FDIC QUARTERLY A

Quarterly

2021

Volume 15, Number 1

Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation

Quarterly Banking Profile:

Fourth Quarter 2020

Farm Banks: Resilience Through 

Changing Conditions

2020 Summary of Deposits 

Highlights
FDIC QUARTERLY

The FDIC Quarterly is published by the Division of Insurance and Research of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and contains a comprehensive summary of the 

most current financial results for the banking industry. Feature articles appearing in the 

FDIC Quarterly range from timely analysis of economic and banking trends at the national 

and regional level that may affect the risk exposure of FDIC-insured institutions to research 

on issues affecting the banking system and the development of regulatory policy.

Single copy subscriptions of the FDIC Quarterly can be obtained through the FDIC Public 

Information Center, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226. E-mail requests 

should be sent to publicinfo@fdic.gov. Change of address information also should be 

submitted to the Public Information Center. 

The FDIC Quarterly is available online by visiting the FDIC website at www.fdic.gov. 

To receive e-mail notification of the electronic release of the FDIC Quarterly and the 

individual feature articles, subscribe at www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html.

Chairman

Jelena McWilliams

Director, Division of Insurance and Research

Diane Ellis

Executive Editor

George French

Managing Editors

Rosalind Bennett

Alan Deaton

Patrick Mitchell

Shayna M. Olesiuk

Philip A. Shively

Editors

Clayton Boyce

Kathy Zeidler

Publication Manager

Lynne Montgomery

Media Inquiries

(202) 898-6993
FDIC QUARTERLY i

2021 FDIC QUARTERLY

Volume 15 • Number 1

The views expressed 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. Articles may be reprinted or abstracted if the publication and author(s) are credited. Please 

provide the FDIC’s Division of Insurance and Research with a copy of any publications containing reprinted material.

Quarterly Banking Profile: Fourth Quarter 2020

FDIC-insured institutions reported aggregate net income of $59.9 billion in fourth quarter 

2020, an increase of $5 billion (9.1 percent) from a year earlier. The primary driver of higher 

net income was the reduction in provision expenses. More than half of all institutions 

(57.4 percent) reported year-over-year increases in quarterly net income. The share of 

unprofitable institutions remained relatively stable from a year ago at 7.3 percent. The 

average return on assets ratio was 1.11 percent for the quarter, down 8 basis points from a 

year earlier. See page 1.

Community Bank Performance Community banks—which represent 91 percent of insured institutions—reported yearover-year net income growth of $1.3 billion (21.2 percent) in fourth quarter 2020, despite an 

increase in provisions for loan and lease losses and a narrower net interest margin. More 

than half of all community banks (57 percent) reported higher net income from the year-ago 

quarter. Increased income from loan sales drove the improvement in quarterly net income 

and offset the increase in provisions year over year. See page 15.

Insurance Fund Indicators The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) balance totaled $117.9 billion at the end of fourth quarter, 

an increase of $1.5 billion from the previous quarter. Assessment income, interest earned 

on investments, and negative provisions for insurance losses were the largest sources of 

the increase, offset partially by operating expenses, unrealized losses on available-for-sale 

securities, and other unrealized losses. The DIF reserve ratio was 1.29 percent on December 

31, 2020, down 1 basis point from September 30, 2020, and down 12 basis points from 

December 31, 2019. See page 23.

Featured Articles:

Farm Banks: Resilience Through Changing Conditions

The U.S. agricultural sector has experienced large swings over the past decade and a half, 

from a lengthy period of prosperity in agriculture that ended in 2013 to subsequent years that 

presented a slow, weak recovery. Most farmers and farm banks were cautious with farm real 

estate lending during the strong years. As a result, farm banks have held up well despite the 

agricultural industry’s challenges since 2014. The COVID-19 pandemic initially looked to be 

harmful for U.S. agriculture, but record government payments helped forecasted 2020 farm 

income reach the highest level since 2013. See page 31.

2020 Summary of Deposits Highlights

The 2020 Summary of Deposits Survey showed deposit growth of 21.7 percent between June 

2019 and June 2020, the largest one-year increase in nearly 80 years. The large year-overyear increase in deposits occurred primarily in the first two quarters of 2020, and was likely 

driven by reactions of individuals, businesses, and U.S. fiscal and monetary authorities to 

the COVID-19 pandemic. Deposits increased the most for noncommunity banks, midsize 

banks, banks with a mortgage lending specialization, and offices in metropolitan counties. 

The number of bank offices declined for the 11th consecutive year but at a lower rate than 

in the previous three years. The relatively low rate of decline in the number of offices was 

influenced by a low rate of closures among offices acquired through mergers. Further, the 

number of noncommunity bank offices and offices in metropolitan counties declined at low 

rates from June 2019 to June 2020 compared to previous years. See page 51.

QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE Fourth Quarter 2020

FDIC QUARTERLY 1

INSURED INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE

Full-Year 2020 Net Income Declines 36.5 Percent to $147.9 Billion

Quarterly Net Income Increases 9.1 Percent From a Year Ago to $59.9 Billion

Net Interest Margin Remains Unchanged From Third Quarter and at a Record Low Level

Loan Balances Decline From the Previous Quarter, Led by Lower Commercial and Industrial Lending Activity

Asset Quality Metrics Remain Stable From the Previous Quarter and a Year Ago

Full-Year 2020 Net Income 

Declines 36.5 Percent to 

$147.9 Billion

For the 5,001 FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions, full-year 2020 

net income totaled $147.9 billion, a decline of $84.9 billion (36.5 percent) from 2019. The 

decline was primarily attributable to higher provision expenses in the first half of 2020 

tied to pandemic-related deterioration in economic activity. Provision expenses increased 

by $77.1 billion (140 percent), and net interest income declined by $20 billion (3.7 percent). 

Average net interest margin (NIM) declined by 54 basis points from 2019 to 2.82 percent, as 

the yield on average earning assets declined at a faster rate than the cost of funds. The average return on assets (ROA) ratio declined from 1.29 percent in 2019 to 0.72 percent in 2020.

Quarterly Net Income 

Increases 9.1 Percent 

From a Year Ago to 

$59.9 Billion

Fourth quarter 2020 quarterly net income totaled $59.9 billion, an increase of $5 billion 

(9.1 percent) from a year ago. The primary driver of higher net income this quarter was 

the reduction in provision expenses. More than half of all banks (57.4 percent) reported 

year-over-year increases in quarterly net income.1 The share of unprofitable institutions remained relatively stable from a year ago at 7.3 percent. The average ROA ratio was 

1.11 percent during fourth quarter 2020, down 8 basis points from a year ago but below a 

recent high of 1.41 percent in third quarter 2018.

Net Interest Margin 

Remains Unchanged From 

Third Quarter and at a 

Record Low Level

The banking industry reported aggregate net interest income of $131.3 billion during the 

fourth quarter, a decline of $5.4 billion (3.9 percent) from a year ago. This marks the fifth 

consecutive quarter that net interest income declined. Almost 43 percent of all banks 

reported annual declines in net interest income. The average NIM was 2.68 percent in 

fourth quarter 2020, unchanged from the third quarter but down 60 basis points from 

fourth quarter 2019. Banks of all asset size groups featured in the Quarterly Banking Profile 

(QBP) reported average NIM compression relative to a year ago, as the contraction in earning asset yields exceeded the decline in funding costs. At fourth quarter 2020, both earning 

asset yields and funding costs dropped to the lowest levels ever reported in the QBP.

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Securities and Other Gains/Losses, Net

Net Operating Income

Annual Net Income

All FDIC-Insured Institutions

$ Billions

Source: FDIC.

Chart 1

Securities and Other Gains/Losses, Net

Net Operating Income

Quarterly Net Income

All FDIC-Insured Institutions

$ Billions

Source: FDIC.

80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Chart 2

1 Industry participation counts consist of institutions existing in both reporting periods.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

2 FDIC QUARTERLY

Noninterest Income 

Expands 6.5 Percent From 

the Year-Ago Quarter

Noninterest income rose by $4.3 billion (6.5 percent) from a year ago, with nearly 61 percent 

of all banks reporting annual increases. The annual improvement in noninterest income 

was led by the growth in net gains on loan sales, which rose by $3.9 billion (104 percent), 

and net gains on sales of other assets, which increased by $1.6 billion. Trading revenue, 

which was the largest dollar contributor to the overall increase in noninterest income 

during second quarter 2020, declined for the second consecutive quarter and was down 

$799.7 million (11 percent) from fourth quarter 2019.

Noninterest Expense 

Increases Almost 

3 Percent From a Year Ago

Noninterest expense rose by $3.3 billion (2.7 percent) from a year ago, as almost two-thirds 

of all banks (66.4 percent) reported annual increases. The rise in noninterest expense was 

driven by higher salary and employee benefit expenses, which expanded by $3.7 billion 

(6.6 percent). The average assets per employee increased from $9 million in fourth quarter 

2019 to $10.6 million in fourth quarter 2020.

Provisions for Credit 

Losses Decline to the 

Lowest Level Since 

Second Quarter 1995

With the improving economic outlook, provisions for credit losses decreased by 

$11.4 billion (76.5 percent) from a year ago to $3.5 billion, the lowest level since second 

quarter 1995.2 The decline in provisions for credit losses was not broad-based, as less 

than one-third (31.2 percent) of all banks reported year-over-year declines. In the fourth 

quarter, 279 banks used the current expected credit losses (CECL) accounting standard 

and reported an aggregate $1.4 billion in provisions for credit losses, down $ 11.2 billion 

(88.9 percent) from a year ago. For non-CECL adopters, provisions for credit losses totaled 

$2.1 billion, down $ 186.6 million (8.2 percent) from a year ago.

The Net Charge-Off Rate 

Falls 13 Basis Points From 

Fourth Quarter 2019

The net charge-off rate fell by 13 basis points from fourth quarter 2019 to 0.41 percent. Net 

charge-offs totaled $11.2 billion, down $2.8 billion (19.7 percent) from a year ago. The yearover-year decline in net charge-offs was driven by the reduction in credit card loan charge 

offs (down $3.4 billion, or 39.7 percent). Net charge-offs on nonfarm nonresidential (NFNR) 

properties increased by $657.9 million (348.3 percent) from a year ago. The net charge-off 

rate for NFNR properties increased by 17 basis points from a year ago to 0.22 percent but 

remained below the high of 1.40 percent in fourth quarter 2010. The net charge-off rate for 

the commercial and industrial (C&I) loan portfolio increased by 4 basis points from a year 

ago to 0.47 percent, below the recent high of 0.64 percent in second quarter 2020.

Quarterly Noninterest Income

Quarterly Net Interest Income

Quarterly Net Operating Revenue 

All FDIC-Insured Institutions

$ Billions

Source: FDIC.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Chart 3

Source: FDIC.

Percent

Noncurrent Loan Rate and Quarterly Net Charge-O
 Rate

All FDIC-Insured Institutions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Quarterly Net Charge-O Rate

Noncurrent Rate

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Chart 4

2 For institutions that have not adopted the CECL accounting methodology, provisions for credit losses includes only 

provisions for loan and lease losses. The comparison of CECL and non-CECL adopters holds constant the adopters from 

the most recent quarter. 
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 3

The Noncurrent Loan Rate 

Expands Modestly to 

1.18 Percent

The noncurrent rate rose by 1 basis point from third quarter 2020 to 1.18 percent. 

Noncurrent loan balances (90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) increased by 

$944.9 million (0.7 percent) from the previous quarter. One-third of all banks (33.3 percent) 

reported quarterly increases in noncurrent loan balances. The quarterly increase in 

noncurrent loan balances was led by NFNR properties (up $2.1 billion, or 15.7 percent) and 

credit card balances (up $1.4 billion, or 17 percent). The noncurrent rate for NFNR properties 

increased by 13 basis points to 1.00 percent in the fourth quarter 2020, while the noncurrent 

rate for credit card balances rose by 13 basis points to 1.16 percent.

Total Assets Increase 

3.1 Percent From the 

Previous Quarter

Total assets increased by $664 billion (3.1 percent) from third quarter 2020. The banking 

industry’s liquidity position continued to strengthen. Cash and balances due from depository institutions rose by $357 billion (12.6 percent), and security holdings posted a record 

high quarterly dollar increase of $321.4 billion (6.7 percent). Mortgage-backed securities 

increased by $244.9 billion (8.8 percent).

Loan Balances Decline 

From the Previous 

Quarter, Led by Lower 

Commercial and Industrial 

Lending Activity

Total loan and lease balances totaled $10.9 trillion in fourth quarter 2020, $47.7 billion 

(0.4 percent) less than third quarter 2020. The quarterly decline in total loan and leases 

balances was led by the C&I loan portfolio, which fell by $103.8 billion (4.1 percent). Small 

Business Administration-guaranteed Paycheck Protection Program loans declined by 

$83.9 billion (17.1 percent) from the previous quarter. The decline in the C&I loan portfolio was partially offset by increases in loans to nondepository financial institutions (up 

$30.2 billion, or 5.5 percent) and credit card balances (up $25.6 billion, or 3.2 percent). Total 

loan and lease balances increased by $345 billion (3.3 percent) from a year ago, the lowest 

annual growth rate since fourth quarter 2013. The annual increase in total loan and lease 

balances was driven by the C&I loan portfolio, which rose by $232.8 billion (10.6 percent), 

primarily in the first half of 2020.

Source: FDIC.

Note: Loan-loss reserves to noncurrent loans and leases.

$ Billions Coverage Ratio (Percent)

Reserve Coverage Ratio

All FDIC-Insured Institutions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

 Loan-Loss Reserves ($) 

 Noncurrent Loans ($)

 Noncurrents Adjusted for GNMA Guaranteed Loans ($)

 Coverage Ratio (%) 

 Coverage Adjusted for GNMA Guaranteed Loans (%)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Chart 5

Quarterly Change in Deposits

All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Quarterly Change ($ Billions)

Source: FDIC.

