Regional Outlook
 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION FOURTH QUARTER 1998 

FDIC
 

New York
 

Region
 

Division of
 

Insurance
 

Suzannah L. Susser,
 

Regional Manager
 

Norman Gertner,
 

Regional Economist
 

Karen A. Wigder,
 

Financial Analyst
 

Alexander J.G.
 

Gilchrist,
 

Economic Analyst
 

In Focus This Quarter 

◆ Merger and Acquisition Activity in the U.S. Banking Industry: 

Trends and Rationale—The size and value of recent mergers and acquisitions 

(M&A) in the banking industry have received much attention, yet the activity is a 

continuation of a longer-term trend and is one aspect of a broader national and global wave of business mergers. For banks, deregulation, competitive pressures, market 

valuations, synergistic opportunities, technology, globalization, and managerial 

incentives are among important drivers of the trend. By identifying the rationale and 

incentives for bank M&A activity, industry participants can better understand and 

evaluate the risks and challenges facing merged institutions. See page 5. 

By Steven E. Cunningham, John F. Sherman 

◆ Risks and Challenges for Consolidating Institutions—M&A activity 

creates significant challenges for bank managers, including combining management 

teams, integrating technology, realizing the benefits of diversification, and maximizing operating economies. As premiums paid in bank M&A deals have escalated, 

some industry observers have questioned whether the promised benefits of the transactions can be realized. Institutions in the process of integrating an acquired entity 

may be especially vulnerable to a downturn in the economy. See page 11. 

By John F. Sherman 

◆ Industry Consolidation Presents Unique Risks and Challenges for 

Community Banks—Industry consolidation has created competitive challenges 

for small banks and highlights traditional obstacles related to operating scale and 

scope. Aside from merging with or selling to competitors, some small banks are 

addressing consolidation challenges by outsourcing business functions, expanding the 

use of nondeposit funding sources, partnering with other banks and nonbanks, capitalizing on personalized service, and focusing on niche markets. While these adaptive 

strategies may help community banks meet the challenges of industry consolidation, 

they potentially complicate these institutions’ operations and risk profiles. See page 14. 

By Steven E. Cunningham 

Regional Perspectives 

◆ Region’s Economic and Banking Conditions—The Region’s economy 

continues to expand at a moderate pace, and banks report healthy financial conditions. However, instability in global markets clouds the future as exports fall and the 

stock market falters. See page 19. 

◆ Community Banks Hurt by Tighter Margins, Higher Costs—The 

Region’s community banks are facing earnings pressure because of tighter interest margins, higher costs, and low levels of noninterest income. These factors render community banks more vulnerable to the flat yield curve and increasing 

competition. See page 21. 

◆ Small Businesses Play Large Role in Region’s Economy: Competition for Their Business Is Intensifying—The growth of small businesses has 

played a vital part in the Region’s economic expansion. Responding to growth in the 

sector, banks have increasingly been targeting small business customers. Intensifying 

competition is leading to declining spreads and the possibility of looser underwriting standards, posing risks for the Region’s financial institutions. See page 23. 

By Norman Gertner, Karen A. Wigder, Kathy Kalser 

A Publication of the Division of Insurance 
The Regional Outlook is published quarterly by the Division of Insurance of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation for the following eight geographic regions: 

Atlanta Region (AL, FL, GA, NC, SC, VA, WV)
 

Boston Region (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)
 

Chicago Region (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI)
 

Dallas Region (CO, NM, OK, TX)
 

Kansas City Region (IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD)
 

Memphis Region (AR, KY, LA, MS, TN)
 

New York Region (DC, DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, PR, VI)
 

San Francisco Region (AK, AZ, CA, FJ, FM, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY)
 

Single copy subscriptions of the Regional Outlook can be obtained by sending the subscription 

form found on the back cover to the FDIC Public Information Center. Contact the Public Information Center for current pricing on bulk orders. 

The Regional Outlook is available on-line by visiting the FDIC’s website at www.fdic.gov/ 

publish/regout. For more information or to provide comments or suggestions about the New York 

Region’s Regional Outlook, please call Suzannah Susser at (212) 704-1482 or send an e-mail to 

ssusser@fdic.gov. 

The views expressed in the Regional Outlook are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect 

official positions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Some of the information used in 

the preparation of this publication was obtained from publicly available sources that are considered 

reliable. However, the use of this information does not constitute an endorsement of its accuracy by 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Chairman Donna Tanoue 

Director, Division of Insurance Arthur J. Murton 

Executive Editor George E. French 

Editors Lynn A. Nejezchleb 

Maureen E. Sweeney 

Publications Manager Teresa J. Franks 
To the Reader:
 

The Regional Outlook is intended to enhance readers’ understanding of risks and trends affecting FDIC-insured
 

institutions. The editorial staff welcomes the comments of any reader who is willing to take a few minutes to
 

complete the attached survey. Return the survey in the enclosed envelope or fax to (202) 898-8636.
 

You may also access the survey through the FDIC Internet site at www.fdic.gov. FDIC employees may take the
 

survey via the DOI homepage on the FDICnet.
 

All feedback is confidential. Thank you for your time and thought.
 

Sincerely,
 

George French 

Executive Editor 

The Regional Outlook has three In Focus articles that address national issues and a Regional Perspectives article 

that analyzes the economic and banking conditions in each of the eight FDIC supervisory regions. 

0 

No 

Opinion 

1 

Strongly 

Disagree 

2 

Disagree 

3 

Agree 

4 

Strongly 

Agree 

1 The In Focus articles improve my understanding of risks 

affecting the financial institutions of interest to me. 

2 The Regional Perspectives article improves my understanding 

of risks affecting the financial institutions of interest to me. 

3 The Regional Perspectives article is relevant to my geographic 

area of interest. 

4 How would you prefer the geographic boundaries be delineated? 

by the FDIC’s eight supervisory regions—Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City, Memphis, 

New York, and San Francisco (current format) 

by a smaller geographic location, such as ______________________________________________________ 

by a larger geographic boundary, such as ______________________________________________________ 

5 The length of the In Focus section is 

just right too long too short 

6 The length of the Regional Perspectives article is 

just right too long too short 

7 What other topics would you like to see in future editions? 

8 Additional comments and suggestions 

9 I am affiliated with: 

FDIC Financial institution 

Federal regulatory agency (non-FDIC) State banking department 

Other __________________________________________________________________________________ 
In Focus This Quarter
 

Merger and Acquisition Activity in the U.S. Banking
 

Industry: Trends and Rationale
 

•	 The size and value of recent mergers and acquisitions in the banking industry have received much 

attention, yet the activity is a continuation of a 

longer-term trend and is one aspect of a broader 

national and global wave of business mergers. 

•	 Deregulation, competitive pressures, market valuations, synergistic opportunities, technology, globalization, and managerial incentives are among 

the important drivers of bank merger and acquisition activity. 

•	 By identifying the rationale and incentives 

for bank merger and acquisition activity, industry participants can better understand and evaluate the risks and challenges facing merged 

institutions. 

Merger and acquisition (M&A) activity among banking 

companies is changing the industry’s structure. The 

number of insured commercial banks in the United 

States, which held relatively steady during the FDIC’s 

first 51 years of existence, has declined by one-third 

since year-end 1984, resulting in just under 9,000 commercial banks at the end of the second quarter of 1998. 

The number of banking organizations (bank holding 

companies, independent banks, and thrifts) also has 

declined precipitously since the mid-1980s. 

The recent flurry in M&A activity by banking companies has attracted significant attention as the magnitude 

of transactions has escalated. As shown in Chart 1, the 

announced values of bank mergers have increased 

sharply in recent years. However, increased consolidation activity is not unique to the banking industry: The 

United States is now experiencing the fifth major wave 

of business M&A in this century, which is in turn part 

of an unprecedented level of worldwide M&A activity. 

According to data from Mergerstat, the value of M&A 

deals announced for all U.S. industries during the first 

half of 1998, measured both absolutely and as a percentage of nominal gross domestic product, exceeded 

the value of announced transactions for any full calendar year on record. 

The factors that have contributed to this activity, including the availability of capital, technological change, and 

CHART 1 

Values of Announced Bank Mergers 

Increased Sharply during 1998 

450 $250 

400 

350 $200 

300 

250 $150 

200 

$100 

150 

100 $50 

50 

0 

Number of Announced

 Deals (left axis) 

Total Announced 

Deal Values (right axis) 

’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 1H98 

($ Billions) 

Year 

Source: SNL Securities 

globalization, are particularly important to the banking 

industry. Indeed, according to data from SNL Securities, the announced values of banking M&A have 

accounted for roughly one-third of all U.S. merger 

activity for the first half of 1998, exceeding any full calendar year percentage since the data have been collected (1989). This article will briefly describe the factors 

that are driving M&A activity in banking. 

Why Are Banks Merging? 

Deregulation 

Historically, state regulations and boundaries dictated 

the structure of commercial banking in the United 

States. Not until the 1980s did most states remove or 

substantially relax intrastate branching restrictions. 

Subsequently, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and 

Branching Act removed most remaining restrictions to 

interstate expansion—restrictions that had been significantly liberalized by a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Northeast Bancorp v. The Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System) that upheld the ability of 

states to reduce restrictions on entry by out-of-state 

holding companies.1 As recently as January 1994 only 

10 commercial banks owning 30 branches operated 

across state lines. By early 1998, 165 institutions owned 

12,694 interstate branches.2 

1 “Interstate Banking—The Past, Present and Future,” FDIC Banking
 

Review, Fall 1996.
 2 Figures provided by the FDIC’s Division of Research and Statistics.
 

