4 ms·
I'm not convinced that USA needs the thousands of banks it does. Most countries survive with a small set of national banks. There seems to be little downside, a
by rr808 3y ago
I'm not convinced that USA needs the thousands of banks it does. Most countries survive with a small set of national banks. There seems to be little downside, and makes sense not to have all the duplicated overhead.
- intrasight 3y agoI agree. It's very inefficient. And as a result, it personally costs me money - in the form of higher taxes for that very inefficiency. And all banks should be subject to the same regulation. Them saying that they "can't afford it" is just further evidence that consolidation is necessary.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoit's sort of a US thing to let alternatives proliferate so they compete with one another, or are supposed to do so, rather than collude and whatever else goes on.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoI find it's difficult to keep track of. At one point I had money of one retirement color or another (traditional, Roth, HSA) being held by six different institutions in nine different accounts. Navigating the maze of who needs to send checks to whom has been a tremendous pain and I'm worried that I overlooked something in the consolidation effort.