FDIC Quarterly 29 2009, Volume 3, No. 4

staffing levels. Some 40 percent of banks and thrifts 

reported fewer employees as of June 30, 2009, than one 

year ago.

Office Growth Slows Relative to U.S. Population

To better understand the level of expansion in the 

U.S. banking industry, it is useful to consider various 

measures of deposit and office growth in relation to 

demographic trends, such as population. Two of these 

measures—the number of offices per million people and 

the national average deposits per office—are illustrated 

in Chart 2. After growing at a compounded annual rate 

of 1.1 percent during the past five years, the ratio of 

offices per million people decreased 0.6 percent from 

2008 to 2009. Notwithstanding the current-year 

decrease, the number of offices per million people 

remains relatively high at 322, second highest since 

1994.3 In contrast, growth in domestic deposits per 

office accelerated during the year. Deposits per office 

increased 7.3 percent in 2009, more than double the 

2.8 percent growth rate of 2008 and well above the 

five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 

4.5 percent.4

3

 SOD data before 1994 are not available electronically. 

4

 The CAGR is the nth root of the percentage change, where n is the 

number of years in the period.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) 

and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) survey all 

FDIC-insured institutions to collect information on 

bank and thrift deposits and operating branches and 

offices each year as of June 30. The resulting Summary 

of Deposits (SOD) is a valuable resource for analyzing 

deposit trends and measuring market concentrations at 

the national and local levels. This article highlights 

findings from the 2009 SOD data, focusing on national 

trends in domestic deposits and banking offices but also 

presenting some information by state, metropolitan 

area, and institution.1

Deposits Grew Faster, While Office Growth Slowed

Commercial banks and thrifts reported strong deposit 

growth during the year ending June 30, 2009, despite a 

slowdown in office growth. The volume of deposits at 

FDIC-insured institutions increased by 7.7 percent, 

compared with 4.8 percent a year ago and 3.9 percent 

in 2007 (see Chart 1).2 Meanwhile, the number of 

FDIC-insured institution offices rose only 0.4 percent 

during the year, a net increase of 411 offices. This 

increase—the smallest since 1996—is well below the 

2.0 percent and 2.7 percent increases in 2008 and 2007, 

respectively.

Branch network expansion may have slowed as a result 

of the industry’s efforts to reduce expenses during a time 

of economic recession. For the first two quarters of 

2009, salaries and employee benefits expense decreased 

2.5 percent from the same period a year ago, while 

premises and fixed-asset expense decreased 2.4 percent. 

Many FDIC-insured institutions also have reduced 

1

 This analysis reflects updates in SOD data as of October 8, 2009. 

All FDIC-insured institutions that operate branch offices beyond their 

home office and that are required to file a financial report with one of 

the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council agencies must 

submit responses to SOD surveys to the FDIC or the OTS. Automated 

teller machines are not considered offices for the purposes of the 

survey. Call Report information on unit banks (banks with a single 

headquarters office) has been combined with branch office data 

to form the SOD database, which can be accessed at 

http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/index.asp. 2

 Offices include those in the 50 states and the District of Columbia but 

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

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

Feature Article:

Highlights from the 2009 

Summary of Deposits Data

Chart 1

Number of Offices Domestic Deposits (Trillions of Dollars)

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

Deposits at FDIC-Insured Institutions Grew Faster,

while Office Growth Slowed

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

2Q94 2Q97 2Q00 2Q03 2Q06 2Q09

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Number of Offices

Domestic Deposits
FDIC Quarterly 30 2009, Volume 3, No. 4

deposits among offices located in metropolitan areas 

grew faster in 2009 than their longer-term five-year 

CAGR, while current-year deposit growth for offices 

located in micropolitan and “other” areas lagged their 

respective five-year CAGRs.

Office growth also was centered in metropolitan areas, 

although the pace of office expansion in these areas 

slowed considerably compared to a year ago. Indeed, 

office growth in metropolitan areas was approximately 

one-third the 2008 increase. The number of offices in 

both micropolitan areas and other areas actually 

decreased during the year ending June 30, 2009.

“Other” Office Types Grew Fastest During the 

Past Year

Although traditional brick-and-mortar offices make up 

90 percent of all commercial banking offices, the SOD 

surveys all banking offices, including retail (e.g., offices 

in supermarkets or other stores), drive-through offices, 

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

comprises primarily mobile or seasonal offices and those 

that provide back-office support for Internet deposit 

operations, posted the highest growth rate during the 

past year, followed by retail offices (see Table 2).7 This 

is the first year since 2006 that the “other” office category has posted the highest growth rate.

7

 Office type information is not provided for OTS-supervised institutions.

