New Geography

Blog

  • The accessibility of Facebook, Part 3: Daily use

  • Retrofitting the Dream: Housing in the 21st Century, A New Report

    This is the introduction to "Retrofitting the Dream: Housing in the 21st Century," a new report by Joel Kotkin. To read the entire report, download the .pdf attachment below.

    In recent years a powerful current of academic, business, and political opinion has suggested the demise of the classic American dream of home ownership. The basis for this conclusion rests upon a series of demographic, economic and environmental assumptions that, it is widely suggested, make the single-family house and homeownership increasingly irrelevant for most Americans.

    These opinions — which we refer to as ‘retro-urbanist’ — gained public credence with the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007. The widespread media reports of foreclosed housing in suburban tracts, particularly in the exurban reaches of major metropolitan areas, led to widespread reports of the “death of suburbia” and the imminent rise of a new, urban-centric “generation rent.”

    Yet despite this growing “consensus” about the future of housing and home ownership, our analysis of longer-term demographic trends and consumer preferences suggests that the “dream,” although often deferred, remains relevant. We see this in the strength of suburbs, as well as in the growth of the post-war “suburbanized cities” that generally have been the fastest growing regions of the country. These trends are notable in the three key demographic groups that will largely define the American future: aging boomers, immigrants, and the emerging millennial generation.

    This does not mean that suburbia, or home construction patterns, will not change in the coming decades. Higher energy prices, for example, could necessitate shorter commutes, even with automobile fuel efficiency improvements. The emerging concentration of employment centers could help bring this about by improving job housing balance. There is a need to fully make use of the high speed digital communication that can promote both dispersed and home-based work.

    For these and other reasons McKinsey & Company, among others, has noted that meeting environmental challenges does not require the kind of radical alteration of lifestyles and aspirations so widely promoted in the media, academia, and among some real estate interests. Equally important, there has been little consideration of the profound economic and social benefits of both home ownership and low to medium density living. These include, on the economic side, the huge impact on employment from home construction and the ancillary industries associated with household upkeep and improvement.

    More important still may be the social benefits. Most serious studies have shown that lower-density, homeowner-oriented communities are more socially cohesive in terms of volunteerism, neighborly relations, and church attendance, than denser, renter-oriented communities. Suburban and lower density urban neighborhoods are particularly critical for the growth of families and the raising of children, an increasingly important factor in a ‘post-familial’ era of plunging birthrates.

    To be sure, housing has been changing rapidly from the model developed in the 50s, and this process will continue over the next generation. Houses today are more energy efficient, and look to accommodate home-based work, as well as extended, multigenerational families. Similarly, the suburbs and low/mid density urban communities are already far more diverse, in terms of ethnicity and age profile, than the homogeneous communities often portrayed in media and academic accounts. This trend is also likely to accelerate.

    Ultimately, we believe that the dream is not at all dead, but is simply evolving. America’s tradition of property ownership, privacy, and the primacy of the family has constituted a critical aspect of our society since before the nation’s founding. It will need to remain so in the decades ahead if the country is to prove true to the aspirations of its people and the sustainability of its demographics.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA.

  • Market Surge Confirms Preference for Homeowning

    Ever since the housing bubble burst in 2007, retro-urbanists, such as Richard Florida, have taken aim at homeownership itself, and its “long-privileged place” at the center of the U.S. economy. If anything, he suggested, the government would be better off encouraging “renting, not buying.”

    Similar thinking has gained currency with some high-rise (or multi-unit) builders, speculators and Wall Street financiers, who would profit by keeping Americans permanent renters, with encouragement from former Morgan Stanley financial analyst Oliver Chang, who predicted we were headed toward a “rentership society.”

    Some support comes from research suggesting that higher ownership rates actually create unemployment. A study by the proausterity Peterson Institute for International Economics, cited recently both by Florida and the New York Times’ Floyd Norris, lays out an econometric case against homeownership.

    The authors justified their findings by pointing to larger unemployment-rate changes from 1950-2010 in states, mostly in the South, such as Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia, compared with California, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. They then noted that, in the states with the larger unemployment rate increases, homeownership had increased more. Hence, the connection between higher homeownership and higher unemployment rates.

    This analysis is staggeringly ahistorical. It fails to correct for the massive labor market changes that have occurred in the Southern states, as the agricultural and domestic employment common in 1950 has largely disappeared. The analysis begins with a year in which three of the states cited to prove that lower homeownership is associated with lower unemployment had unusually high unemployment in 1950 (California was No. 1, Oregon, No. 4, and Washington, No. 6); unemployment in these three West Coast states averaged nearly double that of the Southern examples.

    Another ahistorical implication is that that the South experienced a huge increase in homeownership since 1950, as economically disadvantaged African-Americans began to buy their residences. An analysis by demographer Wendell Cox indicates that, even as labor markets were being radically altered, per capita incomes in relatively underdeveloped Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia rose during 1950-2010 at more than double the rate experienced in California, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin (more than 140 percent, adjusted for inflation, compared with approximately 65 percent).

    The Peterson thesis is also undermined by a close examination of county homeownership and unemployment rates, which finds, generally, that large counties with higher rates of homeownership have lower unemployment rates. For example, among the nation’s approximately 260 counties with more than 250,000 residents, those with homeownership rates above 70 percent have average unemployment rates of 8.1 percent. Among the counties with homeownership rates below 50 percent, unemployment rates average 9.6 percent. This is exactly the opposite relationship that would be expected from the Peterson Institute research.

    Finally, many large urban counties with the lowest homeownership rates – Los Angeles, Kings County (Brooklyn), New York County (Manhattan), Queens, Cook County (Chicago) and Philadelphia – also suffer well-above-average levels of unemployment and high levels of poverty. In contrast, suburban counties with high homeownership rates, like Nassau County, N.Y., Chester County (in the Philadelphia area), or Fairfax County, Va., boast considerably lower unemployment than their urban neighbors, and higher per-capita incomes. Most of the cities with the highest ownership rates, like Fort Worth and Austin, Texas, Indianapolis, Denver and Columbus, Ohio, all did very well in the most recent Forbes “Best Cities for Jobs” study.

    It is also alleged that countries with high ownership rates do worse than those with lower ones. And to be sure, troubled countries like Portugal and Spain have high levels of homeownership, while Germany, Sweden and Denmark have somewhat lower ones. Yet, many successful countries – Taiwan, Singapore, Norway, Australia, Canada and Israel – actually do quite well with higher ownership rates than in America.

    Dream that refuses to die.

    From a historic perspective, the present U.S. homeownership rate, 65.4 percent, does not represent a structural decline from the middle 2000s, as is often argued, but remains consistent with the virtual equilibrium achieved over the past half century. As recently as 1940, only 40 percent of Americans owned their homes, a share that reached 60 percent by 1960s. Since then, it has remained fairly stable. The modest decline from the middle 2000s was from an artificially high level that resulted from the virtual suspension of mortgage credit standards – egged on by Wall Street and government agencies – which was followed by a deep recession and a weak recovery.

    The housing bust changed the market, but not because of some fundamental shift in buyer preferences, as is sometimes alleged. Indeed, the recent spike in home sales confirms that Americans continue to aspire to homeownership. Research at the Woodrow Wilson Center indicated that 91 percent of respondents identified it as essential to the American Dream, and most favored steering government policy to spur homeownership.

    Much has been written about how the under-30 population is either living at home or cannot buy a house. Yet, surveys by generational chroniclers Morley Winograd and Mike Hais found that a full 82 percent of adult millennials surveyed said it was “important” to own their own home, which rose to 90 percent among married millennials. Another survey, this one by TD Bank, found that 84 percent of renters ages 18-34 intend to purchase a home in the future.

    Homeownership achieves almost cultish status among immigrants, who account for some 40 percent of all new owner households over the past decade. Among Asians who entered the country before 1974, a remarkable 81 percent own their home, while Latino homeownership is projected to rise to 61 percent by 2020.

    Societal advantages of owning

    Critics of homeownership often point out that renters have far more flexibility to move; that’s true and important particularly for people in their 20s. But, as people age, get married and, especially, have children, they seek to become involved in their communities on a more permanent basis. Pundits and economists often fail to recognize that people are more than simply profit-maximization machines ready to cross the country for an income increase of a few thousand dollars; they also seek out friends, stable neighbors, familial comfort, community and privacy.

