It’s no secret that the banking industry has been consolidating for the last 30 years — the number of bank charters has fallen from 14,000 in 1985, to close to 8,500 in 2000, to 4,938 at the end of 2017 — a remarkable 64%
But while that reduction is remarkable, it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Some of the post-crisis decline can be attributed to bank failure and the lack of de novo banks, but a significant amount is due to an uptick in M&A activity — particularly among smaller banks — driven by increased regulatory and technology standards that incentivize scale.
Over the past few years, there have been well over 200 M&A deals per year among community banks, those with less than $10 billion in assets, almost double the amount of such activity in the crisis years of 2008 and 2009, according to the S&P Global Market Intelligence.
Going forward, the trend of consolidation is likely to continue, and it’s possible that a healthy 2,000 to 3,000 institutions would serve the U.S. even better than the current number. The goal should be to maintain competition without creating concentration.
Further consolidation makes sense because the bar at which a bank can remain profitable has risen. The fixed costs of running a bank, both opening it for business and maintaining it for the long haul, continue to grow: These costs run the gamut from keeping up with compliance, anti-money-laundering and other standards to having a program and resources in place to attract talent. Now more than ever, technology is a major cost center. Banks must invest in their tech infrastructure to meet customer expectations, keep up with competitors and steel themselves against cyberattacks.
Consolidation can actually help smaller banks stay profitable, while managing the increased regulatory burden that accompanies growth. The regulatory requirements for banks vary by asset size, and the vast majority of U.S. banks have less than $10 billion in assets, the first major regulatory threshold. What often happens is that smaller players — those under the $10 billion mark— join together to surpass that first threshold by a wide margin. Once these banks reach $20 billion or $30 billion in assets, they can become attractive acquisition targets for banks in the $100 to $250 billion range, well above the $50 billion threshold that triggers even greater oversight from regulators. Thus, as banks expand, there is even more incentive for consolidation and mergers to reach scale to allow for profitable growth over time.
This is not to say that small banks don’t have their place in the ecosystem. In rural areas, regional and community banks fill an important social and economic role by bringing banking services to otherwise underbanked communities. These institutions deliver a product offering that is relevant to their customers and beneficial to the entire local community. As long as these smaller banks have a business proposition that truly justifies their size, there will always be room for them. I would even advocate that the industry, as a whole, should ensure these banks are properly incentivized and encouraged to exist. But in large urban markets like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles — where bigger players abound and where there is no shortage of competition — consolidation is the most logical path forward.
At the same time, there is still room for new entrants — but these select few newcomers will need to innovate and fill gaps, not just replicate the status quo. A handful of new banking charters will likely come from fintech startups with banking capabilities. Yet these, too, will eventually be ripe for acquisition by larger banks that need to build out their technology. Thus, the trend toward further consolidation will continue.
Community bank executives, especially those heading the very smallest banks, must continue to explore ways to be more competitive and more resilient. In doing so, they can’t ignore the fact that selling to or merging with another bank may benefit shareholders and customers alike.