New York Regional Outlook 5	 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

There is some evidence that the recent increase in 

expansion and branching opportunities arising from 

deregulation has led to improved efficiencies and profitability, both from M&A activity and from intracompany consolidation of bank subsidiaries by 

multibank holding companies. In addition, the recent 

easing of Federal Reserve Board restrictions governing 

Section 20 securities underwriting subsidiaries of bank 

holding companies and favorable bank operating subCHART 2 

Commercial Bank Profitabilty Has Improved 

While Revenue Growth Rates Are Declining 

14 

12 

10 

Percent 

8 

6 

1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 

sidiary rule interpretations by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have made expansions into new 

lines of business and mergers across financial sectors 

more feasible. For example, according to data provided 

by SNL Securities, since the beginning of 1997, 47 

banking companies have purchased investment banking 

units, investment advisors, or broker-dealers. 

Increasing Competition 

Significant changes in the competitive environment also 

have contributed to the trend in bank M&A activity. 

One way to consider competition in an industry is 

through the “industry life cycle” framework. In this 

framework, an industry is generally categorized into 

one of four stages—start-up, rapid growth, mature, or 

decline. In each stage, firms are likely to take certain 

actions in response to the competitive environment. As 

discussed below, banking best fits the criteria for an 

industry in the mature stage. These criteria include 

declining revenue growth, improving profitability, 

increasing competition, and a shortage of investment 

opportunities relative to the amount of capital being 

generated. 

As shown in Chart 2, over the long term, commercial 

banks have experienced the declining trend in revenue 

growth and the improving trend in profitability that 

characterize a mature industry. The average annual revenue growth rate by decade, adjusted for inflation, has 

declined since the 1960s. Profitability, as measured by 

the average annual return on equity by decade, has 

steadily improved since the 1940s, with the exception of 

the crisis period of the 1980s. 

Competition in a mature industry often intensifies as 

competitors focus on sustaining market share as revenue growth rates slow. In banking, recent changes in 

the operating environment have stimulated a dramatic 

increase in competition. Specifically, barriers to entry 

into the industry have fallen: Capital is plentiful, experienced managerial talent is available (as a result of the 

many mergers), and regulatory restrictions have been 

relaxed. Technological and financial innovations also 

4
 

2
 

0
 

Return on Equity Revenue Growth (Inflation Adjusted) 

Source: FDIC Historical Statistics on Banking 

are influencing how banks compete by enabling them to 

manage disparate operations with broader product 

arrays more efficiently. Moreover, as a result of intensifying nonbank competition and continuing evolution in 

distribution systems, some banking services have come 

to resemble commodities. Consequently, brand loyalty 

appears to be declining and banks are experiencing 

reduced influence over pricing. 

The final criterion for a mature industry, a shortage of 

investment opportunities relative to the level of capital 

being generated (“excess capital”), as discussed below, 

has become an obstacle for banks. Although generating 

and retaining capital increase the level of protection 

from insolvency risk for depositors and the FDIC, rising capital levels without a corresponding increase in 

profitability reduce returns on equity and, thus, returns 

to shareholders. Attempts to increase assets relative to 

equity capital in an industry with excess capital also 

can be undesirable because competition drives the yield 

on available investments to levels that either dilute current earnings or fail to compensate adequately for the 

amount of risk taken. (See “Bank Earnings: Competitive Pressures and Risks,” Regional Outlook, Fourth 

Quarter 1997.) Alternatives for managing capital in 

such an environment include dividends, share repurchases, and M&A transactions; banks have pursued all 

three. 

Commercial bank cash dividend payments have reached 

record levels in the 1990s. In fact, the level of earnings 

retained over the past two years (26 percent in 1996 and 

28 percent in 1997) was the lowest during a noncrisis 

period since the FDIC’s inception (see Chart 3). A large 

percentage of these dividend payments is made to bank 

New York Regional Outlook 6 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

CHART 3 

Commercial Banks Are Retaining a Smaller Share 

of Earnings than during Any Other Profitable Period 

35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 

Year 

Note: Negative 285 percent rate in 1987 shown as zero. 

Source: FDIC Historical Statistics on Banking 

$ Billions

Percent 

Percent of Earnings Retained (left axis) 

Cash Dividends Declared (right axis) 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

holding companies, which, in turn, use the funds to 

repurchase common stock—another means of reducing 

book capital, increasing financial leverage, and improving return on equity. According to data compiled by 

Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., share repurchases by the 

top 25 banking organizations increased in each quarter 

during 1995 and 1996 and reached an all-time high of 

$11.5 billion in the first quarter of 1997, but have 

declined steadily since then. There are at least two likely reasons for this trend. First, the continued escalation 

in share prices through the first half of 1998 made 

repurchases more expensive. Second, as share prices 

increase, the “pooling of interests” method of accounting for a merger becomes more attractive; however, it 

carries certain Securities and Exchange Commission 

restrictions on share repurchases both before and after 

the transaction. Therefore, as values rise, institutions 

considering future mergers are less likely to initiate 

repurchase programs. 

The third capital management alternative, M&A, offers 

potential benefits to both parties to the transaction. 

M&A may permit acquirers to deploy excess capital 

while improving earnings through operating and financial economies, diversification of revenues and 

geographic exposures, and greater management 

expertise. M&A also can provide 

access to new products—a common objective of competitors in 

mature industries. For institutions 

acquired through a purchase transaction in which ownership rights 

are relinquished, mergers provide 

a means of returning capital to 

shareholders rather than attempting to remain independent in an increasingly competitive environment. 

Market Valuations 

The increased market values commercial banking companies have experienced through the first half of 1998 

played a major role in recent M&A activity, as common 

stock increasingly has been used as “currency” in transactions, especially the largest mergers. More valuable 

stock allows banks to issue fewer shares to execute 

mergers, which reduces the potential dilutive effects to 

shareholders. Through mid-April 1998, the amount of 

cash used to fund all U.S. business mergers (13.4 percent) had reached the lowest point in ten years.3 Similarly, the aggregate cash amount of announced bank 

deal values through the first half of 1998 was less than 

1 percent and reflects a steady decline since 1994. There 

appears to be a strong relationship between bank stock 

valuations and the level of cash committed in bank 

M&A activity since 1991 (see Chart 4), although this 

relationship is obviously influenced by large, stockbased mergers. 

Record earnings, positive market assessments of earnings quality and stability, and continued consolidation 

expectations sparked the upward trend in bank stocks 

through June 1998. The value of the SNL Bank Index, 

which is composed of publicly traded banking companies, quadrupled between January 1990 and June 1998 

and far outstripped gains in the broader S&P 500 over 

the same period. The result was a rise in bank stock 

prices as a multiple of earnings per share (the price3 As reported by the Wall Street Journal, April 16, 1998, p. C1. 

CHART 4 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 1H98 

SNL Bank Index 

Price-Earnings Ratio* Percentage of 

Cash Used in 

All Bank M&A 

* Price-Earnings Ratio = stock price of index members to previous 12 months’ 

earnings weighted by market capitalization. 

Source: SNL Securities 

As Market Valuations Have Increased, 

Cash Usage in Bank Mergers Has Declined 

Price-Earnings Ratio,

% Cash 

0 

Year 

New York Regional Outlook 7 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

earnings ratio) both absolutely and relative to the S&P 

500. For example, according to the price-earnings ratio 

for the SNL Bank Index, at year-end 1994, investors 

paid $9.76 per dollar of bank earnings; on June 30, 

1998, investors paid $22.88 per dollar of earnings. Over 

the same period, the price-earnings ratio of the SNL 

Bank Index relative to the S&P 500 increased from 65 

percent to 79 percent. 

From a corporate finance perspective, firms create 

wealth for shareholders by generating returns on invested long-term debt and equity capital that exceed their 

combined cost. Since long-term debt is used less in 

banking than in other industries, Credit Suisse/First 

Boston uses return on equity less the cost of equity capital as a proxy for measuring wealth generation by 

banks.4 As shown in Chart 5, over the long term, 

increases in the price-earnings ratio for banks relative to 

that for the S&P 500 tends to track with the banking 

industry’s ability to generate returns on equity in excess 

of the cost of equity capital. Through 1997, high levels 

of industry profitability, low market interest rates, and 

market expectations of more stable long-term industry 

earnings had driven the spread between the return on 

and cost of equity capital to unprecedented levels. 

Following the strong performance through the first half 

of 1998, the SNL Bank Index lost 21 percent of its value 

during the third quarter of 1998 (all during the month of 

August) because of concerns about corporate earnings, 

international exposures, the flat yield curve, and the ability of banking companies to expand market-sensitive 

4 “Value-Based Analysis of Banks,” Credit Suisse/First Boston, Equity Research—Americas, June 4, 1998. 

CHART 5 

revenues. Over the same period, the S&P 500 declined 

only 10 percent. Likely in response to relatively poor 

stock market conditions, only 75 bank mergers were 

announced during the third quarter of 1998— a 30 percent decline from the second quarter—with over half 

announced during July. According to SNL Securities, 

only 32 bank mergers were announced in August and 

September 1998, the lowest number for any two-month 

period since March and April 1997, when 31 mergers 

were announced. The August 1998 decline in the SNL 

Bank Index was the largest monthly decline since a 7 

percent drop in March 1997. In addition, the average 

price-earnings ratio for the index relative to the S&P 500 

during third-quarter 1998 was the lowest in eight quarters. Consistent with the aforementioned relationship 

between bank stock valuations and the level of cash committed to bank M&A activity, the amount of cash committed to mergers in September increased significantly. 