    Homeowners reap the financial gains of any appreciation in the value of their property, so they tend to spend more time and money maintaining their residence, which also contributes to the overall quality of the surrounding community. The right to pass property to an heir or to another person also provides motivation for proper maintenance.

    Given their stake, homeowners participate in elections much more frequently than renters. One study found that 77 percent of homeowners had, at some point, voted in local elections, compared with 52 percent of renters. The study also found a greater awareness of the political process among homeowners. About 38 percent of homeowners knew the name of their local school board representative, compared with 20 percent of renters. The study also showed a higher incidence of church attendance among homeowners.

    People who own their homes also tend to volunteer more in their community, notes the National Association of Realtors. This applies to the owners of both expensive and modest properties. One 2011 Georgetown study suggests that homeownership increases volunteering hours by 22 percent.

    Perhaps the largest social benefits relate to children. Owners remain in their homes longer than do renters, providing a degree of stability valuable for children. Research published by Habitat for Humanity identifies a number of other advantages for children associated with homeownership versus renting, ranging from higher academic achievement, fewer behavioral problems and lower incidence of teenage pregnancy.

    ‘A share in their land’

    Even before the American Revolution, the notion of ownership, usually of a farmstead, was a critical lure. Even after the yeoman utopia of the early 19th century faded, Americans continued to yearn for their own homes, something that led them in two great waves, first in the 1920s and again in the 1950s and 1960s, to the suburban periphery.

    In contrast to today’s progressives, many traditional liberals embraced the old American ideal of dispersed land ownership. “A nation of homeowners,” President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed, “of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable.”

    Legislation under Roosevelt and successor presidents supported this ideal. More than a response to the market, governments embraced homeownership as a positive societal and economic good for the majority of Americans. This policy – brilliantly exploited by entrepreneurs – worked for both people and the economy. Almost half of suburban housing, notes historian Alan Wolfe, depended on some form of federal financing.

    Road to serfdom?

    The suggestion that we need to abandon what the New York Times denounces as the “dogma on owning a home” has grown deeply entrenched among retro-urbanists. Rather than facilitate the broad dispersion of property ownership across economic classes, the new orthodoxy suggests we would be better off as a nation of renters, living cheek-to-jowl in apartments. This works to the advantage of the Wall Streeters and other investors, who profit from our paying off their mortgages rather than our own. The assault on homeownership also pleases some advocates of austerity, such as Pete Peterson, who would like to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction as a way to raise revenue at the expense of the middle class.

    Turning against homeownership undermines the very promise of American life and the culture of independence critical to our identity as a people. Housing accounts for about two-thirds of a family’s wealth and the vast majority of the property owned by middle- and working-class households. The house represents for the middle class, devastated by the weak recovery, both a chance to make a long-term investment as well as a place to raise a family; a Wall Street portfolio, for all but the very affluent, who can afford the best advice, provides no reasonable alternative.

    We have to consider what kind society we wish to have. The nomadic model now in fashion suggests Americans should simply move from place to place, untethered to any one spot, seeking personal fulfillment and the best financial deal for themselves. Such a model fits with current planning dogma and facilitates a source of profit for some, but undermines the dispersion of property that can sustain our society, and our families, over the long run.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA.

    This piece originally appeared in the Orange County Register.

    Home illustration by Bigstock.
    Update: The Pete Peterson referred to here is not the Pete Peterson running for office in California.

  • Jim Ways

  • The Cities That Are Stealing Finance Jobs From Wall Street

    Over the past 60 years, financial services’ share of the economy has exploded from 2.5% to 8.5% of GDP. Even if you believe, as we do, that financialization is not a healthy trend, the sector boasts a high number of relatively well-paid jobs that most cities would welcome.

    Yet our list of the fastest-growing finance economies is a surprising one that includes many “second-tier” cities that most would not associate with banking. To identify the cities making the biggest gains, we ranked metropolitan statistical areas’ employment growth in the sector over the long-term (2001-12), mid-term (2007-12) and the last two years, as well as momentum.

    Best Cities for Jobs in Finance Industries

    New High-Fliers

    Tops on our list among the 66 largest metro areas is Richmond, Va., where financial sector employment has grown an impressive 12% since 2009. This reflects the presence of large banks such as Capital One Financial , the area’s largest private employer with 10,900 jobs, and SunTrust Banks , which employs 4,400. The insurer Genworth Financial is based in Richmond, and Wells Fargo and Bank of America also have sizable operations there. Along with the Northern Virginia metropolitan statistical area (an area encompassing the state’s suburbs of Washington, D.C., including Fairfax, Arlington, Loudoun and Prince William counties), which is No. 7 on our list, the Old Dominion is quietly becoming a major financial power.

    In once-gritty Pittsburgh, which places second on our list, financial services is now the largest contributor to the regional GDP, according to the Allegheny Conference. Long seen as a backwater, the area has begun to lure the kind of highly trained workers used by financial firms, leading Rust Belt analyst Jim Russell to joke, “Pittsburgh is becoming the new Portland.” Financial employment there has grown nearly 7% since 2009. The strongly reviving local economy spans everything from energy to medical technology.

    Like Pittsburgh, some of the areas doing well in financial services are also thriving generally. These include such Texas high-fliers as No. 3 Ft. Worth-Arlington, where financial services employment has expanded over 12% since 2007, as well as No. 4 San Antonio-New Braunfels. And it is not real estate that is driving this boom—in Fort Worth, for example, the “real estate and rental and leasing” sub-sector of financial services shed jobs over the last five years while the “finance and insurance” subsector expanded almost 20%.

    Some metro areas that aren’t exactly setting the world on fire are scoring in the financial job sweepstakes. Jacksonville, Fla., ranks fifth on our list and St. Louis, MO-IL ranks eighth. In St. Louis, financial sector employment is up 6.4% since 2007 by our count, and the number of securities industry jobs has increased 85% to 12,000 over that span, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    What’s Driving Dispersion of Financial Services?

    The largest traditional financial centers appear to be losing their edge. New York, home to by far the largest banking sector with 436,000 jobs, places a meager 52nd on our list of the cities winning the most new jobs in the sector. Big money may still be minted in Gotham, but jobs are not. Since 2007 financial employment in the Big Apple is down 7.4%.

    The next four biggest financial centers are also doing poorly. San Francisco-San Mateo ranks 37th – remarkably poor given that San Francisco placed first overall on our 2013 list of The Best Cities For Jobs. Meanwhile Boston-Cambridge-Quincy ranks 44th (despite notching a strong 17th place ranking on our overall list), Los Angeles-Long Beach is 47th, and Chicago-Joliet-Naperville is 57th.

    So what gives here? A key factor is cost-cutting. As firms look to move back office and some sales functions to less expensive locales, the traditional financial centers are losing out. Between 2007 and 2012, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco lost a combined 40,000 finance jobs.

    In addition to lower rents in the cities that rank highly on our list, workers come cheaper, too: the average annual salary for securities industry jobs in St. Louis is $102,000, according to the Wall Street Journal, compared with $343,000 in New York.

    This trend is not just limited to the high-profile investment banks and brokerages. Insurance, the quieter and tamer part of the financial services sector (it has roughly the same number of jobs today as it did in 2001 and 2007), has seen an exodus of jobs into these lower-cost regional markets as well. Illinois-based insurance giant State Farm, for example, recently signed mega-leases in Dallas, Phoenix and Atlanta.

    Manufacturing And Energy Drive Changes

    The manufacturing revival in the Rust Belt and the Midwest is creating financial sector jobs in midsized cities (those with overall employment totaling 150,000 to 450,000).  Tops on that list is Ann Arbor, Mich., followed by Green Bay, Wisc., No. 16 Grand-Rapids-Wyoming, Mich., and No. 19 Madison, Wisc. Among small cities, Owensboro, Ky., ranks first, followed by No. 3 Kankakee-Bradley, Ill., No. 5 Clarksville, Tenn.-Ky., No. 11 Bloomington-Normal, Ill., and No. 13 Michigan City-La Porte, Ind. With low commercial and industrial market costs and available workforces, these regions could prove attractive to manufacturers re-shoring U.S. operations.

