Treasury-captured-by-banks datapoint of the day

By Felix Salmon
November 30, 2009
Ryan Grim gets a great quote out of Treasury today, trying to explain why they're pushing to allow banks to open branches in any state they like, despite the opposition of Barney Frank:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Ryan Grim gets a great quote out of Treasury today, trying to explain why they’re pushing to allow banks to open branches in any state they like, despite the opposition of small banks, individual states, and Barney Frank:

“This eliminates a difference between thrifts and banks. While banks are subject to these limits, thrifts are not,” said Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly. “Although we are proposing to eliminate the thrift charter, this is an important step towards increased competition in banking and will reduce costs for consumers.”

One might think that eliminating the thrift charter would probably in and of itself do all that needs to be done in terms of eliminating the difference between thrifts and banks. But obviously not at Treasury. Instead, they seem to believe that allowing big banks in where they have previously been disallowed “will reduce costs for consumers”.

But big banks — and big thrifts — have been expanding across state lines for many years now. Is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that when that happens, costs for consumers go down? ‘Cos looking at the amount of money that banks are making in fee income, I’d doubt it.

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
One comment so far

I look at it the other way. Why on earth would banks NOT be able to open branches in any State? Utterly illogical, it’s one country ‘innit? I don’t see what costs have to do with it. Does anyone really think that in, say the UK, banks in Cornwall should not be allowed to open branches in Sussex just because some bureaucrat says so? There are more cozy cartels and less competition where states and antiquated guilds restrict competition. Take real estate (broker licensing), insurance, and yes, banking.

Posted by SB | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/