Synergistic Opportunities 

A primary motive for M&A activity is to increase the 

value of the combined company by creating synergies. 

In other words, through some combination of cost cutting and revenue growth, M&A can produce additional 

wealth for shareholders of the combined company 

beyond what the companies operating independently 

could generate. Although each transaction has unique 

characteristics, most bank M&A generate additional 

value from some combination of operating economies, 

diversification of revenues and geographic exposures, 

financial economies, and transfer of management 

expertise. 

Operating economies are achieved by eliminating overlapping administrative functions and infrastructure as 

New York Regional Outlook 8 Fourth Quarter 1998 

Bank Stock Values Relative to the Broader Market 

Reflect Ability to Generate Equity Returns in Excess of Costs 

0 

20 

40 

100 

120 

–14.0 

–12.0 

–10.0 

–8.0 

–6.0 

–4.0 

–2.0 

0.0 

2.0 

4.0 

80 

60 

Year 

’55 ’58 ’61 ’64 ’67 ’70 ’73 ’76 ’79 ’82 ’85 ’88 ’91 ’94 ’97 

Return on Equity Less Estimated Cost of Equity (right axis) 

Bank Price-Earnings Ratio Relative to S&P 500 (left axis) 

Source: Credit Suisse/First Boston Percent

Percent 
In Focus This Quarter
 

well as by using existing distribution networks to crosssell products and services to generate revenue gains. 

However, the degree to which these benefits materialize 

will depend on the specific characteristics of the merger partners and their markets. For example, a review of 

48 banking company mergers from 1995 through the 

first half of 1998, where the seller held more than $1 

billion in assets, revealed estimated cost savings that 

increased with the degree of market overlap (see Chart 

6). Expected cost savings should translate into an 

increase in a firm’s value. This appears to be the case in 

this sample, as the median price paid by acquirers as a 

multiple of the target’s previous 12 months’ earnings 

increased with the level of expected cost savings. 

Although perceived cost savings have contributed to 

bank M&A activity, whether the gains actually materialize hinges on execution, as discussed in “Risks and 

Challenges for Consolidating Institutions” in this 

issue. 

Whereas mergers in overlapping markets provide 

opportunities for cost cutting, value creation from revenue enhancements is more likely to materialize in 

M&A transactions across markets and industries. Such 

mergers can be expected to lead to increased diversification of revenues and geographic exposures. These 

expectations may be driving the recent trend in acquisitions of investment banking units and brokerage houses 

by banking companies. As traditional interest-spread 

income has stagnated, many institutions have focused 

on expanding noninterest sources of revenue. At June 

30, 1998, noninterest income made up 40 percent of net 

operating revenue (net interest income plus noninterest 

income) for all commercial banks, compared with only 

25 percent in 1984. Similarly, geographic expansion can 

CHART 6 

In-Market Overlapping Out-of-Market 

Median Estimated 

Cost Savings (left axis) 

Estimated Cost Savings and Pricing for Bank 

Mergers Are Tied to the Degree of Market Overlap 

Source: SNL Securities 

Multiple of Median Price Paid by 

Acquirer to Seller’s Previous 

12 Months Earnings (right axis) 

0% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

30% 

35% 

40% 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reduce a firm’s dependency on local, undiversified 

economies. Supporting this notion, a May 1998 working paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia 

found that economic benefits are strongest for banks 

engaged in interstate expansion, especially for mergers 

that diversify macroeconomic exposures.5 

As an institution’s size increases through M&A activity, 

financial economies may result from greater access to 

nondeposit funding alternatives as well as traded and 

over-the-counter off-balance-sheet financial instruments. As of June 30, 1998, commercial banks with 

assets less than $1 billion funded approximately 80 percent of assets with domestic deposits, compared with 

roughly 50 percent for commercial banks with assets 

greater than $1 billion—reflecting how funding flexibility and accessibility increase with scale. Access to 

money and capital markets is enhanced for larger institutions through potentially lower transaction costs and 

increased coverage by securities analysts and rating 

agencies. For the same reasons, large banks are also the 

primary users of off-balance-sheet financial derivatives. 

Differences in the ability of managers to operate institutions efficiently may also provide impetus for acquisitions. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan 

Greenspan noted in recent testimony, “there are considerable differences in the cost efficiencies of banks 

within all bank classes, implying that there is substantial potential for many banks to improve efficiency of 

their operations, perhaps through mergers.”6 Thus, 

managers of more efficient banks may acquire less 

efficient competitors in an attempt to increase the latters’ value through improved management. As shown in 

Chart 7 (next page), the efficiency ratios7 of bank holding companies improved significantly from 1987 to 

1997. However, continued disparities in efficiency 

among companies, as reflected by the upward slope of 

the lines in Chart 7, may offer additional opportunities 

for M&A activity. 

Technology and Globalization 

The application of technology to nearly every aspect 

of banking offers the potential for more streamlined 

oversight, management, and evaluation of far-flung 

5 The Dollars and Sense of Bank Consolidation, Working Paper No.
 

98-10,The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
 

6 Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, June
 

16, 1998.
 

7 The efficiency ratio is calculated by dividing noninterest expense by
 

the sum of net interest income and noninterest income. The ratio can
 

be interpreted as the cost to generate each dollar of revenue.
 

New York Regional Outlook 9 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

CHART 7 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

Efficiency Ratios* 

Most Efficient 

Institution 

* The efficiency ratio is noninterest expense divided by the sum of net interest 

income and noninterest income. 

Bank Efficiency Has Improved, but Differences 

among Institutions May Provide Merger Incentives 

Bank Holding Companies Continuously Operating from 1987 to 1997 

Least Efficient 

Institution 

Source: Federal Reserve Board Y-9 Reports, adapted from an analysis 

by McKinsey & Company. 

1987 

1997 

operations both domestically and internationally. 

Consequently, technology can facilitate merger activity. 

Moreover, some insured institutions may turn to mergers with compliant partners as a solution to Year 2000 

computer problems. 

In a June 1997 speech to the Institute for International 

Economics, Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers credited information and communication technologies as a contributing factor to the trilliondollar-a-day volume of cross-border capital flows.8 

Although the number of insured branches of foreign 

banks and the number of foreign offices of insured 

domestic banks have both declined in recent years, 

increasingly interconnected financial markets, firms, 

and customers have heightened the potential for competition across borders and continents. 

The scale, scope, and structure of many foreign competitors may promote combinations by U.S. institutions 

looking to enhance competitiveness in the global arena. 

Approval of proposed large mergers announced in early 

1998 will elevate several U.S. banking companies to 

banking’s global elite in terms of assets and market capitalization. Mergers among large European financial 

institutions in anticipation of the European economic 

and monetary union may spur U.S. multinational banks 

to consider strategic mergers across financial sectors. 

8 “Promoting Global Financial Stability: The G-7 Agenda,” delivered 

to the Institute for International Economics, June 12, 1997. 

Management Incentives 

Other factors that may drive M&A activity are related to 

managers’ compensation, special reward structures, and 

job security. Industry observers have noted that executive salaries are highly correlated with company size 

and revenues. Some analysts have noted that compensation of bank executives rises as assets expand, regardless of the source of the expansion. Bear, Stearns & 

Company opined in June 1998 that bank mergers would 

continue partly because “executive compensation in 

banking is correlating more with asset size than with 

any other financial performance measure.” 

Special reward structures also may influence acquisition programs. Large salary increases and special merger bonuses have been observed recently for executives 

of large acquiring banking companies. Amassed stock 

holdings and options may offer significant wealth for managers who 

decide to sell. Additionally, managers may take actions to lessen the 

likelihood of takeover and the corresponding probability of job loss. 

Such defensive managers may 

undertake acquisitions to avoid having their own banks targeted for 

purchase. 

Summary and Conclusions 

By identifying the rationale and incentives for bank 

M&A activity, regulators and industry participants can 

better understand and evaluate the risks and challenges 

facing merged institutions. The recent wave of banking 

industry M&A activity has been stimulated by a number 

of factors, including deregulation, increasing competition, market valuations, synergistic opportunities, technology and globalization, and management incentives. 

Although the pace of M&A activity may slow in the 

short term due to such factors as a stock market downturn or concern about Year 2000 implementation issues, 

the presence of multiple drivers will likely extend the 

consolidation trend well into the future. 

Steven E. Cunningham, CFA, Senior Financial Analyst 

scunningham@fdic.gov 

John F. Sherman, CFA, Senior Financial Analyst 

jsherman@fdic.gov 

New York Regional Outlook 10 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

Risks and Challenges for Consolidating Institutions
 

•	 Bank merger and acquisition (M&A) activity creates significant challenges for bank managers, 

including combining management teams, integrating technology, realizing the benefits of diversification, and maximizing operating economies. 

•	 As premiums paid in M&A transactions have 

escalated, some industry observers have raised 

concerns over whether the assumptions concerning potential earnings and strategic benefits can 

be realized. 

•	 Institutions in the process of integrating an 

acquired entity are likely to be especially vulnerable to a downturn in the economy. 

Merging institutions are under great pressure to execute 

the combination smoothly and realize its anticipated 

benefits. On the basis of anticipated earnings improvement and other strategic benefits, M&A deals are often 

executed at premiums substantially above recent market 

prices. As a result, financial market participants closely 

scrutinize post-merger results. Senior management of 

the merged entities, who typically are instrumental in 

convincing shareholders to agree to the transaction, are 

responsible for ensuring that expectations are realized. 

