Key Takeaway

Some large international banks are expanding or redesigning their branches as routine banking moves to mobile apps. For Georgia, the practical question is how a physical network can help customers who need explanations, personal advice or a problem resolved. The Georgian evidence used here does not establish a general return to branch expansion. It points instead to a need to reconsider what branches are for.

Patrick Jenkins’s 7 October Financial Times analysis describes banks reassessing the value of physical locations. Their case increasingly rests on deepening customer relationships. A transfer rarely requires a visit, but a significant financial decision may still prompt a customer to speak with an accountable employee. This difference helps explain the emerging business logic of the branch.

What returning to branches means

In February 2026, JPMorganChase announced plans for more than 160 new branches and almost 600 renovations during the year. These are plans, not completed year-end results. Bank of America announced in May 2025 that it would open more than 150 financial centers by the end of 2027, while reporting that over 90% of client interactions were digital. 

These examples show physical and digital services coexisting. A bank can simplify frequent transactions through its app while retaining offices for more demanding conversations. Announced openings alone do not establish growth in the industry’s total network: a bank can close or relocate other offices at the same time. Individual expansion plans therefore cannot prove a universal reversal.

A branch may help attract deposits, serve businesses or sustain a long-term relationship. That value is conditional. It requires sufficient demand, a suitable location and employees able to resolve customer issues. Redecorating a traditional transaction office cannot substitute for those conditions.

What Georgia’s payment data show

The National Bank of Georgia’s Annual Report 2025 states that the number of payments initiated through mobile banking rose 15.8% year on year, representing 24.7% of all non-cash payments. Payments initiated at bank offices fell 4.9% in number and accounted for just 0.8% of the total. These statistics describe payment channels, rather than all visits or advisory conversations. 

The picture by value is different. Office-initiated payments represented 9% of non-cash payment value in the same report. A small number of transactions can involve relatively large sums. The figures do not identify the customers visiting branches, their reasons for doing so or an individual office’s profitability. Transaction count, value and service economics answer different questions.

Table 1. Non-cash payment channels in Georgia in 2025

Source: National Bank of Georgia, Annual Report 2025, pp. 224–225. Shares refer to transaction counts; their total has been checked. Office-initiated payments’ 9% share of value is a different measure.

The official data support the migration of routine payments into digital channels. They cannot establish that customers no longer need physical assistance. Mortgage discussions, preparation of business-financing documents and explanations of disputed transactions are not fully captured by payment counts. A bank evaluating its network needs to measure these activities separately.

One bank illustrates the limits of the headline

TBC Bank Group’s first-half 2026 report records 119 TBC Bank branches in Georgia on 30 June, against 122 on the same date in 2025. According to calculations by BTU researchers, this was a reduction of three branches, approximately 2.5%. The report also records 1.372 million digital monthly active users in the Georgian business, compared with 1.154 million a year earlier. 

One bank cannot represent the entire system, but this example cautions against presenting an international headline as a Georgian fact. Fewer branches and higher digital engagement can coexist with continued physical service. Establishing the direction of Georgia’s overall network requires comparable information for all banks and consistent definitions of branches, service centers and other locations.

Georgia’s smaller market cannot justify copying the scale of US expansion as a target. A local decision should reflect demand in a particular settlement, available alternatives, travel time and operating costs. Needs may differ between neighborhoods and municipalities. Local evidence is necessary to understand those differences.

How branch work can change

As frequent payments move to apps, branch capacity can be redirected toward more demanding services. An employee can explain a loan’s full cost, repayment schedule or deposit terms and check that the customer understands them. Success should include informed choices and suitable products, rather than being measured solely by sales.

Connecting service channels means an application started digitally should not have to restart in an office. A customer might submit documents remotely, book a meeting and use the visit to resolve outstanding questions. With appropriate permissions and data protection, the employee should see the steps already completed. This is a possible organizational direction, not a claim that every Georgian bank already works this way.

