The last two decades have witnessed dramatic bank deregulation in the United States. Of particular importance at the national level have been the relaxation of geographical and activity limitations on bank holding companies, achieved in the 1980s and early 1990s, respectively, by congressional action and new regulatory interpretations of existing law. In the last several years, both the Federal Reserve Board and the Comptroller of the Currency further enhanced the flexibility of bank operations by reducing limits on bank activities, and in 1999 Congress passed landmark legislation to repeal outright the separation of commercial and investment banking imposed by the Banking Act of 1933, and to expand bank powers in other directions (notably into insurance products).

Although deregulation has been dramatic, it is worth noting that it has sparked little controversy, or even surprise, among scholars of banking or banking history. No prominent banking historians or economists have defended unit (single-office) banking or the historical restrictions on bank activities in underwriting or insurance (in contrast, disagreement arises over the extent to which, and the manner in which, noncommercial firms should be permitted to own banks, and vice versa).

The lack of controversy in the face of such dramatic changes reflects a remarkable degree of agreement among banking scholars – supported by an extensive body of research – that historic limitations on U.S. banks' locations and activities are inefficient.