Entities that have demonstrated a proficiency at executing mergers have been regarded favorably by the capital 

markets. For some organizations, merging has effectively become a line of business. Alternatively, those that 

struggle after a merger may experience poor financial 

performance and could potentially become targets for 

acquisition themselves. 

Execution Risk 

The term “execution risk” often is applied to potential 

obstacles to integrating merging institutions. According 

to some analysts, execution risks are the primary risk in 

these combinations. These risks stem from a variety of 

uncertainties that arise following a merger: Can the new 

institution combine its management teams, integrate 

technological systems, realize the benefits of diversification, and maximize operating economies, all without 

interrupting services? Each of these uncertainties, summarized below, presents significant challenges to bank 

managers. 

Management 

Combining the management teams of consolidating 

companies is a critical first step in the transition 

process. Lines of reporting and authority must be delineated, and compensation arrangements coordinated and 

aligned with corporate goals. All of this must be accomplished without alienating critical personnel. The most 

difficult aspect may involve intangible cultural differences. A recent poll by Hewitt Associates1 of human 

resource managers of 218 large U.S. companies identified integrating organizational cultures as the “top challenge” in mergers. While some level of turnover must be 

expected, losses of key personnel and interruptions in 

service can result in dissatisfied customers, which in 

turn can lead to poor financial performance. 

Technology 

Technological advances often are 

identified as the single greatest 

enabler of the wave of bank consolidation; however, smoothly 

integrating existing systems and 

maximizing potential benefits of 

technology can be difficult. A 

Federal Reserve Board2 study of 

nine recent mergers concluded that the most frequent 

and serious problem merging institutions encountered 

was unexpected difficulty in integrating data processing 

systems and operations. The faster systems can be consolidated, the sooner cost savings can be realized; however, disruptions in service or breakdowns in control 

mechanisms may be less likely with a more measured 

integration timetable. Rather than attempting to integrate existing, sometimes incompatible systems, many 

merger partners have chosen to maintain parallel operations while integrating data processing systems over 

time. Year 2000 compliance efforts add yet another layer 

of complexity to these endeavors. 

Diversification 

M&A transactions provide an opportunity to diversify 

risk exposures, thereby potentially decreasing earnings 

volatility and moderating the effect of economic down1 “Career Tracks: Personnel Execs: Toughest Job in Mergers Is Blending.” American Banker, August 10, 1998, p. 6. 2 “The Efficiency Effects of Bank Mergers: An Overview of Case 

Studies of Nine Mergers.” Journal of Banking & Finance, March 

1998, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 273–291. 

New York Regional Outlook 11	 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

turns on an institution’s performance. However, diversification creates added complexity for bank managers. 

They may have little practical experience with new 

product lines or new geographic markets and as a result 

they may not fully understand the risks involved in these 

new areas. 

CHART 1 

Many of the Most Acquisitive Banking Companies 

Have Underperformed the Universe of Bank Stocks 

(March 31, 1993–March 31, 1998) 

550 ◆ Total Assets Greater Than $20B 

Total Return (Percent) 

Total Assets between $5B and $20B 

450 Total Assets Less Than $5B 

Operating Economies 

The degree to which anticipated operating economies 

are realized hinges on management’s ability to carry out 

multiple objectives. To achieve anticipated revenue 

enhancements, managers of consolidating institutions 

350 

250 SNL All Bank Index = 249.4% 

150 

have attempted to promote a culture of cross-selling 50 

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

new and existing products to a broader customer base in 

new markets, often through new distribution networks. 

At the same time, they have sought to reduce expenses 

by eliminating redundant administrative functions. 

Underlying these efforts is the need to establish strong 

internal controls and develop appropriate risk management systems. 

Are Expectations Unreasonable? 

As premiums paid to carry out M&A transactions have 

escalated, some industry analysts have viewed the 

assumptions regarding the expected earnings and strategic benefits as aggressive, raising uncertainty as to 

whether these benefits can be realized. Shares of banking organizations that have been active acquirers have 

not necessarily outperformed the universe of bank 

stocks, even before the recent market volatility. According to BankINVESTOR, for the five-year period ending March 31, 1998, most of the returns of the most 

acquisitive banking organizations across three separate 

size categories lagged the SNL Bank Index (Chart 1). 

This lag may be due to investor concerns about whether 

and to what extent the anticipated benefits of merger 

activity will be realized. For example, the assumed benefits related to economies of scale and diversification 

may be overoptimistic. 

Benefits of Scale 

Economies of scale associated with greater size and 

capacity are commonly identified as a potential benefit 

of consolidation. Large banks make substantial capital 

investment in areas such as technology and deliverysystem infrastructures; spreading these costs across a 

larger customer base may lead to greater efficiency. 

However, some observers question whether there is a 

limit to benefits of scale. Federal Reserve Board ChairPercentage of Current Assets Purchased
 

over Past Five Years
 

Source: BankINVESTOR
 

man Alan Greenspan testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 1998 that “there are no clearcut findings that suggest bank mergers uniformly lead 

to efficiency gains. Returns could be muted by large 

company inefficiencies, and their customers may face 

bureaucratic inflexibility.” Perhaps the increased complexity of larger institutions combined with their 

involvement in more nontraditional activities offset the 

advantages of larger scale. 

Benefits of Diversification 

Another common goal of M&A activity is to promote 

diversification of revenue streams. The relaxation of 

regulatory restrictions on geographic expansion and 

permissible activities has made possible new combinations of revenue sources. However, the extent to which 

combining traditional banking with a broader range of 

activities will yield a diversified income stream is not 

yet clear. Industry analysts often point to the declining 

share of total revenues from net interest income as an 

example of improved diversification and potentially less 

volatile earnings. However, others argue that, like 

margin-related income, fee income from activities such 

as mutual fund sales, investment management, and brokerage operations is sensitive to both increasing interest 

rates and deteriorating economic conditions. 

Cost of Capital 

Failure to meet performance expectations following a 

merger can lead to negative market assessments of earnings quality and stability. As creditors and investors 

view an institution’s performance less favorably, they 

New York Regional Outlook 12 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

require a higher rate of return on capital markets instruments. While cost of capital always has been important 

for institutions that rely significantly on capital markets 

as a funding source, changes in the competitive environment have made it a critical issue for all banking 

organizations. Technological advances and deregulation 

now permit low-cost competitors to enter previously 

insulated markets. (See “Merger and Acquisition Activity in the U.S. Banking Industry: Trends and Rationale” for a discussion of changes in the competitive 

environment.) Competitors with a lower cost of capital 

often can provide services at a lower price, or they can 

accept similar risks in exchange for a lower expected 

return. Such competition may lead higher-cost competitors to pursue higher-yielding but riskier investment 

alternatives. 

Economic Conditions 

The M&A activity of the past few years has occurred in 

an environment of nearly ideal economic conditions. As 

a result, many of the new business combinations have 

yet to be tested by a downturn in the economy. Until 

these new entities experience a full business (and credit) cycle, the results of the M&A activity cannot be fully 

assessed. 

Regardless of whether the long-term objectives of 

M&A activity are achievable, institutions that are transitioning to a new structure following a merger are likely to be especially vulnerable to deteriorating economic 

conditions. The experience of newly chartered institutions during the 1980s banking crisis is an example of 

deteriorating economic conditions interrupting this 

transition period. According to the FDIC’s recent study, 

History of the Eighties—Lessons for the Future, more 

than 16 percent of institutions chartered during the 

1980s failed by 1994, compared with just 7.6 percent of 

preexisting institutions. The study attributed the high 

failure rate to a combination of “powerful competitive 

pressures to assume greater risk with relative inexperience in a demanding new environment.” The competitive pressures included incentives to “leverage high 

initial capital positions, increase earnings per share, and 

meet stockholder expectations.” Although recently 

merged institutions and newly chartered institutions are 

not identical, today’s merger participants face many of 

the same pressures. 

The percentage of institutions that have recently experienced a structural change is higher today than at any 

other time since the consolidation trend began. Institutions that were chartered or involved in a merger over 

the past three years represent nearly 13 percent of all 

commercial banks and 65 percent of commercial bank 

assets. (See “Industry Consolidation Presents Unique 

Risks and Challenges for Community Banks” for a 

discussion of the trend in newly chartered institutions.) 

As shown in Chart 2, these percentages have increased 

substantially in recent years. Much of the consolidation 

activity is occurring between institutions that have been 

part of the same holding company for extended periods; 

however, even these transactions present integration 

challenges that would be complicated by an economic 

downturn. 

Summary and Conclusions 

While substantial benefits may be derived from bank 

M&A activity, mergers impose heavy demands on bank 

managers and present potential risks to banking organizations, bank investors, and the insurance funds. Bank 

managers face significant challenges associated with 

executing the merger, including combining management teams, integrating technology, realizing the benefits of diversification, and maximizing operating 

economies. Additionally, uncertainty remains as to 

whether merger-related expectations can be fully realized. Finally, the process of integrating two institutions 

is complex and time-consuming. Should this process be 

interrupted by an economic downturn, these institutions 

may be especially vulnerable. 

John F. Sherman, CFA, Senior Financial Analyst 

jsherman@fdic.gov 

CHART 2 

The Share of Institutions That Were Newly
 

Chartered* or Involved in a Merger within the
 

Previous Three Years Is Increasing
 70 14 

60 13 

50 12 

40 

30 

11 

10

 9 

20 8 

10 7 

0 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 1H98 6 

Percent of Commercial Banks 

(right axis) 

Percent of Commercial Bank Assets 

(left axis) 

Year * Includes all de novo institutions 

Source: Bank Call Reports 

New York Regional Outlook 13 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

Industry Consolidation Presents Unique Risks and
 

Challenges for Community Banks
 

•	 Industry consolidation has created competitive 

challenges for small banks and highlights traditional obstacles related to operating scale and 

scope. 

