide remote banking business model but assigns its 

deposits to its brick-and-mortar headquarters office 

within the area.

Although the San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX, market 

is reported to be the most concentrated, some large 

6

 The Tampa-St. Petersburg MSA reported an HHI score below 1,000 

in 2010 and above 1,000 in 2011.

not correlate directly with office patterns, however, 

because institutions have significant flexibility in the 

way they associate deposits with offices when completing the SOD. For large institutions in particular, 

deposits may be assigned to offices according to the 

proximity to the account holder’s address, the office 

where the deposit account is most active, the office 

where the account originated, or the office assignment 

used when establishing direct deposit of employee 

compensation.

Twenty of the 25 Largest Markets Are “Highly 

Concentrated” or “Moderately Concentrated”

By law, bank regulatory agencies and the Department of 

Justice must consider market concentration in their 

analysis of proposed mergers and acquisitions. The 

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is a commonly 

used measure of market concentration.5 The HHI 

measures increases in market concentration as banking 

organizations increase their deposit market share in a 

particular trade area. As of June 30, 2011, four of the 25 

largest metropolitan areas had an HHI in the “highly 

5

 Under the Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines, markets with an 

HHI of less than 1,000 are considered “unconcentrated,” those with an 

HHI between 1,000 and 1,800 are considered “moderately concentrated,” and those with an HHI greater than 1,800 are considered 

“highly concentrated.” For more details, see the joint Federal Trade 

Commission and DOJ Web site on “Horizontal Merger Guidelines” at 

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/horiz_book/hmg1.html. 

Percentage Change in

Number of Branches 

Reported by Insured 

Institutions, 2010–2011

-1 to -2%

0 to -1%

0 to 1%

1 to 2%

Source: FDIC. >2%

Northeast and West Experienced Office Growth,

Midwest and Southeast Experienced Office Contraction

(Number of Branches Reported as of June 30, 2011)

HI: 283

AK: 132

WY: 231

WA: 1,891

OR: 1,132

NV: 549

CA: 

7,275 MO:

2,436

IA: 1,613

MN:

1,821

ND: 439

SD: 480

NE: 1,093

KS: 1,559

TX: 6,885

CO: 1,640

TN: 2,293

LA:

1,646

MS:

1,215

AR:

1,484

FL: 5,615

IL:

4,926 IN:

2,386

OH:

4,044

PA: 4,711

NY: 5,498

ME:

MT: 392 519

NM: 512 OK: 1,408

GA:

2,711

AZ: 1,362

UT: 604

ID: 537

VT: 266

NH: 435

MA: 2,224

RI: 260

CT: 1,301

NJ: 3,318

DE: 288

MD: 1,785

DC: 244

WV: 671

KY: 1,808

WI:

2,320 MI:

2,978

AL:

1,570

SC:

1,441

NC: 2,760

VA:

2,687

Map 1

Source: FDIC.

Deposit Growth Was Strong in the Northeast and West,

but the Way Deposits Are Assigned by Large Institutions May Skew Changes in Deposits

Percentage Change in

Amount of Deposits 

Reported by Insured 

Institutions in Each

State, 2010–2011

<-10%

0 to -10%

0 to 5%

5 to 10%

>10%

HI

AK

WY

WA

OR

NV

CA

MO

IA

MN

ND

SD

NE

KS

TX

CO

TN

LA

MS

AR

FL

IL IN OH

NH

PA

NY

ME MT

NM OK

GA

AZ

UT

ID

KY

WI

MI

AL

SC

NC

VA

VT

WV

MA

RI CT

NJ

DE

MD

DC

Map 2
FDIC Quarterly 31 2011, Volume 5, No. 4

Summary of Deposits

Author: Andrew D. Carayiannis, Financial Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

The author would like to thank Robert E. Basinger for his 

contributions to this article.

institutions within other markets continue to exert 

significant, and in some cases growing, local market 

power. In 15 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas, one 

institution, most often a large institution, reported a 

market share in 2011 of at least one-fourth of domestic 

deposits, versus 11 metropolitan areas in 2010 with that 

level of concentration. 

Table 5

Four of the Largest Metropolitan Areas Are Characterized as “Highly Concentrated” Markets 

According to the Department of Justice’s Herfindahl-Hirschman Index Measurement

(Top 25 metropolitan areas by population as of June 30, 2011)

Metropolitan Area

HerfindahlHirschman 

Index 

Population 

Estimate 

(millions)

5-Year 

Compound 

Growth Rate 

in Offices 

5-Year 

Compound 

Growth Rate 

in Deposits 

San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 4,483 2.2 4.0 12.7

Pittsburgh, PA 2,551 2.4 0.1 5.8

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 2,509 4.4 1.1 8.2

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 2,396 3.3 0.0 13.6

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 1,761 4.4 2.8 1.9

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 1,759 6.1 2.6 11.3

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 1,615 2.3 1.3 8.6

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 1,521 6.6 0.8 1.5

Baltimore-Towson, MD 1,452 2.7 -0.2 5.6

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 1,397 5.4 -0.2 1.1

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 1,388 4.3 -0.8 0.7

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 1,385 19.0 1.4 4.7

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 1,309 6.0 0.0 10.3

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 1,283 2.2 0.7 2.5

Denver-Aurora, CO 1,262 2.6 1.4 6.3

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 1,249 3.5 0.6 2.0

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 1,236 3.1 1.7 3.8

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 1,153 4.6 0.9 6.2

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 1,108 4.3 2.3 -0.9

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 1,007 2.8 0.4 4.9

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 955 5.7 2.1 3.7

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 949 13.0 1.1 2.6

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 724 9.6 0.4 2.3

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 712 5.3 0.8 1.7

St. Louis, MO-IL 640 2.9 1.9 7.6

Sources: FDIC Summary of Deposits and OTS Branch Office Survey and Moody’s Economy.com.

Note: The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a commonly accepted measure of market concentration, is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and 

then summing the resulting numbers. Markets in which the HHI is between 1,000 and 1,800 points are considered to be “moderately concentrated,” and those in which the HHI is in 

excess of 1,800 points are considered to be “highly concentrated.” For more information, please refer to the joint U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Web site at 

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/testimony/hhi.htm. Population estimates for 2011 are from Moody’s Economy.com.