Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hoping that this thread idea has not been done before.
Back in 1913 the Federal Government created 12 Federal Reserve Banking Districts. The size of each district was set based upon the population distribution of the United States when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Headquarters are in Washington DC. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks (not including the branches of these 12) are as follows:
1. New York City
2. Boston
3. Philadelphia
4. Richmond
5. Atlanta
6. Chicago
7. Cleveland
8. Minneapolis
9. St Louis
10. Kansas City
11. Dallas
12. San Francisco
If the 12 Federal Reserve Banking Districts had to be created today, which 12 cities would be selected based on the same metric (population distribution) used in 1913. I don't think Cleveland and/or Kansas City would probably make the cut today because the West Coast is very unrepresented with only one city (San Francisco). What are your thoughts? (Reminder that DC cannot be one of the 12 because it serves as the headquarters)
Last edited by NC_MVP; 09-03-2019 at 09:17 PM..
Reason: correct poll options
+Houston, LA, Denver, Seattle
-Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City (Chicago covers the eastern Midwest, Minneapolis the northern Great Plains and Montana)
+Houston, LA, Denver, Seattle
-Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City (Chicago covers the eastern Midwest, Minneapolis the northern Great Plains and Montana)
Are you proposing that the existing 12 be reduced to these? If so, then no. Not quite sure what you're saying here, though.
Are you proposing that the existing 12 be reduced to these? If so, then no. Not quite sure what you're saying here, though.
Yeah, my bad. I am saying that if the districts were redrawn today, the relatively slower-growing (and shrinking) Midwest and Northeast could be covered by fewer districts, while more would be needed for Texas, the Mountain West, and the West Coast.
Yeah, my bad. I am saying that if the districts were redrawn today, the relatively slower-growing (and shrinking) Midwest and Northeast could be covered by fewer districts, while more would be needed for Texas, the Mountain West, and the West Coast.
IMO, my opinion is to move Cleveland to Los Angeles and Kansas City to Denver.
Based on the poll results after seven voters, it's pretty clear that eight of the twelve should just stay put, while Cleveland hasn't received any, and I agree since that weeds out that corner of the Rust Belt. I also agree with replacing Kansas City with Denver; that part of the country has really grown.
St. Louis and Richmond are borderline cases, but I'd still keep those two. First off, with the absence of Kansas City, that would leave St. Louis all to itself in Missouri, and KC could effective house a branch of the main St. Louis bank. The loss of KC would also mean that Minneapolis would gain parts of Nebraska and Iowa.
Richmond remains centrally located between the Carolinas and DC/Baltimore, and with Cleveland disappearing, the Philly Fed could take over much of that region while Chicago grabs a portion of it.
As for the additions on the West Cost, I'd add Los Angeles, but not Seattle, which I'd keep as a branch for San Francisco. First off, most of the growth in the west has been in the southern half of the region, and the newly created LA Fed could take Arizona as well as southern Nevada and the SW corner of Utah. Denver would take the remainder of Utah as well as all of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, and the western halves of Kansas and Nebraska. San Francisco would still have a sizable territory with WA, ID, OR, as well as Northern CA and NV.
I disagree with Houston since Texas is already served by Dallas. Miami is better known for Pan-American banking, so I don't see a need for a new bank there.
Yeah, my bad. I am saying that if the districts were redrawn today, the relatively slower-growing (and shrinking) Midwest and Northeast could be covered by fewer districts, while more would be needed for Texas, the Mountain West, and the West Coast.
The Midwest isn't shrinking, FYI. Wishful thinking on your part?
+Houston, LA, Denver, Seattle
-Philadelphia, St. Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City (Chicago covers the eastern Midwest, Minneapolis the northern Great Plains and Montana)
I don't understand the logic of removing Philadelphia? It still a major population and economic center, really no different than any of the other Northeastern cities (minus NYC, which is globally on another level).
The current 12 below, and to the right, where I would replace or keep the branches, if they were being re-established in 2019:
01-Boston - remains in Boston
02-New York - remains in NYC
03-Philadelphia - remains in Philly 04-Cleveland - move to Miami 05-Richmond - move to Charlotte
06-Atlanta - remains in Atlanta
07-Chicago - remains in Chicago 08-St. Louis - move to Nashville
09-Minneapolis - remains in Minneapolis 10-Kansas City - moves to Denver
11-Dallas - remains in Dallas
12-San Francisco - remains in San Fran 13 - Los Angeles new branch 14 - Phoenix new branch 15 - Seattle new branch
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,579,110 times
Reputation: 5796
Well the Federal reserve uses 12. The FDIC which covers all insured banks in the whole US, uses 6 and covers all 50 states plus territories. So if the Fed Reserve would like to consolidate the amount of offices while distributing properly among the population it could be done.
The 6 FDIC based regions are:
New York (region covers Maine to Maryland, Puerto Rico, does not include District of Columbia) Atlanta (region covers VA to FL and west to Alabama) Chicago (region covers Great Lakes states and Kentucky) Kansas City (region covers Plains states, Minnesota, Dakotas) Dallas/Memphis (region covers Tennessee westward to Colorado and NM) San Francisco (covers the entire West Coast, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona)
Headquarters: Washington DC
Each of those regions have smaller field offices in towns as small as Sioux Falls, SD or as big as Los Angeles so the coverage is there. If the Federal Reserve is sticking to 12 vs 6 locations then I suspect you could break up the West with more locations and somewhere else in the South. This regional break down is similar across most government agencies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