•	 Some small banks that are not merging with or 

selling to competitors are addressing consolidation challenges by outsourcing business functions, 

expanding the use of nondeposit funding sources, 

partnering with other banks and nonbanks, capitalizing on personalized service, and focusing on 

niche markets. 

•	 While these adaptive strategies may help community banks meet the challenges of industry consolidation, they potentially complicate the 

operations and risk profiles of these institutions. 

Historically, commercial banking has been characterized by a large number of small institutions operating at 

the community level. Although the number of small, or 

community, banks (defined as those with total assets of 

$500 million or less) has declined significantly since 

consolidation began in the 1980s, they continue to dominate the industry’s demographics. At June 30, 1998, 92 

percent (8,306) of FDIC-insured commercial banks 

held assets of $500 million or less. Approximately 73 

percent of these banks had no holding company or were 

subsidiaries of one-bank holding companies, and more 

than one-third operated only one office. The June 30, 

1997, Summary of Deposits data present more evidence 

of the extent of community banking. On that date, twothirds of all commercial banks operated offices exclusively within a one-county area. 

In terms of demographics, the structure of commercial 

banking continues to reflect the time when state and 

interstate banking and branching restrictions tended to 

limit rivalry in many local markets. However, recent 

changes in the structure, regulation, and operating environment of the financial services sector have affected 

commercial banks, especially smaller community 

banks. Specifically, industry consolidation has created 

new challenges for small banks arising from heightened 

competition and accentuates traditional small bank 

obstacles related to size and scope of operations. 

Competitive Pressures 

In addition to intensifying competitive pressures from 

nonbanks, industry consolidation has heightened competition among commercial banks. According to the 

Federal Reserve Board’s Flow of Funds data, for the 

seven-year period ending on March 31, 1998, commercial banks’ share of total financial assets in the U.S. 

economy declined nearly 6 percentage points to just 

over 20 percent. At the same time that banks are capturing a smaller slice of the financial services pie, mergers, 

acquisitions, and consolidation have set the stage for 

increased competition within the industry. Larger banks 

operating across state lines and in multiple markets via 

branches, mailings, or technology now vie for community bank customers. Moreover, the rebound in new 

bank charters over the past four years, an outgrowth of 

the consolidation trend, has increased the number of 

small bank competitors in many markets. The inaugural 

ABA Community Bank Competitiveness Survey1 in 

1997 reported that small bankers considered other community banks their chief competitors for deposit gathering and all types of lending, and considered large banks 

formidable competitors in commercial and consumer 

lending and deposit gathering. While competition 

among small banks in common markets has existed for 

some time, the emergence of larger institutions as challengers results largely from many of the merger motivators and drivers discussed in “Merger and Acquisition 

Activity in the U.S. Banking Industry: Trends and 

Rationale” in this issue. 

New Chartering Activity 

A secondary effect of industry consolidation, and a 

potential source of increased competition for preexisting community banks, is the recent trend in new bank 

charters. From June 1994 to June 1998, more than 500 

commercial banks were established in 48 states. 

Although rebounding, the annual level of new chartering activity remains well below the peaks of the previous three decades. Industry observers attribute the 

recent increase in new charters to many factors, including the availability of displaced banking talent, strong 

economic growth, potential niche opportunities in mar1 As presented in the ABA Banking Journal, April 1997, p. 55. 

New York Regional Outlook 14	 Fourth Quarter 1998 
Small Banks in Business 4 Years or Less

18%

21%

29%

40%

24%

38% 20%

27%

In Focus This Quarter
 

ket segments underserved by larger banks, and the loss CHART 1 

of local decision making and perceived service gaps as New Chartering Activity Appears to Be Related local banks are acquired by larger banks or are consoli­ to the Number of Banks Sold or Consolidated dated into far-flung multibank companies. in Merger Transactions 

New bank activity is not concentrated in one region of 

the country. However, at the state level there appears to 

be a relationship between new chartering activity and 

the number of institutions sold or consolidated in merger and acquisition transactions (see Chart 1). Forty percent of all banks sold or consolidated and 27 percent of 

new charters from June 1994 to June 1998 were in 

Texas, California, Florida, Illinois, and Georgia. 

As shown in Map 1, ten states currently host a high perNumber of New Commercial Banks40 (June 1994–June 1998) 

IL 35 

30 GA 

25 FL TX CA 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Number of Banks Sold or Consolidated 

Sources: Bank Call Reports, FDIC Division of Research and Statistics centage of recently established community banks. Many 

of these states have experienced strong economic 

growth during this expansion and have a large number 

of banking offices owned by out-of-state institutions. 

These concentrations are especially noteworthy since 

newly chartered institutions often pursue aggressive 

growth to improve profitability, which may influence 

pricing and terms for competitors within their markets. 

Reflecting the recent surge in new banks, 57 percent of 

the 402 unprofitable commercial banks through the first 

half of 1998 had been in business less than four years, 

up from 17 percent at year-end 1994 (see Chart 2). As 

would be expected, the ten states highlighted in Map 1 

rank among the top in terms of the percentage of small 

banks that were unprofitable during the first half of 

1998. 

Challenges of Scale and Scope 

A by-product of industry consolidation is the emerMAP 1 

Some States Host a High Percentage of Banks 

Established in the Past Four Years 

Greater than 15% (10) 

5% to 15% (19) 

Less than 5% (22) 

New Banks as a Percentage of Total 

June 30, 1998 

24% 

16% 

gence of larger institutions. By definition, community CHART 2 

banks operate with relatively less scale than their 

regional, super-regional, and money-center counter- Recently Chartered Small Banks Comprise a 

Higher Proportion of Unprofitable Institutions parts. As a result, small banks have limited ability to 

spread the costs of new investments or operating 

expenses across a broad asset base. This characteristic 

has traditionally forced community banks to spend 

more to generate each dollar of revenue than the rest of 

the industry, as measured by efficiency ratios.2 The 

inability of many community banks to fund large expenditures, such as investments in technology, alternative 

delivery systems, or new business lines, may cause 

2 The efficiency ratio is calculated by dividing noninterest expense by 

Percentage of All Unprofitable Banks 100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Small Banks in Business More Than 4 Years 

Small Banks in Business 4 Years or Less 

’84 ’85 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 1H98 

Year the sum of net interest income and noninterest income. The ratio can 

Source: Bank Call Reports be interpreted as the cost to generate each dollar of revenue.
 

New York Regional Outlook 15 Fourth Quarter 1998
 
In Focus This Quarter
 

CHART 3 

Small Banks Remain Highly Dependent 

on Spread Income 

55% 

60% 

65% 

70% 

75% 

80% 

85%

Net Interest Income to Net Operating Revenue 

Total Assets Greater 

Than $500M 

Total Assets Less 

Than $500M 

’84 ’85 ’86 ’87 ’88 ’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 1H98 

Year 

Source: Bank Call Reports 

long-term competitive disadvantages. For example, The 

Tower Group estimates that 70 percent of 1997 information technology (IT) spending by banks was by the 

top 15 institutions.3 Smaller institutions competing with 

larger banks that are investing in technology to improve 

operational efficiency, increase customer convenience, 

or to better identify customer profitability, pricing 

strategies, or cross-selling opportunities may find a 

diminished presence in the marketplace. Consequently, 

small banks may face increasing competition for customers who are attracted to sophisticated pricing, wider 

product arrays, and multiple delivery channels offered 

by competitors. 

Closely related to scale is the issue of scope of operations, both business line and geographic. Community 

banks’ scale may limit their ability to expand into new 

business lines or activities, thereby reducing the degree 

of revenue diversification and resulting in dependence 

on spread income. Since many noninterest sources of 

revenue require scale to economically justify investment, small banks tend to derive a greater percentage 

of net operating revenue from spread income, as shown 

in Chart 3. Also, the limited geographic scope of many 

community banks may result in less loan portfolio 

diversification and greater exposures to local economic downturns. From a portfolio management perspective, lenders with more diverse loan portfolios that can 

spread risks over a broader customer and economic 

base may gain pricing advantages over less diversified 

competitors. 

3 “How Much Do US Banks Spend On Information Technology?,” 

The Tower Group Research Notes, www.towergroup.com. 

How Are Community Banks Addressing 

Consolidation Challenges? 

In response to competitive pressures arising from industry consolidation, community banks, new and old, 

appear to be adapting to meet strategic challenges to 

their long-term viability. Indeed, this summer, Federal 

Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan told the 

Charlotte, North Carolina, Chamber of Commerce that 

“well-managed smaller banks have little to fear from 

technology, deregulation, or consolidation.” Recent surveys and anecdotes reveal that small banks that are not 

selling to or merging with competitors are adjusting 

business practices to cope with the aforementioned 

pressures and challenges. Their strategies include outsourcing business functions, expanding the use of nondeposit funding sources, partnering with other banks 

and nonbanks, emphasizing personalized service, and 

developing niches or specialties. However, as described 

below, while these approaches may help small banks 

meet the challenges of consolidation, they potentially 

complicate the operations and risk profiles of these 

institutions. 