The change also requires training. Experience in fast transaction processing does not automatically provide the skills needed to explain a complex financial issue. Staff development, consultation quality and the authority to solve problems can matter as much as interior design. An office that merely redirects visitors elsewhere can add frustration instead of strengthening trust.

What Georgian businesses could gain

Consider a hypothetical family hotel outside the capital. It handles payments digitally but needs financing for refurbishment before the tourist season. The owner could complete part of an application online, then discuss seasonal revenues, repayment timing and the consequences of a weak season with a banker. This illustration does not describe an actual company or a measured banking outcome.

The branch’s potential contribution is collecting useful information and explaining the decision clearly. A personal meeting does not guarantee credit approval or replace risk assessment. It may reveal ambiguities that a standard form does not capture. The bank must still verify income, existing commitments and the financing purpose.

Businesses would benefit from services that reduce unnecessary visits and give necessary meetings a clear purpose. This could change the skills demanded of staff, including consultation, documentation and digital assistance. The evidence does not support an estimate of additional jobs; it identifies possible service changes and the capabilities they would require.

Access and operating cost

Closing an office changes more than the bank’s costs. A customer unable to resolve an issue remotely may have to spend time and money traveling farther. Network decisions should therefore consider whether alternatives are actually accessible. Age alone does not measure digital competence; banks should investigate real difficulties rather than rely on stereotypes about customer groups.

The opposite risk is maintaining an expensive network without sufficient demand. Rent, staffing and security costs can exceed the value an office creates. A smaller advisory location, scheduled appointments or access to a remote specialist are options worth testing. Their effectiveness must be assessed locally; this article does not produce a financial model for those formats.

Advice also carries a risk if it is treated simply as selling. Rewarding employees only for additional products can encourage unsuitable commitments. Service evaluation should include clear explanations, complaint resolution and product suitability. Privacy matters too: discussing sensitive financial issues in an open room will not suit every customer.

BTU Researchers’ Assessment

According to an assessment by BTU researchers, the international examples and Georgian data support a review of branch functions. Digital payments leave physical networks needing a clearer purpose. For Georgia, a defensible direction is to develop services that clarify difficult decisions, resolve problems and connect effectively with digital channels.

This does not mean more branches always produce better outcomes. An office should be assessed through relationships attracted or retained, service quality and total costs. Closing every location because payment counts are falling would be as poorly grounded as opening offices everywhere because some foreign banks are expanding.

What decision-makers should examine

Before changing a network, management should distinguish routine transactions from consultations, business discussions and problem resolution. Each activity can then be matched to an appropriate service format. A deposit or product sale should not be attributed entirely to a branch when the customer was acquired through digital marketing or another channel.

For consumer protection and financial access, routes to assistance should be clear, and moving between channels should not prolong a case. Closure or redesign needs an assessment of usable alternatives. Resolution time, repeat visits, complaints and accessibility are practical measures. An artificial composite score cannot replace these different operational questions.

Conclusion

Banks are selectively returning to branches and changing their purpose. International examples show physical offices developing alongside digital services. Georgia’s data confirm the migration of routine payments away from offices, while providing no evidence here of universal branch expansion.

The opportunity for Georgia is better physical service where there is a measurable need. A useful branch helps a customer resolve an issue and creates lasting relationship value for the bank. Opening, redesigning or replacing an office with another format should follow from local demand.

Data and Main Sources

The starting international material is the Financial Times analysis of 7 October. Georgian official payment figures cover 2025; the TBC network comparison is dated 30 June 2025 and 2026. Web verification was conducted on 7 October 2026. The National Bank link leads to the official annual-report page containing the 2025 report.

This material is analytical and educational. It does not constitute financial, investment, tax or legal advice. Consult an appropriate professional before making a specific decision.

Prepared by the academic team of Business and Technology University and the BTUAI Research Team, Tbilisi, Georgia.