FDIC Quarterly 37 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

• Growing population and geographic shifts in 

population,

• Banking crises,

• Federal and state legislative changes that relaxed 

branching laws, and

• Technological innovation and the rise of electronic 

banking.

This study discusses the notion of office density in 

terms of the number of offices per 10,000 people, facilitating a comparison of how “well-banked” an area is 

compared with other areas at particular points in time. 

It also takes a closer look at office growth in the most 

recent period from 2008 to 2014, using more detailed 

data to go beyond studying net changes and explore the 

components of gross openings and closings. Overall, the 

data provide a better understanding of how bank office 

trends affect community banks, as defined in the 2012 

FDIC Community Banking Study.

2

What are the key considerations in an institution’s 

decision to open or close an office? Many of the factors 

that determine where to open a new office are specific 

to the institution and the market in which it operates: 

its business strategy, competition, experience, real estate 

costs, and the demographics of the market. Other 

factors, such as traffic flow and access to a site from 

nearby roads, are also considered. For an office that is 

already operating, the institution has data on transactions volume and profitability that can be used when 

determining whether it should be closed. The collective 

decisions of individual institutions to open and close 

offices create the geographic distribution of offices 

across cities, counties, states, and ultimately the nation.

The number of offices in the United States has 

increased over the long term. The interval between 

1935 and 2014 can be divided into five distinct periods: 

two periods of expansion and three periods of contraction (see Chart 1). The two expansions occurred 

between 1945 and 1989, and between 1995 and 2009. 

Contractions occurred between 1935 and 1945, and 

between 1989 and 1995, and another that began in 

2009. Far more offices have been added during 

2

 FDIC, 2012 FDIC Community Banking Study (Washington, DC: 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, December 2012), https://www.

fdic.gov/regulations/resources/cbi/report/cbi-full.pdf.

The lobbies, tellers, drive-through lanes, and vaults 

associated with physical banking offices have long 

represented the public face of U.S. banks and thrift 

institutions. These offices have traditionally provided 

customers with a full spectrum of financial transactions 

that support the ordinary business of life: cashing a 

check, getting a small business loan, applying for a 

mortgage, opening a savings account. Over time, the 

spread of automated teller machines (ATMs), the rise 

of online and mobile banking, and the formation of 

nonbank sources of credit and transaction services have 

reduced customers’ day-to-day dependence on physical 

offices. Nonetheless, as of June 2014, some 6,669 banks 

and thrifts continued to operate 94,725 brick-andmortar offices, providing testament to the enduring 

value of physical access to banking services in an 

increasingly virtual banking world.

This report chronicles long-term trends in the banking 

offices—the headquarters and branches operated by 

federally insured banks and thrift institutions—from 

1935 to 2014.1 While the number of offices and their 

density relative to population are estimated back to 

1935, this report focuses on the period from 1987 to 

2014. The availability of detailed, office-level data for 

federally insured banks and thrifts during this period 

provided the FDIC the ability to explore how population and economic growth, as well as technological and 

legislative forces, have shaped the nation’s bank office 

footprint over almost three decades.

The long-term growth of offices in the United States is 

highlighted in three distinct cyclical periods since 1987. 

The total number of offices declined nearly every year 

between 1989 and 1995, and again between 2009 and 

2014. These two periods of decline bracketed a period 

of significant expansion between 1995 and 2009, when 

the total number of offices increased each year. This 

expansion varied geographically and occurred along 

with the rise of large branch office networks. Four main 

factors contributed to changes in the distribution of 

offices since 1987:

1

 In this paper, “office” refers to the deposit-taking headquarters and 

branch offices of federally insured banks and thrifts that are identified 

in the FDIC’s annual Summary of Deposits survey. For years before 

1987, offices are identified from historical sources. For the Summary 

of Deposits definition of “office,” see the 2014 Summary of Deposits 

Reporting Instructions, p. 9, https://www2.fdic.gov/sod/pdf/

SOD_Instructions.pdf.

Brick-and-Mortar Banking Remains Prevalent 

in an Increasingly Virtual World
FDIC Quarterly 38 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

Population declined or stagnated in some large metros 

between 1987 and 2013, and nearly all of these cities saw 

declines in the number of offices. The ten large metro areas 

in Table 3 that lost the largest percentage of population 

expansions than have been removed during contractions, so that the total number of offices increased by 

67,222, or 244 percent, between 1935 and 2014.

Office growth has outpaced the nation’s population 

growth over the long term and has tended to follow 

regional migration patterns. Between 1970 and 2014, 

the U.S. population grew by over 50 percent, while the 

number of offices more than doubled. Much of the 

nation’s population growth occurred in the Sunbelt 

states of the South and West and many of these states 

also experienced strong office growth.

Domestic migration since 1991 has tended to be from 

states in the Northeast and Midwest to those in the 

South and West, as shown in Table 1. The patterns of 

office changes observed in the Northeast and the South 

suggest that migration can exert a strong influence on 

where banks locate offices. The Midwest appears to be 

an outlier. While net migration to the Midwest was 

negative, the institutions there nevertheless added 

offices. Factors other than population that help explain 

the growth in offices are explored in subsequent sections.

Most offices in the United States are located in metropolitan (metro) areas, and most of the net office growth 

since 1987 has occurred in metro areas. Just over 

79 percent of offices in 2014 were located in metro 

areas, up from 77.8 percent in 1987, with 11 percent 

located in micropolitan (micro) areas and the remaining 10 percent located in rural areas.3

 Over 90 percent 

of the net growth in offices since 1987 occurred in 

metro areas, 7 percent occurred in micro areas, and 

slightly more than 2 percent in rural areas. Four of the 

ten large metropolitan areas that experienced the greatest proportional growth in offices during this period 

were located in Texas.4 Six of the ten large metros that 

experienced the greatest proportional loss of offices 

were located in California.

The ten metropolitan areas with the largest proportional increases in population between 1987 and 2013 

were located primarily in the Sunbelt. All but one of 

these metros saw at least 32 percent growth in offices 

between 1987 and 2014 (see Table 2).

3

 The metropolitan and micropolitan area definitions used in this study 

are from the Office of Management and Budget’s 2013 definitions, 

which are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

omb/bulletins/2013/b-13-01.pdf. The most recent metro area population data are from 2013. A few dozen offices are located outside of 

the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, in other U.S. 

territories or outlying areas that are not assigned a metropolitan, 

micropolitan, or rural designation.