    The top of the financial services rankings for midsized and small cities is also liberally sprinkled with places where hot energy economies are driving employment in all sectors. The midsized list features Bakersfield-Delano, Calif., in third place, the Texas towns of El Paso and McAllen-Edinburg-Mission in fifth and ninth place, respectively, and No. 10 Lafayette, La. Our small cities ranking includes the Texas towns of Odessa (2nd), Midland (fourth) and Sherman-Denison (10th), and Cheyenne, Wyo. (14th). More economic activity will continue to flow to these regions both as they grow and as their suppliers move closer to reduce costs.

    What The Future Holds

    Historically financial services clustered in big cities, but increasingly cost is leading financial institutions to focus on smaller metropolitan areas. With the connectivity of the Internet and growth of educated workforces in many smaller metros, it has become increasingly possible for financial firms to locate many key functions outside of the traditional money centers.

    Some places can boast advantages beyond just lower costs. Jacksonville, and Miami-Kendall (No. 13 on our big cities list) benefit from the huge demand for financial advisers in Florida. The Sunshine State ranks fourth in the number of financial advisors, and this seems likely to grow as at least some of the expanding ranks of down-shifting boomers — some with decent nest eggs– head down south to retire or start second careers. This demographic trend could also benefit Phoenix, which already hosts substantial operations of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.

    Perhaps no low-cost metro area has greater long-term advantages than Salt Lake City, 12th on our list. The unique linguistics skills of the largely Mormon workforce have attracted big financial firms such as Goldman Sachs, who need people capable of conversing in Lithuanian, Chinese or Tagalog. Salt Lake City, with 1,400 employees, is the investment bank’s sixth largest location in the world.

    “We consider Salt Lake a high leverage location,” notes Goldman managing director David W. Lang. “There’s a huge cost differential and you have a huge talent-rich environment.”

    As we saw in manufacturing and information sectors, the financial services industry appears to be undergoing a profound geographic shift. Once identified largely with such storied locales as Wall Street, Chicago’s LaSalle Street or San Francisco’s Montgomery, the financial sector — like much of the economy — is dispersing, perhaps even more rapidly. Over time, this could accelerate the process of economic decentralization that has been occurring, fairly steadily, for the better part of a half century.

    Best Cities for Jobs in Finance Industries

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and a member of the editorial board of the Orange County Register. He is author of The City: A Global History and The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. His most recent study, The Rise of Postfamilialism, has been widely discussed and distributed internationally. He lives in Los Angeles, CA.

    Michael Shires, Ph.D. is a professor at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.

    This piece originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Downtown Richmond photo by CoredesatChikai.

  • Small Cities Finance Jobs – 2013 Best Cities Rankings

    Best Cities for Jobs in Finance Industries

    The methodology for the 2013 rankings for best cities for financial activities jobs parallels that used for our 2013 Best Cities for Job Growth rankings.  Instead of using Total Nonfarm Employment, the financial activities rankings use employment in the financial activities sector (supersector 55) in the BLS MSA employment data. The Financial Activities rankings include the 323 MSAs for which there are sectoral employment data for all 12 years used in our analysis.

    2013 MSA Fin Activs Ranking –
    Small MSAs    		 Area Weighted INDEX 2012 Emplymnt – Fin Activ
    (1000s)    		 2012 MSA Fin Activ Ranking –
    Small MSAs    		 Fin Activ 2013 Change from 2012 –
    Small MSAs
    1 Owensboro, KY 99.3          3.4 7 6
    2 Odessa, TX 91.8          3.0 1 (1)
    3 Kankakee-Bradley, IL 91.5          2.1 6 3
    4 Midland, TX 88.8          4.2 18 14
    5 Clarksville, TN-KY 88.7          3.1 32 27
    6 Macon, GA 88.4          9.3 not rated not rated
    7 Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA 85.2          4.0 not rated not rated
    8 Hanford-Corcoran, CA 84.5          1.1 51 43
    9 Victoria, TX 82.7          2.3 20 11
    10 Sherman-Denison, TX 82.1          2.9 8 (2)
    11 Bloomington-Normal, IL 81.6        13.0 54 43
    12 Madera-Chowchilla, CA 81.6          0.8 71 59
    13 Michigan City-La Porte, IN 80.8          1.3 not rated not rated
    14 Cheyenne, WY 80.0          2.3 9 (5)
    15 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA 79.3          4.3 102 87
    16 Bellingham, WA 79.0          3.2 not rated not rated
    17 Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA 78.7          4.5 3 (14)
    18 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 77.7          8.4 13 (5)
    19 Greenville, NC 76.7          2.8 2 (17)
    20 Bismarck, ND 76.6          3.5 21 1
    21 Holland-Grand Haven, MI 76.6          3.3 5 (16)
    22 Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 75.6          6.0 126 104
    23 Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 74.9          4.0 15 (8)
    24 Longview, TX 74.2          4.0 33 9
    25 St. Cloud, MN 74.1          4.4 90 65
    26 Gainesville, FL 72.8          6.4 119 93
    27 Danville, IL 72.3          1.4 89 62
    28 Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA 72.3          4.1 68 40
    29 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 72.0          5.4 19 (10)
    30 Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA NECTA 71.3          1.7 30 0
    31 Springfield, IL 70.7          7.6 64 33
    32 Columbus, GA-AL 70.6        12.9 41 9
    33 Sioux Falls, SD 70.2        16.2 109 76
    34 Las Cruces, NM 70.1          2.5 58 24
    35 Elmira, NY 69.8          1.5 93 58
    36 Tyler, TX 69.2          4.2 17 (19)
    37 Kalamazoo-Portage, MI 68.3          8.1 23 (14)
    38 Nashua, NH-MA  NECTA Division 68.1          8.1 74 36
    39 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 68.0          3.3 123 84
    40 Muncie, IN 67.9          2.6 53 13
    41 Lafayette, IN 67.3          3.7 43 2
    42 Terre Haute, IN 66.7          2.6 127 85
    43 Fond du Lac, WI 66.5          2.0 22 (21)
    44 Fargo, ND-MN 66.1          9.2 11 (33)
    45 San Angelo, TX 66.0          2.1 55 10
    46 Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA 65.6          3.2 46 0
    47 College Station-Bryan, TX 65.5          3.6 27 (20)
    48 Erie, PA 65.0          6.2 37 (11)
    49 Morristown, TN 64.3          1.2 92 43
    50 Wichita Falls, TX 63.6          2.8 99 49
    51 Casper, WY 62.6          2.0 63 12
    52 Napa, CA 62.3          2.3 105 53
    53 Pocatello, ID 61.9          1.9 125 72
    54 Barnstable Town, MA NECTA 61.8          3.7 133 79
    55 Abilene, TX 61.6          3.8 40 (15)
    56 Elkhart-Goshen, IN 61.6          3.1 57 1
    57 Jackson, TN 61.5          1.7 113 56
    58 Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL 59.2          4.9 42 (16)
    59 Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR 59.0          2.6 26 (33)
    60 Fort Smith, AR-OK 59.0          4.3 139 79
    61 Sheboygan, WI 58.7          2.5 39 (22)
    62 Rapid City, SD 57.5          3.8 47 (15)
    63 Grand Forks, ND-MN 56.3          1.7 85 22
    64 La Crosse, WI-MN 56.0          3.7 24 (40)
    65 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 54.6          5.6 52 (13)
    66 Palm Coast, FL 54.3          0.8 144 78
    67 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ 53.7          1.8 121 54
    68 Lubbock, TX 53.5          6.9 82 14
    69 El Centro, CA 53.3          1.3 49 (20)
    70 Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA 53.2          3.1 108 38
    71 Merced, CA 52.4          1.6 110 39
    72 Idaho Falls, ID 52.2          2.1 76 4
    73 Battle Creek, MI 51.5          1.4 not rated not rated
    74 Cedar Rapids, IA 51.4        10.1 95 21
    75 Tuscaloosa, AL 51.1          3.7 45 (30)
    76 Bangor, ME NECTA 50.3          2.1 28 (48)
    77 St. George, UT 50.2          1.9 69 (8)
    78 Santa Fe, NM 50.2          2.7 77 (1)
    79 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI 50.1          2.3 4 (75)
    80 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL 49.5          2.1 31 (49)
    81 Auburn-Opelika, AL 49.3          1.7 35 (46)
    82 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 48.9          3.9 147 65
    83 Appleton, WI 48.9          7.3 65 (18)
    84 Ithaca, NY 48.9          1.6 34 (50)
    85 Waterbury, CT NECTA 47.7          2.0 153 68
    86 Burlington, NC 47.7          1.8 14 (72)
    87 Coeur d’Alene, ID 46.7          3.1 60 (27)
    88 Anniston-Oxford, AL 46.2          1.3 79 (9)
    89 Charleston, WV 45.8          8.0 128 39
    90 Duluth, MN-WI 45.1          5.4 73 (17)
    91 Waco, TX 44.6          6.2 70 (21)
    92 Topeka, KS 44.4          7.0 86 (6)
    93 Laredo, TX 44.3          3.8 44 (49)
    94 Modesto, CA 43.9          5.4 66 (28)
    95 Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI 43.9          1.8 29 (66)
    96 Greeley, CO 43.8          4.1 143 47
    97 Naples-Marco Island, FL 43.4          6.7 87 (10)
    98 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 43.4          5.0 50 (48)
    99 Johnstown, PA 43.4          2.8 not rated not rated
    100 Champaign-Urbana, IL 43.3          4.3 75 (25)
    101 Yuba City, CA 42.4          1.3 48 (53)
    102 Kokomo, IN 42.0          1.3 91 (11)
    103 Wausau, WI 42.0          5.5 111 8
    104 Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI 41.5          3.9 80 (24)
    105 Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA  NECTA Division 41.4          3.0 59 (46)
    106 Lewiston, ID-WA 39.9          1.7 134 28
    107 Redding, CA 39.5          2.4 145 38
    108 Wilmington, NC 39.1          6.2 88 (20)
    109 Eugene-Springfield, OR 39.0          7.2 122 13
    110 Glens Falls, NY 38.8          1.9 12 (98)
    111 Janesville, WI 38.2          1.8 56 (55)
    112 Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH  NECTA Div 38.0          3.6 138 26
    113 Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH  NECTA Div 37.9          2.6 72 (41)
    114 Salem, OR 37.3          7.0 16 (98)
    115 Yuma, AZ 37.3          1.4 146 31
    116 Flint, MI 37.3          6.3 61 (55)
    117 Jackson, MI 37.1          1.8 not rated not rated
    118 Bay City, MI 36.5          1.5 10 (108)
    119 Grand Junction, CO 35.5          3.0 124 5
    120 Fayetteville, NC 34.5          4.1 25 (95)
    121 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 34.0          6.0 154 33
    122 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC 33.9          3.3 36 (86)
    123 Pueblo, CO 33.4          1.9 132 9
    124 Chico, CA 33.0          2.8 not rated not rated
    125 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ 32.4          4.0 78 (47)
    126 Anderson, IN 32.2          1.5 116 (10)
    127 Logan, UT-ID 31.7          1.6 100 (27)
    128 Ocala, FL 31.5          4.2 98 (30)
    129 Bloomington, IN 31.2          2.7 148 19
    130 Fairbanks, AK 31.1          1.3 81 (49)
    131 Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA 31.0          4.6 117 (14)
    132 Utica-Rome, NY 31.0          7.1 104 (28)
    133 Dothan, AL 30.6          2.0 115 (18)
    134 Mansfield, OH 28.3          1.6 not rated not rated
    135 Gadsden, AL 28.0          1.4 130 (5)
    136 Salinas, CA 27.6          4.2 151 15
    137 Amarillo, TX 27.3          6.1 112 (25)
    138 Cleveland, TN 27.0          1.4 136 (2)
    139 Decatur, IL 26.8          1.9 96 (43)
    140 Lawton, OK 26.6          2.4 106 (34)
    141 Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ 26.5          1.5 38 (103)
    142 Corvallis, OR 24.6          1.3 83 (59)
    143 New Bedford, MA NECTA 24.3          1.8 84 (59)
    144 Rochester, MN 23.8          2.4 103 (41)
    145 Manchester, NH NECTA 23.3          6.8 131 (14)
    146 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL 22.6          2.3 62 (84)
    147 Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL 22.3          3.6 150 3
    148 Decatur, AL 21.6          2.0 129 (19)
    149 Pittsfield, MA NECTA 21.3          1.5 135 (14)
    150 Rockford, IL 19.9          5.4 107 (43)
    151 Medford, OR 19.7          3.5 118 (33)
    152 Visalia-Porterville, CA 18.9          3.8 120 (32)
    153 Kingston, NY 18.5          2.2 97 (56)
    154 Dover, DE 18.1          1.6 152 (2)
    155 Columbus, IN 16.8          1.3 101 (54)
    156 Punta Gorda, FL 15.2          1.7 137 (19)
    157 Bend, OR 14.7          3.9 149 (8)
    158 Port St. Lucie, FL 14.3          5.2 94 (64)
    159 Johnson City, TN 12.2          3.6 155 (4)
    160 Flagstaff, AZ 11.8          1.2 156 (4)
    161 Binghamton, NY 11.8          3.8 67 (94)
    162 Monroe, MI 11.6          1.1 not rated not rated
    163 Prescott, AZ 10.9          1.7 141 (22)
    164 Racine, WI 8.7          2.6 142 (22)
    165 Peabody, MA  NECTA Division 8.5          4.4 114 (51)
    166 Altoona, PA 3.6          1.5 not rated not rated