Outsourcing 

A recent survey by Electronic Data Systems Corporation and Bank Earnings International LLP4 found that 

community bankers are more concerned with controlling operating expenses than any other issue. This finding is not surprising given the cost savings expected 

from many recent mergers. The study also revealed that 

banks view IT as the most valuable tool for improving 

day-to-day performance—from controlling expenses to 

increasing fee income. Yet, according to The Tower 

Group, IT budgets as a percentage of total noninterest 

expenses for small banks are typically half of those for 

larger banks.5 As a result, some small banks are turning 

to outside parties to maximize the utility of expenditures, IT and others. 

American Banker recently reported on a trend among 

small banks to outsource the origination of consumer 

loans. The Tower Group noted that third parties handled 

2.7 million noncard, nonmortgage loan applications 

(mostly from small institutions) in 1997, and annual 

outsourced volume growth is projected to average 40 

percent through 2002.6 Vendor networks designed to 

4 American Banker, July 22, 1998, p. 16.
 5 Computerworld, May 25, 1998, p. 20.
 6 “More Banks Handing Off Nitty-Gritty of Consumer Lending,”
 

American Banker, June 12, 1998, p. 1.
 

New York Regional Outlook 16 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

enable small banks to reduce hardware and personnel CHART 4 

needs also have emerged and allow for more cost- Small Bank FHLB Membership and efficient processing and cheaper access to customer Borrowing Are Rising information. Many small banks planning Internet-based 

or home banking also are turning to outside experts. 60 Nonborrowing members 

Outsourcing certain business functions may allow for 

greater focus on profitable business lines, less risky 

access to state-of-the-art technology, cost savings, and 

more options for customers. However, these arrangements are not without risk. Indeed, FDIC-insured institutions have experienced difficulties in the past with 

indirect consumer lending, such as auto lending. Moreover, banks that outsource business functions may have 

Percentage of Small Banks


Belonging to the FHLBs


Borrowing members 50 

’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 2Q98 

40 

30 

20 

10 

less control over those functions and may become overreliant on third-party providers. 

Nondeposit Funding Sources 

As noted above, increasing competition for deposits has 

left some small banks searching for alternative funding 

sources to meet loan demand. On average each year 

from 1993 to 1997, 64 percent of small commercial 

banks experienced loan growth in excess of deposit 

growth. Similarly, six in ten banks responding to the 

1998 ABA Community Bank Competitiveness Survey7 

reported that deposit levels were not keeping pace with 

loan demand. In response, small banks are increasingly 

turning to nondeposit funding sources. From 1993 

through the second quarter of 1998, the percentage of 

small banks using borrowings of any type increased 

from 48 to 56 percent. Over the same period, the percentage of small banks funding with borrowings other 

than overnight funds (Federal funds and repurchase 

agreements) increased from 20 percent to 35 percent, 

and the percentage reporting brokered deposits rose 

from 7 percent to 12 percent. 

The rising number of commercial banks joining the 

Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) System in recent 

years, as reflected in Chart 4, is likely a symptom of the 

aforementioned funding trend. At June 30, 1998, nearly 

half of all small banks were FHLB members, compared 

with 21 percent at year-end 1993. On the same date, 90 

percent of FHLB commercial bank members and 87 

percent of FHLB commercial bank borrowers were 

small banks. In addition to providing a backup source of 

liquidity, the FHLB is essentially acting as an intermediary to the capital markets for banks with limited 

access. The relatively limited nondeposit funding 

options available to many small banks may explain their 

7 ABA Banking Journal, February 1998, p. 47. 

0 

Year 

Sources: Bank Call Reports, Federal Housing Finance Board 

increasing reliance on FHLB advances. At June 30, 

1998, approximately 80 percent of small banks’ 

nonovernight borrowings were FHLB advances. 

The increasing liquidity of loan portfolios is becoming 

another funding alternative. Many small banks have 

used participation arrangements to sell off portions of 

loans to correspondent banks or have turned to Fannie 

Mae or Freddie Mac to sell mortgages. The securitization of other loan types also may become increasingly 

appealing as funding shortages persist and market 

opportunities for small banks increase. For example, in 

July 1998, American Banker highlighted the creation 

of a new commercial mortgage conduit established 

specifically to buy loans originated by community 

banks.8 The secondary market for the guaranteed portion of Small Business Administration loans also has 

been cited as a potential source of liquidity. 

Although identifying and expanding the use of 

nondeposit funds may increase the flexibility of small 

banks, their use complicates asset-liability management. While net interest margins for small banks have 

yet to reveal significant compression, recent evidence 

suggests future declines. For example, a recent survey 

conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that 57 percent of small bankers in the upper 

Midwest expect a shift away from deposit funding to 

decrease profitability.9 

8 “Commercial Real Estate: New Conduit Plans to Help Small Banks
 

Enter,” American Banker, July 21, 1998, p. 29.
 9 “Location Influences Community Bank Challenges,” Fedgazzette,
 

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, July 1998, p. 2.
 

New York Regional Outlook 17 Fourth Quarter 1998 
In Focus This Quarter
 

Partnering 

In an effort to expand revenue sources and attract and 

retain customers, smaller banks are expanding their 

spectrum of products and services through partnerships 

with other entities. The 1998 ABA Community Bank 

Competitiveness Survey found that 10 percent of community banks partnered with other banks in 1997, while 

nearly twice as many have teamed up with nonbanks. 

Over two-thirds of the survey’s respondents considered 

their partnering approach profitable. The leading types 

of arrangements with other banks include loan participations, title insurance, data processing, credit card programs, and mortgage lending. Nonbank partnering has 

been used to expand offerings to customers such as brokerage, insurance, and travel agency services. However, 

like outsourcing, partnering could result in less control 

and overreliance on third parties. 

Service Orientation 

Small banks have long touted personalized service and 

local decision making as a competitive advantage. 

Influenced by the recent wave of merger and acquisition 

activity in the industry, community bankers cited service as an area 

with great opportunity in the 1998 

ABA Community Bank Competitiveness Survey. Indeed, many 

community bankers have publicly 

welcomed consolidation as a 

chance to establish new relationships and attract customers affected by integration problems and personnel shifting at larger acquiring or 

merging banks. 

Establishing prudent relationships with smaller, underserved customers may present opportunities and profits 

for small banks. This may be especially true for small 

business customers, which may not fit more standardized lending models of larger banks yet remain acceptable credit risks. According to the Federal Reserve 

Board’s second-quarter 1998 Survey of Terms of Business Lending, rates on small commercial and industrial 

loans earn the greatest spread of any size business 

loans. Further, a recent survey by PSI Global of small 

business owners in south Florida, which has seen a great 

deal of merger and acquisition activity in recent years, 

found that nearly one-quarter of respondents would 

move their business if their bank was purchased, exemplifying the extent to which small banks may be able to 

use service to capitalize on consolidation activity.10 

Developing Niches or Specialties 

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some small banks are 

specializing in narrow markets and niches. Some analysts and consultants have emphasized that community 

banks should not try to be what they are not, but should 

instead focus on a particular market segment or niche. 

By default, many small banks depend on their customers’ local businesses and, through local expertise, 

may be better at serving specific industries than their 

larger competitors. However, a narrow focus may 

reduce portfolio diversification and could lead to 

greater exposures during an economic downturn. 

Summary and Conclusions 

Small banks are facing heightened competitive pressures from larger, merged institutions and from new 

banks. Their ability to respond to these pressures is 

restricted by traditional scale and scope limitations. 

Community banks are addressing these challenges by 

outsourcing business functions, utilizing nondeposit 

funding sources, partnering with other banks and nonbanks to diversify revenues and widen customer 

options, capitalizing on personalized service, and developing niches or specialties. While these strategies may 

help community banks meet the challenges of industry 

consolidation, they potentially complicate the operations and risk profiles of these institutions. 

Steven E. Cunningham, CFA, Senior Financial Analyst 

scunningham@fdic.gov 

10 South Florida Business Journal, May 22, 1998, p. 6. 

New York Regional Outlook 18 Fourth Quarter 1998 
Regular Feature
 

Regional Perspectives
 

•	 The Region’s economy continues to expand and its banks remain healthy. Instability in global markets and 

U.S. stock market jitters cloud the future, however. 

•	 The Region’s community banks are being hurt by tighter interest margins and higher costs. Lower noninterest income is weakening profitability. Small banks’ earnings are more vulnerable to the flat yield curve 

and competition. 

•	 Small businesses play a large role in the Region’s economy, and competition for their business is intensifying. Declining spreads and the possibility of looser underwriting standards pose risks for the Region’s financial institutions. 

Region’s Economic and Banking Conditions 

Region’s Economy Continues to Expand 

The New York Region’s economy continues to grow at a 

moderately healthy pace. In the quarter ending June 30, 

1998, 274,000 new jobs were added to the Region’s 

workforce, an annual increase of almost 1.3 percent. 

The Region’s employment growth rate is about one-half 

the nation’s rate, although unemployment rates in most 

states are close to the national average of about 4.5 percent. Personal income growth in the Region has been 

picking up. The gap between growth in the Region and 

the nation has narrowed considerably (see Chart 1). In 

the first quarter of 1998, personal income in the Region 

rose at an annual rate of about 5.7 percent over the first 

quarter of 1997, compared with a 5.9 percent growth 

rate in the nation. 

Reports from around the Region show a robust demand 

for housing. In the Washington, D.C., area, residential 

sales during the first half of 1998 ran 37 percent ahead 

of the first half of 1997, making this the best year of this 

decade. Stronger demand also has been noted in the 

counties surrounding New York City and Philadelphia, 

where prices have risen to their highest levels in almost 

a decade. In the Baltimore area, home sales were up 

almost 27 percent in July 1998 over July 1997, marking 

the seventh consecutive month of increases. 