4

 Large metros had at least 500,000 people in 2013.

Net Domestic Migration

Has Favored the South and West

Region

Annual Average 

Net Domestic 

Migration, 

1991–2014

Absolute Change 

in Offices,

1991–2014

Northeast -266,512 -232

Midwest -128,922 2,949

West 28,828 1,390

South 366,606 5,570

Sources: FDIC and U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 1

Retail Ofces of U.S. Commercial Banks and Thrifts

Have Increased Over Time

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Expansion Cycle

Contraction Cycle

Historical sources include: FDIC, Historical Statistics on Banking; U.S. League of  Savings 

Associations, Savings and Loan Fact Book; America’s Community Bankers, Savings 

Institution Sourcebook.

Total Number of U.S. Bank and Thrift Offices, 1935–2014 

1935 1941 1947 1953 1959 1965 1971 1977 1983 1989 1995 2001 2007 2013

Based on Historical Sources (1935–1950) 

Every Five Years

Based on Historical Sources (1935–1994)

Based on FDIC Summary of Deposits (1987–2014)

Chart 1

The Number of Ofces Has Been Highly Cyclical

Since the 1980s

Total Number of U.S. Bank and Thrift Offices, 1989–2014

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

Source: FDIC.

5.7% decline

in banking

offices

22.9% growth

in banking

offices

4.8% decline

in banking

offices

1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Chart 2
FDIC Quarterly 39 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

Brick-and-Mortar Banking 

1989.5 Growth began to slow down in the early 1980s 

and plateaued in the late 1980s, before it contracted 

between 1989 and 1995. Sustained growth in the 

number of offices reemerged between 1995 and 2009, 

before once again declining after the financial crisis. 

The decline from 2009 through 2014 has been about 

as large in absolute terms as that which occurred from 

1989 to 1995 (see Chart 2).

5

 In 1982, the number of offices declined by 0.3 percent.

between 1987 and 2013, or gained only a small percentage, 

are located primarily in post-industrial sections of northeastern and midwestern states. The fact that New Orleans 

experienced the second-largest proportional decline in 

population speaks to the extraordinary effects of 

Hurricane Katrina.

Office growth has become more cyclical since the 

1980s. The total number of U.S. banking offices 

expanded almost continuously between 1945 and 

The Top Ten Large Metro Areas by Population Growth Have Tended to See 

Growth in Banking Offices

Metro

Percent Change in 

Population,

1987–2013

Percent Change in 

Banking Offices,

1987–2014

Absolute Change in 

Banking Offices,

1987–2014

Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 231.5 169.9 231

Raleigh, NC 145.6 35.4 79

Austin-Round Rock, TX 133.2 91.9 228

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 127.7 135.9 87

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 123.9 42.7 67

Provo-Orem, UT 119.5 32.8 21

Boise City, ID 114.1 82.2 83

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 109.6 57.8 214

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 109.2 36.6 241

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 106.4 9.6 52

Sources: FDIC and U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 2

The Bottom Ten Large Metro Areas by Population Growth Have Tended to See 

Declines in Banking Offices

Metro

Percent Change in 

Population,

1987–2013

Percent Change in 

Banking Offices,

1987–2014

Absolute Change in 

Banking Offices,

1987–2014

Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA -10.3 -15.5 -34

New Orleans-Metairie, LA -6.5 -14.0 -59

Pittsburgh, PA -5.4 -11.5 -111

Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY -3.9 2.8 8

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, PA -2.4 12.4 25

Cleveland-Elyria, OH -2.3 -12.1 -97

Toledo, OH -0.8 -18.9 -41

Dayton, OH 0.8 -12.1 -31

San Juan-Carolina-Caguas, PRa 1.1 -3.5 -10

Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 1.3 -3.7 -42

Sources: FDIC and U.S. Census Bureau.

a

 Population change in Puerto Rico is from 1991 to 2013.

Table 3
FDIC Quarterly 40 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

the pattern of office growth has not been uniform across 

the country (see Map 1). From 1987 to 2014, the 

number of banking offices declined in 13 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, while offices 

increased in 37 states. The states that gained the most 

offices during this period lie in a band that stretches 

through the Midwest from Minnesota to Texas, and that 

also includes the southeastern states of Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida. In cases such as Texas, where population increased 62 percent, and Florida, where population 

increased 66 percent, large increases in population help 

explain increases in the number of bank offices.

Legislative changes have been an important driver of 

geographic differences in office growth since the 

1980s. One of the most important legislative changes 

affecting the geography of banking since the 1980s has 

been the relaxation of state unit banking laws.6 In 1979, 

12 states were unit banking states that prohibited 

branching outright: Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

6

 Unit banking states prohibited banks from branching.

Like the period that followed the Great Depression, 

the two recent periods of decline in banking offices 

followed major banking crises. Each of these crisis periods was characterized by weak earnings and bank failures, and many institutions were forced to make tough 

decisions about their use of physical assets. By contrast, 

the intervening periods of stability were characterized 

by relatively strong earnings and few failures, enabling 

many institutions to pursue strategies of growth and 

expansion. Between 1943 and 1981, the number of 

FDIC-insured bank failures averaged fewer than five per 

year. However, the onset of problems in the banking 

and thrift industries in the early 1980s raised the average number of bank failures to 180 per year between 

1982 and 1994. After this crisis subsided, the annual 

number of failures fell once again to fewer than five 

per year on average between 1995 and 2007. The onset 

of the 2008 financial crisis brought about an increase in 

failures, with over 100 bank failures on average each 

year between 2008 and 2012.

Expansion and contraction of offices varied geographically across the United States. As might be expected, 

Most States Have Gained Ofces Since 1987

Net Gains and Losses in Bank and Thrift Ofces, by State, 1987–2014

Source: FDIC.

States by Net Change in Offices, 1987–2014

Lost Offices (15)

Gained < 350 Offices (25)

Gained > 350 Offices (12)

Map 1
FDIC Quarterly 41 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

Brick-and-Mortar Banking 

Before Riegle-Neal, the permissibility of interstate 

acquisitions varied by state.11

Both large and small institutions were able to expand 

geographically as restrictions were relaxed. The effects 

were especially pronounced in the years between the 

passage of Riegle-Neal and its nationwide implementation in 1997, when the banking industry experienced its highest annual rates of voluntary charter 

consolidation.12 Banking consolidation during this 

period led to more expansive geographic footprints 

and larger office networks. In 1987, prior to the relaxation of interstate banking restrictions, large institutions (those with at least $10 billion in total assets) 

operated offices in only 1.8 states on average. Chart 3 

shows that these large institutions substantially 

expanded the number of states in which they operated 

offices beginning around the same time that interstate 

banking restrictions were relaxed nationally; Chart 4 

shows that the size of their office networks began to 

rise about the same time.

