Chase keeps opening new Charlotte branches, even as in-person visits decline
Why it matters: In the digital age, the days of face-to-face banking would seem dead, along with the brick-and-mortar likes of Blockbuster and bookstores. But Charlotte continues to see new bank branches popping up citywide, from newly constructed locations to others opening in converted Burger Kings and pizza parlors.
By the numbers: Since 2014, JPMorgan Chase's teller transactions have fallen 52%, while digital transactions increased 65%.
Yes, but: Nearly one million customers still walk into Chase branches every day, says Tom Horne, head of consumer branch banking at Chase.
"Customers coming in wanting advice on investments, saving for the future, saving for their kids' colleges, starting a small business — that's grown," Horne tells Axios. "For a lot of those things, people want to talk to somebody — not just do it digitally."
The company says more than half of its new checking accounts are opened in person.
In Charlotte, branches are staffed with financial advisors, home lending experts, small business relationship managers — "anything a client needs," Horne says.
The big picture: The new SouthPark location on Fairview Road is part of Chase's much-larger plan to open 500 new branches nationwide by early 2027, including in underserved markets. The company says it's on track to meet that goal.
In 2018, JPMorgan Chase was in just 23 states. By 2021, it was in 48.
Chase started opening branches in the Charlotte market in 2020 and now has 46 in North Carolina, including 24 locally.
Twenty-seven percent of branches are in low-to-moderate income communities. The company points to its locations on Freedom Drive and Beatties Ford Road as examples.
Zoom in: Chase has a team dedicated to strategizing new locations and pinpointing MSAs with the most opportunity.
Deciding where to build a branch is a "deeply analytical process," Horne says, involving studying markets' affluence and population trends and examining corners with high traffic.
"Does it make sense to put a branch on this corner or this corner?" Horne says. "Well, this corner because it's next to a Chick-fil-A. Branches always do well when we put them next to a Chick-fil-A."
The intrigue: Charlotte, as the second-largest banking center in the U.S., has more established players — like Wells Fargo and Bank of America — for Chase to compete with. But Horne says that's no stress to them.
"We're not going to avoid a market where we think there's opportunity, just because there are other big banks there," he says.
The Carolinas also have rapid migration. Often, existing Chase customers relocate here and are looking for their familiar bank.
What's next: Chase's goal is to place branches within reasonable driving distances of 75% of Americans. Some customers still travel over an hour to get to a branch, the company says.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says major US banks 'discriminated against me' as White House preps debanking executive order
Debanking is back in the spotlight this week after President Trump said Tuesday that the country's two largest US banks, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC), denied him as a customer. "The banks discriminated against me very badly, and I was very good to the banks," Trump said on CNBC's "Squawk Box," adding that "they discriminate against many conservatives." For years, Republicans have claimed that US banks have denied accounts to certain customers for political reasons. Crypto companies have warned more recently that they weren't permitted to get banking services during the Biden era. "I had hundreds of millions. I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash. I was loaded up with cash, and they told me, 'I'm sorry, sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out,'" Trump said of his experience losing bank accounts with JPMorgan Chase. The president said he then went to Bank of America "to deposit a billion dollars plus" and was similarly denied. "He said, 'We can't do it,'" Trump told "Squawk Box" while also referencing pressure on banks from Washington, D.C., regulators as a key reason for why he and others have been denied banking services. "I ended up going to small banks all over the place," Trump added. The president's comments came in response to a Wall Street Journal report late Monday stating that the White House is preparing to draft a related executive order around debanking that would fine banks found discriminating against customers on political grounds. Bank of America did not immediately offer a response to Trump's comments. "We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed. We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right," a JPMorgan spokesperson said in emailed comments. Both of these giant lenders and their CEOs have denied debanking customers on political grounds. Learn more about high-yield savings accounts, money market accounts, and CD accounts. Trump first brought visibility to the debanking issue back in January when he confronted Bank of America's Brian Moynihan about it during a live Q&A at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives," Trump told Moynihan. The president also appeared to include JPMorgan Chase CEO Jame Dimon in his confrontation. "I don't know if the regulators mandated that because of Biden or what, but you and Jamie and everybody else, I hope you open your banks to conservatives, because what you're doing is wrong," Trump