FYI: An Update on Emerging Issues in Banking

Trends in Community Banking

May 18, 2004

Overview

Note: These papers are the second installment of a series of papers comprising the 

FDIC's Future of Banking Study.

This issue of FYI summarizes three reports released today under the FDIC's Future of 

Banking Study. While the reports were written by different authors who draw their own 

conclusions, the FDIC has released them as a group because they are all focused on 

aspects of community banking in the United States. 

The first report addresses the broad trends leading to the significant decline in the 

number of bank and thrift organizations in the U.S.—almost 50 percent in the past 15 

years—and presents some evidence suggesting an eventual balance developing 

between the number of new bank start-ups and charter losses that may result in a 

stabilization of the number of banking organizations nationwide. The second report 

notes that while community bank charters have been halved in the consolidation wave, 

they still comprise the vast majority of banks in the United States and provide vital 

services to the small business and agricultural sectors. The final paper discusses a 

specific segment of community banks, namely the over 1,400 rural banks located in 

depopulating counties, and the reasons behind these demographic trends. This paper 

concludes that depopulation will likely continue in certain areas of the country and 

outlines strategies that some community banks have used to help them rise above the 

realities of their marketplace.1

The Declining Number of U.S. Banking Organizations: Will the Trend Continue? 

Over the last quarter of a century, the structure of the U.S. banking industry has 

undergone an almost unprecedented transformation—one marked by a substantial 

decline in the number of commercial banks and savings institutions and a growing 

concentration of industry assets among a much smaller number of extremely large 

financial institutions.

After remaining fairly stable since the 1930s, the number of federally-insured banks 

and savings institutions began to decline rapidly in the mid-1980s. At the beginning of 

1984, there were 15,101 banking and thrift organizations (defined as commercial 

banks, thrifts, and bank and thrift holding companies). By year-end 2003, that number 

had fallen to 7,842—a decline of almost 50 percent (Chart 1). Distributed by size, 

nearly all the decline occurred in the community-bank sector (organizations with less 

than $1 billion in assets), and especially among the smallest size group (less than 

$100 million in assets). 
D

The bulk of the decline in the number of organizations from 1984 through 2003 was 

due to unassisted mergers and acquisitions. During that period, 8,122 individual bank 

and thrift organizations disappeared through unassisted mergers and acquisitions and 

2,262 were eliminated through failure. About 75 percent of the failures occurred in the 

five year period between 1987 and 1991, when failures averaged 388 per year. In 

contrast, from 1994 to 2003 only 66 institutions failed (fewer than 7 per year), which 

reflected the greatly improved condition of the banking industry in a generally 

favorable economic climate.

Amid the two-decade wave of consolidation, significant entry into banking was also 

taking place. Some 3,097 new banking organizations entered the industry from 1984 

to 2003—an average of 163 per year. The presence of significant entry into banking 

during an era of large-scale consolidation suggests a somewhat more complex picture 

of structural change than the overall figures would suggest.

Moreover, the evolution of industry structure has not been uniform over time. The rate 

of decline in the number of banking institutions reveals a very strong cyclical pattern, 

occurring at an increasing rate in the 1980s only to slow in the 1990s (Chart 2). Since 

1992, the rate of decline in the number of banking organizations has trended 

consistently lower than the rate during the previous eight-year period. The slowing rate 

of decline in the number of banking organizations since the early 1990s suggests the 

influence of economic, regulatory, and technological changes that have taken place 

since then. In particular, the turning point roughly coincides with both the end of the 

1990-1991 recession and a sharp decline in the number of bank and thrift failures.
D

This report constructs scenarios for the future population of U.S. banking organizations 

based on analysis of the historical data. As a starting point, a simple linear method is 

used to project the number of banking organizations in each of five size classes 

through the year 2013. These projections, which are based on the average quarterly 

net change over the five-year period 1999-2003, suggest a continuing decline of 136 

organizations per year. This pattern would reduce the total number of bank and thrift 

organizations from 7,842 at year-end 2003 to 7,161 at year-end 2008 and 6,480 at the 

end of 2013—declines of 8.7 percent and 17.4 percent, respectively, over those 

intervals. 