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Chart 6
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

4 FDIC QUARTERLY

Deposits Increase 

4.1 Percent From 

Third Quarter 2020

Total deposit balances rose by $706.9 billion (4.1 percent) between the third and fourth 

quarters of 2020. While the quarterly growth in deposits is below the levels reported in the 

first half of 2020, it is the third largest quarterly dollar increase ever reported in the QBP. 

Interest-bearing account balances rose by $399.2 billion (3.5 percent), and noninterestbearing account balances expanded by $220.5 billion (5 percent). Deposits in accounts with 

balances larger than $250,000 increased by $467.5 billion (5.4 percent) from the previous 

quarter. Nondeposit liabilities fell by $124.2 billion (11.1 percent) from the previous quarter, 

led by Federal Home Loan Bank advances that declined by $48.5 billion (15.9 percent).3

Equity Capital Increases 

Almost 2 Percent From 

the Previous Quarter

Equity capital totaled $2.2 trillion in fourth quarter 2020, up $41.9 billion (1.9 percent) 

from the previous quarter. Declared dividends totaled $21.8 billion, down $27.4 billion 

(55.7 percent) from fourth quarter 2019. Seven insured institutions with $498.4 million in 

total assets were below the requirements for the well-capitalized category as defined for 

Prompt Corrective Action.

Three New Banks Open 

in Fourth Quarter 2020

The number of FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions that filed quarterly Call Reports declined from 5,033 in third quarter 2020 to 5,001 in fourth quarter 2020. 

Three new banks were added, 31 institutions were absorbed by mergers, two banks failed, 

one bank sold most of its assets to a credit union, and one bank did not file in time for this 

analysis. For full-year 2020, six new banks were added, 168 institutions were absorbed by 

mergers, and four banks failed. The number of institutions on the FDIC’s “Problem Bank 

List” remained unchanged from the previous quarter at 56. Total assets of problem banks 

increased from $53.9 billion in third quarter 2020 to $55.8 billion in fourth quarter 2020.

Author:

Benjamin Tikvina

Senior Financial Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

Source: FDIC.

Number

Number and Assets of Banks on the “Problem Bank List” 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Assets ($ Billions)

Number of Problem Banks 

Assets of Problem Banks

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Chart 8

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

Quarterly Change in Loan Balances 

All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Source: FDIC.

Note: FASB Statements 166 and 167 resulted in the consolidation of large amounts of securitized

loan balances back onto banks’ balance sheets in the first quarter of 2010. Although the total 

amount consolidated cannot be precisely quantified, the industry would have reported a decline 

in loan balances for the quarter absent this change in accounting standards.

$ Billions Percent

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Quarterly Change (Le Axis)

12-Month Growth Rate (Right Axis)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Chart 7

3 Nondeposit liabilities include federal funds purchased, repurchase agreements, Federal Home Loan Bank advances, and 

secured and unsecured borrowings.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 5

TABLE I-A. Selected Indicators, All FDIC-Insured Institutions*

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

Return on assets (%) 0.72 1.29 1.35 0.97 1.04 1.04 1.01

Return on equity (%) 6.88 11.38 11.98 8.60 9.27 9.29 9.01

Core capital (leverage) ratio (%) 8.81 9.66 9.70 9.63 9.48 9.59 9.44

Noncurrent assets plus other real estate owned to assets (%) 0.61 0.55 0.60 0.73 0.86 0.97 1.20

Net charge-offs to loans (%) 0.50 0.52 0.48 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.49

Asset growth rate (%) 17.37 3.91 3.03 3.79 5.09 2.66 5.59

Net interest margin (%) 2.82 3.36 3.40 3.25 3.13 3.08 3.14

Net operating income growth (%) -38.45 -3.14 45.45 -3.27 4.43 7.11 -0.73

Number of institutions reporting 5,001 5,177 5,406 5,670 5,913 6,182 6,509

Commercial banks 4,374 4,518 4,715 4,918 5,112 5,338 5,607

Savings institutions 627 659 691 752 801 844 902

Percentage of unprofitable institutions (%) 4.58 3.75 3.44 5.61 4.48 4.82 6.27

Number of problem institutions 56 51 60 95 123 183 291

Assets of problem institutions (in billions) $56 $46 $48 $14 $28 $47 $87

Number of failed institutions 4 4 0 8 5 8 18

* Excludes insured branches of foreign banks (IBAs).

TABLE II-A. Aggregate Condition and Income Data, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

(dollar figures in millions)  4th Quarter

2020

3rd Quarter

2020

4th Quarter

2019

%Change 

19Q4-20Q4

Number of institutions reporting 5,001 5,033 5,177 -3.4

Total employees (full-time equivalent) 2,065,525 2,071,908 2,063,268 0.1

CONDITION DATA

Total assets $21,883,869 $21,219,916 $18,645,330 17.4

Loans secured by real estate 5,118,033 5,144,687 5,048,568 1.4

1-4 Family residential mortgages 2,210,640 2,240,707 2,201,736 0.4

Nonfarm nonresidential 1,568,619 1,556,563 1,516,183 3.5

 Construction and development 385,933 386,048 361,606 6.7

Home equity lines 300,312 312,896 342,067 -12.2

Commercial & industrial loans 2,434,985 2,538,826 2,202,146 10.6

Loans to individuals 1,744,130 1,709,867 1,837,455 -5.1

 Credit cards 822,030 796,450 941,557 -12.7

Farm loans 71,762 76,778 78,733 -8.9

Other loans & leases 1,497,421 1,444,302 1,353,606 10.6

Less: Unearned income 3,196 3,623 2,337 36.7

Total loans & leases 10,863,135 10,910,837 10,518,171 3.3

Less: Reserve for losses* 236,601 244,266 123,929 90.9

Net loans and leases 10,626,535 10,666,571 10,394,242 2.2

Securities** 5,112,383 4,790,964 3,981,633 28.4

Other real estate owned 4,629 4,548 5,709 -18.9

Goodwill and other intangibles 387,112 385,497 408,838 -5.3

All other assets 5,753,210 5,372,337 3,854,907 49.2

Total liabilities and capital 21,883,869 21,219,916 18,645,330 17.4

Deposits 17,823,558 17,116,653 14,535,278 22.6

 Domestic office deposits 16,289,739 15,670,039 13,219,964 23.2

Foreign office deposits 1,533,819 1,446,614 1,315,315 16.6

Other borrowed funds 1,091,678 1,207,451 1,373,909 -20.5

Subordinated debt 68,241 68,489 69,952 -2.4

All other liabilities 672,673 641,587 552,527 21.7

Total equity capital (includes minority interests) 2,227,720 2,185,736 2,113,663 5.4

 Bank equity capital 2,225,125 2,183,178 2,110,782 5.4

Loans and leases 30-89 days past due 63,218 58,404 67,593 -6.5

Noncurrent loans and leases 128,517 127,572 95,413 34.7

Restructured loans and leases 49,327 49,654 48,286 2.2

Mortgage-backed securities 3,043,764 2,798,839 2,393,831 27.2

Earning assets 19,919,557 19,320,676 16,871,072 18.1

FHLB Advances 255,967 304,509 482,460 -46.9

Unused loan commitments 8,444,077 8,412,039 8,226,136 2.6

Trust assets 18,907,444 17,775,687 21,562,169 -12.3

Assets securitized and sold 480,364 505,520 568,015 -15.4

Notional amount of derivatives 165,712,669 181,124,600 173,052,331 -4.2

INCOME DATA

Full Year

 2020

Full Year

 2019 %Change

4th Quarter 

2020

4th Quarter 

2019

%Change 

19Q4-20Q4

Total interest income $603,744 $705,400 -14.4 $143,329 $173,624 -17.5

Total interest expense 77,099 158,731 -51.4 11,980 36,877 -67.5

Net interest income 526,645 546,669 -3.7 131,349 136,746 -4.0

Provision for credit losses*** 132,229 55,101 140.0 3,503 14,928 -76.5

Total noninterest income 280,242 264,374 6.0 70,304 66,020 6.5

Total noninterest expense 498,154 466,149 6.9 125,049 121,781 2.7

Securities gains (losses) 8,146 3,977 104.8 1,518 2,899 -47.7

Applicable income taxes 36,443 60,926 -40.2 14,656 14,006 4.6

Extraordinary gains, net**** -101 164 N/M 9 -3 N/M

Total net income (includes minority interests) 148,107 233,008 -36.4 59,972 54,948 9.1

 Bank net income 147,870 232,772 -36.5 59,909 54,897 9.1

Net charge-offs 54,105 52,165 3.7 11,222 13,975 -19.7

Cash dividends 84,022 182,407 -53.9 21,799 49,217 -55.7

Retained earnings 63,847 50,365 26.8 38,110 5,680 571.0

Net operating income 141,340 229,633 -38.5 58,581 52,629 11.3

* For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, this item represents the allowance for credit losses on loans and leases held for investment and allocated transfer risk.

** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, securities are reported net of allowances for credit losses.

*** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, this item represents provisions for credit losses on a consolidated basis; for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13, 

this item represents the provision for loan and lease losses.

**** See Notes to Users for explanation. N/M - Not Meaningful
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

6 FDIC QUARTERLY

TABLE III-A. Full Year 2020, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Concentration Groups*

FULL YEAR

(The way it is...)

All Insured 

Institutions

Credit 

Card 

Banks

International 

Banks

Agricultural 

Banks

Commercial 

Lenders

Mortgage 

Lenders

Consumer 

Lenders

Other 

Specialized 

<$1 Billion

All Other 

<$1 Billion

All Other 

>$1 Billion

Number of institutions reporting 5,001 11 5 1,163 2,667 290 36 276 486 67

Commercial banks 4,374 10 5 1,152 2,403 75 24 250 399 56

Savings institutions 627 1 0 11 264 215 12 26 87 11

Total assets (in billions) $21,883.9 $492.6 $5,554.1 $287.8 $7,591.9 $683.6 $144.8 $51.5 $105.8 $6,971.9

Commercial banks 20,505.9 407.3 5,554.1 282.6 7,136.4 80.7 138.7 46.7 84.1 6,775.5

Savings institutions 1,377.9 85.3 0.0 5.2 455.5 602.9 6.0 4.8 21.8 196.4

Total deposits (in billions) 17,823.6 349.0 4,270.5 242.5 6,251.3 603.1 123.1 41.9 90.0 5,852.1

Commercial banks 16,684.2 283.2 4,270.5 239.3 5,900.1 67.7 118.0 38.7 72.3 5,694.4

Savings institutions 1,139.3 65.8 0.0 3.2 351.3 535.3 5.2 3.2 17.7 157.7

Bank net income (in millions) 147,870 9,710 36,213 3,502 53,043 5,489 2,118 1,241 1,083 35,471

Commercial banks 137,137 8,281 36,213 3,340 49,277 1,118 2,068 454 954 35,431

Savings institutions 10,733 1,429 0 162 3,766 4,372 49 787 129 40

Performance Ratios (%)

Yield on earning assets 3.24 11.24 2.51 4.22 3.63 2.10 3.96 2.95 3.87 2.77

Cost of funding earning assets 0.41 1.51 0.29 0.67 0.47 0.25 0.84 0.38 0.53 0.35

Net interest margin 2.82 9.73 2.22 3.54 3.16 1.84 3.11 2.57 3.34 2.42

Noninterest income to assets 1.36 4.36 1.69 0.68 1.07 1.00 0.44 4.70 1.25 1.25

Noninterest expense to assets 2.42 6.44 2.19 2.40 2.54 1.54 1.05 3.97 3.03 2.25

Credit loss provision to assets** 0.64 4.75 0.60 0.18 0.51 0.08 0.32 0.09 0.13 0.60

Net operating income to assets 0.69 1.92 0.67 1.25 0.71 0.92 1.57 2.46 1.07 0.50

Pretax return on assets 0.90 2.44 0.89 1.46 0.94 1.18 2.13 3.18 1.24 0.64

Return on assets 0.72 1.92 0.70 1.30 0.74 0.93 1.59 2.59 1.10 0.54

Return on equity 6.88 16.09 7.66 11.15 6.44 10.56 16.46 16.19 8.98 5.25

Net charge-offs to loans and leases 0.50 3.73 0.69 0.14 0.25 0.05 0.52 0.19 0.07 0.43

Loan and lease loss provision to 

net charge-offs 243.45 162.41 258.82 194.46 292.93 615.93 83.46 158.97 311.91 276.63

Efficiency ratio 59.78 46.80 59.73 59.75 59.91 55.11 30.28 55.84 69.19 64.39

% of unprofitable institutions 4.58 27.27 0.00 2.58 4.31 10.00 8.33 8.33 4.73 4.48

% of institutions with earnings gains 53.15 27.27 20.00 50.13 58.12 44.83 61.11 34.78 50.21 43.28

Condition Ratios (%)

Earning assets to total assets 91.02 94.81 88.60 93.39 91.34 97.37 97.56 93.03 93.45 91.44

Loss allowance to:

Loans and leases 2.18 9.79 2.90 1.48 1.52 0.84 1.76 1.59 1.28 2.03

Noncurrent loans and leases 184.10 838.76 254.94 147.94 141.01 81.22 499.26 158.01 149.16 142.29

Noncurrent assets plus

other real estate owned to assets 0.61 0.92 0.38 0.69 0.76 0.26 0.26 0.34 0.56 0.66

Equity capital ratio 10.17 12.61 8.93 11.37 11.23 8.40 9.21 15.79 11.83 9.91

Core capital (leverage) ratio 8.81 13.63 7.95 10.66 9.38 7.80 9.86 14.71 11.37 8.45

Common equity tier 1 capital ratio*** 13.87 17.38 15.02 14.46 12.42 21.42 20.91 34.55 19.24 13.92

Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio*** 13.96 17.54 15.10 14.46 12.53 21.42 21.02 34.55 19.26 13.99

Total risk-based capital ratio*** 15.48 19.44 16.49 15.61 14.03 21.85 21.80 35.43 20.32 15.67

Net loans and leases to deposits 59.62 99.89 40.02 71.85 79.09 27.12 83.01 32.72 63.58 53.21

Net loans to total assets 48.56 70.78 30.77 60.56 65.12 23.92 70.62 26.64 54.05 44.66

Domestic deposits to total assets 74.44 67.96 53.14 84.29 82.12 88.05 85.05 81.41 85.01 81.32

Structural Changes

New reporters 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0

Institutions absorbed by mergers 168 1 0 27 131 4 0 0 2 3

Failed institutions 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

PRIOR FULL YEARS

(The way it was...)