Region’s Banks Remain Healthy 

The Region’s banks and thrifts reported healthy financial conditions in the second quarter of 1998 (see Chart 

2). Insured institutions in the New York Region posted 

CHART 1	 CHART 2 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 

Percent 

Change 

Personal Income Growth in the Region 

Has Narrowed the Gap with the Nation 

U.S. N.Y. Region 

0.0% 

2.0% 

4.0% 

6.0% 

8.0% 

ROA Tier 1 

Leverage 

Past-Due 

Loans 

Source: Bank and Thrift Call Reports 

New York Region Institutions 

Continue to Show Strength 

6/96 

6/97 

6/98 

NIM 

ROA = return on assets 

NIM = net interest margin 

New York Regional Outlook 19	 Fourth Quarter 1998 
Regular Feature Regional Perspectives
 

stable income figures. The Region’s average return on 

assets (ROA) ratio was 1.10 percent, almost the same 

level as a year earlier. Financial institutions continue to 

bolster earnings by increasing efficiency and emphasizing fee income as a revenue source. However, the continuing trend of lower net interest margins (NIMs), the 

result of a prolonged flat yield curve environment (see 

New York’s Regional Outlook, Second Quarter 1998) 

and stiff industry competition, is pressuring the bottom 

line. Capital ratios remain strong but continue their 

slightly downward trend of the past several quarters. 

Reported past-due ratios are declining as well, reflecting improvement in residential and commercial real 

estate loan portfolios. The primary area of weakness 

continues to lie in credit card loan portfolios. Nonperforming credit card loans as a percentage of total credit 

card loans are higher than in 1996 and 1997, despite 

continuing high charge-off levels. Further, a larger portion of nonperforming credit card loans falls in the more 

severe “90 days and over past due” category than in previous periods, suggesting a prolonged weakness that 

will not be quickly corrected. 

Instability in Global Markets and U.S. Stock 

Market Jitters Cloud the Future 

The Asian crisis and its contagion effects continue to 

ripple through the U.S. and the Region’s economies. 

Currency devaluations are taking a toll on American 

manufacturers who export to Asia, resulting in lower 

aggregate production. Economists expect a further 

slowdown in Asian demand for U.S. goods, leading to a 

reduction in U.S. corporate profits. 

Although the Region appears less 

vulnerable than the nation in general (see Regional Outlook, 

Third Quarter 1998), the effect of 

the Asian crisis on the Region’s 

economy is now more visible and 

more severe than initially expected. Export statistics released by 

the Department of Commerce as of March 31, 1998, 

show that exports to the Asian 101 countries dropped further in the Region than in the rest of the nation. Between 

the first quarter of 1997 and the first quarter of 1998, 

1 The Asian 10 countries are China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, 

Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. 

MAP 1 

New York Region Residents Hold the Largest
 

Share of Equity Mutual Fund Assets
 

Percentage of Equity Fund Assets Held 

1995 

5% to 13% 4% to 5% 

2% to 4% 0% to 2% 

Source: Investment Company Institute 

exports to Asia from the New York Region fell 17 percent, compared with 10 percent for the rest of the nation. 

Troubles in Asia also have led to weakened world 

economies and unstable global markets, including those 

of Russia and Latin America. The U.S. stock market has 

reacted negatively to this increasing global uncertainty. 

Beginning in mid-July 1998, the market has seen wild 

fluctuations and lost much of the gains it had posted 

over the previous year. 

A stock market downturn of considerable length or 

breadth may have severe consequences for the securities 

industry (“Wall Street”) and therefore for the Region’s 

economy. Wall Street affects the Region’s economy significantly more than it affects the nation’s. In 1996, Wall 

Street activity accounted for 3.8 percent, or $50 billion, 

of the Region’s economic output. Comparatively, it 

accounted for only 1.0 percent of the nation’s gross 

domestic product. In New York, which has the highest 

concentration of securities industry employees of any 

state, Wall Street contributed almost 7 percent of the 

state’s aggregate economy. A New York State Comptroller report found that Wall Street fueled about one-half 

of New York’s real earnings growth between 1995 and 

1997. As a result, a downturn on Wall Street poses a 

potentially greater risk to the economies of New York 

and New York City than elsewhere. 

Another concern is the reliance individual investors 

place on the stock market for savings and wealth creNew York Regional Outlook 20 Fourth Quarter 1998 
Regular Feature Regional Perspectives
 

ation. During the last several years, huge numbers of 

individuals have jumped into the stock market as the 

value of equities has soared. The Federal Reserve 

Board has estimated that the value of stocks owned by 

U.S. households, either directly or through mutual 

funds, is now about $11 trillion, double the level of just 

four years ago. An Investment Company Institute 

analysis found that almost one-quarter of all equity 

mutual funds in the U.S. are owned by residents of the 

New York Region, the largest share of any region. 

Because the New York Region has only 17 percent of 

total households in the U.S., but 25 percent of equity 

mutual fund holdings, the Region is more vulnerable to 

market declines (see Map 1). 

A sustained Wall Street slump also could have negative 

consequences for the Region’s banks. Lower market valuations could make it more costly for banks to raise new 

capital. Mergers and acquisitions in the industry may 

slow because of lower valuations resulting from many 

acquirers using their high-valued stock to make purchases. In addition, fee income could be reduced for 

banks that have expanded into financial-market-related 

services. The derivative securities market also could be 

negatively affected. Banks in the New York Region 

reported more than $22 trillion of derivatives, or 78 percent of all derivative contracts held by insured institutions as of June 30, 1998. Although the effect on 

derivative securities depends on the type and terms of 

the contract, the large concentration makes the Region 

especially vulnerable to market volatility. 

Community Banks Hurt by Tighter Margins, Higher Costs
 

Higher Costs and Lower Noninterest 

Income Weaken Profitability 

Shrinking margins, higher costs, and lower noninterest 

revenue are threatening the earnings growth of the 

Region’s 277 community banks (defined as those with 

total assets of less than $100 million). Although most 

community banks posted satisfactory second quarter 

net income levels, analysts expect earnings to slow by 

year’s end. The prolonged flat yield curve environment, 

caused by declining long-term interest rates, has led to 

historically low mortgage rates. Because short-term 

interest rates have not fallen in step with long-term 

rates, banks have not been able to lower their short-term 

deposit rates sufficiently to maintain favorable spreads. 

Low long-term rates also are encouraging more people 

to prepay mortgages by refinancing into low-interest, 

fixed-rate mortgages, which places further downward 

pressure on bank margins. 

Competition among financial institutions is affecting 

small (herein synonymous with “community”) banks’ 

bottom lines. Banks are having to pay more and charge 

less to attract consumers. Mergers between larger banks 

often lead to increased efficiencies, both through lowering costs and increasing revenue opportunities (see 

“Merger and Acquisition Activity in the U.S. Banking 

Industry: Trends and Rationale” in this issue). Cost 

savings from those transactions are being used by larger banks to slash loan prices, some say by as much as 

150 basis points, according to a recent Electronic Data 

Systems Corporation study. Further, large banks have 

been acquiring brokerage firms and other businesses to 

increase noninterest income, and are less reliant on 

interest spreads than smaller institutions. 

One difficulty facing smaller institutions is that they 

generally have higher operating costs and less room to 

improve earnings through cost reductions. Community 

banks in the Region have an average ratio of noninterest 

expenses to earning assets of 4.3 percent, compared 

with the larger banks’ (those with assets over $100 million) average ratio of 3.5 percent (see Chart 3). Furthermore, unlike larger institutions, community banks have 

not, on average, been able to reduce this ratio over the 

past five years; it has actually increased. Although the 

higher average ratio in part reflects the influence of new 

banks, the result is similar even when outliers are not 

considered. Efficiency ratios,2 which measure effectiveness in generating revenue, are equally as telling. Small 

banks had an average efficiency ratio of almost 80 percent as of June 30, 1998, compared with 61 percent for 

larger institutions. This means that smaller institutions 

incur significantly higher costs to earn the same revenue as their larger counterparts. Again, larger institu2 The efficiency ratio is defined as noninterest expense divided by the 

sum of net interest income and noninterest income. 

New York Regional Outlook 21 Fourth Quarter 1998 
Regular Feature Regional Perspectives
 

CHART 3 

0 

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

5.0 

ROA NIM 

Higher Noninterest Expenses 

Hurt Small Banks’ Earnings 

Source: Bank and Thrift Call Reports 

Assets 

<$100M 

Data as of June 30, 1998. 

Assets 

>$100M 

EA = earnings assets 

ROA = return on assets 

NIM = net interest margin 

Noninterest 

Income/EA 

Noninterest 

Expense/EA 

Percent 

tions have shown significant improvement in this ratio 

over the past five years, while community banks have 

not. 

Community banks also have fewer opportunities to raise 

revenues through fee income. Fee income totaled just 8 

percent of total income for the Region’s community 

banks as of June 30, 1998, less than half the figure 

reported by financial institutions with assets over $1 billion. (Mid-sized banks, those with $100 million to $1 

billion in assets, average only slightly higher fee income 

to total income ratio than community banks.) 