However, due to the presence of a nonlinear trend in the data pointing to a slowing of 

the rate of decline, it would appear that the linear projections represent a lower-bound 

estimate of the future population of banking organizations. Projections based on the 

rate of change indicate that the number of organizations comprising the banking 

industry is likely to decline more slowly over the next five to ten years. Under this 

nonlinear projection (shown as the upper bound in Chart 3), the number of banking 

organizations will decline from 7,842 at the end of 2003 to 7,435 by 2008. From there, 

the pace slows further, resulting in 7,167 organizations by 2013. However, because 

this result is somewhat sensitive to the selection of the base period used to form the 

projection, it should be viewed as an upper-bound estimate of the future population of 

the banking industry.
D

Regardless of the exact numbers of institutions going forward, these projections 

indicate that in the absence of a new shock to the industry, the U.S. is likely to retain a 

structure characterized by several thousand very small- to medium-sized community 

bank organizations, a less-numerous group of midsized regional organizations, and a 

handful of extremely large multinational banking organizations. It does not appear that 

the future U.S. banking industry structure will resemble the banking structures seen in 

some countries (Germany, for example), where only a handful of universal banks are 

present. Instead, this report envisions an eventual balance developing between the 

number of new bank start-ups and charter losses due to mergers and acquisitions—

with little net change in the number of banking organizations nationwide.

Community Banks: Their Recent Past, Current Performance, and Future 

Prospects

Although the number of community banks (community banks are defined as 

independent banks and savings institutions and bank and savings institution holding 

companies with aggregate assets less than $1 billion) has declined significantly, they 

still comprise 94 percent of the banking industry, a figure essentially unchanged from 

1985. 2

Moreover, detailed analysis of the changes in the number of community banks 

revealed that community banks in 2003 had maintained a proportionally similar 

presence in all types of markets—urban, suburban and rural—and this remained true 

for markets that experienced both population growth and decline; in addition, there 

was only a slightly greater decline in community banks in formerly unit-bank states in 

comparison to non-unit-bank states.3

Community banks' deposit share declined significantly since 1985, during a time when 

large banks greatly extended their reach throughout the country (See Table 1). 

Community banks' ability to provide personal service to depositors continues to be one 

of their strengths, allowing them to continue to play an important role in local deposit 
markets, albeit a smaller one than before. 

Table 1 

Community Banks' Share of Local Banking Markets Has Declined as Large 

Banks Have Expanded Their Geographic Reach 

Rural Areas

Small 

Metro

Large 

Metro 

Suburban 

Areas

Urban 

Areas

Community Banks 

Share of deposits 

1985 deposit share 72.1 48.4 38.1 19.2 

2003 deposit share 53.0 27.8 21.9 9.0 

Number of markets with offices 

Operated offices in 1985 2,207 215 77 104 

Operated offices in 2003 2,149 215 78 104 

Total number of market 

segments 2,253 215 78 104 

Midsize/Regional 

Share of deposits 

1985 deposit share 24.0 41.3 53.3 54.5 

2003 deposit share 28.5 38.8 37.2 29.4 

Number of markets with offices 

Operated offices in 1985 1,210 207 75 104 

Operated offices in 2003 1,413 214 78 104 

Total number of market 

segments 2,253 215 78 104 

Top 25 Banks 

Share of deposits 

1985 deposit share 3.9 10.3 8.6 26.3 

2003 deposit share 18.5 33.4 40.9 61.6 

Number of markets with offices 

Operated offices in 1985 249 86 30 58 

Operated offices in 2003 1,033 211 75 103 

Total number of market 

segments 2,253 215 78 104 

Notes: Deposit market shares are measured as the share of all deposits reported by FDIC-insured institutions in a 

given market segment that are held by each size class of banking organizations. Large MSAs are those with 

populations over 500,000. In large MSAs where the population density was less than 1,000 per square mile, any 

county that exceeded the median population density of that MSA's central counties (as defined by the U.S. 

Census Bureau) was classified as urban; those below the median were classified as a suburban county.

Source: FDIC

Although the asset share of community banks also dropped, an examination of 
community bank lending demonstrates that they continue to have a stable share of 

real estate lending to businesses, and continue to provide a disproportionate amount 

of credit to the small business and agricultural sectors. Success in these sectors is due 

to the ability and willingness of community banks to assess the creditworthiness of 

borrowers who may have been traditionally ignored by larger banks or who have been 

dissatisfied with the services provided by larger banks. Typically, these borrowers do 

not have the types of credit histories or financial reporting mechanisms that fit the 

model-based lending approaches used by many larger banks. As such, they react 

positively to the relationship-based lending practiced by community banks.