     

  • Midsized Cities Finance Jobs – 2013 Best Cities Rankings

    Best Cities for Jobs in Finance Industries

    The methodology for the 2013 rankings for best cities for financial activities jobs parallels that used for our 2013 Best Cities for Job Growth rankings.  Instead of using Total Nonfarm Employment, the financial activities rankings use employment in the financial activities sector (supersector 55) in the BLS MSA employment data. The Financial Activities rankings include the 323 MSAs for which there are sectoral employment data for all 12 years used in our analysis.

    2013 MSA Fin Activ Ranking –
    Midsized MSAs    		 Area Weighted INDEX 2012 Emplymnt – Fin Activ
    (1000s)    		 2012 MSA Fin Activ  Ranking –
    Midsized  MSAs    		 Fin Activ 2013 Change from 2012 –
    Midsized MSAs
    1 Ann Arbor, MI 98.0          7.5 1 0
    2 Green Bay, WI 81.4        13.7 54 52
    3 Bakersfield-Delano, CA 77.6          8.8 22 19
    4 Provo-Orem, UT 77.3          6.6 44 40
    5 El Paso, TX 76.3        12.6 3 (2)
    6 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 74.5          9.1 52 46
    7 Columbia, SC 73.0        29.1 36 29
    8 Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC 72.6        14.2 38 30
    9 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 72.3          8.9 6 (3)
    10 Lafayette, LA 71.4          9.0 10 0
    11 Boise City-Nampa, ID 71.2        14.6 45 34
    12 Mobile, AL 71.1          9.5 2 (10)
    13 Tacoma, WA Mtr Div 70.1        13.1 77 64
    14 Lincoln, NE 68.9        14.2 12 (2)
    15 Kansas City, KS 67.6        33.5 19 4
    16 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 67.4        21.0 18 2
    17 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 66.9          7.7 23 6
    18 Springfield, MO 66.1        12.5 40 22
    19 Madison, WI 63.8        28.7 48 29
    20 Tucson, AZ 63.4        19.2 41 21
    21 Roanoke, VA 62.3          8.3 85 64
    22 Trenton-Ewing, NJ 61.0        16.9 4 (18)
    23 Dayton, OH 61.0        17.6 50 27
    24 Framingham, MA  NECTA Division 60.9          5.3 8 (16)
    25 Corpus Christi, TX 60.8          7.6 60 35
    26 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 60.3        52.0 15 (11)
    27 Knoxville, TN 59.7        17.2 35 8
    28 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 59.5        19.8 43 15
    29 Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Mtr Div 58.7        21.3 67 38
    30 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 58.1        25.1 16 (14)
    31 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 57.7          5.7 31 0
    32 Worcester, MA-CT NECTA 56.2        13.6 33 1
    33 Gary, IN Mtr Div 55.4          9.0 72 39
    34 Akron, OH 55.2        13.6 39 5
    35 Spokane, WA 54.5        12.4 34 (1)
    36 Savannah, GA 54.3          6.0 86 50
    37 Canton-Massillon, OH 53.2          7.9 24 (13)
    38 Anchorage, AK 52.5          8.6 7 (31)
    39 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 52.0        12.6 13 (26)
    40 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 50.7          7.1 11 (29)
    41 Fort Wayne, IN 49.7        11.5 5 (36)
    42 Wichita, KS 49.4        10.7 55 13
    43 Huntsville, AL 47.6          6.0 29 (14)
    44 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA 47.5        15.0 20 (24)
    45 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Mtr Div 47.3        38.8 14 (31)
    46 Baton Rouge, LA 47.3        17.2 56 10
    47 Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 47.0        14.6 37 (10)
    48 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 45.8          7.7 65 17
    49 Lansing-East Lansing, MI 45.5        13.6 26 (23)
    50 Ogden-Clearfield, UT 45.2          8.0 63 13
    51 Jackson, MS 44.7        15.4 66 15
    52 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 44.0        15.0 75 23
    53 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 43.7          8.0 47 (6)
    54 Lancaster, PA 42.6          8.5 70 16
    55 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 41.9          7.6 71 16
    56 Boulder, CO 41.2          7.2 28 (28)
    57 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 40.5        11.4 61 4
    58 Albuquerque, NM 40.2        17.6 87 29
    59 Asheville, NC 39.3          5.6 17 (42)
    60 Baltimore City, MD 39.1        18.3 59 (1)
    61 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 38.6        10.7 81 20
    62 Chattanooga, TN-GA 37.6        17.1 51 (11)
    63 Lexington-Fayette, KY 37.2          9.8 49 (14)
    64 Colorado Springs, CO 36.5        15.4 21 (43)
    65 Montgomery, AL 36.0          7.2 91 26
    66 Fresno, CA 35.6        12.9 58 (8)
    67 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA 35.2        40.6 57 (10)
    68 Reno-Sparks, NV 35.1          9.0 76 8
    69 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 35.1          7.5 89 20
    70 Calvert-Charles-Prince George’s, MD 34.7        14.0 84 14
    71 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 34.6          6.6 74 3
    72 York-Hanover, PA 34.5          5.1 62 (10)
    73 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 34.0        22.2 69 (4)
    74 North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL 33.4        14.0 42 (32)
    75 Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA 33.3        11.7 32 (43)
    76 New Haven, CT NECTA 32.2        12.1 78 2
    77 Syracuse, NY 31.0        16.6 30 (47)
    78 Evansville, IN-KY 24.0          5.1 68 (10)
    79 Tallahassee, FL 23.2          7.1 25 (54)
    80 Toledo, OH 22.1        10.8 73 (7)
    81 Winston-Salem, NC 21.8        11.5 53 (28)
    82 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO 21.8          6.5 82 0
    83 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 20.9          8.6 64 (19)
    84 Peoria, IL 20.5          7.4 90 6
    85 Tulsa, OK 20.0        22.2 86 1
    86 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 17.5        18.7 9 (77)
    87 Stockton, CA 17.5          7.4 79 (8)
    88 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 14.2          8.0 46 (42)
    89 Greensboro-High Point, NC 12.7        18.2 83 (6)
    90 Springfield, MA-CT NECTA 11.8        14.8 80 (10)
    91 Reading, PA 3.5          6.0 88 (3)

