I love Consumerist and Ben is a friend of mine, but it’s kinda weird that they found this story worthy of a post…

This report shows in 24 out of 25 MSAs [Metropolitan Statistical Areas], urban areas that have dense populations have fewer bank branches — therefore fewer mainstream banking opportunities — than the less populated suburbs. Without the ability to build relationships with the regulated banking community, working class and minority neighborhoods are more likely to use “fringe” services, such as payday lenders and pawnshops, for small loans. They are also more likely to have their home loans originated with mortgage brokers and subprime lenders, which often led to foreclosures and unmanageable monthly payments.

Translation: Banks tend to exist in neighborhoods where people are most likely to use them and not be living paycheck to paycheck.

Can I get a DUH from the crowd?

One commenter took the “Duh” a huge step further:

Coming soon to a study near you:

“Dairy Processing Plants Target The Dairy Farming Industry, to the Detriment of Urban Dwellers”, “Setting the Record Straight: A Majority of Financial Advisors Live Outside of Cheyenne, Wyoming” and the shocking “More Ads for Feminine Products in Women’s Magazines than in Men’s Magazines”.

Indeed. And one more that caught my eye:

So the banks dont like poor neighborhoods and the people that live there, big suprise. Hell BofA actually paid the city where I work to relocate a bus station because they were going to put it near their downtown building. And you know what? I would do the same damn thing if I were them. Rich people have money poor people dont its common sense they’d go there. You dont see any ferrari dealerships in poor neighborhoods either, is that in the study?

My guess? No.

Technorati Tags: bank, banking, consumerist, obvious