The earnings performance of community banks since 1985 has until very recently 

been comparable to that of the very largest banks. Over the past decade, it has been 

stable, with a return on assets of at least one percent, a level that many industry 

observers would term "satisfactory" (See Chart 4). Moreover, this is true even in areas 

that have experienced population declines. Additionally, the market has provided an 

impressive case for the continued presence of the community bank in today's banking 

landscape: more than 1,200 new community banks have been established since 1992. 

New bank owners have therefore been willing to risk their capital in these ventures, 

and often have done this in areas where existing community banks have been 

acquired by large and distant banks to take advantage of customers who may find the 

business practices of large, non-local banks to be unsatisfactory. 

D

Community banks do face challenges. Many community bankers state that it is difficult 

to both find and retain qualified employees. Competition with large banks and nonbank 

competitors, including credit unions, will continue. The fixed costs of regulatory 

requirements fall more heavily on community banks than on larger ones. Regulatory 

burdens could, therefore, have a significant negative effect on community banks' future 

prospects. Nevertheless, the evidence from the recent past about community banks' 

market presence, industry share, and earnings performance, coupled with the 

continued creation of new community banks, points strongly to community banks being 
a viable business model in the future. 

Rural Depopulation: What Does it Mean for the Future Economic Health of Rural 

Areas and the Community Banks that Support Them?

The United States is currently in the midst of a major demographic event: the 

depopulation of a significant portion of its rural counties. While the U.S. population 

continues to increase overall, many rural areas are experiencing population outflows. 

In fact, 662 of the nation's 2,052 rural counties lost population between 1970 and 

2000. This issue has significant ramifications for the banking industry and its 

regulators, as 1,451 banks and thrifts with total assets of $132 billion were 

headquartered in rural counties with declining populations at year-end 2003.

Rural depopulation is occurring in several areas of the country, as seen in Map 1, 

which illustrates population trends by county. Blue counties gained populations 

between 1970 and 2000; yellow counties lost population but at a relatively stable rate; 

and red counties not only lost population over the three decades, but saw population 

outflows increase in the 1990s.

Map 1

D

There are four major areas of the nation that are experiencing rural depopulation – the 

Great Plains, the Corn Belt, the Delta-South, and Appalachia-East. The first three 

areas are heavily dependent on agriculture. This dependency has led to population 

outflows because technological advances throughout the twentieth century made it 

possible to farm large areas with fewer people. The population decline in the 

Appalachia-East region is also related to technological advances, but in the coal 

mining industry.

The report focuses on the Great Plains because it by far has the most advanced 

population problems of the four regions showing significant rural depopulation trends. 

The Great Plains region is marked by very low population densities (measured by 

persons per square mile), widely spaced towns, and sparsely populated counties 

compared to the other regions. Many rural counties in the Great Plains have lost so 
many people that they may lack the tax bases to reasonably maintain necessities such 

as government offices, school and health care systems, and infrastructure.

In the Great Plains, there are over 500 banks and thrifts headquartered in rural 

counties with declining populations. However, despite the population declines, in 

aggregate, Great Plains community banks' earnings, net interest margins, asset quality 

measures, and equity capital levels are all in line with community banks in more 

vibrant economic environments (See Table 2).4 Additionally, consolidation trends are 

consistent with nationwide statistics.

There are several possible reasons for the parity in performance metrics: 1) 

depopulation is occurring slowly, even though in some areas it is now accelerating; 2) 

depopulation has been ongoing in many areas for over a century, so bankers have 

had time to develop and adopt strategies to cope with the challenges that population 

outflows create; and 3) over the past decade farmers in the Great Plains have 

received substantial federal farm assistance, enabling them to maintain stable, 

profitable banking relationships.