When margins become tighter, smaller institutions’ net 

income levels are squeezed more than those of larger 

banks, which have a more diverse revenue base. Community banks in the Region reported an average NIM of 

4.12 percent as of June 30, 1998, compared with 4.29 

percent on June 30, 1997. Reflecting this decline, their 

average ROA fell to 0.55 percent from 0.57 percent over 

the same period. Almost 60 percent of community 

banks in the Region reported lower year-over-year ROA 

and NIM figures. ROA figures for larger institutions 

reflect the positive effect that noninterest income is having on their bottom lines. Although the larger institutions’ lower NIM of 4.04 percent fell 12 basis points 

from a year ago, their much higher average ROA of 1.19 

percent is a 4 basis point improvement. Furthermore, 

over the past five years, community banks have seen 

their ROAs fall 24 basis points while larger banks have 

improved their ratios by 10 basis points, despite similar 

drops in their NIMs. 

Smaller Institutions Face More Potential Risks 

Although all banks face pressure on earnings as a result 

of the flat yield curve and increased industry competition, small banks are particularly vulnerable. Community banks are facing increased reinvestment risk; as 

assets with higher yields mature or are repaid, funds 

invested in similar assets earn the current market yield, 

which is historically low. For example, community 

banks are heavily invested in residential mortgage 

loans. These loans made up 59 percent of total loans in 

community banks in the Region as of June 30, 1998. 

Because of the low long-term rates over the past year, 

the majority of refinanced mortgage loans, including 

adjustable rate mortgages, are being converted into 

long-term fixed-rate mortgages. As a result, small 

banks are likely to have significant volumes of lowyielding, long-term, fixed-rate assets on their books for 

many years. When and if interest rates begin to rise, 

margins could tighten even further as liabilities, which 

are generally short-term and have floating rates, rise in 

cost. 

Another risk is that banks may loosen underwriting 

standards as they try to make up in volume what they 

lose because of low rates and competition. Analysts and 

regulators warn that more institutions are lowering 

underwriting standards and therefore lending to riskier 

borrowers. In June 1998, the Federal Reserve Board, in 

response to this apparently growing trend, issued a 

supervisory letter indicating that this is a “critical time 

for banks to maintain their lending discipline.” The Federal Reserve further warned that “such easing [of lending terms and standards] can undermine a bank’s 

financial health, especially if the economy weakens or 

the extraordinary recent performance of business profits and cash flows does not persist.” 

There also is the consideration that banks are venturing 

into unfamiliar lines of business. For example, to boost 

interest margins, small banks may feel the need to shift 

focus from low-earning assets such as mortgages to 

higher-earning assets such as high loan-to-value or subprime home equity loans. Such strategies will increase 

interest income but also increase the risk profiles of the 

banks’ balance sheets. Also, new business lines raise the 

risk that banks do not have the proper expertise to price 

and structure new types of loans, develop or sell new 

products in a cost-effective way, or otherwise undertake 

new ventures in a prudent manner. 

New York Regional Outlook 22 Fourth Quarter 1998 
Regular Feature Regional Perspectives
 

Small Businesses Play Large Role in Region’s Economy:
 

Competition for Their Business Is Intensifying
 

Small Businesses Spur the Economy 

A vital part of the Region’s economic expansion has 

been the growth in small businesses (defined as establishments with fewer than 100 employees). A 1995 survey by the Small Business Administration (SBA) found 

that almost 98 percent of all establishments in the 

Region were classified as small businesses. Small businesses contribute more than half of the private-sector 

workforce and create two out of three new jobs. The 

SBA estimates that small businesses produce two and 

one-half times as many innovations per employee as do 

large firms. The composition of small businesses in the 

Region is diverse. In Delaware, eating and drinking 

establishments are the largest small business employers. 

In New York and New Jersey, the largest small business 

employers are health care companies. Other significant 

small business industries throughout the Region include 

insurance carriers, educational services, business services, and engineering and management consulting. 

The climate for small businesses in the Region has been 

improving. Reflecting the favorable economy, the number of new business incorporations (most of them small 

businesses) has recovered completely from the recession of the early 1990s (see Chart 4). Over the same 

time, business bankruptcies in the Region have 

declined, consistent with the Region’s economic expansion. Although the Region’s economy continues to grow, 

a downturn could hurt small businesses disproportionately because they generally have fewer available 

CHART 4 

0 

’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Dun & Bradstreet 

New Incorporations Have Grown While 

Business Bankruptcy Filings Have Declined 

Number of Filings (000s) 

(left axis) 

Number of Incorporations (000s) 

(right axis) 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

resources, both financial and otherwise, than larger 

companies. 

Small Business Lending Is 

Increasingly Competitive 

Competition in the banking industry extends to the 

small business lending sector. Small businesses are 

being courted by new competitors offering innovative 

products and approaches to delivery. While some competition is coming from outside the industry, much of 

the new competition is from banks venturing outside 

their traditional lending areas or trying to expand their 

customer base. Product offerings are expanding as business credit cards and lines of credit for small businesses increase in popularity. The use of credit scoring 

technology has reduced underwriting costs, encouraging more institutions to enter this potentially lucrative 

lending sector. In addition, the increasing use of the 

Internet by small businesses makes their banking relationships less tied to geographic location. 

Another factor likely to increase competition in the 

small business lending arena is the SBA. The SBA 

recently proposed rules outlining new standard requirements for the securitization of the unguaranteed portion 

of SBA loans. The new proposal is intended to increase 

the liquidity for SBA loans in the secondary market and 

could encourage more banks to underwrite and securitize SBA loans. Under its 7(a) General Business Loan 

program, the SBA guarantees up to 80 percent of the 

principal loan amount of small business loans. The risk 

of loss on the remaining balance is borne by the lender. 

Nonbank lenders have been allowed to securitize the 

unguaranteed portion of SBA loans since 1992, but 

banks were prohibited from doing so until April 1997. 

Since then, approval of the securitization of the unguaranteed portion by banks has been made on an individual 

basis. The proposed guidelines address these discrepancies and apply to both regulated banks and nonbank 

lenders. 

Commercial bank small business lending exposures in 

the New York Region are considerable. (For this article, 

small-business lending is defined as commercial and 

industrial loans with original amounts of $1 million or 

less.) As of June 30, 1998, the Region’s commercial 

New York Regional Outlook 23 Fourth Quarter 1998 
Regular Feature Regional Perspectives
 

banks reported $28 billion in small business loans, 

amounting to 12 percent of all commercial and industrial loans. Banks with total assets under $1 billion 

have significantly more exposure to small business 

loans as a percentage of equity capital (see Table 1). 

Both the dollar volume and the proportional amount of 

small business loans have declined slightly in the 

Region in the past year, perhaps because of the 

increased competition from both within and outside the 

Region and the industry. 

Small Business Lending Poses Potential Risks 

Growing competition in the small business lending segment poses several potential risks to banks. The desire 

for portfolio growth or expansion into new market areas 

may cause some banks to lower their lending standards 

to capture a greater share of business. In addition, 

although margins on these loans traditionally have been 

relatively high because of inherent risk, margins are 

TABLE 1 

Banks under $1 Billion Have Greater 

Exposure to Small Business Lending 

COMMERCIAL BANKS AVERAGE SBL* AS % 

WITH TOTAL ASSETS OF: OF EQUITY CAPITAL 

06/30/98 06/30/97 

$100 MILLION 

OR LESS 70.6% 69.7% 

$100 MILLION TO 

$1 BILLION 71.6% 73.2% 

$1 TO $10 BILLION 45.1% 47.7% 

OVER $10 BILLION 34.7% 36.4% 

* SBL = Commercial and Industrial Loans under 

$1 Million 

Source: Bank Call Reports. 

tightening as banks vie for customers. The question is 

raised as to whether banks are being adequately compensated for potential risks in these loans. Also, expansion into new geographic or business areas requires that 

management has a commensurate level of expertise. 

The heavy reliance of small business on banks for 

financing could pose a threat if the economy falters and 

small businesses suffer substantial hardships as a result. 

Therefore, due diligence and credit review should 

include taking into consideration the possibility of an 

economic downturn, especially in light of the length of 

the current expansion. 

Norman Gertner, Regional Economist 

Karen A. Wigder, Financial Analyst 

Kathy Kalser, Section Chief, Financial Markets 

For More Information 

A Directory of Small Business Lending in the U.S. 

Reported by Commercial Banks, Office of Advocacy, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, June 1995. 

“Internet Banking,” a study by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, 

in U.S. Banker, August 1998. 

The New Age of Community Banking, a study by Grant 

Thornton, March 1998. 

New York City’s Economic and Fiscal Dependence on 

Wall Street, New York State Comptroller’s Office, 

August 13, 1998. 

Small Businesses and Their Employees, Monthly Labor 

Review, October 1994. 

Unlocking Winning Strategies to Serve Small Businesses: Banking the American Dream, Bank Administration Institute and McKinsey & Company, Spring 

1998. 

New York Regional Outlook 24 Fourth Quarter 1998 
✁
 

Subscription Form
 

To obtain a subscription to the FDIC Regional Outlook, please print or type the following information: 

Institution Name ______________________________________________________________ 

Contact Person ______________________________________________________________ 

Telephone ______________________________________________________________ 

Street Address ______________________________________________________________ 

City, State, Zip Code ______________________________________________________________ 

Please fax or mail this order form to:	 FDIC Public Information Center 

801 17th Street, N.W., Room 100 

Washington, D.C. 20434 

Fax Number (202) 416-2076 

Please indicate below each Region’s issue you wish to receive: 

Atlanta Boston Chicago 

Dallas Kansas City Memphis 

New York San Francisco All 

FDIC 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Washington, DC 20429-9990 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 

BULK RATE
 

MAIL
 

Postage &
 

Fees Paid
 

FDIC
 

Permit No. G-36