11 Some states permitted de novo entry by out-of-state institutions, 

others permitted entry via acquisition by out-of-state institutions 

regardless of where they were headquartered, and others permitted 

entry only to out-of-state banks headquartered in certain regions of the 

country. See History of the Eighties—Lessons for the Future, vol. 1, 

chap. 2 (Washington, DC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

1997), p. 130, https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/87_136.pdf. 12 Benjamin R. Backup and Richard A. Brown, “Community Banks 

Remain Resilient Amid Industry Consolidation,” FDIC Quarterly, Vol. 8, 

No. 2 (2014), p. 34, Chart 2, https://fdic.gov/bank/analytical/

quarterly/2014_vol8_2/article.pdf.

Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.7 By 

1991, all of these former unit banking states had 

removed these restrictions.8 As branching restrictions 

were removed, many of these states saw large increases 

in total banking offices. Of the ten states that gained 

the most banking offices between 1987 and 2014, five 

were former unit banking states and five were states 

that had imposed other types of geographic restrictions 

on branching as of 1979.9 The number of offices in the 

12 unit banking states increased more than 1.5 percent 

from 1989 to 1995, during a time when the total 

number of U.S. banking offices was contracting.

Another result of legislative change was the nationwide 

expansion of interstate banking. The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 

(Riegle-Neal) established a uniform standard by which 

an institution headquartered in one state could branch 

into, or acquire banks in, any other state, and allowed 

institutions operating subsidiary charters in different 

states to combine them into a single interstate bank.10

7

 David L. Mengle, “The Case for Interstate Branch Banking,” Economic 

Review (November/December 1990): p. 6, https://www.richmondfed.

org/publications/research/economic_review/1990/pdf/er760601.pdf. 8

 B. A. Rehm, “Colorado Ready to Finally Allow Branch Banking,” 

American Banker (May 10, 1991).

9

 Mengle, “Interstate Branch Banking,” 6. Pennsylvania is an example 

of a state with some historical geographic restrictions on branching: 

Banks were permitted to branch only into counties contiguous with the 

county in which they were headquartered. See Jith Jayaratne and 

Philip E. Strahan, “The Benefits of Branching Deregulation,” Economic 

Policy Review 3, no. 4 (1997): p. 14, http://www.newyorkfed.org/

research/epr/97v03n4/9712jaya.pdf. 10 Susan McLaughlin, “The Impact of Interstate Banking and Branching 

Reform: Evidence from the States,” Current Issues in Economics and 

Finance 1, no. 2 (1995): p. 1, http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/

current_issues/ci1-2.pdf.

Large Banks Expanded Their Geographic Scope After

the Relaxation of Geographic Restrictions on Branching 

Average Number of States in Which an Institution Operates Offices, 1987–2014

Source: FDIC.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 

Banks Less Than $10 Billion 

Banks More Than $10 Billion 

Riegle-Neal

Enacted

1.8 

1.1 

5.9 

1.0 

Chart 3

Large Banks, in Particular, Grew the Size of Their Ofce

Networks After the Relaxation of Geographic

Restrictions on Banking 

Average Size of Office Network, 1987–2014 

Source: FDIC.

Riegle-Neal

Enacted

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

450 

500 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 

Banks Less Than $10 Billion (Left Scale) 

Banks More Than $10 Billion (Right Scale) 

4 

186 

450 

7 

Chart 4
FDIC Quarterly 42 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

for consumers: According to data from the Pew 

Research Center, 61 percent of Internet users banked 

online in 2013, up from 44 percent in 2005, and 

18 percent in 2000.16 The past ten years have seen the 

advent of RDC, a technological alternative for one of 

the most common teller transactions: depositing checks. 

After the 2004 Check Clearing for the 21st Century 

Act, banks were authorized to accept electronic deposits 

based on digital images of checks. Most recently, the 

widespread adoption of internet-enabled smartphones 

and tablets has given even more impetus to the development of mobile banking and payments. In 2013, 

35 percent of cell phone users said they had used their 

phone to check their bank account or perform transactions, up from 18 percent in 2011.17

The cumulative effect of these new technologies has 

been a decline in the number of transactions taking 

place at physical banking offices. One study shows that 

the average number of teller transactions per office 

declined by 45 percent between 1992 and 2013, from 

11,700 transactions per month to 6,400.18 Using a 

credit or debit card has become more common than 

writing a check. According to Federal Reserve data, 

paper checks accounted for only 15 percent of noncash 

payments in 2012, down from 46 percent in 2003. By 

contrast, universal credit and debit cards accounted for 

58 percent of noncash payments in 2012, up from 

38 percent in 2003. The total number of noncash trans16 Susannah Fox, “51% of U.S. Adults Bank Online,” Pew Research 

Center (August 7, 2013), p. 9, http://www.pewinternet.org/files/oldmedia//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_OnlineBanking.pdf. 17 Ibid, p. 10. Pew first asked about mobile banking in 2011. 18 Financial Management Solutions Inc., 2013 FMSI Teller Line Study

(N.P., 2013), http://www.fmsi.com/fullpanel/uploads/files/2013-fmsiteller-line-study-white-paper-00001.pdf.

Another ramification of consolidation was the rise of 

very large office networks.13 In 1987, only one federally 

insured banking institution operated a network with 

more than 1,000 offices; most offices were operated by 

banks and thrifts that had fewer than 50 offices each. 

By 2014, 11 institutions operated about one-third of 

all U.S. banking offices, with networks of more than 

1,000 offices each (see Chart 5).

Amid demographic and legislative changes that helped 

reshape branch banking in the United States, farreaching changes in technology have been transforming how people access banking services. In recent 

decades, technology has introduced a variety of new 

ways for customers to access their accounts and interact 

with their banks. The important banking technologies 

introduced over the past 50 years include:

• ATMs;

• credit and debit cards;

• telephone banking;

• remote deposit capture (RDC)—scanning checks 

from a home or business and sending them to the 

bank electronically for deposit;

• online (internet) banking—accessing a bank 

account via a laptop, desktop, or tablet computer; 

and

• mobile banking—accessing a bank account via cell 

phone or smartphone.

