Starbucks is still struggling to remake itself amid a global economic downturn that has dented people’s willingness to pay a lot for a frothy cup of coffee.

It does not seem to have made up its mind whether to become more of a value brand or stick with being a premium retailer. In fact, it is sending out signals that it wants to do both simultaneously.

So here is my suggestion: why doesn’t it become a retail bank as well as a coffee chain?

I realise that this sounds like a ridiculous idea (and may in fact be a ridiculous idea) but hear me out.

There is, to put it mildly, turmoil in the US retail banking industry, with Citigroup and Bank of America facing the possibility of falling under government control.

This is encouraging consumers to think about changing banks. At the 4As conference that I attended this week, Laura Desmond of Starcom MediaVest quoted research saying that 17 per cent of US consumers had either changed banks, or added an account at another bank, in the last quarter of 2008.

I cannot vouch for this figure but it seems likely that all the worries about leaving money above the insured deposit level at US banks last autumn would prompt people to spread their bets.

Meanwhile, US retail banks (like those in other countries) continue to offer low to non-existent interest rates on cash held in their current accounts.

The only US retail bank I know of (although I am sure there are others) that offers a decent yield on current accounts in ING Direct, the online savings arm of the Dutch bank. Until short-term interest rates sunk to near zero, its Electric Orange account offered far better terms than most US retail banks.

But one big drawback with keeping a checking account at ING Direct is that the only ATMs you can use without being charged a fee are those on the Allpoint network, which places freestanding machines in supermarkets and retail outlets such as Duane Reade.

It costs up to $3 per withdrawal to use ATMs at the big branch banks such as Bank of America. Unlike the practice in countries such as the UK, big US banks are allowed to enforce their distribution advantages by charging customers from other banks for use of their ATMs.

In theory, the Allpoint network is fine since it has about 35,000 outlets across the US, which is extensive compared with Bank of America’s 6,100 branches (and total of 18,700 ATMs). However, it involves hunting around in stores such as Duane Reade for working machines, which is not a pleasant experience.

This is where Starbucks comes in.

Starbucks has about 7,000 US stores, which gives it as much bricks and mortar as the biggest retail banks. These are quite pleasant stores to go into, and many people do so each morning simply to obtain a cup of coffee.

What if Starbucks opened an online-only retail bank offering competitive deposit rates and a modest range of loans and mortgages? It could do that by partnering with a finance company such as ING, which has the appropriate banking licences.

All it would need to do is install ATM machines in its outlets, which would involve investing some money but would allow it to get more out of its existing branches.

National supermarkets in the UK, such as Sainsbury and Tesco, have opened retail banks and placed ATM machines in their branches but there is no national grocery chain in the US with a comparable reach. Even Wal-Mart lacks outlets on most urban high streets.

Now that computerised credit scoring has reduced the importance of personal contact and face-to-face credit assessment by bankers, online banks can replicate most of the services offered by the bricks and mortar variety (and, because of their lower costs, offer better terms).

Starbucks has an affluent clientele that is more likely to consider switching to an online-only bank than the average US consumer, and installing ATM machines would increase the footfall in its outlets, raising coffee sales.

Finally, the name Starbucks has a nice ring for a US bank. Indeed, it sounds more like a bank than a coffee chain.