     

  • Large Cities Finance Jobs – 2013 Best Cities Rankings

    Best Cities for Jobs in Finance Industries

    The methodology for the 2013 rankings for best cities for financial activities jobs parallels that used for our 2013 Best Cities for Job Growth rankings.  Instead of using Total Nonfarm Employment, the financial activities rankings use employment in the financial activities sector (supersector 55) in the BLS MSA employment data. The Financial Activities rankings include the 323 MSAs for which there are sectoral employment data for all 12 years used in our analysis.

    2013 MSA Fin Activities Ranking –
    Large MSAs    		 Area Weighted INDEX 2012 Emplymnt – Fin Activ
    (1000s)    		 2012 MSA Fin Activ  Ranking –
    Large MSAs    		 Fin Activ 2013  Change from 2012 –
    Large MSAs
    1 Richmond, VA 84.6          47.5 5 4
    2 Pittsburgh, PA 84.2          72.5 2 0
    3 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Mtr Div 81.6          55.4 1 (2)
    4 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 76.3          72.3 6 2
    5 Jacksonville, FL 76.3          61.3 11 6
    6 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Mtr Div 75.6       191.5 8 2
    7 Northern Virginia, VA 72.6          67.9 7 0
    8 St. Louis, MO-IL 72.0          85.0 17 9
    9 Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 71.6       150.1 23 14
    10 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO 70.6          95.7 39 29
    11 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX 70.6          45.6 3 (8)
    12 Salt Lake City, UT 69.7          50.3 14 2
    13 Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Mtr Div 68.5          72.0 58 45
    14 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Mtr Div 68.2       111.3 54 40
    15 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Mtr Div 68.1       110.7 18 3
    16 Columbus, OH 67.5          72.2 15 (1)
    17 Kansas City, MO 66.5          40.7 45 28
    18 Camden, NJ Mtr Div 65.6          31.0 48 30
    19 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 65.0          38.1 22 3
    20 Oklahoma City, OK 64.3          33.7 32 12
    21 Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Mtr Div 63.5          32.0 24 3
    22 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 62.8          95.6 27 5
    23 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 61.0          41.6 20 (3)
    24 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 60.8       140.3 21 (3)
    25 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 60.6          26.9 40 15
    26 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 60.1       156.2 59 33
    27 Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA 59.9          34.6 47 20
    28 Newark-Union, NJ-PA Mtr Div 59.3          69.4 36 8
    29 Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN 59.3          47.7 9 (20)
    30 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 58.4       140.1 12 (18)
    31 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 58.1          40.7 44 13
    32 Nassau-Suffolk, NY Mtr Div 57.9          73.1 38 6
    33 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 57.7          41.6 30 (3)
    34 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 57.5          33.6 29 (5)
    35 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 57.1          32.0 16 (19)
    36 Rochester, NY 57.1          20.9 4 (32)
    37 San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Mtr Div 55.4          79.4 33 (4)
    38 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 54.3          66.9 19 (19)
    39 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 52.9          42.0 62 23
    40 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 51.5          41.6 64 24
    41 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 48.8          69.4 51 10
    42 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 46.9          64.0 56 14
    43 Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Mtr Div 46.9          67.8 31 (12)
    44 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division 46.7       143.2 53 9
    45 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 46.5          63.1 42 (3)
    46 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 45.5          71.9 26 (20)
    47 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Mtr Div 45.0       212.8 37 (10)
    48 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Mtr Div 44.9          36.4 25 (23)
    49 Raleigh-Cary, NC 43.0          26.0 28 (21)
    50 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Mtr Div 42.1          54.4 46 (4)
    51 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA 41.9          48.0 57 6
    52 New York City, NY 41.8       436.1 10 (42)
    53 Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Mtr Div 40.7          56.3 49 (4)
    54 Honolulu, HI 40.1          20.6 25 (29)
    55 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 39.5          58.2 50 (5)
    56 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 38.2          61.8 41 (15)
    57 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL Mtr Div 38.1       259.1 63 6
    58 Philadelphia City, PA 36.8          41.1 61 3
    59 Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Mtr Div 35.7          48.0 52 (7)
    60 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 33.0          54.3 35 (25)
    61 Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY 32.7          32.7 13 (48)
    62 Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD Mtr Div 32.5          39.4 55 (7)
    63 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA 31.8          59.8 43 (20)
    64 Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ 30.7          69.1 34 (30)
    65 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Mtr Div 24.2          79.3 60 (5)
    66 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 9.5          26.9 65 (1)

     

  • Overall Finance Jobs – 2013 Best Cities Rankings

    Best Cities for Jobs in Finance Industries

    The methodology for the 2013 rankings for best cities for financial activities jobs parallels that used for our 2013 Best Cities for Job Growth rankings.  Instead of using Total Nonfarm Employment, the financial activities rankings use employment in the financial activities sector (supersector 55) in the BLS MSA employment data. The Financial Activities rankings include the 323 MSAs for which there are sectoral employment data for all 12 years used in our analysis.