ATMs made their U.S. debut in 1969 and soon spread 

across the nation, reaching 425,000 by 2010.14 Universal credit cards became more common in the 1970s, 

followed by debit cards in the 1990s, giving consumers 

new payment alternatives at the point of sale.15 Telephone banking appeared in the 1970s, followed by the 

beginning of online banking in the 1990s. Online 

banking has become an increasingly popular channel 

13 For more about consolidation among FDIC-insured banks and thrifts, 

see Backup and Brown, “Community Banks Remain Resilient Amid 

Industry Consolidation.”

14 National ATM Council Inc., http://natmc.org/documents/2012/10/

about-the-atm-industry.pdf. 15 For credit cards see Thomas A. Durkin, “Credit Cards: Use and 

Consumer Attitudes, 1970–2000,”Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 

2000, pp. 624–625, http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/

bulletin/2000/0900lead.pdf. For debit cards see Fumiko Hayashi, 

Richard Sullivan, and Stuart E. Weiner, “A Guide to the ATM and Debit 

Card Industry,”Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2003, pp. 41–42, 

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/psr/bksjournarticles/atmpaper.pdf.

Consolidation Has Moved Ofces Into

Large Ofce Networks

Total Offices of Banks and Thrifts, 

by Office Network Size of Institution,1987–2014

Source: FDIC.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012

>1,000

51–1,000

1–50

Size of

Office

Network 

31,874

26,905

35,946

Chart 5
FDIC Quarterly 43 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

Brick-and-Mortar Banking 

evidence that new banking technologies may represent 

substitutes for those banking offices in serving bank 

customers. But if physical banking offices are as prevalent or more prevalent today than they were in the past, 

then perhaps technology should not be viewed as a 

perfect substitute for brick-and-mortar banking offices.

actions grew by 50 percent from 2003 to 2012, as the 

number of checks written declined.19

Even with the innovations of the past 50 years, consumers continue to value and use physical banking offices. 

Today there are more banking offices per capita than in 

1970, when many of today’s most popular electronic 

banking alternatives either did not yet exist or were not 

yet widely available. Moreover, according to the 2013 

FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households, visiting a teller remains the most common 

way for households to access their accounts.20 Although 

mobile banking would appear to be an appealing substitute for bank office visits, and is a fast-growing option, 

it remains one of the least common ways for consumers 

to access their accounts.21 Among households that 

preferred online or mobile banking, most also reported 

visiting tellers to access their accounts.22

Nonetheless, as alternative payment and banking methods become more mainstream, fewer transactions are 

being conducted at offices. The rise of RDC, more 

sophisticated ATM terminals, and the proliferation of 

smartphones appear to be reducing the frequency with 

which bank customers are visiting their local branch to 

perform simple transactions. Moreover, the frequency of 

visits is lower for younger individuals. A recent survey 

indicates that 19 percent of people ages 18 to 29 visited 

a bank or credit union branch in the previous week, 

compared with 29 percent of those ages 30 to 49.23

However, the available data on balance show that most 

bank customers continue to place value on physical 

offices as part of a diverse suite of retail banking options.

In order to evaluate how technological alternatives may 

affect the total number of physical banking offices, a 

measure of how prevalent those offices are relative to 

the total demand for banking services is needed. If 

physical banking offices were indeed becoming less 

prevalent over time, then that would provide some 

19 Federal Reserve System, The 2013 Federal Reserve Payments 

Study—Summary Report and Initial Data Release (Federal Reserve 

System, 2013, revised July 2014), p. 42, http://www.frbservices.org/

files/communications/pdf/general/2013_fed_res_paymt_study_

summary_rpt.pdf. 20 FDIC, 2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked 

Households (Washington, DC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

October 2014), p. 53, Figure 8.1, https://fdic.gov/householdsurvey/

2013report.pdf. 21 Ibid.

22 Ibid, p. 59, Table 8.3. 23 Chris Kahn, “March 2014 Financial Security Survey,” BankRate.com 

(2014), N.P., http://www.bankrate.com/finance/consumer-index/

financial-security-charts-0314.aspx.

Types of Banking Offices

Not all physical banking offices take the same form. 

According to the 2014 FDIC Summary of Deposits 

survey, more than 90 percent of total banking offices 

take the form of stand-alone, full-service offices. At a 

distant second are those offices located in another 

retail establishment, such as a grocery store (see 

Chart  6). Together, in-store offices and stand-alone 

offices make up 96 percent of the offices operated by 

FDIC-insured institutions.

Historical sources suggest that in-store branches were 

rare among commercial banks until they boomed in 

the late 1980s. The number of these offices grew an 

average of nearly 30 percent per year from 1986 to 

1996.a Although in-store offices can cost considerably 

less to open (from one-fifth to one-third of the startup 

cost of a stand-alone office), for many banks they tend 

to generate fewer loans and deposits—and thus less 

income—than stand-alone, full-service offices.b

Chart 6

Ninety-Six Percent of Ofces Are Stand-Alone or

Located Within a Retail Establishment

Percent of Total Offices, by Type of Office, June 2014

90.2%

5.8%

0.2% 1.1% 2.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stand-Alone

Full-Service

Offices

In-Store

Full-Service

Offices

Home

Banking

Offices

LimitedService

Drive-Through

Offices

Other

LimitedService

Offices Source: FDIC.

a

 Christopher A. Williams, “Banks Go Shopping for Customers,” 

The Regional Economist (October 1997), N.P., https://www.

stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=1789.

b

 “US Bank Excels in In-Store Banking” (Retail Banking Strategies,

February 2010); “BOK’s Decision to Ditch In-Store Branches 

Shows Banks’ Predicament” (Barlow Research Associates Inc., 

November 2014).
FDIC Quarterly 44 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

state restrictions on branching. States with the strongest 

restrictions on branching in 1979 saw an increase in 

office density once those restrictions were lifted, while 

states with some geographic restrictions on branching 

saw a decline in density equal to the national average. 

The largest decline in density after 1987 was observed 

among states that already allowed statewide branching 

in 1979. These results are consistent with the idea that 

unit banking laws had restricted the desired prevalence 

of banking offices in these states before 1987, and that 

the elimination of the restrictions contributed to 

increases in banking offices since then (see Chart 8).