Number of institutions 2019 5,177 12 5 1,291 2,733 393 58 210 428 47

 2017 5,670 11 5 1,389 2,944 420 59 272 510 60

 2015 6,182 14 4 1,479 3,089 500 65 332 632 67

Total assets (in billions) 2019 $18,645.3 $530.8 $4,481.1 $283.6 $6,735.8 $392.7 $230.7 $38.3 $76.3 $5,876.2

 2017 17,415.4 562.7 4,196.0 282.6 6,026.0 349.2 270.9 46.9 88.8 5,592.2

 2015 15,967.7 549.1 3,774.6 277.6 5,892.1 385.4 187.3 57.5 113.9 4,730.3

Return on assets (%) 2019 1.29 3.27 1.23 1.33 1.18 1.20 1.21 3.56 1.17 1.27

 2017 0.97 1.52 0.62 1.05 1.02 0.93 1.02 2.61 0.91 1.10

 2015 1.04 2.84 0.87 0.96 0.95 0.83 1.04 2.69 0.91 1.12

Net charge-offs to loans & leases (%) 2019 0.52 4.15 0.72 0.18 0.20 0.03 0.82 0.17 0.13 0.39

 2017 0.50 3.95 0.56 0.16 0.21 0.04 0.60 0.23 0.15 0.43

 2015 0.44 2.79 0.59 0.10 0.20 0.13 0.62 0.20 0.20 0.41

Noncurrent assets plus 

OREO to assets (%) 2019 0.55 1.39 0.33 0.81 0.60 1.18 0.48 0.45 0.62 0.52

 2017 0.73 1.25 0.51 0.77 0.70 1.70 0.36 0.59 0.81 0.82

 2015 0.97 0.90 0.71 0.68 0.93 1.92 0.97 0.61 1.19 1.16

Equity capital ratio (%) 2019 11.32 12.81 10.20 11.85 12.27 10.94 10.41 18.48 12.79 10.93

 2017 11.22 15.10 9.83 11.18 11.95 11.21 10.00 15.26 11.94 11.09

 2015 11.24 14.29 10.13 11.32 11.76 11.36 10.12 15.04 11.80 11.08

* See Table V-A (page 10) for explanations.

** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, the numerator represents provisions for credit losses on a consolidated basis; for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13, the numerator 

represents the provision for loan and lease losses.

*** Beginning March 2020, does not include institutions that have a Community Bank Leverage Ratio election in effect at the report date.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 7

TABLE III-A. Full Year 2020, All FDIC-Insured Institutions 

Asset Size Distribution Geographic Regions*

FULL YEAR

(The way it is...)

All Insured 

Institutions

Less Than 

$100 

Million

$100 

Million to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion to 

$10 Billion

$10 Billion 

to $250 

Billion

Greater 

Than $250 

Billion New York Atlanta Chicago

Kansas 

City Dallas

San 

Francisco

Number of institutions reporting 5,001 944 3,130 776 138 13 593 569 1,069 1,292 1,107 371

Commercial banks 4,374 826 2,769 644 123 12 308 517 922 1,252 1,038 337

Savings institutions 627 118 361 132 15 1 285 52 147 40 69 34

Total assets (in billions) $21,883.9 $57.0 $1,101.5 $2,069.5 $6,359.2 $12,296.7 $4,015.4 $4,485.2 $5,206.1 $4,148.8 $1,792.3 $2,236.0

Commercial banks 20,505.9 50.1 959.5 1,726.9 5,814.7 11,954.6 3,596.5 4,360.6 5,108.7 4,110.6 1,241.5 2,088.1

Savings institutions 1,377.9 6.9 142.0 342.5 544.5 342.0 418.9 124.7 97.4 38.2 550.8 147.9

Total deposits (in billions) 17,823.6 47.5 926.2 1,703.8 5,226.2 9,919.9 3,304.6 3,718.1 4,041.0 3,366.6 1,529.7 1,863.6

Commercial banks 16,684.2 42.2 812.1 1,428.9 4,798.8 9,602.1 2,977.3 3,617.6 3,971.4 3,335.8 1,038.1 1,744.1

Savings institutions 1,139.3 5.3 114.1 274.9 427.3 317.8 327.4 100.5 69.6 30.7 491.6 119.5

Bank net income (in millions) 147,870 457 12,519 21,324 42,742 70,828 23,961 24,728 41,818 19,938 15,831 21,594

Commercial banks 137,137 422 10,691 18,281 39,477 68,266 20,892 24,987 39,720 19,518 12,562 19,459

Savings institutions 10,733 35 1,828 3,043 3,265 2,562 3,069 -259 2,098 420 3,270 2,135

Performance Ratios (%)

Yield on earning assets 3.24 4.05 4.12 3.99 3.92 2.65 3.15 3.25 2.79 3.21 3.42 4.25

Cost of funding earning assets 0.41 0.61 0.63 0.58 0.55 0.29 0.50 0.36 0.30 0.41 0.38 0.64

Net interest margin 2.82 3.43 3.49 3.41 3.37 2.36 2.65 2.88 2.49 2.80 3.05 3.61

Noninterest income to assets 1.36 1.42 1.33 1.30 1.32 1.40 1.21 1.21 1.76 1.14 1.10 1.65

Noninterest expense to assets 2.42 3.55 3.01 2.71 2.65 2.20 2.23 2.42 2.37 2.44 2.40 2.86

Credit loss provision to assets** 0.64 0.12 0.23 0.43 0.86 0.61 0.60 0.69 0.55 0.74 0.41 0.84

Net operating income to assets 0.69 0.81 1.17 1.07 0.69 0.58 0.62 0.56 0.84 0.44 0.95 0.99

Pretax return on assets 0.90 0.96 1.41 1.38 0.95 0.74 0.79 0.74 1.10 0.56 1.17 1.38

Return on assets 0.72 0.84 1.21 1.11 0.72 0.61 0.63 0.59 0.87 0.49 0.98 1.03

Return on equity 6.88 6.12 10.45 9.91 6.40 6.22 5.84 5.27 8.75 5.03 9.33 9.58

Net charge-offs to loans and leases 0.50 0.13 0.12 0.22 0.66 0.51 0.48 0.54 0.41 0.53 0.31 0.70

Loan and lease loss provision to 

net charge-offs 243.45 165.57 284.82 282.17 205.34 275.34 237.30 238.97 280.74 276.05 252.77 180.23

Efficiency ratio 59.78 77.19 65.18 59.75 54.99 62.16 59.45 60.31 59.16 65.24 60.38 52.53

% of unprofitable institutions 4.58 11.23 3.00 1.80 10.87 0.00 6.75 7.73 4.12 2.40 4.07 6.74

% of institutions with earnings gains 53.15 39.62 58.31 54.77 23.19 15.38 46.37 47.10 59.59 57.12 50.05 50.13

Condition Ratios (%)

Earning assets to total assets 91.02 91.91 93.64 93.05 92.36 89.75 90.92 90.49 90.02 90.24 93.72 93.91

Loss allowance to:

Loans and leases 2.18 1.43 1.35 1.40 2.35 2.39 2.00 2.30 2.17 2.37 1.46 2.45

Noncurrent loans and leases 184.10 126.72 169.97 168.55 177.78 194.23 173.41 215.52 198.05 168.85 71.15 351.43

Noncurrent assets plus

other real estate owned to assets 0.61 0.74 0.60 0.64 0.83 0.50 0.60 0.55 0.52 0.70 1.07 0.48

Equity capital ratio 10.17 13.42 11.27 10.95 10.85 9.57 10.50 10.78 9.59 9.80 10.08 10.44

Core capital (leverage) ratio 8.81 13.02 10.87 10.20 9.47 8.04 9.04 8.60 8.38 8.86 8.66 9.88

Common equity tier 1 capital ratio*** 13.87 22.31 15.91 14.21 13.59 13.83 13.78 13.56 14.02 13.76 13.93 14.45

Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio*** 13.96 22.31 15.93 14.23 13.79 13.87 13.86 13.66 14.08 13.85 14.04 14.61

Total risk-based capital ratio*** 15.48 23.37 17.06 15.38 15.27 15.50 15.37 15.16 15.49 15.74 15.23 15.93

Net loans and leases to deposits 59.62 63.97 74.89 80.97 72.65 47.65 60.49 58.06 55.85 58.07 57.32 74.06

Net loans to total assets 48.56 53.26 62.97 66.66 59.70 38.44 49.78 48.13 43.35 47.12 48.93 61.72

Domestic deposits to total assets 74.44 83.26 84.08 82.22 80.1 69.29 76.48 80.34 68.02 65.32 85.32 82.08

Structural Changes

New reporters 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2

Institutions absorbed by mergers 168 42 107 17 2 0 35 16 36 35 39 7

Failed institutions 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0

PRIOR FULL YEARS

(The way it was...)

Number of institutions 2019 5,177 1,156 3,225 656 130 10 625 587 1,118 1,330 1,138 379

 2017 5,670 1,407 3,513 627 114 9 693 668 1,214 1,438 1,235 422

 2015 6,182 1,688 3,792 595 99 8 762 762 1,337 1,543 1,307 471

Total assets (in billions) 2019 $18,645.3 $68.6 $1,087.9 $1,753.9 $6,071.6 $9,663.4 $3,407.7 $3,847.5 $4,235.2 $3,796.7 $1,204.6 $2,153.7

 2017 17,415.4 83.7 1,154.2 1,751.7 5,699.2 8,726.7 3,248.1 3,601.0 3,918.1 3,683.2 1,090.0 1,875.1

 2015 15,967.7 99.2 1,199.9 1,682.4 5,163.6 7,822.6 3,074.1 3,372.6 3,503.7 3,444.0 943.1 1,630.3

Return on assets (%) 2019 1.29 1.01 1.29 1.30 1.35 1.26 1.09 1.29 1.34 1.20 1.32 1.66

 2017 0.97 0.83 1.04 1.05 1.04 0.89 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.12 1.36

 2015 1.04 0.84 1.07 1.10 1.02 1.05 0.87 1.03 0.96 1.16 1.09 1.31

Net charge-offs to loans & leases (%) 2019 0.52 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.70 0.51 0.48 0.58 0.42 0.53 0.24 0.78

 2017 0.50 0.21 0.15 0.22 0.71 0.47 0.58 0.61 0.27 0.51 0.28 0.67

 2015 0.44 0.19 0.16 0.21 0.56 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.27 0.52 0.24 0.52

Noncurrent assets plus 

OREO to assets (%) 2019 0.55 0.94 0.70 0.57 0.62 0.48 0.51 0.57 0.49 0.61 0.84 0.42

 2017 0.73 1.01 0.83 0.66 0.70 0.74 0.65 0.83 0.67 0.86 0.81 0.45

 2015 0.97 1.25 1.12 0.93 0.75 1.09 0.75 1.15 0.94 1.19 1.04 0.53

Equity capital ratio (%) 2019 11.32 14.27 12.01 12.03 11.86 10.76 11.83 12.23 10.89 10.24 12.16 11.15

 2017 11.22 13.01 11.29 11.82 12.13 10.47 12.34 12.06 10.42 9.99 11.49 11.58

 2015 11.24 12.55 11.25 11.69 12.02 10.60 11.78 12.22 10.50 10.22 11.04 12.03

* See Table V-A (page 11) for explanations.

** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, the numerator represents provisions for credit losses on a consolidated basis; for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13, the numerator 

represents the provision for loan and lease losses.

*** Beginning March 2020, does not include institutions that have a Community Bank Leverage Ratio election in effect at the report date.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

8 FDIC QUARTERLY

TABLE IV-A. Fourth Quarter 2020, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Concentration Groups*

FOURTH QUARTER

(The way it is...)

