Major banks close 42 local branches in just a few weeks
US banks filed to shut 42 local branches in just under a month — leaving dozens of communities with fewer services. Between April 1 and April 26, major lenders including Bank of America, Chase, and U.S. Bank were among the 14 banks to notify the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) closure plans. Banks are required to alert the OCC before shutting down a branch. The agency then publishes the filings in a weekly report.
Chase and U.S. Bank both closed three locations. The rest were made up of Citizens Bank, Cumberland Valley, Fifth Third Bank, FSNB, KeyBank, Pacific Premier Bank, PNC, Warsaw FS, Well Fargo and Zions Bancorporation. In 2024, banks closed a total of 1,043 branches nationwide. The trend has accelerated in 2025, with 272 closures already logged in the first quarter alone. 'Industry consolidation — both in the number of banks and branches — is a long-standing trend that will continue, especially as more transactions move online,' Bankrate's chief financial analyst Greg McBride told DailyMail.com.
'Consumers and small businesses in rural areas are the most impacted, particularly business owners that must make a daily bank run to deposit cash or consumers that lack viable transportation,' he explained. The bloodbath is set to accelerate in 2025. Branch numbers are predicted to fall a further 4.11 percent decrease by the end of the year, a recent study from Self Financial revealed. 'Retail bank closures in the US aren't slowing,' Darren Kingman (pictured) from Root Digital — who worked on the Self Financial study — told DailyMail.com. 'The last time this many people shared a local branch was in 1995.'
He warned that while the US edges toward a cashless future, over 200 million Americans still deposit cash — meaning longer lines and worse service as access shrinks. Despite the digital shift, a new GoBankingRates survey found 45 percent of Americans still prefer in-person banking. 'The shift towards online banking is growing more intense in 2025,' GoBankingRates lead data content researcher Andrew Murray told DailyMail.com.
'Despite the trend towards online banking, our survey data shows more than half of Americans are concerned about the rising number of physical branches that have shut down in the past few years,' Murray explained. 'Meanwhile, a whopping 76 percent says that the current banking system needs small or major changes.' Further to this more than half of respondents said they were concerned about the rising number of physical bank branch closures over the last few years.
Meanwhile, new research recently revealed that the last physical bank branch could close in the US in 2041. Experts from Self Financial reached the number by studying the rate of net closures across the country, which has averaged 1,646 each year since 2018. Despite the majority of Americans now opting to do the majority of their banking online, customers still prefer to use physical branches for particular services.
It is also a struggle for some older clients to operate services such as mobile banking. Nearly two-thirds of Americans still use a physical branch to make cash deposits, while over half use them to speak to an in-person adviser, the report found. 'Client's banking preferences and behaviors are changing, including a rapid migration toward digital and mobile banking platforms, and a desire for greater simplicity,' a spokesperson for US Bank recently told DailyMail.com.
'As we evolve along with our clients, we are reevaluating our physical footprint, and in some instances, consolidating branch locations in select markets. 'Although we are closing some branches, we continue to open and enhance others, as well as rapidly enhancing our digital capabilities.' Wells Fargo echoed similar sentiments in a previous statement to DailyMail.com.
'Branches continue to play an important role in the way we serve our customers in combination with our mobile app, online website, and ATMs,' a spokesperson for the bank said. 'As we optimize our branch network, we are focused on evolving our branch presence based on customer usage and the changing traffic patterns and retail landscape to best meet the banking needs of each community we serve.'
Want more stories like this from the Daily Mail? Visit our profile page and hit the follow button above for more of the news you need.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
22 minutes ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
Scottish Sun
9 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Donald Trump vows to unleash ‘every tool in our arsenal' in price row with British drug firms
Around £16 billion was wiped off shares in the sector across Europe after the President's comments TRUMP THREAT Donald Trump vows to unleash 'every tool in our arsenal' in price row with British drug firms Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) DONALD Trump insists he will unleash 'every tool in our arsenal' if British drug companies don't cut their prices within 60 days. The US President waged war with a total of seventeen firms demanding 'binding commitments' to match the lower prices offered to developing countries. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up The move comes as the White House hit dozens of countries with a fresh slew of tariffs including punishing levies on neighbour Canada. Two UK drug firms, AstraZeneca and GSK, caught up in the pharma row saw their share price drop as Trump aims to lower prices for American citizens. The move could even have damaging consequences for the NHS whose leverage with suppliers due to its size could be reduced. Mr Trump has demanded the firms apply their 'most favoured nation' rates to Medicaid which is the health system for low-income Americans. READ MORE ON DONALD TRUMP GOT TRUMPED Moment Trump 'throws shade' at Meghan and Harry during Starmer press conference He said: 'Make no mistake: a collaborative effort towards achieving global pricing parity would be the most effective path for companies, the government, and American patients. In a letter to the firms, he said: 'But if you refuse to step up we will deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families from continued abusive drug pricing practices. 'Americans are demanding lower drug prices, and they need them today.' Around £16 billion was wiped off shares in the sector across Europe as fears grow higher prices in the rest of the world will fund the US reductions. The move comes after Trump said back in May that he wanted drug prices in the US to be reduced by 80 per cent. Moment Trump 'throws shade' at Meghan and Harry during Starmer press conference But experts appeared wary that he has the authority to reduce prices and a previous effort in his first term failed in court. At the time, he said the tactics were 'subsidising socialism' abroad in paying for the same pills from the same factories, which led to spiralling prices at home. The warning came as Mr Trump signed an executive order applying a wave of tariffs to 68 countries and the European Union. Canada was hit with levies – up to 35 per cent from 25 per cent - due to its lack of co-operation in stopping flow of illegal drugs and fentanyl into America. Their PM Mark Carney said that his country was 'making historic investments in border security to arrest drag traffickers and end migrant smuggling'. Switzerland will also keep negotiating with the US after their tariff rate hit 39 per cent, which was far higher than they anticipated.
ITV News
10 hours ago
- ITV News
Tesla ordered to pay $300 million to victims of Autopilot crash case
A court has ordered Elon Musk's car company to pay $329 million (£242 million) to victims of a deadly crash involving its Autopilot driver assist technology. The ruling in Miami on Friday opens the door to other costly lawsuits and potentially striking a blow to Tesla's reputation for safety. In 2019, a driver on a rural road in Florida was looking for a dropped mobile phone when he hit a young couple out gazing at the stars. On Friday, the jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its Autopilot technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on the driver. The decision on the four-year case comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own, as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Tesla's Autopilot technology has been significantly developed since the incident. The majority of similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed or settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included charges by lawyers for the family of the victim, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to release crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, lawyers showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and said it believed the data was not there.
