Showing posts with label summary of deposits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label summary of deposits. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2026

Is the FDIC Summary of Deposits Pure Fiction?

For decades, FDIC deposit market share data has been one of the banking industry's most important tools for assessing competitive position. It is relied upon by regulators, banks, consultants, and investors to measure market presence and evaluate branch expansion opportunities. However, analysis of two Pennsylvania counties, Lackawanna and Luzerne counties, suggests that the traditional branch-based methodology may be becoming increasingly disconnected from how households actually manage their savings.

These counties offer an interesting case study. Between 2021 and 2026, the number of households increased from approximately 220,300 to 225,000, representing modest but steady growth. At the same time, FDIC-reported deposits attributed to physical bank offices in the two counties increased from roughly $15.8 billion to $16.1 billion. Deposits per household, however, remained essentially flat, moving from approximately $71,870 to $71,490. The compound annual growth rate of deposits per household was actually slightly negative, while household growth exceeded total deposit growth.

The most striking trend may not be growth rates but rather the declining importance of physical offices themselves. The number of bank branches included in the market fell from 177 offices in 2021 to 157 in 2026, an 11% decline. Yet deposits remained relatively stable. This suggests deposits are becoming less dependent on branch proximity and more dependent on digital relationships, brand strength, rates, and product offerings.


The below table indexes 2021 to 100 to demonstrate what I just described.




This raises a fundamental question: what exactly does FDIC deposit market share measure today?

The FDIC Summary of Deposits system attributes deposits to physical banking offices. That methodology was highly logical when households overwhelmingly banked at institutions with local branch networks. 

Today, however, consumers routinely place funds with institutions that may have no branches in their county, state, or even region. Online banks such as Ally Bank and SoFi Bank compete directly with community and regional banks for deposits while maintaining little or no branch infrastructure. 

Similarly, consumers increasingly hold cash-equivalent assets in brokerage sweep accounts, money market mutual funds, Treasury bills, and other vehicles that sit entirely outside traditional deposit market share calculations.

As a result, a bank's reported deposit market share within a county may tell us where deposits are booked rather than where residents actually store their wealth. A community bank could maintain a stable branch-based market share while losing household wallet share to online banks and investment platforms. Conversely, an online institution could have substantial relationships with local households while appearing to have no market presence at all.

The competitive implications are significant. Regulators use deposit market share extensively in merger and acquisition analysis. Yet if a growing percentage of household savings resides outside locally reported branch deposits, concentrations based solely on branch data may overstate actual market power and understate competition. The market experienced by consumers is increasingly national, not local.

A potential solution would be for banks and credit unions to report deposits based on the ZIP code of the depositor's residence or business location rather than solely the location of the branch where balances are assigned. While implementation would require some data cleanup and privacy safeguards, the resulting information would provide a much more accurate picture of where households and businesses actually place their money. It would also allow banks to make better strategic decisions and regulators to better evaluate competition from digital banks, credit unions, and other federally insured institutions that operate without extensive branch networks.

The Lackawanna-Luzerne data support this theory. Household growth has continued, branch counts have fallen, and deposits per household have not grown. All this while inflation rose a total of 23% since 2021, and money supply (M2) has grown 2.3%, and banks cost of deposits averaged 1.5%-2% annually. Aggregate deposit growth in Lackawanna-Luzerne was less than the interest paid on those deposits.

Those trends are consistent with a banking system in which physical location is no longer the primary determinant of deposit gathering. As banking becomes increasingly digital, a branch-based deposit market share framework may be measuring yesterday's competitive landscape rather than today's reality. The next evolution of market share reporting may require shifting focus from where deposits are booked to where depositors actually live.

Let's make the change.

~ Jeff