Metropolitan Areas Attracted Greater Deposit 

Growth Than Smaller Cities and Rural Areas

Deposit and office growth continue to be concentrated 

in metropolitan areas. As of June 30, 2009, about 78 

percent of offices and 89 percent of domestic deposits 

were located in metropolitan areas (see Table 1).5 The 

one-year percentage increase in deposits among offices 

located in metropolitan areas was more than double 

the increase for offices located in micropolitan areas—

smaller cities and towns—or “other” areas.6 In addition, 

5

 Metropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters of greater than 

50,000 inhabitants. 

6

 Micropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters of between 10,000 

and 50,000 inhabitants, and “other” areas have populations of 10,000 

or fewer inhabitants.

Chart 2

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

Moody’s Economy.com.

Offices per Million People

Domestic Deposits per Office

(Millions of Dollars)

Banks and Thrifts Slowed Branch Network Expansion,

yet Deposit Growth Increased

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

2Q94 2Q97 2Q00 2Q03 2Q06 2Q09

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Offices per million people

Domestic deposits per office

Table 1

Larger Population Centers Have Experienced the Most Rapid Office and Deposit Growth

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 2004 67,072 4,745 11,642 411 9,745 260

June 2008 75,424 6,173 12,270 476 9,833 307

June 2009 75,945 6,681 12,159 494 9,832 318

1-Year Growth Rate 0.7% 8.2% -0.9% 3.6% 0.0% 3.6%

5-Year Compound Growth Rate 2.5% 7.1% 0.9% 3.7% 0.2% 4.2%

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

Notes: Metropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters of greater than 50,000 or more inhabitants. Each micropolitan statistical area has an urban cluster of between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants. Other areas have less population. See Census Bureau for more details.
FDIC Quarterly 31 2009, Volume 3, No. 4

Summary of Deposits

percent during the year ending June 30, 2009, 

compared with only 1 percent for large organizations. 

However, large organizations continue to report the 

largest share of banking offices and domestic deposits 

among insured banks and thrifts.

Deposit and office growth occurs not only from expansion of existing branch networks and collection of additional deposits through those networks, but also from 

mergers and other business combinations. Although it 

is difficult to disaggregate the independent contributions of each of these factors, recent growth patterns 

suggest that most of the movement between categories, 

on an institution basis, consisted of smaller organizations growing into or being acquired by midsized organizations. The number of large organizations—113—

was coincidentally the same in 2004, 2008, and 2009; 

however, the composition of the group changed 

between these periods.

Midsized Organizations Reported the Strongest 

Office and Deposit Growth

Midsized organizations (those with between $1 billion 

and $10 billion in total assets as of June 30, 2009) 

significantly outpaced larger and smaller organizations 

in both deposit growth and branch expansion during 

the year ending June 30, 2009 (see Table 3). The 2009 

deposit growth rate for midsized organizations was 

almost four times that of small organizations and 1.4 

times that of large organizations. In addition, the 

volume of deposits among midsized banks and thrifts 

grew at approximately double the pace of its five-year 

compound annual growth rate.

Office growth exhibited a similar pattern. The pace of 

office expansion among midsized organizations was 

considerably stronger than in larger organizations, while 

branches of smaller organizations declined. Midsized 

organizations expanded their branch network by 3.6 

Table 2

The Number of “Other” Banking Offices Rose Sharply Last Year

Brick and Mortar 

Offices Retail Offices

Drive-Through 

Facilities

Other Office 

Types Total

June 2004 66,697 4,359 2,845 577 74,478

June 2008 75,720 4,992 2,366 606 83,684

June 2009 78,150 5,338 2,330 662 86,480

1-Year Growth Rate 3.2% 6.9% -1.5% 9.2% 3.3%

5-Year Compound Growth Rate 3.2% 4.1% -3.9% 2.8% 3.0%

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

Note: Commercial banks only. 

Table 3

Midsized Organizations Reported the Greatest Deposit and Office Growth During the Past Year

Large Organizations Midsized Organizations Small Organizations

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 2004 113 39,875 3,404 461 17,405 923 8,487 31,859 1,084

June 2008 113 46,888 4,688 551 19,590 1,074 7,770 32,039 1,188

June 2009 113 47,378 5,078 574 20,294 1,187 7,491 31,257 1,221

1-Year Growth Rate 0.0% 1.0% 7.6% 4.3% 3.6% 10.5% -3.6% -2.4% 2.8%

5-Year Compound 

Growth Rate 0.0% 3.5% 8.2% 4.5% 3.1% 5.2% -2.5% -0.4% 2.6%

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

Notes: Small organizations are those with consolidated deposits less than $1 billion. Midsized organizations are those with consolidated deposits of $1 billion to $10 billion. Large organizations 

are those with consolidated deposits greater then $10 billion.
FDIC Quarterly 32 2009, Volume 3, No. 4

two quarters was only 64 percent of the rate reported 

during the first half of 2008.