All Insured 

Institutions

Credit 

Card 

Banks

International 

Banks

Agricultural 

Banks

Commercial 

Lenders

Mortgage 

Lenders

Consumer 

Lenders

Other 

Specialized 

<$1 Billion

All Other 

<$1 Billion

All Other 

>$1 Billion

Number of institutions reporting 5,001 11 5 1,163 2,667 290 36 276 486 67

Commercial banks 4,374 10 5 1,152 2,403 75 24 250 399 56

Savings institutions 627 1 0 11 264 215 12 26 87 11

Total assets (in billions) $21,883.9 $492.6 $5,554.1 $287.8 $7,591.9 $683.6 $144.8 $51.5 $105.8 $6,971.9

Commercial banks 20,505.9 407.3 5,554.1 282.6 7,136.4 80.7 138.7 46.7 84.1 6,775.5

Savings institutions 1,377.9 85.3 0.0 5.2 455.5 602.9 6.0 4.8 21.8 196.4

Total deposits (in billions) 17,823.6 349.0 4,270.5 242.5 6,251.3 603.1 123.1 41.9 90.0 5,852.1

Commercial banks 16,684.2 283.2 4,270.5 239.3 5,900.1 67.7 118.0 38.7 72.3 5,694.4

Savings institutions 1,139.3 65.8 0.0 3.2 351.3 535.3 5.2 3.2 17.7 157.7

Bank net income (in millions) 59,909 5,625 14,241 826 21,931 1,492 817 336 273 14,369

Commercial banks 56,234 4,926 14,241 777 20,609 311 802 76 233 14,260

Savings institutions 3,675 699 0 49 1,323 1,181 15 260 40 109

Performance Ratios (annualized, %)

Yield on earning assets 2.92 10.91 2.15 3.91 3.39 1.90 3.68 2.65 3.59 2.44

Cost of funding earning assets 0.24 1.17 0.13 0.53 0.30 0.19 0.64 0.29 0.43 0.18

Net interest margin 2.68 9.74 2.02 3.38 3.09 1.72 3.04 2.36 3.16 2.26

Noninterest income to assets 1.31 4.71 1.51 0.72 1.10 1.04 0.25 5.22 1.38 1.16

Noninterest expense to assets 2.32 6.85 2.04 2.45 2.39 1.58 1.00 4.19 3.09 2.20

Credit loss provision to assets** 0.07 1.50 -0.08 0.15 0.12 0.06 -0.87 0.11 0.12 0.04

Net operating income to assets 1.09 4.49 1.03 1.13 1.14 0.87 2.31 2.50 0.99 0.81

Pretax return on assets 1.38 5.62 1.36 1.31 1.45 1.13 3.10 3.31 1.19 1.00

Return on assets 1.11 4.49 1.05 1.16 1.17 0.91 2.34 2.66 1.05 0.84

Return on equity 10.87 37.30 11.65 10.15 10.37 10.60 25.24 16.60 8.76 8.37

Net charge-offs to loans and leases 0.41 2.78 0.52 0.18 0.24 0.06 0.45 0.17 0.09 0.37

Loan and lease loss provision to 

net charge-offs 32.02 70.84 -47.01 136.91 71.17 367.12 -261.65 227.40 237.06 22.08

Efficiency ratio 61.42 48.65 61.48 62.77 59.95 58.01 31.10 56.17 71.14 68.07

% of unprofitable institutions 7.26 0.00 0.00 8.51 5.10 11.03 5.56 18.12 8.44 4.48

% of institutions with earnings gains 57.45 81.82 40.00 45.83 66.59 54.14 63.89 37.68 47.53 56.72

Structural Changes

New reporters 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0

Institutions absorbed by mergers 31 0 0 4 25 1 0 0 0 1

Failed institutions 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

PRIOR FOURTH QUARTERS

(The way it was...)

Return on assets (%) 2019 1.19 3.17 1.18 1.27 1.13 1.20 0.54 4.48 1.07 1.09

 2017 0.58 -0.04 -0.43 0.48 0.90 0.65 0.69 2.86 0.78 1.04

 2015 1.02 2.66 0.83 1.12 0.90 0.89 0.81 3.43 2.14 1.12

Net charge-offs to loans & leases (%) 2019 0.54 4.07 0.76 0.25 0.23 0.05 0.87 0.36 0.18 0.42

 2017 0.55 4.18 0.56 0.24 0.23 0.06 0.62 0.36 0.18 0.51

 2015 0.49 3.01 0.68 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.71 0.32 0.21 0.44

* See Table V-A (page 10) for explanations.

** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, the numerator represents provisions for credit losses on a consolidated basis; for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13, the numerator 

represents the provision for loan and lease losses.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 9

TABLE IV-A. Fourth Quarter 2020, All FDIC-Insured Institutions 

Asset Size Distribution Geographic Regions*

FOURTH QUARTER

(The way it is...)

All Insured 

Institutions

Less Than 

$100 

Million

$100 

Million to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion to 

$10 Billion

$10 Billion 

to $250 

Billion

Greater 

Than $250 

Billion New York Atlanta Chicago

Kansas 

City Dallas

San 

Francisco

Number of institutions reporting 5,001 944 3,130 776 138 13 593 569 1,069 1,292 1,107 371

Commercial banks 4,374 826 2,769 644 123 12 308 517 922 1,252 1,038 337

Savings institutions 627 118 361 132 15 1 285 52 147 40 69 34

Total assets (in billions) $21,883.9 $57.0 $1,101.5 $2,069.5 $6,359.2 $12,296.7 $4,015.4 $4,485.2 $5,206.1 $4,148.8 $1,792.3 $2,236.0

Commercial banks 20,505.9 50.1 959.5 1,726.9 5,814.7 11,954.6 3,596.5 4,360.6 5,108.7 4,110.6 1,241.5 2,088.1

Savings institutions 1,377.9 6.9 142.0 342.5 544.5 342.0 418.9 124.7 97.4 38.2 550.8 147.9

Total deposits (in billions) 17,823.6 47.5 926.2 1,703.8 5,226.2 9,919.9 3,304.6 3,718.1 4,041.0 3,366.6 1,529.7 1,863.6

Commercial banks 16,684.2 42.2 812.1 1,428.9 4,798.8 9,602.1 2,977.3 3,617.6 3,971.4 3,335.8 1,038.1 1,744.1

Savings institutions 1,139.3 5.3 114.1 274.9 427.3 317.8 327.4 100.5 69.6 30.7 491.6 119.5

Bank net income (in millions) 59,909 92 3,358 6,637 21,494 28,328 9,176 11,936 15,868 9,097 4,649 9,183

Commercial banks 56,234 82 2,771 5,586 20,096 27,699 8,043 11,838 15,203 8,985 3,874 8,291

Savings institutions 3,675 10 588 1,051 1,398 629 1,133 99 664 112 774 893

Performance Ratios (annualized, %)

Yield on earning assets 2.92 3.77 3.89 3.78 3.62 2.30 2.86 2.94 2.48 2.87 3.13 3.92

Cost of funding earning assets 0.24 0.50 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.13 0.31 0.21 0.15 0.23 0.26 0.42

Net interest margin 2.68 3.27 3.40 3.36 3.27 2.17 2.55 2.73 2.33 2.64 2.87 3.50

Noninterest income to assets 1.31 1.47 1.44 1.37 1.31 1.28 1.16 1.18 1.66 1.05 1.02 1.69

Noninterest expense to assets 2.32 3.66 3.05 2.72 2.47 2.10 2.18 2.29 2.22 2.41 2.34 2.70

Credit loss provision to assets** 0.07 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.14 -0.02 0.19 0.05 -0.05 0.03 0.10 0.17

Net operating income to assets 1.09 0.61 1.19 1.22 1.36 0.92 0.90 1.07 1.23 0.83 1.05 1.64

Pretax return on assets 1.38 0.74 1.43 1.61 1.73 1.16 1.15 1.32 1.60 1.04 1.28 2.15

Return on assets 1.11 0.65 1.23 1.30 1.37 0.94 0.93 1.08 1.24 0.88 1.06 1.67

Return on equity 10.87 4.79 10.85 11.87 12.59 9.72 8.76 9.99 12.85 9.03 10.39 15.92

Net charge-offs to loans and leases 0.41 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.52 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.37 0.41 0.25 0.58

Loan and lease loss provision to 

net charge-offs 32.02 148.92 196.91 155.25 44.55 -9.45 84.48 26.78 -26.74 17.70 76.59 45.34

Efficiency ratio 61.42 81.53 65.82 59.82 56.41 64.59 61.69 62.11 58.61 69.95 62.54 53.32

% of unprofitable institutions 7.26 20.34 4.89 1.93 2.17 0.00 5.56 8.08 6.74 8.28 7.86 4.85

% of institutions with earnings gains 57.45 40.25 58.85 72.29 60.87 46.15 67.79 58.00 58.84 52.09 53.66 66.04

Structural Changes

New reporters 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1

Institutions absorbed by mergers 31 10 18 3 0 0 5 4 7 10 5 0

Failed institutions 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

PRIOR FOURTH QUARTERS

(The way it was...)

Return on assets (%) 2019 1.19 0.86 1.24 1.27 1.29 1.11 1.02 1.15 1.28 1.02 1.14 1.70

 2017 0.58 0.59 0.85 0.73 0.78 0.39 0.59 0.69 0.83 -0.13 0.89 1.10

 2015 1.02 0.75 1.19 1.03 0.99 1.02 0.77 1.02 1.02 1.09 0.97 1.43

Net charge-offs to loans & leases (%) 2019 0.54 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.70 0.54 0.51 0.60 0.45 0.56 0.27 0.77

 2017 0.55 0.29 0.23 0.29 0.76 0.51 0.64 0.69 0.26 0.56 0.33 0.75

 2015 0.49 0.31 0.22 0.30 0.59 0.54 0.53 0.54 0.28 0.59 0.35 0.62

* See Table V-A (page 11) for explanations.

** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, the numerator represents provisions for credit losses on a consolidated basis; for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13, the numerator 

represents the provision for loan and lease losses.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

10 FDIC QUARTERLY

TABLE V-A. Loan Performance, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Concentration Groups*

December 31, 2020 All Insured 

Institutions

Credit 

Card 

Banks

International 

Banks

Agricultural 

Banks

Commercial 

Lenders

Mortgage 

Lenders

Consumer 

Lenders

Other 

Specialized 

<$1 Billion

All Other 

<$1 Billion

All Other 

>$1 Billion

Percent of Loans 30-89 Days Past Due

All loans secured by real estate 0.60 0.41 0.47 0.51 0.42 0.49 0.34 1.23 0.87 1.08

Construction and development 0.45 1.85 0.47 0.61 0.31 1.15 0.92 1.07 0.72 1.03

Nonfarm nonresidential 0.34 0.69 0.88 0.39 0.26 0.33 0.43 1.11 0.63 0.56

Multifamily residential real estate 0.24 0.00 0.38 0.13 0.22 0.21 0.24 0.41 0.35 0.19

Home equity loans 0.51 0.00 0.59 0.35 0.46 0.37 0.07 0.50 0.60 0.60

Other 1-4 family residential 0.92 0.38 0.45 0.89 0.72 0.50 0.34 1.51 1.06 1.40

Commercial and industrial loans 0.26 0.48 0.35 0.53 0.23 0.18 0.07 1.06 0.79 0.25

Loans to individuals 1.22 1.27 0.93 0.94 1.04 0.49 0.88 1.31 1.26 1.53

Credit card loans 1.10 1.28 0.88 1.03 1.27 1.03 0.67 1.85 1.15 1.08

Other loans to individuals 1.33 1.02 1.09 0.93 1.02 0.47 0.88 1.27 1.26 1.74

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.32 0.86 0.47 0.45 0.27 0.10 0.01 0.53 0.49 0.23

Total loans and leases 0.58 1.19 0.54 0.51 0.40 0.46 0.67 1.17 0.88 0.82

Percent of Loans Noncurrent**

All real estate loans 1.65 0.64 1.90 1.03 1.31 1.11 0.41 1.23 0.91 2.49

Construction and development 0.65 1.72 2.16 0.61 0.48 1.27 2.51 1.34 0.49 1.00

Nonfarm nonresidential 1.00 0.00 1.47 0.91 0.90 0.81 1.14 1.02 1.04 1.38

Multifamily residential real estate 0.26 0.00 0.25 0.52 0.23 0.89 0.04 0.00 0.51 0.44

Home equity loans 2.11 0.00 5.40 0.26 1.32 1.65 0.52 0.26 0.50 2.56

Other 1-4 family residential 2.54 0.62 2.32 0.74 2.46 1.10 0.37 1.37 0.91 3.11

Commercial and industrial loans 0.99 0.42 1.40 0.97 0.84 1.08 0.64 0.54 0.76 1.10

Loans to individuals 0.86 1.24 0.85 0.45 0.81 0.15 0.33 0.51 0.57 0.75

Credit card loans 1.16 1.30 1.03 0.34 1.15 0.56 0.65 0.90 0.80 1.13

Other loans to individuals 0.59 0.41 0.31 0.46 0.78 0.13 0.32 0.49 0.57 0.57

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.33 0.00 0.28 1.03 0.38 0.15 0.05 0.59 0.71 0.28

Total loans and leases 1.18 1.17 1.14 1.00 1.08 1.03 0.35 1.01 0.86 1.43

Percent of Loans Charged-Off (net, YTD)

All real estate loans 0.04 0.05 -0.02 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.06

Construction and development 0.01 0.13 -0.01 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.15 -0.11 0.06 -0.02

Nonfarm nonresidential 0.13 0.00 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.15 0.24 0.05 0.23

Multifamily residential real estate 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.01

Home equity loans -0.05 0.00 -0.10 0.01 0.00 -0.02 0.13 -0.03 0.01 -0.11

Other 1-4 family residential 0.00 0.05 -0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.02 -0.01

Commercial and industrial loans 0.53 2.39 0.60 0.31 0.51 0.32 0.61 0.10 0.16 0.46

Loans to individuals 2.07 3.89 2.57 0.38 1.00 0.60 0.71 0.73 0.38 1.48

Credit card loans 3.48 4.00 3.22 1.10 4.00 2.97 1.32 1.42 0.95 2.93

Other loans to individuals 0.74 2.14 0.55 0.30 0.71 0.49 0.71 0.69 0.37 0.74

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.17 0.00 0.08 0.22 0.26 0.13 0.02 0.46 0.05 0.18

Total loans and leases 0.50 3.73 0.69 0.14 0.25 0.05 0.52 0.19 0.07 0.43

Loans Outstanding (in billions)

All real estate loans $5,118.0 $1.9 $558.7 $109.0 $2,962.8 $142.7 $23.1 $9.5 $44.5 $1,265.9