added. Two months later, the Trump Organization sued major credit card lender Capital One (COF) for allegedly debanking hundreds of its accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol in Washington, D.C. Bank regulators have already eliminated one element in supervision that has been pointed to as a culprit of debunking, known as reputational risk. Critics said this element of supervision was previously too subjective, allowing regulators additional room to penalize lenders for taking on customers they deemed risky. "The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion," a spokesperson for the Bank Policy Institute, a D.C. banking industry advocacy group, said in an emailed statement. "The banking agencies have already taken steps to address issues like reputational risk, and we're hopeful that any forthcoming executive order will reinforce this progress by directing regulators to confront the flawed regulatory framework that gave rise to these concerns in the first place," BPI added. Each of the bosses for these big banks has addressed the issue by also pointing a finger at regulators. "We have not debanked anyone because of political or religious relationships, period," JPMorgan's Dimon said during a podcast interview earlier this year, in which he acknowledged that debanking happens. "The reality is that if they gave us clarity from the regulatory thing and avoid the second-guessing, that would be helpful," Bank of America's Moynihan said in a CBS interview on Sunday. David Hollerith is a senior reporter for Yahoo Finance covering banking, crypto, and other areas in finance. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
The numbers in Trump's EU trade deal are a joke
President Trump announced a trade deal with the European Union last month, proclaiming a 'generational modernization of the transatlantic alliance' that will 'provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access' and is 'yet another agreement that positions the United States as the world's preeminent destination for investment, innovation, and advanced manufacturing.' The EU has been criticized heavily for folding to Trump. However, after many years of studying, practicing and teaching negotiations, I am not nearly so critical of the European strategy. Negotiating with Trump inevitably leads to three possible tactics: ignoring, retaliating or capitulating. Everyone goes for one or more of these tactics. But most have ended up at the last one, capitulating. The U.K. (like Columbia University, and perhaps soon Harvard) was much derided when it pioneered the capitulation strategy in May. But it is not necessarily a bad strategy when confronted by Trump. Alan Beattie of the Financial Times perceptively notes that 'Trump likes deals that aren't worth the handshake they're written on.' 'Roll with the punch,' he suggests, 'get the lowest baseline tariff you can, offer him some concessions with good optics but low impact, talk up the importance of the deal for the benefit of his ego and hope he moves on.' And so the EU has done. The U.S.-EU trade 'agreement' is apocryphal. Others have called it delusional. It is both — and thus important to understand. First, some context. In 2015, roughly the end of the Bretton Woods era for trade, the average weighted U.S. tariff against all goods was about 1.7 percent. Against EU goods it was 1.47 percent, versus 1.35 percent on U.S. goods into the EU. America currently imports more than $605 billion a year in goods from the EU. Trump's 'biggest deal ever made,' with a few exceptions, 'reduces' tariffs to 15 percent (steel and aluminum remain at 50 percent). However, it is not technically a deal. It is filled with numerous ' commitments ' such as 'work to address' and 'intend to work together,' or 'intend to address' and, curiously, 'take complementary actions to address.' This is the type of language used in a preliminary phase of a framework agreement, which would be the precursor to a serious trade negotiation. The White House is claiming that, first, that the EU will invest $600 billion directly in the U.S. during Trump's term (three times the rate it has invested in the past). This is, if not delusional, at least fantastical. The second concrete claim by the White House is that 'the EU will double down on America as the Energy Superpower by purchasing $750 billion of U.S. energy exports through 2028.' As Clyde Russell shows clearly in Reuters, these numbers simply do not make sense. But then, they need not. They serve their performative purpose well enough. Chalk up a specious victory and move on. Consider that in 2024, the EU imported 573 million barrels of crude oil from the U.S., which is valued currently at about $40.1 billion. The EU imported U.S. liquified natural gas in 2024 worth about $21.78 billion and bought about $2.67 billion in U.S. coal. So EU energy imports (at $64.55 billion) are about 26 percent of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on American energy each year under the framework agreement. If the EU reaches the $250 billion a year goal, U.S. imports would account for 85 percent of its total spending on those energy commodities. While this appears to be a plus for U.S. producers, it would massively disrupt global energy markets (not to mention violate many long-term supply contracts). But more startling, it would exceed total current U.S. exports. Putting together the value of U.S. exports for all three energy commodities totals $165.8 billion, Russell calculates, 'meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion.' Including nuclear adds a few billion dollars at best. Expanding to refined products, such as diesel? Perhaps another $10 billion. So the EU's commitment to buy $250 billion worth of American energy is entirely unrealistic and unachievable. 