    2013 MSA Fin Activities Ranking –
    All MSAs    		 Area Weighted INDEX 2012 Emplymt – Fin Activities
    (1000s)    		 2012 MSA Fin Activities  Ranking –
    All MSAs    		 Fin Activities 2013  Change from 2012 –
    All MSAs
    1 Owensboro, KY 99.3         3.4 11 10
    2 Ann Arbor, MI 98.0         7.5 5 3
    3 Odessa, TX 91.8         3.0 1 (2)
    4 Kankakee-Bradley, IL 91.5         2.1 10 6
    5 Midland, TX 88.8         4.2 30 25
    6 Clarksville, TN-KY 88.7         3.1 57 51
    7 Macon, GA 88.4         9.3 not rated not rated
    8 Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA 85.2         4.0 not rated not rated
    9 Richmond, VA 84.6      47.5 27 18
    10 Hanford-Corcoran, CA 84.5         1.1 100 90
    11 Pittsburgh, PA 84.2      72.5 14 3
    12 Victoria, TX 82.7         2.3 36 24
    13 Sherman-Denison, TX 82.1         2.9 12 (1)
    14 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Mtr Div 81.6      55.4 3 (11)
    15 Bloomington-Normal, IL 81.6      13.0 110 95
    16 Madera-Chowchilla, CA 81.6         0.8 146 130
    17 Green Bay, WI 81.4      13.7 180 163
    18 Michigan City-La Porte, IN 80.8         1.3 not rated not rated
    19 Cheyenne, WY 80.0         2.3 13 (6)
    20 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA 79.3         4.3 215 195
    21 Bellingham, WA 79.0         3.2 not rated not rated
    22 Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA 78.7         4.5 4 (18)
    23 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 77.7         8.4 20 (3)
    24 Bakersfield-Delano, CA 77.6         8.8 87 63
    25 Provo-Orem, UT 77.3         6.6 152 127
    26 Greenville, NC 76.7         2.8 2 (24)
    27 Bismarck, ND 76.6         3.5 38 11
    28 Holland-Grand Haven, MI 76.6         3.3 9 (19)
    29 El Paso, TX 76.3      12.6 7 (22)
    30 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 76.3      72.3 28 (2)
    31 Jacksonville, FL 76.3      61.3 48 17
    32 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Mtr Div 75.6    191.5 34 2
    33 Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 75.6         6.0 264 231
    34 Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 74.9         4.0 25 (9)
    35 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 74.5         9.1 175 140
    36 Longview, TX 74.2         4.0 63 27
    37 St. Cloud, MN 74.1         4.4 186 149
    38 Columbia, SC 73.0      29.1 123 85
    39 Gainesville, FL 72.8         6.4 252 213
    40 Northern Virginia, VA 72.6      67.9 32 (8)
    41 Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC 72.6      14.2 129 88
    42 Danville, IL 72.3         1.4 185 143
    43 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 72.3         8.9 24 (19)
    44 Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA 72.3         4.1 143 99
    45 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 72.0         5.4 31 (14)
    46 St. Louis, MO-IL 72.0      85.0 70 24
    47 Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 71.6    150.1 95 48
    48 Lafayette, LA 71.4         9.0 39 (9)
    49 Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA NECTA 71.3         1.7 54 5
    50 Boise City-Nampa, ID 71.2      14.6 157 107
    51 Mobile, AL 71.1         9.5 6 (45)
    52 Springfield, IL 70.7         7.6 133 81
    53 Columbus, GA-AL 70.6      12.9 81 28
    54 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO 70.6      95.7 172 118
    55 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX 70.6      45.6 21 (34)
    56 Sioux Falls, SD 70.2      16.2 227 171
    57 Las Cruces, NM 70.1         2.5 119 62
    58 Tacoma, WA Mtr Div 70.1      13.1 261 203
    59 Elmira, NY 69.8         1.5 190 131
    60 Salt Lake City, UT 69.7      50.3 59 (1)
    61 Tyler, TX 69.2         4.2 29 (32)
    62 Lincoln, NE 68.9      14.2 47 (15)
    63 Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Mtr Div 68.5      72.0 245 182
    64 Kalamazoo-Portage, MI 68.3         8.1 43 (21)
    65 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Mtr Div 68.2    111.3 226 161
    66 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Mtr Div 68.1    110.7 71 5
    67 Nashua, NH-MA  NECTA Division 68.1         8.1 149 82
    68 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 68.0         3.3 259 191
    69 Muncie, IN 67.9         2.6 108 39
    70 Kansas City, KS 67.6      33.5 80 10
    71 Columbus, OH 67.5      72.2 60 (11)
    72 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 67.4      21.0 76 4
    73 Lafayette, IN 67.3         3.7 83 10
    74 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 66.9         7.7 88 14
    75 Terre Haute, IN 66.7         2.6 268 193
    76 Kansas City, MO 66.5      40.7 197 121
    77 Fond du Lac, WI 66.5         2.0 40 (37)
    78 Fargo, ND-MN 66.1         9.2 17 (61)
    79 Springfield, MO 66.1      12.5 137 58
    80 San Angelo, TX 66.0         2.1 111 31
    81 Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA 65.6         3.2 93 12
    82 Camden, NJ Mtr Div 65.6      31.0 202 120
    83 College Station-Bryan, TX 65.5         3.6 51 (32)
    84 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 65.0      38.1 86 2
    85 Erie, PA 65.0         6.2 74 (11)
    86 Oklahoma City, OK 64.3      33.7 136 50
    87 Morristown, TN 64.3         1.2 188 101
    88 Madison, WI 63.8      28.7 162 74
    89 Wichita Falls, TX 63.6         2.8 205 116
    90 Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Mtr Div 63.5      32.0 99 9
    91 Tucson, AZ 63.4      19.2 138 47
    92 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 62.8      95.6 109 17
    93 Casper, WY 62.6         2.0 132 39
    94 Napa, CA 62.3         2.3 221 127
    95 Roanoke, VA 62.3         8.3 287 192
    96 Pocatello, ID 61.9         1.9 262 166
    97 Barnstable Town, MA NECTA 61.8         3.7 280 183
    98 Abilene, TX 61.6         3.8 79 (19)
    99 Elkhart-Goshen, IN 61.6         3.1 115 16
    100 Jackson, TN 61.5         1.7 237 137
    101 Trenton-Ewing, NJ 61.0      16.9 16 (85)
    102 Dayton, OH 61.0      17.6 165 63
    103 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 61.0      41.6 73 (30)
    104 Framingham, MA  NECTA Division 60.9         5.3 35 (69)
    105 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 60.8    140.3 78 (27)
    106 Corpus Christi, TX 60.8         7.6 207 101
    107 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 60.6      26.9 181 74
    108 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 60.3      52.0 64 (44)
    109 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 60.1    156.2 248 139
    110 Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA 59.9      34.6 201 91
    111 Knoxville, TN 59.7      17.2 120 9
    112 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 59.5      19.8 150 38
    113 Newark-Union, NJ-PA Mtr Div 59.3      69.4 168 55
    114 Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN 59.3      47.7 42 (72)
    115 Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL 59.2         4.9 82 (33)
    116 Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR 59.0         2.6 50 (66)
    117 Fort Smith, AR-OK 59.0         4.3 286 169
    118 Sheboygan, WI 58.7         2.5 77 (41)
    119 Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Mtr Div 58.7      21.3 235 116
    120 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 58.4    140.1 49 (71)
    121 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 58.1      25.1 67 (54)
    122 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 58.1      40.7 194 72
    123 Nassau-Suffolk, NY Mtr Div 57.9      73.1 171 48
    124 Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN 57.7      41.6 126 2
    125 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 57.7         5.7 113 (12)
    126 Rapid City, SD 57.5         3.8 94 (32)
    127 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 57.5      33.6 125 (2)
    128 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 57.1      32.0 62 (66)
    129 Rochester, NY 57.1      20.9 23 (106)
    130 Grand Forks, ND-MN 56.3         1.7 176 46
    131 Worcester, MA-CT NECTA 56.2      13.6 117 (14)
    132 La Crosse, WI-MN 56.0         3.7 44 (88)
    133 Gary, IN Mtr Div 55.4         9.0 247 114
    134 San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Mtr Div 55.4      79.4 142 8
    135 Akron, OH 55.2      13.6 130 (5)
    136 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 54.6         5.6 105 (31)
    137 Spokane, WA 54.5      12.4 118 (19)
    138 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 54.3      66.9 72 (66)
    139 Palm Coast, FL 54.3         0.8 292 153
    140 Savannah, GA 54.3         6.0 288 148
    141 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ 53.7         1.8 256 115
    142 Lubbock, TX 53.5         6.9 166 24
    143 El Centro, CA 53.3         1.3 97 (46)
    144 Canton-Massillon, OH 53.2         7.9 89 (55)
    145 Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA 53.2         3.1 225 80
    146 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 52.9      42.0 269 123
    147 Anchorage, AK 52.5         8.6 33 (114)
    148 Merced, CA 52.4         1.6 230 82
    149 Idaho Falls, ID 52.2         2.1 153 4
    150 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 52.0      12.6 58 (92)
    151 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 51.5      41.6 294 143
    152 Battle Creek, MI 51.5         1.4 not rated not rated
    153 Cedar Rapids, IA 51.4      10.1 195 42
    154 Tuscaloosa, AL 51.1         3.7 92 (62)
    155 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 50.7         7.1 41 (114)
    156 Bangor, ME NECTA 50.3         2.1 52 (104)
    157 St. George, UT 50.2         1.9 144 (13)
    158 Santa Fe, NM 50.2         2.7 155 (3)
    159 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI 50.1         2.3 8 (151)
    160 Fort Wayne, IN 49.7      11.5 19 (141)
    161 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL 49.5         2.1 56 (105)
