> I would think that increased competition would improve conditions for customers? It did improve conditions for customers! As an example I currently bank with

> I would think that increased competition would improve conditions for customers? It did improve conditions for customers! As an example I currently bank with Ally, free checking account, no ATM fees (on any ATM, in/out network doesn't matter) and pretty sure they have good overdraft protection though I've never checked. Compare that to a place like BoA that has ATM fees, minimum account balances and fees, and while they probably have better overdraft protection than in 2008, it's probably not as good as what Ally offers. The reason Ally can compete like this is simple, BoA and most other traditional banks have a ton of physical locations they have to pay to keep the lights on in, Ally on the other hand is entirely online. And while it may be nice to have a physical location for "peace of mind", in practice I found that it's usually better when the company (like Ally) puts the money into customer service so the phone gets answered when you call. Honestly the biggest problem with Ally is that they are still a bit of a "savvy bank", that is if you ask any old joe on the street if they have heard of Ally, they would probably say no. Same goes for the litany of other new banks that have roughly the same business model as Ally. They would all be a great deal for those that are low-income but they aren't in your face like BoA or WF with their physical locations so people usually end up going to the "traditional banks" which are IMO not designed for them.