Table 2 

Great Plains Rural Banks Continue to Perform Similarly to Rural Banks in the 

Rest of the Nation 

2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 

GP - Pretax ROA 1.44 1.49 1.42 1.59 1.55 

Nation - Pretax ROA 1.44 1.51 1.39 1.50 1.54 

 

GP - Net Interest Margin 4.12 4.25 4.17 4.34 4.24 

Nation - Net Interest Margin 4.05 4.24 4.08 4.24 4.23 

 

GP - Loans-to-Assets Ratio 58.51 59.59 58.92 59.25 57.45 

Nation - Loans-to-Assets Ratio 61.94 62.39 63.02 64.52 63.04 

 

GP - Total PD Loan Ratio 2.59 2.89 2.86 2.53 2.50 

Nation - Total PD Loan Ratio 2.59 2.82 2.92 2.62 2.29 

 

GP - Net Charged-off Loans 0.31 0.34 0.46 0.30 0.30 

Nation - Net Charged-off Loans 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.23 0.22 

GP - Equity Capital 10.97 11.19 10.95 10.81 10.16 

Nation - Equity Capital 10.52 10.59 10.25 10.34 10.05 

GP - Ag Loans/Total Loans 40.33 40.68 40.84 40.35 40.81 

Nation - Ag Loans/Total Loans 13.76 13.68 13.27 13.22 13.42 

GP - Ag Inst./Total Inst. 79.97 80.08 80.44 81.22 82.21 

Nation - Ag Inst./Total Inst. 28.46 28.55 28.07 28.62 29.03 

Notes: "GP" refers to banks and thrifts with less than $250 million in assets in rural counties in the Great Plains. 
"Nation" refers to banks and thrifts with less than $250 million in assets in rural counties in the Nation, excluding 

the Great Plains. 

Source: Bank and Thrift Call Reports 

Although overall performance is similar, banks located in Great Plains depopulating 

counties have relatively low growth rates due to dwindling borrower and depositor 

bases. For example, in the 10 years between 1994 and 2003, assets and deposits 

grew 81 percent and 83 percent less, respectively, in rural Great Plains banks versus 

institutions located in metropolitan areas in the Great Plains.

While many counties in the Great Plains face similar economic issues, individual 

community banks have responded differently and reported disparate operating results. 

This report analyzes two community bank metrics – profitability and growth – to 

determine whether some community banks have identified successful techniques to 

help overcome their challenging economic environments. The analysis shows that for 

banks that have reported high profitability and high growth, prudent branching and 

lending expansion has been the key to their success. For other banks, controlling 

costs has allowed them to achieve relatively high profitability even without 

commensurate asset growth. 

Unfortunately, the factors behind the demographic trends are not receding, and 

depopulation is very likely to continue into the future. On the positive side, technology, 

such as the Internet and the continued spread of broadband access into rural areas, 

potentially holds some promise for depopulating counties. Rural businesses, including 

community banks, hope that such technology will allow them to market their goods and 

services to customers well beyond their county lines. However, technology can be a 

double edged sword as urban businesses, including large banks, will have the means 

to reach into isolated rural communities, providing another source of competition.

Aside from technology improvements, the strategic options available to community 

banks in depopulating counties are limited. In the short-term, community bank success 

in rural areas could depend on the willingness and ability of management to take wellconceived risks, such as branching into more economically vibrant areas. Another 

viable strategy may be to streamline their institutions, cutting costs wherever possible, 

to remain profitable despite the absence of local growth opportunities.

However, over the very long term, perhaps the next 10 to 20 years, two factors could 

dramatically alter the rural banking landscape, perhaps leading to fewer rural banks. 

First, the large pocket of very elderly in rural depopulating counties threatens to 

significantly weaken community bank funding bases. Also, the lack of succession 

plans due to the absence of younger, capable bank managers in some areas could 

leave many retiring bank owners and operators with no option but to sell their 

institutions.

1 The FDIC staff wish to thank the many bankers, trade-group representatives, 

researchers, industry analysts and others who shared their views with us regarding the 

future of banking. Their insights and perspective were invaluable in developing these 

papers and the other papers in this series. While their important contributions are 

acknowledged and much appreciated, these individuals bear no responsibility for the 

views as expressed in this series of papers which, as noted below, are those of the 

authors. 

2 Bank size was adjusted for inflation over time for analysis in this paper; a bank with 

$100 million in assets today is comparable to one with about $66 million in assets in 
1985.

3 Unit bank states were defined in the report as states that had previously prohibited 

branching for the most part.

4 For the purpose of this report only, the FDIC uses a $250 million asset cutoff for 

community banks for two reasons (1) the vast majority of banks in the Great Plains -

89 percent - have less than $250 million in assets; and (2) our analysis shows that for 

institutions this size, most of the banking activity, in terms of location of banking 

offices, occur in the same county as the headquarters location.

About FYI

FYI is an electronic bulletin summarizing current information about the trends that are 

driving change in the banking industry, plus links to the wide array of other FDIC 

publications and data tools. 