    162 Wichita, KS 49.4      10.7 182 20
    163 Auburn-Opelika, AL 49.3         1.7 66 (97)
    164 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 48.9         3.9 299 135
    165 Appleton, WI 48.9         7.3 135 (30)
    166 Ithaca, NY 48.9         1.6 65 (101)
    167 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 48.8      69.4 212 45
    168 Waterbury, CT NECTA 47.7         2.0 305 137
    169 Burlington, NC 47.7         1.8 22 (147)
    170 Huntsville, AL 47.6         6.0 106 (64)
    171 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA 47.5      15.0 84 (87)
    172 Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Mtr Div 47.3      38.8 61 (111)
    173 Baton Rouge, LA 47.3      17.2 183 10
    174 Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 47.0      14.6 128 (46)
    175 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 46.9      64.0 231 56
    176 Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Mtr Div 46.9      67.8 134 (42)
    177 Coeur d’Alene, ID 46.7         3.1 124 (53)
    178 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division 46.7    143.2 223 45
    179 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 46.5      63.1 191 12
    180 Anniston-Oxford, AL 46.2         1.3 160 (20)
    181 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 45.8         7.7 229 48
    182 Charleston, WV 45.8         8.0 270 88
    183 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 45.5      71.9 107 (76)
    184 Lansing-East Lansing, MI 45.5      13.6 101 (83)
    185 Ogden-Clearfield, UT 45.2         8.0 217 32
    186 Duluth, MN-WI 45.1         5.4 148 (38)
    187 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Mtr Div 45.0    212.8 169 (18)
    188 West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Mtr Div 44.9      36.4 103 (85)
    189 Jackson, MS 44.7      15.4 233 44
    190 Waco, TX 44.6         6.2 145 (45)
    191 Topeka, KS 44.4         7.0 178 (13)
    192 Laredo, TX 44.3         3.8 91 (101)
    193 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 44.0      15.0 254 61
    194 Modesto, CA 43.9         5.4 140 (54)
    195 Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI 43.9         1.8 53 (142)
    196 Greeley, CO 43.8         4.1 291 95
    197 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 43.7         8.0 159 (38)
    198 Naples-Marco Island, FL 43.4         6.7 179 (19)
    199 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 43.4         5.0 98 (101)
    200 Johnstown, PA 43.4         2.8 not rated not rated
    201 Champaign-Urbana, IL 43.3         4.3 151 (50)
    202 Raleigh-Cary, NC 43.0      26.0 121 (81)
    203 Lancaster, PA 42.6         8.5 242 39
    204 Yuba City, CA 42.4         1.3 96 (108)
    205 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Mtr Div 42.1      54.4 199 (6)
    206 Kokomo, IN 42.0         1.3 187 (19)
    207 Wausau, WI 42.0         5.5 232 25
    208 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA 41.9      48.0 244 36
    209 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 41.9         7.6 243 34
    210 New York City, NY 41.8    436.1 45 (165)
    211 Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI 41.5         3.9 161 (50)
    212 Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA  NECTA Division 41.4         3.0 122 (90)
    213 Boulder, CO 41.2         7.2 104 (109)
    214 Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Mtr Div 40.7      56.3 208 (6)
    215 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 40.5      11.4 213 (2)
    216 Albuquerque, NM 40.2      17.6 296 80
    217 Honolulu, HI 40.1      20.6 102 (115)
    218 Lewiston, ID-WA 39.9         1.7 281 63
    219 Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 39.5      58.2 209 (10)
    220 Redding, CA 39.5         2.4 293 73
    221 Asheville, NC 39.3         5.6 69 (152)
    222 Wilmington, NC 39.1         6.2 184 (38)
    223 Baltimore City, MD 39.1      18.3 206 (17)
    224 Eugene-Springfield, OR 39.0         7.2 257 33
    225 Glens Falls, NY 38.8         1.9 18 (207)
    226 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 38.6      10.7 272 46
    227 Janesville, WI 38.2         1.8 114 (113)
    228 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 38.2      61.8 189 (39)
    229 Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL Mtr Div 38.1    259.1 277 48
    230 Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH  NECTA Div 38.0         3.6 285 55
    231 Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH  NECTA Div 37.9         2.6 147 (84)
    232 Chattanooga, TN-GA 37.6      17.1 173 (59)
    233 Salem, OR 37.3         7.0 26 (207)
    234 Yuma, AZ 37.3         1.4 298 64
    235 Flint, MI 37.3         6.3 127 (108)
    236 Lexington-Fayette, KY 37.2         9.8 163 (73)
    237 Jackson, MI 37.1         1.8 not rated not rated
    238 Philadelphia City, PA 36.8      41.1 265 27
    239 Bay City, MI 36.5         1.5 15 (224)
    240 Colorado Springs, CO 36.5      15.4 85 (155)
    241 Montgomery, AL 36.0         7.2 311 70
    242 Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Mtr Div 35.7      48.0 216 (26)
    243 Fresno, CA 35.6      12.9 204 (39)
    244 Grand Junction, CO 35.5         3.0 260 16
    245 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA 35.2      40.6 198 (47)
    246 Reno-Sparks, NV 35.1         9.0 258 12
    247 Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA 35.1         7.5 308 61
    248 Calvert-Charles-Prince George’s, MD 34.7      14.0 279 31
    249 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 34.6         6.6 251 2
    250 York-Hanover, PA 34.5         5.1 214 (36)
    251 Fayetteville, NC 34.5         4.1 46 (205)
    252 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 34.0      22.2 238 (14)
    253 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 34.0         6.0 307 54
    254 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC 33.9         3.3 68 (186)
    255 North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL 33.4      14.0 139 (116)
    256 Pueblo, CO 33.4         1.9 278 22
    257 Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA 33.3      11.7 116 (141)
    258 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 33.0      54.3 167 (91)
    259 Chico, CA 33.0         2.8 not rated not rated
    260 Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY 32.7      32.7 55 (205)
    261 Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD Mtr Div 32.5      39.4 228 (33)
    262 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ 32.4         4.0 156 (106)
    263 New Haven, CT NECTA 32.2      12.1 263 0
    264 Anderson, IN 32.2         1.5 241 (23)
    265 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA 31.8      59.8 193 (72)
    266 Logan, UT-ID 31.7         1.6 210 (56)
    267 Ocala, FL 31.5         4.2 203 (64)
    268 Bloomington, IN 31.2         2.7 300 32
    269 Fairbanks, AK 31.1         1.3 164 (105)
    270 Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA 31.0         4.6 246 (24)
    271 Utica-Rome, NY 31.0         7.1 219 (52)
    272 Syracuse, NY 31.0      16.6 112 (160)
    273 Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ 30.7      69.1 154 (119)
    274 Dothan, AL 30.6         2.0 240 (34)
    275 Mansfield, OH 28.3         1.6 not rated not rated
    276 Gadsden, AL 28.0         1.4 274 (2)
    277 Salinas, CA 27.6         4.2 303 26
    278 Amarillo, TX 27.3         6.1 234 (44)
    279 Cleveland, TN 27.0         1.4 283 4
    280 Decatur, IL 26.8         1.9 196 (84)
    281 Lawton, OK 26.6         2.4 222 (59)
    282 Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ 26.5         1.5 75 (207)
    283 Corvallis, OR 24.6         1.3 170 (113)
    284 New Bedford, MA NECTA 24.3         1.8 174 (110)
    285 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Mtr Div 24.2      79.3 253 (32)
    286 Evansville, IN-KY 24.0         5.1 236 (50)
    287 Rochester, MN 23.8         2.4 218 (69)
    288 Manchester, NH NECTA 23.3         6.8 276 (12)
    289 Tallahassee, FL 23.2         7.1 90 (199)
    290 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL 22.6         2.3 131 (159)
    291 Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL 22.3         3.6 302 11
    292 Toledo, OH 22.1      10.8 250 (42)
    293 Winston-Salem, NC 21.8      11.5 177 (116)
    294 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO 21.8         6.5 273 (21)
    295 Decatur, AL 21.6         2.0 271 (24)
    296 Pittsfield, MA NECTA 21.3         1.5 282 (14)
    297 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 20.9         8.6 220 (77)
    298 Peoria, IL 20.5         7.4 309 11
    299 Tulsa, OK 20.0      22.2 295 (4)
    300 Rockford, IL 19.9         5.4 224 (76)
    301 Medford, OR 19.7         3.5 249 (52)
    302 Visalia-Porterville, CA 18.9         3.8 255 (47)
    303 Kingston, NY 18.5         2.2 200 (103)
    304 Dover, DE 18.1         1.6 304 0
    305 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 17.5      18.7 37 (268)
    306 Stockton, CA 17.5         7.4 266 (40)
    307 Columbus, IN 16.8         1.3 211 (96)
    308 Punta Gorda, FL 15.2         1.7 284 (24)
    309 Bend, OR 14.7         3.9 301 (8)
    310 Port St. Lucie, FL 14.3         5.2 192 (118)
    311 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 14.2         8.0 158 (153)
    312 Greensboro-High Point, NC 12.7      18.2 275 (37)
    313 Johnson City, TN 12.2         3.6 310 (3)
    314 Springfield, MA-CT NECTA 11.8      14.8 267 (47)
    315 Flagstaff, AZ 11.8         1.2 312 (3)
    316 Binghamton, NY 11.8         3.8 141 (175)
    317 Monroe, MI 11.6         1.1 not rated not rated
    318 Prescott, AZ 10.9         1.7 289 (29)
    319 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 9.5      26.9 306 (13)
    320 Racine, WI 8.7         2.6 290 (30)
    321 Peabody, MA  NECTA Division 8.5         4.4 239 (82)
    322 Altoona, PA 3.6         1.5 not rated not rated
    323 Reading, PA 3.5         6.0 297 (26)