Changes in the density of offices since the 1970s further 

suggest that new technologies have had, at best, 

a limited effect on the prevalence of offices. Because 

mobile, ATM, online, and other alternative banking 

channels reduce the number of transactions that require 

Measuring Office Density

There are a number of alternative ways one might 

attempt to measure the prevalence of physical banking 

offices. All of them are related in some way to population density. For example, because the population of 

New York City is more than 125 times greater than 

that of Bismarck, North Dakota, the fact that New York 

City has more banking offices than Bismarck does not 

necessarily mean that banking offices are more prevalent in New York. The density of banking offices should 

be expressed by a measure that scales the number of 

offices in different places so they can be compared. Past 

researchers have taken several approaches to make this 

comparison. A recent FDIC study estimated service 

areas for offices based on reasonable travel distances.24

Similarly, Ergungor (2010) calculated a measure of 

office access for Census tracts in Ohio that uses all 

offices within ten miles of a tract’s center.25

A simpler way to express the density of banking offices 

is to calculate the number of offices per 10,000 people 

for a location. Offices per 10,000 people is easy to 

construct and understand, and although other measures 

might include additional relevant variables, offices per 

10,000 people still can be used to make meaningful 

comparisons over time and across geographies. Chart 7 

depicts the density of banking offices between 1935 

and 2014 in terms of this definition.

The factors that determine the number of offices 

also help shape changes in density. Chart 7 shows 

that the density of banking offices increased from 2.2 

in 1970 to 2.9 in 2014—a period during which population grew by 56 percent and the number of offices grew 

by 109 percent. Thus the per capita density of offices 

increased by about one-third during a period when a 

number of important banking technologies were being 

introduced. Like the total number of banking offices, 

the density of banking offices follows cyclical patterns. 

Clear and substantial declines in office density were 

observed after the banking crises of the 1930s, the 

1980s, and the 2000s.

There is evidence that changes in density at the state 

level also have been influenced by the relaxation of 

24 Eric C. Breitenstein, Karyen Chu, Kathy Kalser, and Eric W. Robbins, 

“Minority Depository Institutions: Structure, Performance, and Social 

Impact,” FDIC Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3 (2014): p. 56. https://fdic.gov/

bank/analytical/quarterly/2014_vol8_3/mdi_study.pdf. 25 Ozgur Emre Ergungor, “Bank Branch Presence and Access to Credit 

in Low- to Moderate-Income Neighborhoods,” Journal of Money, 

Credit, and Banking, Vol. 42, No. 7 (October 2010): pp. 1327–28.

Ofce Density Has Declined in Recent Years,

but Remains Higher Than at Any Time Before 1977

Sources: FDIC and U.S. Census Bureau. Historical sources include: FDIC, Historical 

Statistics on Banking; U.S. League of  Savings Associations, Savings and Loan Fact Book; 

America’s Community Bankers, Savings Institution Sourcebook.

Estimated Number of Bank and Thrift Offices per 10,000 People, United States, 1935–2014

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1935 1941 1947 1953 1959 1965 1971 1977 1983 1989 1995 2001 2007 2013

2.2 

3.4 

2.9 

Based on Historical Sources (1935–1950) Every Five Years 

Based on Historical Sources (1935–1986) and FDIC Summary of Deposits 

(1987–2014) 

Chart 7

Ofce Density Declined Overall Between 1987 and 2014,

but Rose in Former Unit Banking States 

State Branching Category as of 1979 

0.2 

-0.5 

-0.9 

-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 

Unit Banking

Other Geographic Restrictions

on Branching

Statewide Branching

Change in Number of Bank and Thrift Offices

per 10,000 People From 1987 to 2014 

Nation

-0.5

Sources: FDIC and U.S. Census Bureau. 

Chart 8
FDIC Quarterly 45 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

Brick-and-Mortar Banking 

Per capita density can be used to compare the relative 

prevalence of physical banking services across geographies 

as well as over time. For the United States as a whole, the 

density of banking offices has declined by about 15 percent 

since 1987. But to the extent that the measure of density 

expresses how “well banked” a specific area is, one might 

expect to see less well banked areas become more dense 

over time, while more densely banked areas become less 

dense over time. To the extent that this is the case, the 

location of banking offices would represent a “meanreverting” process, where extremes to the high side or the 

low side are narrowed by market forces over time.

The data, however, suggest that changes in banking 

density over time at the state and county level are generally not mean-reverting. Chart 9 shows that changes in 

state-level density between 1987 and 2014 appear to be 

unrelated to the density of banking offices in each state 

at the beginning of the period. Similarly, Chart 10 shows 

that changes in county-level density between 1987 and 

2013 also were unrelated to density at the beginning of 

the period.a Taken together, these charts suggest that 

states and counties that started out with higher-thanaverage density tended to stay that way over time, as did 

states and counties with below-average density.

One reason why density tends not to be mean-reverting 

across states and counties is the presence of relatively 

stable long-term differences in density between metro, 

micro, and rural counties. Chart 11 shows that among 

these three county types, rural counties exhibit the highest average density, followed by micro counties, with 

metro counties showing the lowest average density. The 

intuition behind these differences seems clear: Because 

people live farther apart in less populated rural areas, a 

higher number of banking offices per 10,000 people is 

necessary to adequately serve those areas. Chart 11 also 

shows that the differences in density between county 

types have remained fairly stable over time. Average 

density in rural and micro counties, in particular, has 

declined very little since 1987. It takes about as many 

offices, in per capita terms, to serve rural and micro counties today as it did in 1987. By contrast, density in metro 

counties has undergone a 15 percent decline since 1987.

Part of the decline in U.S. office density that has taken 

place since the mid-1980s can be attributed to the multidecade trend of rural depopulation in the United States.b

Between 1980 and 2010, while the nation’s population 

was growing by 36 percent, half of U.S. rural counties lost 

population. Moreover, the depopulation trend actually 

accelerated compared with the period between 1970 and 

2000. With rural counties having an average office 

density that was nearly twice that of metro counties in 

2013, the movement of people out of rural counties and 

into metro counties had the effect of lowering the density 

of banking offices for the nation as a whole.

Chart 9

State-Level Ofce Density in 1987 Did Not Predict

Subsequent Changes in Density 

Percent Change in the Number of Bank and Thrift Offices per 10,000 People, 1987–2014

R2 = 0.0022

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

012345 6 7

Number of Offices per 10,000 People in 1987

Sources: FDIC and U.S. Census Bureau.