Construction and development 385.9 0.0 17.9 6.8 295.6 4.6 0.1 0.8 2.8 57.4

Nonfarm nonresidential 1,568.6 0.0 59.2 29.0 1,191.4 12.3 0.9 3.2 9.7 262.8

Multifamily residential real estate 479.8 0.0 84.5 3.9 332.2 3.4 0.4 0.3 1.2 53.9

Home equity loans 300.3 0.0 31.2 1.8 167.9 7.7 0.2 0.2 1.5 89.8

Other 1-4 family residential 2,210.6 1.8 310.7 25.0 924.7 113.9 21.5 4.3 25.8 782.9

Commercial and industrial loans 2,435.0 34.2 358.2 25.3 1,287.1 8.4 6.4 2.3 6.0 707.0

Loans to individuals 1,744.1 350.2 365.1 5.9 339.5 9.7 70.2 1.5 4.7 597.4

Credit card loans 822.0 328.7 271.9 0.6 27.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 192.2

Other loans to individuals 922.1 21.4 93.2 5.3 311.7 9.3 69.9 1.4 4.7 405.2

All other loans and leases (including farm) 1,569.2 0.2 479.0 36.8 433.1 4.2 4.4 0.8 2.7 608.0

Total loans and leases (plus unearned income) 10,866.3 386.5 1,760.9 176.9 5,022.5 165.0 104.1 13.9 58.0 3,178.3

Memo: Other Real Estate Owned (in millions)

All other real estate owned 4,629.4 0.3 286.7 208.6 3,232.1 67.3 5.0 34.4 90.2 704.9

Construction and development 927.8 0.2 1.0 26.7 800.8 16.3 2.7 16.3 20.1 43.8

Nonfarm nonresidential 2,335.9 0.0 85.0 73.6 1,798.5 10.8 0.5 13.4 35.8 318.3

Multifamily residential real estate 63.8 0.0 0.0 2.9 60.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1-4 family residential 1,109.3 0.1 154.7 37.4 500.0 39.7 1.9 4.7 29.8 341.1

Farmland 146.6 0.0 0.0 68.1 72.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.7

* Asset Concentration Group Definitions (Groups are hierarchical and mutually exclusive):

Credit-card Lenders - Institutions whose credit-card loans plus securitized receivables exceed 50 percent of total assets plus securitized receivables.

International Banks - Banks with assets greater than $10 billion and more than 25 percent of total assets in foreign offices.

Agricultural Banks - Banks whose agricultural production loans plus real estate loans secured by farmland exceed 25 percent of the total loans and leases.

Commercial Lenders - Institutions whose commercial and industrial loans, plus real estate construction and development loans, plus loans secured by commercial real estate properties exceed 

25 percent of total assets.

Mortgage Lenders - Institutions whose residential mortgage loans, plus mortgage-backed securities, exceed 50 percent of total assets.

Consumer Lenders - Institutions whose residential mortgage loans, plus credit-card loans, plus other loans to individuals, exceed 50 percent of total assets.

Other Specialized < $1 Billion - Institutions with assets less than $1 billion, whose loans and leases are less than 40 percent of total assets.

All Other < $1 billion - Institutions with assets less than $1 billion that do not meet any of the definitions above, they have significant lending activity with no identified asset concentrations.

All Other > $1 billion - Institutions with assets greater than $1 billion that do not meet any of the definitions above, they have significant lending activity with no identified asset concentrations.

** Noncurrent loan rates represent the percentage of loans in each category that are past due 90 days or more or that are in nonaccrual status.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 11

TABLE V-A. Loan Performance, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Size Distribution Geographic Regions*

December 31, 2020 All Insured 

Institutions

Less Than 

$100 

Million

$100 

Million to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion 

to 

$10 Billion

$10 Billion 

to $250 

Billion

Greater 

Than $250 

Billion New York Atlanta Chicago

Kansas 

City Dallas

San 

Francisco

Percent of Loans 30-89 Days Past Due 

All loans secured by real estate 0.60 0.97 0.52 0.34 0.47 0.88 0.52 0.60 0.57 0.97 0.57 0.29

Construction and development 0.45 1.02 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.76 0.54 0.44 0.40 0.73 0.32 0.28

Nonfarm nonresidential 0.34 0.71 0.36 0.25 0.29 0.55 0.42 0.29 0.35 0.41 0.28 0.27

Multifamily residential real estate 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.22 0.30 0.28 0.19 0.31 0.23 0.30 0.09

Home equity loans 0.51 0.30 0.39 0.34 0.53 0.56 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.72 0.48 0.32

Other 1-4 family residential 0.92 1.32 0.77 0.55 0.73 1.16 0.71 0.89 0.78 1.51 1.11 0.37

Commercial and industrial loans 0.26 0.86 0.42 0.27 0.23 0.26 0.28 0.21 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.26

Loans to individuals 1.22 1.49 1.49 1.28 1.11 1.30 1.06 1.74 0.82 1.10 0.86 1.32

Credit card loans 1.10 1.05 1.81 2.72 1.20 0.97 1.18 1.31 0.80 1.04 0.55 1.23

Other loans to individuals 1.33 1.50 1.47 0.98 1.03 1.62 0.98 2.11 0.84 1.21 0.96 1.39

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.32 0.45 0.39 0.28 0.24 0.35 0.26 0.17 0.39 0.41 0.31 0.27

Total loans and leases 0.58 0.92 0.53 0.37 0.51 0.70 0.52 0.65 0.51 0.73 0.51 0.52

Percent of Loans Noncurrent** 

All real estate loans 1.65 1.16 0.82 0.86 1.91 2.03 1.51 1.47 1.67 1.97 2.86 0.60

Construction and development 0.65 0.73 0.63 0.61 0.44 1.13 1.15 0.46 1.02 0.35 0.34 0.51

Nonfarm nonresidential 1.00 1.24 0.84 0.83 1.02 1.24 1.23 0.84 1.18 1.24 0.70 0.75

Multifamily residential real estate 0.26 0.93 0.28 0.33 0.19 0.32 0.28 0.52 0.15 0.52 0.19 0.12

Home equity loans 2.11 0.46 0.62 0.62 1.38 3.25 2.05 1.60 2.56 3.36 1.07 0.85

Other 1-4 family residential 2.54 1.11 0.84 1.12 3.60 2.51 2.25 2.15 2.20 2.70 7.55 0.57

Commercial and industrial loans 0.99 1.23 0.64 0.88 0.93 1.11 0.91 0.90 0.93 1.43 0.93 0.81

Loans to individuals 0.86 0.76 0.65 0.79 0.88 0.85 0.92 1.02 0.55 0.89 0.71 0.93

Credit card loans 1.16 0.67 1.70 2.26 1.25 1.06 1.38 1.28 0.92 1.12 1.03 1.15

Other loans to individuals 0.59 0.76 0.58 0.49 0.54 0.64 0.58 0.79 0.23 0.51 0.60 0.76

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.33 1.01 0.94 0.35 0.37 0.27 0.28 0.17 0.37 0.41 0.26 0.39

Total loans and leases 1.18 1.12 0.79 0.83 1.32 1.23 1.15 1.07 1.10 1.40 2.05 0.70

Percent of Loans Charged-Off 

(net, YTD) 

All real estate loans 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02

Construction and development 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.03 0.02 0.03

Nonfarm nonresidential 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.18 0.07 0.07

Multifamily residential real estate 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 -0.01

Home equity loans -0.05 0.11 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.10 0.00 -0.08 -0.02 -0.10 -0.07 -0.03

Other 1-4 family residential 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 -0.02 0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00

Commercial and industrial loans 0.53 0.36 0.25 0.38 0.66 0.49 0.39 0.48 0.55 0.49 0.85 0.66

Loans to individuals 2.07 0.46 0.82 1.77 2.36 1.89 2.23 1.95 1.62 2.49 1.13 2.33

Credit card loans 3.48 3.53 3.03 6.87 3.87 3.08 3.86 3.38 2.99 3.49 2.44 3.98

Other loans to individuals 0.74 0.43 0.62 0.69 0.86 0.64 1.00 0.62 0.35 0.82 0.67 0.96

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.17 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.18 0.16 0.26 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.19

Total loans and leases 0.50 0.13 0.12 0.22 0.66 0.51 0.48 0.54 0.41 0.53 0.31 0.70

Loans Outstanding (in billions) 

All real estate loans $5,118.0 $20.7 $514.5 $952.1 $1,826.7 $1,804.1 $1,065.7 $935.3 $1,009.6 $904.1 $551.6 $651.8

Construction and development 385.9 1.1 47.2 94.1 160.5 83.0 76.1 63.1 64.2 53.8 83.4 45.4

Nonfarm nonresidential 1,568.6 4.3 193.2 407.3 625.7 338.0 360.9 305.4 232.4 208.7 228.4 232.9

Multifamily residential real estate 479.8 0.5 28.7 104.8 208.1 137.7 165.8 46.1 119.2 44.2 25.3 79.1

Home equity loans 300.3 0.4 16.1 35.7 108.9 139.2 64.9 71.8 72.4 48.1 18.9 24.3

Other 1-4 family residential 2,210.6 10.0 179.8 280.1 707.4 1,033.3 392.9 435.5 496.9 448.8 176.6 259.9

Commercial and industrial loans 2,435.0 4.3 120.3 298.9 880.0 1,131.6 427.9 569.0 542.9 416.9 195.7 282.6

Loans to individuals 1,744.1 1.9 26.9 73.4 748.0 893.9 305.6 406.7 340.7 297.6 67.0 326.6

Credit card loans 822.0 0.0 1.8 12.7 362.3 445.3 127.9 187.5 157.0 186.7 17.0 146.0

Other loans to individuals 922.1 1.9 25.1 60.7 385.7 448.6 177.7 219.1 183.8 110.8 50.0 180.7

All other loans and leases (including farm) 1,569.2 4.0 41.8 75.7 434.3 1,013.3 241.5 298.7 414.1 384.7 76.0 154.2

Total loans and leases 

(plus unearned income) 10,866.3 30.8 703.5 1,400.1 3,889.0 4,842.9 2,040.7 2,209.6 2,307.3 2,003.2 890.3 1,415.1

Memo: Other Real Estate Owned 

(in millions) 

All other real estate owned 4,629.4 73.2 1,031.9 1,458.4 1,129.8 936.1 629.1 960.0 854.7 672.9 861.4 651.2

Construction and development 927.8 14.1 391.5 300.5 184.0 37.7 108.2 247.7 113.0 152.8 256.2 50.0

Nonfarm nonresidential 2,335.9 26.1 359.0 937.7 579.3 433.9 226.3 436.9 417.4 301.9 421.1 532.4

Multifamily residential real estate 63.8 5.2 32.6 18.2 7.1 0.7 8.5 20.7 6.6 6.6 13.3 8.0

1-4 family residential 1,109.3 22.1 179.2 148.8 341.9 417.3 284.1 235.9 272.9 143.2 126.6 46.7

Farmland 146.6 5.7 69.6 53.2 17.5 0.6 2.1 18.9 17.8 49.4 44.3 14.2

* Regions:

New York - Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islands

Atlanta - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

Chicago - Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin

Kansas City - Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

Dallas - Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas

San Francisco - Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Pacific Islands, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

** Noncurrent loan rates represent the percentage of loans in each category that are past due 90 days or more or that are in nonaccrual status.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

12 FDIC QUARTERLY

TABLE VI-A. Derivatives, All FDIC-Insured Call Report Filers

4th 

Quarter 

2020

3rd 

Quarter 

2020

2nd

Quarter 

2020

1st

Quarter 

2020

4th 

Quarter 

2019

% 

Change 

19Q4-

20 Q4

Asset Size Distribution

(dollar figures in millions;

notional amounts unless otherwise indicated)

Less 

Than 

$100 

Million

$100 

Million 

to $1 

Billion

$1 

Billion 

to $10 

Billion

$10 

Billion 

to $250 

Billion

Greater 

Than 

$250 

Billion

ALL DERIVATIVE HOLDERS 

Number of institutions reporting derivatives 1,384 1,374 1,381 1,361 1,328 4.2 34 687 522 128 13

Total assets of institutions reporting derivatives $20,148,329 $19,490,742 $19,424,310 $18,647,356 $17,062,953 18.1 $2,400 $317,530 $1,537,960 $5,993,787 $12,296,652

Total deposits of institutions reporting derivatives 16,392,507 15,707,363 15,568,557 14,473,395 13,260,630 23.6 1,994 265,157 1,267,258 4,938,212 9,919,887

Total derivatives 165,712,643 181,124,627 181,706,545 199,743,579 173,052,331 -4.2 306 39,187 239,102 4,506,645 160,927,404

Derivative Contracts by Underlying Risk Exposure 

Interest rate 116,059,280 129,835,417 132,102,551 146,069,414 125,078,757 -7.2 306 38,827 230,405 2,430,196 113,359,546

Foreign exchange* 41,448,704 42,148,550 41,266,839 44,381,157 38,736,894 7.0 0 0 4,719 1,845,610 39,598,376

Equity 3,774,715 4,022,629 3,574,339 3,661,579 3,796,106 -0.6 0 20 32 58,055 3,716,608

Commodity & other (excluding credit derivatives) 1,394,504 1,536,154 1,506,889 1,643,731 1,495,227 -6.7 0 0 107 77,611 1,316,785

Credit 3,034,285 3,580,623 3,254,590 3,986,479 3,944,681 -23.1 0 26 2,997 95,173 2,936,090

Total 165,711,488 181,123,373 181,705,208 199,742,360 173,051,665 -4.2 306 38,873 238,260 4,506,645 160,927,404