Disclaimer

The views expressed in FYI 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.

Last Updated 05/18/2004
Chart 1

Number of Commercial Bank and Thrift Organizations Has Declined by Almost Fifty Percent Since 

1984

Date With Assets < $100 Million With Assets > $100 Million Total

Dec-84 9,984 4,901 14,885 

Dec-85 9,738 5,035 14,773 

Dec-86 9,272 5,042 14,314 

Dec-87 8,951 4,921 13,872 

Dec-88 8,501 4,787 13,288 

Dec-89 8,232 4,711 12,943 

Dec-90 7,827 4,476 12,303 

Dec-91 7,425 4,312 11,737 

Dec-92 7,035 4,213 11,248 

Dec-93 6,641 4,024 10,665 

Dec-94 6,190 3,863 10,053 

Dec-95 5,740 3,846 9,586 

Dec-96 5,354 3,855 9,209 

Dec-97 5,047 3,847 8,894 

Dec-98 4,694 3,829 8,523 

Dec-99 4,511 3,845 8,356 

Dec-00 4,335 3,913 8,248 

Dec-01 4,101 4,000 8,101 

Dec-02 3,859 4,104 7,963 

Dec-03 3,683 4,159 7,842 

Source: Call and Thrift Financial Reports
Chart 2

Rate of Change in the Number of Banking Organizations Has Been Slowing

Date Rate of Change

Jun-84 -0.46% 

Sep-84 -0.37% 

Dec-84 -0.61% 

Mar-85 -0.20% 

Jun-85 -0.28% 

Sep-85 0.10% 

Dec-85 -0.37% 

Mar-86 -0.06% 

Jun-86 -0.62% 

Sep-86 -0.74% 

Dec-86 -1.71% 

Mar-87 -0.77% 

Jun-87 -0.69% 

Sep-87 -0.73% 

Dec-87 -0.94% 

Mar-88 -0.85% 

Jun-88 -0.95% 

Sep-88 -1.16% 

Dec-88 -1.32% 

Mar-89 -0.69% 

Jun-89 -0.28% 

Sep-89 -0.82% 

Dec-89 -0.83% 

Mar-90 -0.75% 

Jun-90 -1.81% 

Sep-90 -1.51% 

Dec-90 -0.97% 

Mar-91 -0.95% 

Jun-91 -1.00% 

Sep-91 -1.77% 

Dec-91 -0.95% 

Mar-92 -1.57% 

Jun-92 -0.90% 

Sep-92 -0.80% 

Dec-92 -0.96% 

Mar-93 -1.47% 
Jun

-93 -1.25% 

Sep-93 -1.17% 

Dec-93 -1.41% 

Mar-94 -1.32% 

Jun-94 -1.55% 

Sep-94 -1.53% 

Dec-94 -1.46% 

Mar-95 -1.44% 

Jun-95 -1.32% 

Sep-95 -0.98% 

Dec-95 -0.98% 

Mar-96 -1.25% 

Jun-96 -0.77% 

Sep-96 -1.25% 

Dec-96 -0.72% 

Mar-97 -1.17% 

Jun-97 -0.67% 

Sep-97 -0.67% 

Dec-97 -0.95% 

Mar-98 -1.18% 

Jun-98 -0.92% 

Sep-98 -0.94% 

Dec-98 -1.19% 

Mar-99 -0.74% 

Jun-99 -0.47% 

Sep-99 -0.26% 

Dec-99 -0.50% 

Mar-00 -0.43% 

Jun-00 -0.10% 

Sep-00 -0.53% 

Dec-00 -0.24% 

Mar-01 -0.61% 

Jun-01 -0.40% 

Sep-01 -0.39% 

Dec-01 -0.39% 

Mar-02 -0.63% 

Jun-02 -0.31% 

Sep-02 -0.35% 
Dec

-02 -0.43% 

Mar-03 -0.41% 

Jun-03 -0.50% 

Sep-03 -0.18% 

Dec-03 -0.43% 

Source: FDIC
Chart 3

Projected Number of Banking Organizations Indicates a Slower Rate of Decline Through 2013

