[bob1029]

> A typical example is banks getting merged: there will be a fight to see which system stays and which one disappears. If you froze your technology 4 decades ago it won't be your stack winning. [0]

In my experience (small/mid-size US banks), the institution with more assets or branches usually wins. It rarely has anything to do with technology. If a 6 region, 200 branch monster comes in and wants to buy some 4 branch relic in the West Texas desert, it doesn't matter if the smaller institution has achieved AGI and an intergalactic core platform. They're almost inevitably gonna be merging their records into some old boring IBM system.

[shakna]

The landscape is a little different over in Australia. Most of the Big Four are closing as many branches as they can. Branches are no longer a mover or shaker, because most Australians never touch cash anymore. [0] Most transactions are digital.

Almost as many people pay with card as with phone.

Faster record systems, faster transfers, actually do win people over here.

[0] https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2023/jun/cash-u...

[finnh]

I welcome the day when the US stops devoting enormous amounts of useful real estate to bank branches. They are a sad simulacrum of actual street life, taking up tons of space to advertise a bank and contributing to high rents that preclude less-profitable small businesses. One step up from billboards.

[makeitdouble]

I think it depends on why they're merging. If the goal is just to increase size, as you point out doing it at the lowest cost will be the only POV.

If they're doing it for more strategic purposes, the calculation becomes more complex and there will be more "reverse" acquisitions where the entity closer to the target is prioritized.