Note: Includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Chart 10

R2 = 0.0019

County-Level Ofce Density in 1987 Did Not Predict

Subsequent Changes in Density

Change in the Number of Bank and Thrift Offices per 10,000 People, 1987–2013

Number of Offices per 10,000 People in 1987

Sources: FDIC and U.S. Census Bureau.

Note: Includes counties of the 48 contiguous states.

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20 25

R2 = 0.0019

Chart 11

Differences in Average Density Across County Types

Have Remained Stable Over Time

Number of Bank and Thrift Offices per 10,000 People by County Type, 1987–2013

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

Metropolitan Counties Micropolitan Counties Rural Counties

5.1 5.0

4.1 3.9

3.3

2.8

Sources: FDIC and U.S. Census Bureau.

Changes in Density at the State and County Level

a

 The most recent county population data are from 2013.

b

 See John M. Anderlik and Richard D. Cofer Jr., “Long-Term 

Trends in Rural Depopulation and Their Implications for Community Banks,” FDIC Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2014), https://www.

fdic.gov/bank/analytical/quarterly/2014_vol8_2/article2.pdf.
FDIC Quarterly 46 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

a visit to a banking office, one might expect that banks 

should be able to operate fewer offices and still serve 

the same number of customers. However, at 2.9 offices 

per 10,000 people in 2014, the density of offices is 

currently greater than at any time before 1977, when 

many of today’s banking technologies were either not 

available or had not yet become mainstream. Despite 

the far-reaching innovations that have occurred in the 

delivery of banking services, the ongoing presence of 

large numbers of physical offices suggests that they still 

create real value in allowing banks to interact with 

their customers.

Components of Structural Change

In addition to the long-term trends in the number and 

location of offices, it is also important to understand the 

components of structural change between periods. For 

example, how many new offices were opened by existing banks versus new banks? How many offices were 

closed as a result of failures, mergers, or charter consolidations versus rationalization of branch structures by 

surviving institutions? The availability of more detailed 

data starting in 2008 allows for a closer look at changes 

in office structure that can address these issues.

FDIC-insured institutions opened and closed thousands 

of offices between 2008 and 2014.26 Chart 12 shows 

that just more than 11,000 unique offices were added 

to the FDIC’s Summary of Deposits survey during this 

six-year period, the vast majority of which were newly 

created offices, as opposed to pre-existing offices being 

newly added to the survey. Of the 15,500 offices that 

were closed over this period, just a small fraction were 

closed as a direct result of bank failures or mergers.

Another important recent trend has been a sustained 

slowdown in the number of newly created offices, which 

was exceeded in almost every year by the number of 

offices closed (see Charts 13 and 14). Office openings 

since 2008 have been held back in part by a lull in the 

creation of new banking charters, while office openings 

at existing institutions have also declined in a less than 

favorable economic environment. Only 15 new charters 

were established between 2010 and 2013, compared 

with 510 new charters between 2006 and 2009.27 Some 

26 Openings and closings are measured from June of each year.

27 Backup and Brown, “Community Banks Remain Resilient,” p. 35. 

New charters include de novo institutions, preexisting institutions that 

converted to an insured bank or thrift (such as conversions from 

credit unions), as well as any other newly insured banking institution 

that filed a year-end financial report.

FDIC-Insured Institutions Have Opened and Closed

Thousands of Ofces Since 2008 

Additions and Subtractions From Bank and Thrift Offices, by Source, 2008–2014 

Sources: FDIC.

-13,324 

-1,087 

-1,159 

1,010 

10,122 

-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 

All Other Closings 

Offices Closed Due 

to Mergers 

Offices Closed Due 

to Failures 

Offices Newly Added 

to Survey 

New Offices Opened 

Changes in Offices, 2008–2014

Net Change

2008–2014:

-4,438 

Chart 12

Gross Openings of Ofces Operated by FDIC-Insured

Institutions, 2008–2014

2,800

1,731 1,434 1,452 1,362 1,208

81

15

18

21

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Opened by Existing Banks Opened by New Banks

Source: FDIC.

Chart 13

Gross Closings of Ofces Operated by FDIC-Insured

Institutions, 2008–2014

Source: FDIC.

-2,018 -2,190 -2,021 -2,100 -2,291 -2,615

-625

-729

-230 -309 -171

-271

-3,500

-3,000

-2,500

-2,000

-1,500

-1,000

-500

0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Other Office Closings Closed After Merger or Failure

Chart 14
FDIC Quarterly 47 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

Brick-and-Mortar Banking 

charters declined by 45 percent between 1994 and 

2014, while the number of noncommunity bank charters declined by 71 percent. However, amid these 

substantial declines in banking charters, the number of 

community banking offices declined by just 6.5 percent, 

while the number of noncommunity banking offices 

increased by 36 percent (see Chart 17).30 The net result 

was an increase in the average size of the community 

bank office network, from 3.2 offices in 1994 to 

5.5 offices in 2014, while the average number of offices 

operated by noncommunity banks rose from 26.4 to 

123.5. So while community banks experienced modest 

increases in the size of their office networks, these 

networks remained at sizes that were generally more 

amenable to local control and decision-making than 

30 Change in banking charters and offices calculated from midyear 

1994 through midyear 2014.

large institutions have also recently announced plans to 

rationalize their branch structures as a means to control 

costs after the financial crisis, while others pared back 

office expansion plans.28

As a percent of offices operating in 2008, more openings and closings of banking offices occurred in metro 

areas between 2008 and 2014 than in micro or rural 

areas (see Chart 15). While 79 percent of offices were 

located in metro areas in 2008, some 85 percent of 

office closings and 89 percent of office openings 

through 2014 occurred in metro areas. By contrast, 

11 percent of offices located in micro areas in 2008 saw 

only 9 percent of office closings and 7 percent of office 

openings through 2014. Similarly, while 10 percent of 

offices were located in rural areas in 2008, rural areas 

saw only 6 percent of office closings and 4 percent of 

openings through 2014.

Notably, the data indicate that the majority of the 

offices operated by FDIC-insured institutions that fail or 

merge out of existence continue operating under new 

ownership after the failure or merger. About 78 percent 

of the offices of failed banks continued to report in the 

next Summary of Deposits survey, as did nearly 

85 percent of the offices operated by banks undergoing 

a voluntary merger or consolidation (see Chart 16).