Derivative Contracts by Transaction Type 

Swaps 96,423,475 99,580,043 101,734,113 110,598,852 96,614,183 -0.2 5 2,283 129,106 2,549,965 93,742,117

Futures & forwards 32,350,227 39,822,440 41,018,444 46,803,966 34,786,564 -7.0 0 5,051 34,362 1,343,142 30,967,671

Purchased options 16,098,913 17,889,179 16,881,937 18,151,997 18,118,533 -11.1 1 240 14,889 223,907 15,859,877

Written options 15,892,891 17,706,980 16,682,545 17,959,266 17,998,526 -11.7 2 5,006 24,775 211,405 15,651,702

Total 160,765,505 174,998,642 176,317,039 193,514,081 167,517,806 -4.0 8 12,579 203,132 4,328,419 156,221,367

Fair Value of Derivative Contracts 

Interest rate contracts 70,653 73,199 60,217 48,270 49,831 41.8 0 64 -262 17,041 53,810

Foreign exchange contracts -11,466 -7,256 -19,636 -16,009 -7,869 N/M 0 0 -21 -802 -10,644

Equity contracts -7,165 -700 -1,171 9,837 -1,203 N/M 0 1 1 -370 -6,797

Commodity & other (excluding credit derivatives) -452 -1,087 -3,800 9,802 -1,310 N/M 0 0 0 -151 -301

Credit derivatives as guarantor** 14,331 3,830 -3,347 -24,127 25,920 -44.7 0 0 20 -97 14,408

Credit derivatives as beneficiary** -18,166 -7,167 553 26,454 -26,965 N/M 0 0 -22 -62 -18,081

Derivative Contracts by Maturity*** 

Interest rate contracts < 1 year 62,457,276 76,385,585 80,158,815 92,838,175 79,135,461 -21.1 4 7,676 35,834 969,975 61,443,787

1-5 years 39,201,919 39,963,944 41,098,879 43,088,736 35,856,425 9.3 8 1,944 45,408 838,259 38,316,300

> 5 years 20,844,428 20,500,301 19,986,413 20,987,249 24,264,486 -14.1 3 3,060 88,438 472,239 20,280,688

Foreign exchange and gold contracts < 1 year 29,434,113 29,396,427 29,049,567 31,570,063 28,241,089 4.2 0 0 4,033 1,657,044 27,773,036

1-5 years 4,404,492 4,299,182 4,238,687 4,127,647 4,052,351 8.7 0 0 510 113,705 4,290,277

> 5 years 2,402,103 2,299,468 2,179,498 2,152,437 2,146,242 11.9 0 0 13 23,506 2,378,584

Equity contracts < 1 year 3,287,136 3,210,066 2,850,740 2,959,453 3,083,994 6.6 0 7 10 39,496 3,247,623

1-5 years 770,821 882,054 825,667 779,791 844,052 -8.7 0 13 4 13,406 757,397

> 5 years 138,573 133,921 128,679 124,492 136,149 1.8 0 0 5 4,113 134,455

Commodity & other contracts (including credit 

derivatives, excluding gold contracts) < 1 year 1,820,961 1,926,264 1,860,285 2,040,847 2,094,288 -13.1 0 13 89 48,723 1,772,136

1-5 years 2,023,406 2,249,588 2,163,848 2,612,164 2,785,983 -27.4 0 1 781 46,653 1,975,972

> 5 years 215,486 433,136 227,777 449,878 260,844 -17.4 0 80 1,516 7,429 206,461

Risk-Based Capital: Credit Equivalent Amount 

Total current exposure to tier 1 capital (%) 30.2 29.9 31.9 37.9 23.7 0.1 1.7 2.8 7.2 48.5

Total potential future exposure to tier 1 capital (%) 31.0 32.3 29.6 29.6 34.5 0.0 0.2 1.2 5.4 51.1

Total exposure (credit equivalent amount) 

to tier 1 capital (%) 61.2 62.2 61.5 67.6 58.2 0.1 1.9 4.0 12.5 99.6

Credit losses on derivatives  137.0 131.0 125.0 83.0 20.0 585.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 17.0 116

HELD FOR TRADING 

Number of institutions reporting derivatives 188 186 186 182 174 8.0 0 19 90 68 11

Total assets of institutions reporting derivatives 15,891,194 15,384,583 15,394,405 14,841,535 13,426,816 18.4 0 8,114 339,151 3,990,813 11,553,117

Total deposits of institutions reporting derivatives 12,851,305 12,340,493 12,274,431 11,424,297 10,356,388 24.1 0 6,833 277,033 3,317,090 9,250,349

Derivative Contracts by Underlying Risk Exposure 

Interest rate 112,808,197 126,595,376 129,035,575 143,093,184 122,492,314 -7.9 0 406 48,143 1,736,570 111,023,078

Foreign exchange 39,084,210 39,147,645 38,663,882 41,651,419 36,707,246 6.5 0 0 3,717 1,728,149 37,352,344

Equity 3,746,888 3,997,150 3,549,571 3,639,261 3,777,097 -0.8 0 0 2 47,636 3,699,250

Commodity & other 1,358,385 1,501,890 1,473,915 1,611,455 1,464,169 -7.2 0 0 76 75,683 1,282,626

Total 156,997,680 171,242,061 172,722,943 189,995,319 164,440,827 -4.5 0 406 51,939 3,588,038 153,357,297

Trading Revenues: Cash & Derivative Instruments 

Interest rate**  3,625 2,826 4,638 4,940 4,366 -17.0 0 0 4 781 2,839

Foreign exchange** 18 1,942 3,841 2,167 662 -97.3 0 0 3 -569 584

Equity** 2,480 750 3,139 -1,040 1,427 73.8 0 0 9 -3 2,473

Commodity & other (including credit derivatives)** 191 1,380 2,036 612 634 -69.9 0 0 2 219 -31

Total trading revenues** 6,314 6,898 13,653 6,678 7,089 -10.9 0 0 19 429 5,866

Share of Revenue 

Trading revenues to gross revenues (%)** 4.6 4.9 9.2 4.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.2 6

Trading revenues to net operating revenues (%)** 16.7 22.0 284.6 60.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.2 22.1

HELD FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN TRADING 

Number of institutions reporting derivatives 622 620 626 616 641 -3.0 3 158 329 119 13

Total assets of institutions reporting derivatives 19,264,337 18,644,510 18,557,464 17,928,518 16,491,529 16.8 204 80,626 1,160,486 5,726,369 12,296,652

Total deposits of institutions reporting derivatives 15,655,266 15,009,146 14,854,670 13,891,758 12,797,489 22.3 171 66,733 955,078 4,713,398 9,919,887

Derivative Contracts by Underlying Risk Exposure 

Interest rate 3,192,473 3,162,435 3,009,014 2,934,180 2,564,078 24.5 8 12,152 150,219 693,626 2,336,468

Foreign exchange 511,407 534,403 527,340 529,987 462,834 10.5 0 0 913 34,408 476,085

Equity 27,826 25,479 24,768 22,318 19,009 46.4 0 20 29 10,419 17,358

Commodity & other 36,119 34,264 32,974 32,277 31,059 16.3 0 0 31 1,928 34,160

Total notional amount 3,767,825 3,756,581 3,594,097 3,518,762 3,076,980 22.5 8 12,173 151,193 740,381 2,864,070

All line items are reported on a quarterly basis. N/M - Not Meaningful

* Includes spot foreign exchange contracts. All other references to foreign exchange contracts in which notional values or fair values are reported exclude spot foreign exchange contracts.

** Does not include banks filing the FFIEC 051 report form, which was introduced in first quarter 2017.

*** Derivative contracts subject to the risk-based capital requirements for derivatives.

**** Credit losses on derivatives is applicable to all banks filing the FFIEC 031 report form and banks filing the FFIEC 041 report form that have $300 million or more in total assets, but is not 

applicaable to banks filing the FFIEC 051 form.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 13

TABLE VII-A. Servicing, Securitization, and Asset Sales Activities (All FDIC-Insured Call Report Filers)*

Asset Size Distribution

(dollar figures in millions)

4th 

Quarter 

2020

3rd 

Quarter

2020

2nd 

Quarter

2020

1st 

Quarter

2020

4th 

Quarter

2019

% 

Change 

19Q4-

20Q4

Less 

Than 

$100 

Million

$100 

Million 

to $1 

Billion

$1 

Billion 

to $10 

Billion

$10 

Billion 

to $250 

Billion

Greater 

Than 

$250 

Billion

Assets Securitized and Sold with Servicing Retained or with 

Recourse or Other Seller-Provided Credit Enhancements 

Number of institutions reporting securitization activities 57 58 61 63 63 -9.5 0 5 12 32 8

Outstanding Principal Balance by Asset Type 

1-4 family residential loans $382,125 $406,116 $449,854 $452,586 $474,309 -19.4 $0 $5,129 $11,963 $104,348 $260,686

Home equity loans 8 8 9 9 11 -27.3 0 0 0 8 0

Credit card receivables 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Auto loans 289 579 980 1,196 1,448 -80.0 0 0 0 289 0

Other consumer loans 1,569 1,669 1,512 1,587 1,661 -5.5 0 0 0 851 717

Commercial and industrial loans 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

All other loans, leases, and other assets 87,334 88,993 90,064 88,439 83,875 4.1 0 0 8,091 3,308 75,935

Total securitized and sold 471,325 497,365 542,419 543,817 561,304 -16.0 0 5,129 20,054 108,804 337,338

Maximum Credit Exposure by Asset Type 

1-4 family residential loans 1,210 1,403 1,522 1,726 1,326 -8.7 0 0 51 604 555

Home equity loans 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Credit card receivables 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Auto loans 26 38 48 53 59 -55.9 0 0 0 26 0

Other consumer loans 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial and industrial loans 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

All other loans, leases, and other assets 2,029 2,010 2,205 1,645 1,366 48.5 0 0 91 91 1,847

Total credit exposure 3,265 3,451 3,775 3,424 2,751 18.7 0 0 142 721 2,402

Total unused liquidity commitments provided to institution’s own securitizations 71 71 32 29 24 195.8 0 0 0 0 71

Securitized Loans, Leases, and Other Assets 30-89 Days Past Due (%) 

1-4 family residential loans 2.7 3.0 5.9 3.7 3.5 0.0 2.1 0.7 2.1 3

Home equity loans 5.3 7.2 8.3 19.7 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0

Credit card receivables 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Auto loans 4.2 3.1 2.6 4.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0

Other consumer loans 3.1 2.3 3.0 3.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.1

Commercial and industrial loans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

All other loans, leases, and other assets 0.6 1.5 4.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.6

Total loans, leases, and other assets 2.5 3.1 6.5 3.4 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.5

Securitized Loans, Leases, and Other Assets 90 Days or More Past Due (%) 

1-4 family residential loans 3.0 2.9 4.6 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.6 2.3 4.1 2.5

Home equity loans 28.9 27.8 28.9 29.3 33.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9 0

Credit card receivables 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Auto loans 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0

Other consumer loans 2.4 2.2 3.2 3.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.2

Commercial and industrial loans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

All other loans, leases, and other assets 2.4 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.4 2.6

Total loans, leases, and other assets 2.5 2.8 4.3 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.6

Securitized Loans, Leases, and Other Assets Charged-off 

(net, YTD, annualized, %) 

1-4 family residential loans 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Home equity loans 11.9 10.2 8.4 6.9 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0

Credit card receivables 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Auto loans 3.6 2.0 1.1 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0

Other consumer loans 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8

Commercial and industrial loans 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

All other loans, leases, and other assets 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2

Total loans, leases, and other assets 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

Seller’s Interests in Institution's Own Securitizations – Carried as Loans 

Home equity loans 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Credit card receivables 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial and industrial loans 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Seller’s Interests in Institution's Own Securitizations – Carried as Securities 

Home equity loans 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Credit card receivables 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial and industrial loans 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

Assets Sold with Recourse and Not Securitized 

Number of institutions reporting asset sales 343 347 345 339 371 -7.5 5 115 151 63 9

Outstanding Principal Balance by Asset Type 

1-4 family residential loans 35,430 31,869 28,990 27,752 30,320 16.9 60 5,630 15,919 12,288 1,533

All other loans, leases, and other assets 131,293 128,103 126,493 123,427 124,159 5.7 0 90 68 36,177 94,958

Total sold and not securitized 166,722 159,972 155,483 151,179 154,479 7.9 60 5,720 15,988 48,465 96,491

Maximum Credit Exposure by Asset Type 

1-4 family residential loans 13,630 12,870 10,753 9,675 10,161 34.1 2 977 5,942 5,941 768

All other loans, leases, and other assets 37,880 36,997 36,423 35,313 34,793 8.9 0 90 18 11,411 26,361

Total credit exposure 51,510 49,867 47,176 44,989 44,953 14.6 2 1,067 5,960 17,352 27,129

Support for Securitization Facilities Sponsored by Other Institutions 

Number of institutions reporting securitization facilities sponsored by others 36 36 35 36 36 0.0 1 9 13 8 5

Total credit exposure 23,986 24,893 26,480 22,894 23,214 3.3 0 0 0 1,617 22,369

Total unused liquidity commitments 418 412 413 208 413 1.2 0 0 0 295 123

Other

Assets serviced for others** 5,779,937 5,921,767 5,912,001 6,185,782 6,187,243 -6.6 3,121 221,077 378,412 1,230,565 3,946,761

Asset-backed commercial paper conduits 

Credit exposure to conduits sponsored by institutions and others 19,694 17,209 17,348 18,170 17,948 9.7 0 0 0 0 19,694

Unused liquidity commitments to conduits sponsored by institutions 

 and others 56,904 59,373 59,835 56,530 58,175 -2.2 0 0 0 1,487 55,417

Net servicing income (for the quarter) 1,025 1,364 -246 -1,757 2,204 -53.5 7 227 209 358 225

Net securitization income (for the quarter) 77 92 39 37 138 -44.2 0 10 4 9 53

Total credit exposure to Tier 1 capital (%)*** 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.8

* Does not include banks filing the FFIEC 051 report form, which was introduced in first quarter 2017.