'The smart people in the room must know this,' Russell writes, so 'why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number?' The only answer is the obvious one, and the most troubling. Substance doesn't matter, only performance. Where businesses must operate on substance and factual reality, politicians operate increasingly on attention-gaining performance. This may explain why Trump has done so poorly in business and so well in politics (and in the businesses he is generating based on politics). So, despite substantive criticisms of the EU team, they in fact made a perfectly understandable agreement. Specifically, when only attention matters and the substance of the deal is a mere side story of the performance, one can agree to almost anything. In this case, the more fantastical the better. Why didn't EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promise $900 billion? Trump would be even happier and Europe even less likely to uphold the 'agreement.' Smile, suck-up, sign, shrug and move on. The real negotiation is somewhere down the road; perhaps tomorrow afternoon. Well, maybe. Trump's authority even to make such a deal is still being litigated. The one unavoidable fact is that America has abandoned the rules-based trading system it carefully built over three-quarters of a century. It is a brave new world of U.S. trade 'agreements' based on rapid-fire, plainly meaningless commitments — but what a performance! Robert A. Rogowsky is professor of trade and diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a former chief economist and director of operations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
70% of Americans Don't Think They'll Reach $1 Million for Retirement: 8 Things They Can Do Now
Hitting $1 million for retirement might feel out of reach, and most Americans agree. In fact, 70% say they don't think they'll ever get there. Learn More: Try This: But with the right steps now, building a more secure financial future is still possible. How People Feel About Saving for Retirement According to CNBC, a survey that was conducted by Schroders, an investment management company, shows that Americans who have an employer-sponsored retirement plan feel that they will need to have at least $1.28 million put aside for retirement. Only 30% of workers with a retirement plan will expect to have $1 million saved, 48% will possibly have $500,000 and only 26% think they will have $250,000 saved. Other studies find that 68% of Americans feel that they could work till they retire and still not have enough money for retirement. With bills, loans and other expenses that are unexpected, it may be tempting for some individuals to want to use funds that they would have put aside for retirement to help pay off debt. This may leave most Americans with a feeling of doubt about the actual ability to have enough money saved for retirement. Read Next: Ways To Boost Retirement Savings Americans need not despair because there are some easy ways to help build retirement savings. After enrolling in an employer's retirement savings plan, check whether it allows pre-tax contributions. These reduce taxable income by deducting money before federal income taxes are calculated. For instance, someone in the 12% tax bracket who sets aside $100 each pay period would see take-home pay reduced by about $88, plus any required Medicare, Social Security and state and local taxes, according to Merrill. Check whether an employer offers a 401(k) plan with contribution matching, and be sure to contribute enough to receive the full match. For example, if the employer matches 50% contributions up to 5% of an employee's salary, and the annual salary is $50,000 with a $2,500 contribution, the employer would add $1,250. If age 50 or older, look into catch-up contributions to IRA or 401(k) plans since yearly contributions are limited if under the age of 50. Consider opening a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA. With a traditional IRA, contributions may be tax deductible and are made pre-tax, which means potential investment earnings will be able to grow without taxes until withdrawals are made during retirement. With a Roth IRA, contributions are made after taxes and withdrawals will be free of federal taxes after age 59-1/2. Think about putting 1% or 2% of salary towards retirement savings, and then each year, raise the amount by 1% or 2% more, per This Is Pretirement. Any time extra money like a bonus or a raise happens, put at least half of the amount towards retirement. Contemplate delaying retirement as far as possible. Every year retirement is delayed before the age of 70 will increase the monthly benefits available. Reflect on possibly having a side job or hobby as a way to make extra money to save for retirement, according to This Is Pretirement. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 6 Popular SUVs That Aren't Worth the Cost -- and 6 Affordable Alternatives 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks This article originally appeared on 70% of Americans Don't Think They'll Reach $1 Million for Retirement: 8 Things They Can Do Now Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