     

  • The Vatican Bank: In God We Trust?

    When the cardinals sent billowing white smoke from their conclave and elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis I, little did the Catholic Church realize that two millennia of ecumenical liturgy might come unraveled on the heresy of offshore banking regulations. Among the many frustrations that drove Pope Benedict XVI to take early retirement was his role as guardian angel of the Institute for the Works of Religion (the formal title for the Vatican Bank), which can no longer get past compliance questions by answering that its beneficial owner is “the Almighty.”

    The financial inquisition results, according to Concordat Watch, recently included “…two blows to the reputation of the Vatican Bank… The US State Department for the first time listed the Vatican as potentially vulnerable to money laundering, a notch below those states for which it has solid proof of this.” The second revelation was that banking giant JPMorgan Chase had closed its papal account.

    Benedict XVI’s day job presumably encompassed giving the sacrament to the bank’s audit committee (made up of cardinals), and among the many attacks against the church the most successful have been those of global regulators who have had little patience accepting Vatican credit on faith.

    The bank is located in a tax haven — Vatican City, population 800, with a legal system on tablets — lets its managers come to work in robes and sandals, and has clients that deal in cash gathered on collection plates. Because of this, post-2008 regulators have looked upon the Institute as just another bolt-hole trafficking in black money, if not clearing the accounts of pharmaceutical sinners, bigamists, or Lutherans.

    Founded in 1942, at a time when the Catholic Church needed some latitude when transferring money between good and evil, the Institute has operated around the world as the cardinals’ piggy bank. Along with taking the deposits of Sunday’s offerings, it has also handled pay-outs of hush money to abused altar boys and booked advances against papal indulgences.

    In response to probing questions from the watchdogs — Who is the ultimate beneficiary? Do you know the source of the funds? — the cardinals who run the bank, sometimes with the help of lay bankers, have only had answers that led to further investigations.

    Imagine telling some pencil pusher from the European Central Bank, the Bank of Italy, or the US Federal Reserve that the shareholder of record is “one God in three persons.”

    Nor did Benedict XVI find much absolution in the press coverage of his bank, which treated the operation as little different from some Mafia numbers racket.

    Take, for example, a recent New York Times article that, in thirty paragraphs, managed to link the bank to the failed Banco Ambrosiano — whose former chairman, Robert Calvi, found eternal salvation in 1982 while hanging from Blackfriar’s Bridge — insurance fraud, front companies, suspicions of money laundering, Cuban payments, and management incompetence. In the last case, for example, the CEO was described as a “German aristocrat,” as if his days were spent quail hunting or chasing Sabine women.

    Amusingly, the Times’ reporters were unable to distinguish, on a visit to the headquarters, the bank managers from the security guards. (A correction was later published, but no picture of the dapper security personnel.)

    Nor did the paper of record show much numeric literacy, summing up the Vatican Bank’s accounts, in their entirety, as having in 2011 “20,772 clients, 68 percent of them members of the clergy, and $8.2 billion in assets under its management. The bank has said it has around 33,000 accounts.”

    As God’s credit union issuing debit cards and checkbooks to clergymen, it is doubtful that the bank manages $8.2 billion at its discretion for its clients (including 14,124 men and women of the cloth). More likely, the $8.2 billion in “assets” are liabilities, demand deposits due to its clients and not “under management.” I doubt that the average priest has savings at the bank of $400,000 and that the bank is investing such money in stocks and bonds.

    Nevertheless, the article varies little from other disparaging accounts about the bank that level charges of compliance heresy, and imply that its senior managers, including the fired president Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, are regulatory apostates.

    Part of the reason that the Vatican Bank earns such poor grades from international regulators, not to mention from the US State Department, is because the Institute is believed “vulnerable” to the risk of processing terrorist funds. The belief that the Vatican Bank is funneling money to al-Qaeda says more about the bonfires of the regulators than it does about Catholicism. The Catholic Church historically has had more in common with Homeland repression than it has with fifth columnists. To use the worn phrase, “know your client.”

    The degree to which international bank regulation is just an excuse for Regulatus Pax Americana can be discerned in a report by Moneyval — the monitoring committee of the Council of Europe — on the Vatican Bank’s efforts to recite its compliance rosaries. It concludes: “The Holy See has come a long way in a very short period of time and many of the building blocks of a system to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism are now formally in place.”

    Perhaps the reason the cardinals went with Cardinal Bergoglio as their front man is because he looks like the last man at a conclave who would short derivatives, or know how to hedge (either in ecumenical or currency terms) the church’s overexposure to developing markets.

    In his first comments on the global financial crisis, the Argentine Jesuit attacked the “cult of money” and “ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good.” Noble sentiments indeed, but not ones often heard from a bank chairman or a Vatican theologian, especially one wearing a triregnum.

    Francis I’s words are a long way from those of a predecessor, Leo X, who in 1513 wrote to his brother, the Duke of Nemours, “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.” Or those of Leo’s Medici ancestor, Cosimo the Elder, who in the fifteenth century was approached by an archbishop to stop the clergy from gambling. “Maybe first,” said the Medici banker, “we should stop them from using loaded dice.”

    Unfortunately for the Pope and his financial acolytes, many international regulators are out to prove that all banks are processing payments for the devil. In the meltdown’s aftermath, a small unregulated bank is unusually suspect, especially when operating in a “sacerdotal-monarchical state established under the 1929 Lateran Treaty” and reporting to an abstract nominee with an ethereal address. Nor can it help that the bank is a market-maker in loaves and fishes.

    The best that the new Pope can hope for is that the regulators will dispense with a fiery auto-da-fé and instead accept the bank’s penance of its heresy and apostasy. Maybe the central bankers will allow the Vatican to grant itself an indulgence for all those spiritual options marketed in Sicily? High ranking clergy could even argue that, under the company’s accounting rules (as divined from scripture), origination revenue is recognized when the sin is committed, not when the soul is saved.

    After all, running a bad bank — as Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and many other heathens know — is not a mortal sin.

    Matthew Stevenson, a contributing editor of Harper’s Magazine, is the author of Remembering the Twentieth Century Limited, a collection of historical travel essays. His next book is Whistle-Stopping America.

    Flickr Photo: security personnel in Vatican City, by Trishhhh