** The amount of financial assets serviced for others, other than closed-end 1-4 family residential mortgages, is reported when these assets are greater than $10 million.

*** Total credit exposure includes the sum of the three line items titled “Total credit exposure” reported above.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

14 FDIC QUARTERLY

TABLE VIII-A. Trust Services (All FDIC-Insured Institutions)

All Insured Institutions Asset Size Distribution

(dollar figures in millions)

Dec 31

2020

Dec 31

2019

Dec 31

2018

Dec 31

2017

% Change 

2019-2020

Less 

Than $100 

Million

$100 

Million to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion 

to 

$10 Billion

$10 Billion 

to $250 

Billion

Greater 

Than $250 

Billion

Number of institutions reporting 5,001 5,177 5,406 5,670 -3.4 944 3,130 776 138 13

Number of institutions with fiduciary powers 1,578 1,627 1,686 1,745 -3.0 134 931 402 99 12

Commercial banks 1,461 1,500 1,561 1,617 -2.6 122 878 358 91 12

Savings institutions 117 127 125 128 -7.9 12 53 44 8 0

Number of institutions exercising fiduciary powers 1,170 1,207 1,260 1,291 -3.1 82 665 320 91 12

Commercial banks 1,078 1,106 1,162 1,189 -2.5 71 624 288 83 12

Savings institutions 92 101 98 102 -8.9 11 41 32 8 0

Number of institutions reporting fiduciary activity 1,116 1,147 1,199 1,224 -2.7 76 624 314 90 12

Commercial banks 1,032 1,055 1,106 1,128 -2.2 65 588 284 83 12

Savings institutions 84 92 93 96 -8.7 11 36 30 7 0

Fiduciary and related assets - managed assets 

Personal trust and agency accounts 750,909 709,267 630,296 678,425 5.9 14,854 71,026 88,860 280,931 295,238

Noninterest-bearing deposits 5,087 7,674 8,900 9,124 -33.7 2 501 399 288 3,897

Interest-bearing deposits 81,654 69,085 76,197 70,413 18.2 100 7,086 8,422 16,563 49,482

U.S. Treasury and U.S. Government agency obligations 131,956 138,753 124,625 109,476 -4.9 1,788 3,132 17,231 47,318 62,487

State, county and municipal obligations 251,763 253,381 234,846 220,454 -0.6 4,078 10,894 21,174 90,009 125,608

Money market mutual funds 157,714 146,712 122,932 99,968 7.5 2,730 13,757 16,408 52,667 72,153

Other short-term obligations 160,426 132,383 135,186 151,811 21.2 65 73 1,235 3,969 155,083

Other notes and bonds 341,462 301,599 287,252 270,734 13.2 8,291 5,043 15,806 46,877 265,445

Common and preferred stocks 4,011,171 3,581,224 2,964,907 3,320,848 12.0 40,469 266,073 226,984 743,874 2,733,772

Real estate mortgages 2,048 2,125 2,087 1,884 -3.6 10 166 340 1,178 354

Real estate 66,706 52,582 49,756 47,940 26.9 1,066 23,927 7,196 14,273 20,244

Miscellaneous assets 146,535 130,782 107,310 121,727 12.0 1,888 11,082 16,573 39,125 77,867

Employee benefit and retirement-related trust and 

agency accounts:

Employee benefit - defined contribution 595,321 493,000 395,229 429,240 20.8 1,922 14,909 16,972 26,356 535,162

Employee benefit - defined benefit 634,567 602,747 508,367 585,263 5.3 3,732 3,060 19,420 26,966 581,388

Other employee benefit and retirement-related 

 accounts 454,412 408,074 339,960 373,405 11.4 6,820 79,387 35,114 115,400 217,691

Corporate trust and agency accounts 27,822 23,739 15,607 19,895 17.2 1 311 6,200 3,391 17,920

Investment management and investment advisory 

agency accounts 2,340,514 2,110,932 1,832,929 1,924,534 10.9 29,506 158,221 144,088 511,159 1,497,541

Other fiduciary accounts 552,976 468,541 391,609 413,618 18.0 3,652 14,821 21,114 91,937 421,452

Total managed fiduciary accounts: 

Assets 5,356,522 4,816,302 4,113,997 4,424,380 11.2 60,488 341,735 331,768 1,056,140 3,566,391

Number of accounts 1,951,523 1,892,283 1,852,807 1,839,096 3.1 98,124 480,539 331,003 490,953 550,904

Fiduciary and related assets - nonmanaged assets 

Personal trust and agency accounts 386,932 339,550 300,897 282,548 14.0 6,891 25,336 23,055 182,991 148,658

Employee benefit and retirement-related trust and 

agency accounts: 

Employee benefit - defined contribution 2,076,354 2,504,371 2,152,994 2,333,483 -17.1 176,929 74,885 53,312 896,889 874,339

Employee benefit - defined benefit 3,036,645 4,697,794 4,432,130 4,655,377 -35.4 13,881 17,444 22,878 1,033,459 1,948,983

Other employee benefit and retirement-related accounts 773,612 1,620,838 1,489,228 1,571,066 -52.3 1,553 57,069 20,590 158,879 535,522

Corporate trust and agency accounts 3,846,606 3,584,432 3,338,071 3,350,525 7.3 3 3,491 328,958 314,108 3,200,045

Other fiduciary accounts 3,430,772 3,998,882 3,470,168 3,656,109 -14.2 13,133 41,266 36,483 504,439 2,835,451

Total nonmanaged fiduciary accounts: 

Assets 13,550,922 16,745,867 15,183,488 15,849,109 -19.1 212,390 219,491 485,277 3,090,766 9,542,999

Number of accounts 4,752,072 4,304,374 3,909,570 3,872,793 10.4 12,786 2,145,325 176,913 303,492 2,113,556

Custody and safekeeping accounts: 

Assets 129,458,292 110,653,619 96,368,725 97,674,506 17.0 43,550 1,596,271 1,183,054 11,472,749 115,162,669

Number of accounts 13,478,663 13,731,356 13,286,592 12,556,341 -1.8 218,245 8,832,581 121,450 2,134,890 2,171,497

Fiduciary and related services income 

Personal trust and agency accounts 4,700 4,584 4,745 4,642 2.5 96 260 527 1,791 2,026

Retirement-related trust and agency accounts: 

Employee benefit - defined contribution 1,029 1,195 1,373 1,337 -13.9 24 67 165 286 487

Employee benefit - defined benefit 1,101 1,361 1,502 1,508 -19.1 9 19 31 311 732

Other employee benefit and retirement-related accounts 2,243 2,176 2,114 1,911 3.1 62 641 333 617 589

Corporate trust and agency accounts 1,884 1,875 1,774 1,720 0.5 0 6 311 422 1,145

Investment management agency accounts 9,572 9,110 9,140 8,515 5.1 144 876 955 2,954 4,642

Other fiduciary accounts 607 803 775 811 -24.4 5 2 5 168 427

Custody and safekeeping accounts 16,110 14,535 14,927 14,403 10.8 11 579 266 2,055 13,199

Other fiduciary and related services income 1,032 926 983 916 11.4 19 91 136 285 501

Total gross fiduciary and related services income 38,506 36,841 37,511 35,857 4.5 371 2,667 2,806 8,915 23,747

Less: Expenses 34,266 34,623 35,123 33,150 -1.0 287 2,002 1,986 7,335 22,657

Less: Net losses from fiduciary and related services 568 502 300 283 13.1 2 31 107 95 333

Plus: Intracompany income credits for fiduciary and 

 related services 7,325 10,130 9,307 7,539 -27.7 3 3 257 946 6,116

Net fiduciary and related services income 10,751 11,542 11,154 9,805 -6.9 84 509 894 2,405 6,859

Collective investment funds and common trust funds 

(market value) 

Domestic equity funds 894,542 789,065 615,673 718,199 13.4 9,181 4,297 45,657 6,263 829,143

International/global equity funds 312,134 257,360 202,917 230,397 21.3 1,825 11,694 6,047 3,806 288,762

Stock/bond blend funds 209,306 175,200 148,831 141,328 19.5 2,448 470 15,628 15,996 174,764

Taxable bond funds 153,517 133,911 125,119 148,520 14.6 875 1,816 10,090 4,123 136,612

Municipal bond funds 2,106 2,287 2,004 3,001 -7.9 0 0 44 912 1,150

Short-term investments/money market funds 156,498 143,418 143,955 154,093 9.1 4,024 0 450 1,548 150,477

Specialty/other funds 62,117 61,674 58,833 56,774 0.7 0 5,484 5,938 2,288 48,407

Total collective investment funds 1,796,220 1,570,101 1,303,752 1,452,312 14.4 18,427 26,670 84,700 36,288 1,630,136
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 15

COMMUNITY BANK PERFORMANCE

Community banks are identified based on criteria defined in the FDIC’s 2012 Community Banking Study. When comparing 

community bank performance across quarters, prior-quarter dollar amounts are based on community banks designated as 

such in the current quarter, adjusted for mergers. In contrast, prior-quarter performance ratios are based on community 

banks designated during the previous quarter.

Full-Year Net Income Rises 3.6 Percent Despite Higher Provision Expenses

Community Banks Report Strong Quarterly Net Income Growth of 21.2 Percent Year Over Year

Net Interest Margin Declines 30 Basis Points From the Year-Ago Quarter

Loan and Lease Volume Grows 10.3 Percent Year Over Year

Asset Quality Remains Stable Overall Despite Modest Weakness in Some Portfolios

Full-Year Net Income Rises 

3.6 Percent Despite Higher 

Provision Expenses

Net income for 2020 totaled $25.9 billion, an increase of $896.7 million (3.6 percent) 

compared with full-year 2019 results. Provisions increased $4.1 billion (141.6 percent) 

compared with 2019, representing 7.1 percent of net operating revenue—a seven-year high. 

The ratio of provisions to net operating revenue, however, is less than half that reported 

by noncommunity banks (17.7 percent). Net operating revenue increased $9.7 billion 

(10.8 percent), driven by an increase in noninterest income, which rose $6.1 billion 

(33.7 percent). Three out of five community banks (60 percent) reported higher noninterest 

income compared with 2019. The full-year pretax return on assets (ROA) ratio declined by 

13 basis points to 1.31 percent in 2020 because of an increase in average assets. The percentage of unprofitable community banks rose from 3.7 percent in 2019 to 4.4 percent in 2020.

Quarterly Net Income 

Increases 21.2 Percent 

Year Over Year

Community banks reported year-over-year net income growth of $1.3 billion (21.2 percent) in 

fourth quarter 2020, despite an increase in provisions for loan and lease losses (provisions) and 

a narrower net interest margin (NIM). Provisions increased $333 million (38.1 percent) from 

fourth quarter 2019, lifting the ratio of provisions to net operating revenue to 4.53 percent 

(84 basis points). This ratio is 3.2 percentage points higher than that reported by noncommunity banks. More than half of the 4,559 FDIC–insured community banks (57 percent) 

reported higher net income from the year-ago quarter. Increased income from loan sales (up 

$1.8 billion, or 159.2 percent) drove the improvement in quarterly net income and offset the 

increase in provisions year over year. The pretax ROA ratio increased 6 basis points from the 

year-ago quarter to 1.42 percent as net income growth outpaced the growth in average assets.

Contributors to the Year-Over-Year Change in Income 

FDIC-Insured Community Banks 

Source: FDIC.

$ Billions

Net

Income

Net

Interest

Income

Loan Loss

Provisions

Noninterest

Income

Noninterest

Expense

Realized

Gains on

Securities

Income

Taxes

Positive Factor Negative Factor

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

+7% +38% +40% +10% +104% +29%

$1.30 $1.36 $0.33 $2.01 $1.58 $0.21 $0.34

+21%

Chart 1

Source: FDIC.

Net Interest Margin

Percent 

Community Banks (3.32)

Industry (2.68)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

2.55

2.80

3.05

3.30

3.55

3.80

4.05

Chart 2
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

16 FDIC QUARTERLY

Change in Loan Balances and Unused Commitments 

FDIC-Insured Community Banks 

Source: FDIC.

$ Billions

Loan Balances

Unused

Commitments

Nonfarm

Nonresidential

RE

Commercial

& Industrial 1–4 FamilyResidential

RE

Construction &

Development

Agricultural

Production Commercial RE& Construction Commercial& Industrial

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Change 4Q 2020 vs. 4Q 2019

Change 4Q 2020 vs. 3Q 2020

34.8

6.8

109.4

3.7

-3.8

7.1

18.4 11.3

-36.1

-2.1

1.3

-3.4

4.4 1.8

Chart 3

Noncurrent Loan Rates for FDIC-Insured Community Banks

Source: FDIC.

Share of Loan Portfolio Noncurrent

Percent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

C&D Loans

Nonfarm Nonresidential RE

1–4 Family RE

C&I Loans

Farm Loans

Home Equity

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Chart 4

Net Interest Margin 

Narrows 30 Basis Points 

Year Over Year

The quarterly NIM narrowed 30 basis points from the year-ago quarter to 3.32 percent 

because of a decline in average yields on earning assets that outpaced the decline in average funding costs. The average yield on earning assets fell 77 basis points to a historical low 

of 3.78 percent. Despite the drop in yields on earning assets, net interest income increased 

$1.4 billion (7.5 percent), because the dollar reduction in interest expense (down $2 billion, 

or 43 percent) was greater than the dollar decline in interest income (down $653.3 million, 

or 2.9 percent). Noninterest income increased $2 billion (40.1 percent), driven by an increase 

in gains on loan sales (up $1.8 billion, or 159.2 percent). The increase in net interest income 

and noninterest income contributed to growth in quarterly net operating revenue, which 

rose $3.4 billion (up 14.5 percent) from the year-ago quarter.