Office Growth Followed State Demographic Trends

Studies have shown that office growth is related to 

demographic factors such as population, employment, 

and per capita income growth.9 In general, states with a 

faster growing population have experienced greater 

office growth over the past five years.10 For example, six 

of the ten states with the fastest population growth also 

ranked among the top ten states for office growth 

during the past five years. Likewise, of the ten states 

with the lowest population growth, six ranked among 

the bottom ten for office growth.

Deposit volumes, however, are driven by other factors, 

such as state law. Institutions also may follow different 

procedures when assigning deposits to branches, such as 

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 determining employee compensation. The 

factors affecting office and deposit growth have contrib9

 See Ron Spieker, “Bank Branch Growth Has Been Steady—

Will It Continue?” FDIC Future of Banking Study, August 2004, 

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/future/fob_08.pdf. 10 The five-year compound growth rate in the number of offices by 

state has a correlation coefficient of 0.63 to the five-year compound 

growth rate in population by state. The correlation coefficient is a 

statistic that measures the degree to which two or more data series 

move together. 

The Number of Banking Organizations with 

Operations in Multiple States Increased

Banks and thrifts continue to slowly push toward a 

50-state franchise. Although no banking organization, 

even the largest or most geographically diverse, operates 

in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the 

number that operate in at least 15 states increased from 

12 to 14 during the year (see Table 4). As banking 

organizations grow larger, they may encounter nationwide deposit concentration limits.8

Overall, the number of FDIC-insured commercial banks 

and savings institutions declined from 8,451 to 8,195 

during the year. This decrease of 256 institutions was 

significantly greater than the decrease of 163 institutions during the prior year. The decline in the number 

of institutions reflects the long-term trend of industry 

consolidation and the increase in bank failures during 

the current economic downturn. The decline in merger 

and acquisition activity among insured institutions is 

also likely a reflection of the current economic environment. The 89 mergers and acquisitions during the past 

8

 Concentration limits are set forth in the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, as codified by the FDIC in 

Section 44 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The Act states in part 

that bank regulatory agencies cannot approve an interstate merger 

transaction if the resulting bank (including all insured depository institutions that are affiliates of the resulting bank), upon consummation 

of the transaction, would control more than 10 percent of the total 

amount of deposits of insured depository institutions in the United 

States, with certain exceptions. 

Table 4

More Banking Organizations Are Operating in 15 or More States

Company

Number of States 

with Deposit Offices

Reported Number of 

Deposit Offices

Domestic Deposits 

($ billions)

Share of Total 

Domestic Deposits 

(%)

Wells Fargo & Company 40 6,691 759.7 10%

Bank of America Corporation 36 6,221 907.4 12%

Jpmorgan Chase & Co. 24 5,07  639.8 

U.S. Bancorp 24 2,898 152.0 2%

Bnp Paribas 20 70  42.8 

First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. 17 391 14.4 0

Dickinson Financial Corporation 17 214 4.5 0%

Northern Trust Corporation 17 94 23.6 0%

Capitol Bancorp Ltd. 17 77 4.7 0%

Regions Financial Corporation 16 1,882 93.7 1%

Pnc Financial Services Group 15 2,72  188.1 

Citigroup Inc. 15 1,023 317.5 4%

Keycorp 15 999 67.4 1%

Woodforest Financial Group, Inc. 15 655 2.8 0%

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

Note: See SOD instructions for definition of deposit offices. 
FDIC Quarterly 33 2009, Volume 3, No. 4

Summary of Deposits

reported a combined deposit market share of 51 percent 

for the Pittsburgh metropolitan area as of June 30, 2009. 

In the Cincinnati metropolitan area, two institutions 

(Fifth Third Bank and U.S. Bank) controlled 58 

percent of total deposits. Three institutions (Bank of 

America N.A., Wells Fargo N.A., and Citibank N.A.) 

controlled 63 percent of total deposits in the San Francisco metropolitan area.

Conclusion

This article summarizes recent trends in the deposits and 

offices of FDIC-insured institutions. While both offices 

and deposits tend to grow over time in relation to demographic factors, such as population, other factors such as 

economic conditions and competition are at work as 

well. Growth in the number of offices slowed in the year 

ending June 30, 2009, but deposits grew faster than 

during the previous year. Both trends may be related to 

the economic and financial turmoil that affected the 

operating environment for banks and thrifts. These divergent trends speak to the fact that growth in deposits is 

not determined solely by growth in the number of offices.

