"America's small bank problem"
- slate.com, by Mathew Yglesias, july 20, 2013.

We all know how the Big Ten banks in US influenced 2,007 - 2,008 financial crisis and how they saved their necks with
public money, doing well with excess cash now, with little
competetion in so-called competetive capitalism,according to Mathew Yglesias.

"People like to complain about America's mega banks, but I think it's also worth noting a sense in which we have a problem in America of our banks too small. Not that Wells Fargo and Citigroup are too small, but that there are too many tiny banks in America and they don't give the big banks adequate competition.

"One oft-quoted point is that the big four largest banks in the country control about 40% of the total assets in the system. That's striking. But it is also striking that the remaining 60% are divided among over 7,000 institutions. If you had massive consolidation among the non-Big Four banks, then you could have more like a Big 10 or Big 15 and arguably more competetive system.

"After all, the mere fact that there are over 7,000 banks doesn't mean you have over 7,000 banking options to choose from.
The vast majority of these banking institutions don't operate in any given location. Most of them are far too small to provide
substantial corporations with the banking service they need.
Promoting the creation of a larger number of big firms could create a more genuine competetive banking sector."

It makes sense to me, to have 20 - 25 big banks in total, or
even smaller number of larger banks to make them more competetive among them, resulting in leaner paychecks(?) at the top; those "fat cats" as Obama said. Do you think it's possible?