| This is fascinating - I had never thought about commercial banks making obfuscated investments in real estate by opening branches in hot markets before. Whatever money they lose on wages, construction, depreciation, amortization, overhead, etc. they make up on the appreciating underlying value of the land, increased brand presence (read: expensive advertising), and increased ability to secure federal funds due to higher assets as collateral on their balance sheet. This could make for an interesting leading indicator for a real estate cooldown, and even a recession if extrapolated out: When commercial banks start closing down commercial branches, we can conclude that either a) value generated by the appreciation of the real estate is slowing down or b) the value of the deposits in the area is not growing fast enough (people are not saving, with banks at least). Also, it's worrying to see the that the true value of a branch is that of an investment and an asset against which to secure cheap federal loans. That these unprofitable branches exist for these purposes implies a huge misdirection of resources and energy from sustainable demand creation to rent-seeking, speculation, and poor fiscal policy that incentivizes banks to prop up hot real estate markets in order to secure Fed funding. The Citibank branch that I use will be closing in January... |
I don't think banks are generally prohibited from investing in real estate, subject to other risk-based capital and liquidity requirements. If there's some loophole that results in an owned branch being treated differently from investment real estate, I'm not aware of it.
In NYC anyway, banks typically rent branches. They don't want to be in the real estate and property management business, although they often end up in it involuntarily after foreclosures.