Banks’ Market Growth a Whirl of Wins and Losses: Interactive Graphic

Print
Email
Reprints
Comment (1)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

You win some and you lose some.

Flipping through market share statistics shows a riot of steps forward and steps back, with a bank’s deposit growth outstripping competitors’ in some markets and falling short in others. Few banks notch across-the-board gains in their major markets and managing the feat in successive time intervals is even rarer. (The following graphic compares changes in deposits held by each institution in a group of 59 banks in large markets versus changes in total deposits in the markets. Text continues below.)

U.S. Bancorp (USB) has done well. In its 20 biggest markets, its deposits grew faster from 2011 to 2012 than total deposits in all but three of the markets. (Deposits are reported to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. annually at June 30, though the data isn’t available until the fall. Figures for 2012 reflect changes for pending and completed acquisitions through July 23 using SNL Financial data.)

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) has also performed admirably, falling behind in only one of its 20 biggest markets — Portland, Ore. — where its 6.3% growth compared with market growth of 7.5%.

The data excludes branches with more than $1 billion of deposits to reduce distortions from unusually large stockpiles of customer money held at a relatively small number of locations. JPMorgan Chase used the same criteria in an investor presentation in February, where it touted its success in gaining market share.

Over a longer time frame, U.S. Bancorp and JPMorgan Chase performed well in their largest metropolitan statistical areas, or economically integrated regions around urban cores with a populations of 50,000 or more. For instance, from 2007 to 2012, U.S. Bancorp’s growth rates in the Minneapolis and St. Louis markets roughly doubled each market’s growth overall.

Including smaller markets, JPMorgan Chase’s record is still good, though not quite as good. From 2007 to 2012, the company’s deposits around Austin, Texas, grew by 1.6%, compared to 26.8% for the overall market.

At Bank of America (BAC), which recently announced several deals to sell branches to smaller banks, the picture is less favorable, with a growth rate that lagged deposit growth overall in several markets, meaning that B of A lost market share. Bank of America fell short in the Los Angeles market in the 2011-2012 and 2007-2012 periods, for instance, although it gained ground in the Boston market during those time frames.

Broadly, the data shows that there are many flanks in the war for deposits.

 

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(1) Comment

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

'The Law Penalizes the Consumers It Set Out to Protect': Comments of the Week

American Banker readers share their views on the most pressing banking topics of the week. As excerpted from the Comments sections of AmericanBanker.com articles.

(Image: Fotolia)

Comments (1)
This data would be easier to interpret with just one metric, market share growth (deposits).

For example, if the market grew by 26.8% and the bank's deposits grew by only 1.6% - market share deposit growth is negative 25.2% (1.6% - 26.8%). Positive numbers are the winners, negative numbers are the losers by market.
Posted by Devonk | Friday, August 02 2013 at 11:21AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.

This feature displays payments industry news and analysis from American Banker sibling brand PaymentsSource. Registration is required; for more information contact customer service.

TWITTER
FACEBOOK
LINKEDIN
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.