At the very least, the issue should be revisited. Particularly in light of recent studies that have suggested that large banks and banks headquartered in other states are as willing as local banks to lend to small business. Let's now consider the consumer benefits touted when bank mergers are announced and Wall Street weighs in with its seal of approval. The basic justification of mergers has been economies of scale or improvement in efficiency. Consumers are promised benefits in the form of better service at lower prices.
Shareholders hope to see higher profits and garner larger dividends.
But while mergers create opportunities for economies, they don't guarantee them. In fact, the evidence on benefits in this regard is extremely mixed. Some studies suggest only weak support for mergers, and little research has been done on the effects of prices and services to consumers. Mergers between banks in the same local market may simultaneously enable banks to improve productive efficiency and, by increasing concentration and facilitating tacit collusion in the market, prevent consumers from enjoying the benefits of that improved efficiency. Indeed, those mergers promising the most efficiency are arguably the most anticompetitive because they involve banks in the same local markets.