Although banks of all sizes have closed offices since 

2008, office closings have been concentrated among 

just a few large institutions. Since 2008, just 15 institutions have accounted for one-third of all gross 

office closings. These 15 institutions include some 

of the nation’s largest banks, as well as large regional 

banks, two of which—Washington Mutual and 

Wachovia—failed or were forced to merge during the 

crisis. Other large institutions have pared back their 

extensive office networks as part of their post-crisis 

restructuring efforts. In all, just 52 institutions have 

accounted for one-half of office closings since 2008.

Trends in Community Bank Offices

Because of their focus on relationship banking, trends 

in office structure are particularly important for community banks.29 Amid a long-term trend of banking industry consolidation, the number of community bank 

28 J. Ma, “Wells Fargo Mulls Fewer Branches as Rivals Cut Back,” 

Investor’s Business Daily, March 7, 2012. 29 For the definition of “community bank,” see Chapter 1 of the FDIC 

Community Banking Study, 2012, https://fdic.gov/regulations/

resources/cbi/report/cbi-full.pdf.

The Vast Majority of Ofce Openings and Closings

Occur in Metro Areas

Offices Opened and Closed by FDIC-Insured Institutions, by Area, 2008–2014

Sources: FDIC.

-13,292

-1,372

-890

9,049

670

400

-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Rural

Micro

Metro

Closings Openings

Chart 15

A Majority of Ofces Continue to Operate

Immediately After a Bank Exit

78.4% 84.6%

60.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bank Failure Bank Voluntary Merger /

Consolidation

Other Bank Closing

Type of Bank Closing Source: FDIC.

Note: Reflects percent of offices appearing on next FDIC Summary of Deposits survey 

following bank closing.

Percent of Offices Surviving Immediately After a Bank Closing, by Type of Closing,

September 2008–June 2014

Chart 16
FDIC Quarterly 48 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

of banking deposits in 2014. These counties accounted 

for nearly 40 percent of all counties and 7.3 percent of 

the U.S. population. Noncommunity banks held at 

least 75 percent of banking deposits in 738 counties, 

accounting for 23 percent of all counties and 64 percent 

of the U.S. population.

It has already been observed that the total number and 

density of banking offices have declined during the 

post-crisis period and that total office closings have 

exceeded office openings since 2010. However, amid 

these trends, community banks proved more reluctant 

to close branches and more willing to open new 

branches than did noncommunity banks. Chart 19 

shows that the number of new offices opened by 

community banks between 2008 and 2014 was equal to 

11.5 percent of the offices they operated in 2008, 

the dozens or hundreds of offices operated by many 

noncommunity banks.

The 2012 FDIC Community Banking Study observed 

that community banks held the majority of local deposits in rural and micro counties through 2011.31 Data 

through 2014 indicate that community banks continue 

to maintain these majorities, and now hold 72 percent 

of deposits in U.S. rural counties and 56 percent of 

deposits in micro counties (see Chart 18). While the 

majority of community bank deposits continue to be 

held in metro counties, the community banks’ share of 

total metro area deposits has declined from 36 percent 

in 1987 to 13 percent in 2014. It is primarily this loss of 

market share in metro areas that has driven down the 

community bank share of total industry deposits from 

41 percent in 1987 to 16 percent in 2014.

The 2012 Study also identified 629 counties in which 

community banks operated 100 percent of all banking 

offices as of 2011.32 This report extends that analysis by 

identifying 646 counties where community banks held 

100 percent of local deposits as of 2014 (see Map 2).33

Further insight into markets where community banks 

predominate is provided in Map 2; shaded regions indicate counties where community banks hold between 

75 percent and 99 percent of total deposits. In all, there 

were 1,244 counties in the United States and Puerto 

Rico where community banks held at least 75 percent 

31 FDIC Community Banking Study, p. 3-6. 32 Ibid, p. 3-5. 33 “Counties” refers to counties and other geographic areas (parishes, 

municipios, districts, and islands, for example) within the 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico that are treated as county 

equivalents by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Number of Community Bank Ofces Has

Remained Stable Since the Mid-1990s, While

Noncommunity Banks Have Added Ofces

Total Offices of FDIC-Insured Institutions, 1987–2014

Source: FDIC.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014

Noncommunity Banks

Community Banks

Chart 17

Community Banks Hold the Majority of Deposits in

Micropolitan and Rural Counties

Source: FDIC.

Community Bank Share of Local Deposits, 1987–2014, by County Type

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014

Rural Counties

Micropolitan Counties

Metropolitan Counties 80%

69%

36%

72%

56%

13%

Chart 18

Community Banks Have Tended to Open More

New Ofces and Close Fewer Existing Ofces

Than Noncommunity Banks

Sources: FDIC.

+0.8% 

+5.1% 

-17.3% 

+9.5% 

+1.3% 

-8.6% 

+11.5% 

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

New Offices Added to Survey

Net Transfer Between Groups

Gross Office Closings

Gross Office Openings

Community Banks Noncommunity Banks 

Net Change

-8.8%

Net Change

-1.9%

Percent Change in Number of Offices, 2008–2014 

Source of Change:

-13.0% 

Chart 19
FDIC Quarterly 49 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

Brick-and-Mortar Banking 

therefore their banking offices) that fail or merge are 

acquired by other community banks, this percentage 

declines with the size of the institution.34 Between 2003 

and 2013, some 85 percent of community banks with 

assets less than $100 million were acquired by other 

community banks, compared with just 10 percent of 

community banks with assets between $1 billion and 

$10 billion.

Conclusion

This paper chronicles the historical evolution of the 

banking industry, focusing on the physical banking 

offices operated by federally insured banks and thrifts. 

The number of U.S. banking offices has generally 

grown with population in recent decades, reaching an 

all-time peak as recently as 2009. There has also been 

considerable cyclicality in the number of offices that 

34 Backup and Brown, “Community Banks Remain Resilient Amid 

Industry Consolidation,” pp. 40–41.

compared with 9.5 percent for noncommunity banks. 

The chart also shows that the number of offices closed

by community banks during this period was equal to 

13 percent of the offices they operated in 2008, 

compared with 17.3 percent for noncommunity banks. 

This comparison is consistent with the notion that 

community banks remain more reliant on physical 

banking offices than do noncommunity banks.