Date Upper Bound Lower Bound 

Mar-84 15,101 -

Jun-84 15,031 -

Sep-84 14,976 -

Dec-84 14,885 -

Mar-85 14,855 -

Jun-85 14,813 -

Sep-85 14,828 -

Dec-85 14,773 -

Mar-86 14,764 -

Jun-86 14,672 -

Sep-86 14,563 -

Dec-86 14,314 -

Mar-87 14,204 -

Jun-87 14,106 -

Sep-87 14,003 -

Dec-87 13,872 -

Mar-88 13,754 -

Jun-88 13,624 -

Sep-88 13,466 -

Dec-88 13,288 -

Mar-89 13,196 -

Jun-89 13,159 -

Sep-89 13,051 -

Dec-89 12,943 -

Mar-90 12,846 -

Jun-90 12,614 -

Sep-90 12,424 -

Dec-90 12,303 -

Mar-91 12,186 -

Jun-91 12,064 -

Sep-91 11,850 -

Dec-91 11,737 -

Mar-92 11,553 -

Jun-92 11,449 -

Sep-92 11,357 -

Dec-92 11,248 -
Mar

-93 11,083 -

Jun-93 10,945 -

Sep-93 10,817 -

Dec-93 10,665 -

Mar-94 10,524 -

Jun-94 10,361 -

Sep-94 10,202 -

Dec-94 10,053 -

Mar-95 9,908 -

Jun-95 9,777 -

Sep-95 9,681 -

Dec-95 9,586 -

Mar-96 9,466 -

Jun-96 9,393 -

Sep-96 9,276 -

Dec-96 9,209 -

Mar-97 9,101 -

Jun-97 9,040 -

Sep-97 8,979 -

Dec-97 8,894 -

Mar-98 8,789 -

Jun-98 8,708 -

Sep-98 8,626 -

Dec-98 8,523 -

Mar-99 8,460 -

Jun-99 8,420 -

Sep-99 8,398 -

Dec-99 8,356 -

Mar-00 8,320 -

Jun-00 8,312 -

Sep-00 8,268 -

Dec-00 8,248 -

Mar-01 8,198 -

Jun-01 8,165 -

Sep-01 8,133 -

Dec-01 8,101 -

Mar-02 8,050 -

Jun-02 8,025 -
Sep

-02 7,997 -

Dec-02 7,963 7963 

Mar-03 7,941 7930 

Jun-03 7,920 7890 

Sep-03 7,900 7876 

Dec-03 7,881 7842 

Mar-04 7,863 7808 

Jun-04 7,847 7774 

Sep-04 7,831 7740 

Dec-04 7,815 7706 

Mar-05 7,801 7672 

Jun-05 7,787 7638 

Sep-05 7,775 7604 

Dec-05 7,763 7570 

Mar-06 7,751 7536 

Jun-06 7,741 7502 

Sep-06 7,731 7467 

Dec-06 7,721 7433 

Mar-07 7,713 7399 

Jun-07 7,705 7365 

Sep-07 7,697 7331 

Dec-07 7,690 7297 

Mar-08 7,684 7263 

Jun-08 7,678 7229 

Sep-08 7,673 7195 

Dec-08 7,668 7161 

Mar-09 7,663 7127 

Jun-09 7,660 7093 

Sep-09 7,656 7059 

Dec-09 7,653 7025 

Mar-10 7,651 6991 

Jun-10 7,649 6957 

Sep-10 7,648 6923 

Dec-10 7,646 6889 

Mar-11 7,646 6855 

Jun-11 7,646 6820 

Sep-11 7,646 6786 

Dec-11 7,646 6752 
Mar

-12 7,647 6718 

Jun-12 7,649 6684 

Sep-12 7,650 6650 

Dec-12 7,652 6616 

Mar-13 7,201 6582 

Jun-13 7,189 6548 

Sep-13 7,178 6514 

Dec-13 7,167 6480 

Source: FDIC
Chart 4

For the Past Decade, Community Banks' Return on Assets Has Been Healthy

Date All Community Banks Midsize Banks Top 25 Banks

1990 0.4 -0.1 0.5

1991 0.6 0.3 0.5

1992 0.9 0.8 0.9

1993 1.1 1.0 1.2

1994 1.0 1.0 1.1

1995 1.1 1.1 1.1

1996 1.1 1.1 1.1

1997 1.2 1.3 1.1

1998 1.2 1.3 1.0

1999 1.1 1.4 1.2

2000 1.1 1.2 1.1

2001 1.1 1.3 1.1

2002 1.1 1.4 1.3

2003 1.1 1.4 1.4

Source: FDIC