Midsized institutions reported the fastest deposit growth 

of any size group during the year. This trend is largely 

explained by the acquisition of smaller institutions by 

midsized institutions and the organic growth of smaller 

institutions into midsized institutions. Meanwhile, 

certain large institutions continue to exert significant 

local market power. The three banking organizations 

with the largest branch networks report 18 percent of 

uted to divergent office and deposit growth rates across 

the nation (see Maps 1 and 2).

One-Fifth of the Nation’s 25 Largest Metropolitan 

Areas Are Now “Highly Concentrated”

Continued industry consolidation has led to increased 

market concentration in many of the nation’s largest 

metropolitan areas. 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.11

As of June 30, 2009, 5 of the 25 largest metropolitan 

areas had an HHI in the “highly concentrated” range 

with a score of more than 1,800. Another 15 metropolitan areas had an HHI in the “moderately concentrated” range with a score between 1,000 and 1,800 

(see Table 5). Ten of the 25 largest metropolitan areas 

saw an increase in their HHI during the past year.

Market concentration increases as banking organizations dominate deposit market share in a metropolitan 

area. For instance, PNC Bank N.A. and National City 

Bank (both owned by PNC Financial Services Group) 

11 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. 

Five-year Compound Growth

Change in Number of Offices

-0.44% to 1.12%

1.13% to 1.38%

1.39% to 1.80%

1.81% to 2.58%

Source: FDIC. 2.59% to 5.58%

Office Growth Was Centered in the 

Southeast and Southwest

Map 1

Five-year Compound Growth

Change in Deposits

-3.15% to 4.25%

4.26% to 5.33%

5..34% to 6.45%

6.46% to 7.80%

Source: FDIC. 7.81% to 36.93%

Deposit Growth Was Weakest in the Midwest and New England

Map 2
FDIC Quarterly 34 2009, Volume 3, No. 4

banks and thrifts to expand their physical presence in 

order to reach more customers and provide them a 

higher level of service.

SOD data were publicly released on October 8, 2009, and 

are available to the public through the FDIC’s Web site 

at http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/index.asp. Available SOD 

data include information on the deposits and branching 

activities of individual FDIC-insured institutions, market 

share information, and various summary charts and tables.

Author: Robert E. Basinger, Senior Financial Analyst

The author would like to thank Michael Bachman, 

Economic Assistant, Division of Insurance and Research, 

for his contributions to this article.

the nation’s deposit offices but hold 31 percent of 

domestic deposits. In 5 of the nation’s 25 largest metropolitan areas, three or fewer institutions report a market 

share of more than 50 percent.

Expectations for future growth in bank offices may be 

modest as long as the industry continues to cope with 

weak earnings and high credit losses (see accompanying 

Quarterly Banking Profile). However, after this process is 

complete, we should expect to see a new round of office 

growth as institutions compete for deposits to fund new 

lending activity. Other things being equal, we would 

expect office expansion to be most pronounced in the 

more competitive deposit markets, and less so in highly 

concentrated markets. As in other retail industries, 

competitive markets provide the greatest incentive for 

Table 5

Five of the Largest Metro 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, 2009)

Metropolitan Area

HerfindahlHirschman 

Index 

Population 

Estimate 

(Millions)

5-Year 

Compound 

Growth Rate 

in Offices 

(Percent)

5-Year 

Compound 

Growth Rate 

in Deposits 

(Percent)

Pittsburgh, PA 2,863 2.3 0.3 6.1

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 2,015 2.2 2.2 4.8

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 2,012 4.3 2.4 6.9

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 1,878 6.4 6.2 11.1

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 1,875 3.3 2.6 7.9

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 1,792 2.1 4.7 12.7

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 1,603 4.4 6.5 6.4

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 1,455 5.8 5.4 7.1

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 1,417 4.4 1.3 4.1

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 1,291 2.2 2.0 6.8

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 1,238 19.1 2.6 4.6

Baltimore-Towson, MD 1,202 2.7 1.8 6.0

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 1,186 5.5 1.8 7.3

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 1,184 3.0 3.3 3.6

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 1,120 4.2 4.9 3.5

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 1,098 3.4 1.5 4.8

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 1,062 5.4 3.7 6.7

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 1,055 5.9 1.1 9.3

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 1,019 2.7 3.3 7.3

Denver-Aurora, CO 1,008 2.5 2.8 6.2

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 986 4.5 1.4 1.7

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 964 13.0 3.0 5.2

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 741 5.4 2.7 4.3

St. Louis, MO-IL 677 2.9 3.6 9.0

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 571 9.6 3.5 5.2

Sources: FDIC Summary of Deposits, 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.