Chart 19 also shows that the total number of community bank offices declined by 8.8 percent between 2008 

and 2014, compared with a decline of just 1.9 percent 

for noncommunity banks. All of this differential in the 

growth rate for banking offices between community and 

noncommunity banks can be accounted for by the net 

transfer of offices between the two groups as a result of 

failures, mergers, branch sales, or changes in the size or 

structure of the institution. While previous research has 

shown that nearly two-thirds of community banks (and 

Map 2
FDIC Quarterly 50 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

has coincided with banking crises that occurred in the 

late 1980s and again in the late 2000s. Geographic variation in office growth over time appears to be associated 

with differences in population growth and with the 

varying regional effects of legislative changes that have 

relaxed or eliminated restrictions on branch banking 

and interstate banking. New technologies introduced 

since at least the 1970s have expanded the number of 

ways that customers can interact with their bank. Yet 

surveys continue to show that visiting a teller continues 

to be the most common way for households to access 

their accounts. Banking offices remain prevalent. The 

total per capita density of banking offices in 2014 was 

higher than in any year before 1977, and the density of 

banking offices in rural and micropolitan counties has 

declined very little over the past 25 years.

More detailed office data available for the past seven 

years show that, although FDIC-insured institutions 

have opened and closed thousands of banking offices 

since 2008, the number of office closings has consistently outpaced openings of new offices since 2010. 

Over the past seven years, community banks have 

opened proportionately more offices and closed fewer 

offices than noncommunity banks. Still, the total 

number of community bank offices declined more than 

the number of noncommunity bank offices because of 

the conversion of charters to noncommunity status 

caused by failures, mergers, and changes in the size and 

structure of the institution.

This analysis shows that physical offices remain a vital 

channel through which FDIC-insured institutions 

deliver financial services to their customers. New technologies have certainly created convenient new ways 

for bank customers to conduct business, yet there is 

little evidence that these new channels have done 

much to replace traditional brick-and-mortar offices 

where banking relationships are built. Convenient, 

online services are here to stay, but as long as personal 

service and relationships remain important, bankers and 

their customers will likely continue to do business 

face-to-face.

Authors: Eric C. Breitenstein, Economic Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

 John M. McGee, Senior Financial Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

References

America’s Community Bankers. Savings Institution Sourcebook, 

1995, Washington, D.C., 1995.

Anderlik, John M. and Richard D. Cofer Jr. “Long-Term 

Trends in Rural Depopulation and Their Implications 

for Community Banks.” FDIC Quarterly, 8 (2), 2014. http://

fdic.gov/bank/analytical/quarterly/2014_vol8_2/article2.pdf

Backup, Benjamin R. and Richard A. Brown. “Community 

Banks Remain Resilient Amid Industry Consolidation,” 

FDIC Quarterly, 8 (2), 2014. https://fdic.gov/bank/analytical/

quarterly/2014_vol8_2/article.pdf

Barlow Research Associates Inc. “BOK’s Decision to Ditch 

In-Store Branches Shows Banks’ Predicament,” 

November 2014.

Breitenstein, Eric C., Karyen Chu, Kathy Kalser, and Eric W. 

Robbins. “Minority Depository Institutions: Structure, 

Performance, and Social Impact,” FDIC Quarterly, 8, (3), 

2014. https://fdic.gov/bank/analytical/quarterly/2014_

vol8_3/mdi_study.pdf

Durkin, Thomas A. “Credit Cards: Use and Consumer 

Attitudes, 1970–2000,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 

2000. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2000/

0900lead.pdf

Ergungor, Ozgur Emre. “Bank Branch Presence and Access to 

Credit in Low- to Moderate-Income Neighborhoods,” 

Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 42, no. 7 

(October 2010).

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 2013 FDIC National 

Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, 

Washington, D.C., October 2014. https://fdic.gov/

householdsurvey/2013report.pdf

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. FDIC Community 

Banking Study, Washington, D.C., December 2012. https://

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

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Historical Statistics on 

Banking, https://www2.fdic.gov/hsob/

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. History of the 

Eighties—Lessons For The Future, 1, Washington, D.C., 

1997. https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/vol1.html

Federal Reserve System, “The 2013 Federal Reserve Payments 

Study—Summary Report and Initial Data Release,” 2013, 

Revised July 2014. http://www.frbservices.org/files/

communications/pdf/general/2013_fed_res_paymt_study_

summary_rpt.pdf

Financial Management Solutions Inc. “2013 FMSI Teller Line 

Study,” 2013. N.P. http://www.fmsi.com/fullpanel/uploads/

files/2013-fmsi-teller-line-study-white-paper-00001.pdf

Fox, Susannah. “51% of U.S. Adults Bank Online,” Pew 

Research Center, August 7, 2013. http://www.pewinternet.

org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_OnlineBanking.

pdf
FDIC Quarterly 51 2015, Volume 9, No. 1

Brick-and-Mortar Banking 

Hayashi, Fumiko, Richard Sullivan, and Stuart E. Weiner. 

“A Guide to the ATM and Debit Card Industry,” Federal 

Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2003. http://www.kc.frb.org/

publicat/psr/bksjournarticles/atmpaper.pdf

Kahn, Chris. “March 2014 Financial Security Survey,” 

BankRate.com (2014), N.P., http://www.bankrate.com/

finance/consumer-index/financial-security-charts-0314.aspx

Ma, Jason. “Wells Fargo Mulls Fewer Branches as Rivals Cut 

Back,” Investor’s Business Daily, March 7, 2012. 

McLaughlin, Susan. “The Impact of Interstate Banking and 

Branching Reform: Evidence from the States,” Current Issues 

in Economics and Finance, 1 (2), 1995. http://www.

newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci1-2.pdf

Mengle, David L. “The Case for Interstate Branch Banking,” 

Economic Review, November/December 1990. https://www.

richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_

review/1990/pdf/er760601.pdf

National ATM Council, Inc. “U.S. ATM Industry,” N.P., 

N.D., http://natmc.org/documents/2012/10/about-the-atmindustry.pdf

Rehm, B.A. “Colorado Ready to Finally Allow Branch 

Banking.” American Banker (May 10, 1991).

Retail Banking Strategies. “US Bank Excels in In-Store 

Banking,” February 2010.

Strahan, Philip E. and Jith Jayaratne. “The Benefits of 

Branching Deregulation,” Economic Policy Review, 3 (4), 

1997. http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/97v03n4/

9712jaya.pdf

United States Savings and Loan League. Savings and Loan Fact 

Book, 1971, Chicago, IL, 1971, and Savings and Loan Fact 

Book, 1976, Chicago, IL, 1976.

Williams, Christopher A. “Banks Go Shopping for 

Customers,” The Regional Economist, October 1997, N.P. 

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=1789