Noninterest Expense 

Increases 10.4 Percent 

Year Over Year

An increase in salary and benefit expense of $1.1 billion (12.6 percent) drove the growth 

in noninterest expense (up $1.6 billion, or 10.4 percent) year over year. During this period, 

average assets per employee increased 16 percent to $6.5 million from the year-ago quarter.

Loan and Lease Volume 

Grows 10.3 Percent From 

the Year-Ago Quarter

Loan and lease balances grew $159.5 billion (10.3 percent) between fourth quarter 2019 and

fourth quarter 2020. Though balances in all major loan categories expanded during the

year, growth in commercial and industrial (C&I) loans (up $109.4 billion, or 52.8 percent)

accounted for more than two-thirds of the year-over-year increase. Growth in nonfarm

nonresidential (NFNR) loans (up $34.8 billion, or 7.6 percent), multifamily loans (up

$8.4 billion, or 8.4 percent), and construction and development (C&D) loans (up $6.8 billion,

or 6.2 percent) supported the year-over-year increase in loan volume. Small loans to businesses increased 21.9 percent to $346.8 billion from the year-ago quarter, driven by an

increase in C&I loans that reflected Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan growth in the

first half of 2020. Small loans to farm businesses declined $3.5 billion (5.7 percent) from

the year-ago quarter. Unfunded loan commitments grew $38.4 billion (up 12.3 percent) to

$349.9 billion year over year.

Community banks reported a moderate contraction in loan volume (1.6 percent) between

third quarter 2020 and fourth quarter 2020. A reduction in C&I loan volume (down 

$36.1 billion, or 10.2 percent), which was driven by a $36.2 billion reduction in PPP loan 

balances, was the cause for the overall decline. More than four out of five community banks

(84.7 percent) reported a reduction in C&I loan volume from third quarter 2020. Growth in
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 17

the following categories compensated in part for the quarterly decline in C&I loan 

balances: NFNR loans (up $11.3 billion, or 2.3 percent), multifamily loans (up $2.8 billion, or 

2.6 percent), and C&D loans (up $1.3 billion, or 1.1 percent). An increase in commercial real 

estate loan commitments (up $4.4 billion, or 4.7 percent) drove the quarter-over-quarter 

growth in unfunded loan volume.

Growth in Deposits Above 

the Insurance Limit Drives 

the Annual Increase in 

Total Deposits

Deposits at community banks increased $330.5 billion (18.4 percent) compared with the 

year-ago quarter, largely because of strong growth in the first half of 2020. Nearly all 

community banks (96.4 percent) reported an increase in deposit volume during the year. 

Growth in deposits above the insurance limit (up $221.8 billion, or 30.4 percent) drove the 

annual increase. Brokered deposit volume declined $5.6 billion (8.4 percent) from the yearago quarter. Average funding costs fell 47 basis points to 0.45 percent—a historical low.

Noncurrent Balances in 

All Major Loan Categories 

Increase Year Over Year

Noncurrent loans increased $1.5 billion (12.8 percent) year over year as noncurrent 

balances in all major loan categories grew. However, the noncurrent rate for total loans 

remained relatively flat from the year-ago quarter at 0.77 percent, partly because of strong 

year-over-year loan growth, and the coverage ratio increased 23 percentage points to 

171.4 percent—a 14 year high.

Noncurrent balances in the NFNR loan portfolio increased most among major loan categories (up $1.1 billion, or 37 percent). As such, the NFNR noncurrent rate rose 17 basis points 

from the year-ago quarter to 0.79 percent. Higher noncurrent balances in the non-owner 

occupied subcategory of the NFNR portfolio (up 61.1 percent) drove this increase. The 

noncurrent loan rate for multifamily loans increased 14 basis points to 0.36 percent year 

over year. The noncurrent loan rate for farm loans fell 30 basis points from third quarter 

2020 to 1.22 percent. The noncurrent rate for C&I loans fell 23 basis points from the yearago quarter to 0.66 percent.

Community Banks 

Report Broad-Based but 

Modest Decline in Net 

Charge-Off Volume

Broad-based but moderate declines in net charge-off volume across loan portfolios pulled 

the net charge-off rate for total loans down 4 basis points to 0.15 percent from the year-ago 

quarter. The net charge-off rate for C&I loans declined most among major loan categories 

(down 24 basis points to 0.30 percent).

Capital Levels 

Remain Strong

Equity capital grew $3.6 billion (1.3 percent) during the quarter despite a decline in retained 

earnings (down $1.2 billion, or 26 percent) resulting from an increase in cash dividends 

(up 57 percent). However, the leverage capital ratio declined 7 basis points to 10.3 percent 

as growth in average assets outpaced tier 1 capital formation. The average tier 1 risk-based 

capital ratio was 14.4 percent in fourth quarter 2020—relatively flat from the previous 

quarter. The average community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) for the 1,844 banks that elected 

to use the CBLR framework was 11.2 percent.

Two New Community 

Banks Open in Fourth 

Quarter 2020

The number of community banks declined to 4,559, down 31 from the previous quarter.1 

Quarterly changes include two community bank failures, two new community banks, four 

banks that transitioned from noncommunity to community banks, three banks that transitioned from community to noncommunity banks, two banks that self-liquidated, and 

30 community banks that merged.

Author:

Erica Jill Tholmer

Senior Financial Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

1 The number of community bank reporters excludes one bank that sold most of its assets to a credit union, but its 

charter remains active.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

18 FDIC QUARTERLY

TABLE I-B. Selected Indicators, FDIC-Insured Community Banks

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

Return on assets (%) 1.09 1.20 1.19 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.93

Return on equity (%) 9.74 10.25 10.58 8.65 8.81 8.85 8.45

Core capital (leverage) ratio (%) 10.32 11.15 11.09 10.80 10.69 10.67 10.57

Noncurrent assets plus other real estate owned to assets (%) 0.59 0.65 0.70 0.78 0.94 1.07 1.34

Net charge-offs to loans (%) 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.21

Asset growth rate (%) 14.16 -1.17 2.22 1.17 2.97 2.74 2.20

Net interest margin (%) 3.39 3.66 3.72 3.62 3.57 3.57 3.61

Net operating income growth (%) 0.22 -4.04 28.01 0.21 2.42 9.57 4.78

Number of institutions reporting 4,559 4,750 4,980 5,228 5,462 5,736 6,037

Percentage of unprofitable institutions (%) 4.41 3.98 3.63 5.72 4.67 5.04 6.44

* Excludes insured branches of foreign banks (IBAs).

TABLE II-B. Aggregate Condition and Income Data, FDIC-Insured Community Banks

(dollar figures in millions)  4th Quarter

2020

3rd Quarter

2020

4th Quarter

2019

%Change 

19Q4-20Q4

Number of institutions reporting 4,559 4,590 4,750 -4.0

Total employees (full-time equivalent) 392,769 390,659 400,308 -1.9

CONDITION DATA

Total assets $2,547,151 $2,478,619 $2,231,303 14.2

Loans secured by real estate 1,225,669 1,211,273 1,206,851 1.6

1-4 Family residential mortgages 388,550 391,937 393,215 -1.2

Nonfarm nonresidential 494,383 482,039 474,568 4.2

 Construction and development 115,654 114,254 113,159 2.2

Home equity lines 42,307 42,943 46,490 -9.0

Commercial & industrial loans 316,643 346,062 212,695 48.9

Loans to individuals 65,272 64,261 66,106 -1.3

 Credit cards 2,104 2,021 2,158 -2.5

Farm loans 47,500 51,073 52,209 -9.0

Other loans & leases 49,146 44,924 40,987 19.9

Less: Unearned income 1,042 1,283 557 87.2

Total loans & leases 1,703,189 1,716,311 1,578,291 7.9

Less: Reserve for losses* 22,515 21,835 17,700 27.2

Net loans and leases 1,680,674 1,694,476 1,560,592 7.7

Securities** 444,963 409,609 379,279 17.3

Other real estate owned 1,859 2,081 2,462 -24.5

Goodwill and other intangibles 18,013 17,912 17,690 1.8

All other assets 401,642 354,542 271,281 48.1

Total liabilities and capital 2,547,151 2,478,619 2,231,303 14.2

Deposits 2,126,475 2,049,529 1,834,302 15.9

 Domestic office deposits 2,124,074 2,047,170 1,831,888 16.0

Foreign office deposits 2,401 2,359 2,414 -0.5

 Brokered deposits 61,484 60,924 63,368 -3.0

Estimated insured deposits 1,478,239 1,444,577 1,331,460 11.0

Other borrowed funds 118,188 132,095 114,706 3.0

Subordinated debt 362 241 339 6.9

All other liabilities 24,647 25,094 19,291 27.8

Total equity capital (includes minority interests) 277,478 271,661 262,665 5.6

 Bank equity capital 277,368 271,559 262,578 5.6

Loans and leases 30-89 days past due 7,556 6,668 8,751 -13.7

Noncurrent loans and leases 13,132 13,669 11,948 9.9

Restructured loans and leases 5,594 5,552 5,511 1.5

Mortgage-backed securities 201,821 189,452 179,942 12.2

Earning assets 2,381,694 2,318,372 2,078,589 14.6

FHLB Advances 73,192 83,498 92,543 -20.9

Unused loan commitments 349,895 337,860 314,155 11.4

Trust assets 380,409 262,884 328,546 15.8

Assets securitized and sold 23,237 21,601 17,049 36.3

Notional amount of derivatives 182,319 203,051 102,463 77.9

INCOME DATA

Full Year

 2020

Full Year

 2019 %Change

4th Quarter 

2020

4th Quarter 

2019

%Change 

19Q4-20 Q4

Total interest income $88,710 $92,459 -4.1 $22,289 $23,406 -4.8

Total interest expense 13,435 18,897 -28.9 2,676 4,762 -43.8

Net interest income 75,275 73,562 2.3 19,612 18,645 5.2

Provision for credit losses*** 7,029 2,910 141.5 1,207 880 37.2

Total noninterest income 24,342 18,899 28.8 7,021 5,178 35.6

Total noninterest expense 62,594 59,583 5.1 16,867 15,661 7.7

Securities gains (losses) 1,086 783 38.7 408 206 97.4

Applicable income taxes 5,102 5,096 0.1 1,502 1,169 28.5

Extraordinary gains, net**** 1 127 N/M 0 10 N/M

Total net income (includes minority interests) 25,980 25,782 0.8 7,465 6,329 17.9

 Bank net income 25,925 25,771 0.6 7,446 6,327 17.7

Net charge-offs 2,010 2,022 -0.6 633 727 -12.9

Cash dividends 12,066 13,326 -9.5 3,975 4,233 -6.1

Retained earnings 13,860 12,445 11.4 3,472 2,095 65.7

Net operating income 25,047 24,993 0.2 7,115 6,147 15.8

* For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, this item represents the allowance for credit losses on loans and leases held for investment and allocated transfer risk.

** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, securities are reported net of allowances for credit losses.

*** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, this item represents provisions for credit losses on a consolidated basis; for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13, 

this item represents the provision for loan and lease losses.

**** See Notes to Users for explanation. N/M - Not Meaningful
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 19

TABLE II-B. Aggregate Condition and Income Data, FDIC-Insured Community Banks

Prior Periods Adjusted for Mergers

(dollar figures in millions)  4th Quarter 

2020

3rd Quarter 

2020

4th Quarter

2019

%Change 

19Q4-20 Q4

Number of institutions reporting 4,559 4,557 4,553 0.1

Total employees (full-time equivalent) 392,769 390,548 390,433 0.6

CONDITION DATA

Total assets $2,547,151 $2,504,638 $2,189,211 16.4

Loans secured by real estate 1,225,669 1,213,291 1,175,834 4.2

1-4 Family residential mortgages 388,550 390,674 385,544 0.8

Nonfarm nonresidential 494,383 483,125 459,868 7.5

 Construction and development 115,654 114,368 108,951 6.2

Home equity lines 42,307 43,211 45,379 -6.8

Commercial & industrial loans 316,643 352,773 207,345 52.7

Loans to individuals 65,272 65,597 70,513 -7.4

 Credit cards 2,104 2,091 3,682 -42.9

Farm loans 47,500 50,943 51,344 -7.5

Other loans & leases 49,146 49,073 40,576 21.1

Less: Unearned income 1,042 1,287 539 93.3

Total loans & leases 1,703,189 1,730,391 1,545,072 10.2

Less: Reserve for losses* 22,515 21,966 17,411 29.3

Net loans and leases 1,680,674 1,708,424 1,527,661 10.0

Securities** 444,963 410,348 378,511 17.6

Other real estate owned 1,859 2,082 2,410 -22.8

Goodwill and other intangibles 18,013 17,818 16,993 6.0

All other assets 401,642 365,966 263,637 52.3

Total liabilities and capital 2,547,151 2,504,638 2,189,211 16.4

Deposits 2,126,475 2,066,811 1,797,476 18.3

 Domestic office deposits 2,124,074 2,064,452 1,795,062 18.3

Foreign office deposits 2,401 2,359 2,414 -0.5

 Brokered deposits 61,484 70,923 67,144 -8.4

Estimated insured deposits 1,478,239 1,457,318 1,308,011 13.0

Other borrowed funds 118,188 138,007 114,124 3.6

Subordinated debt 362 350 339 6.9

All other liabilities 24,647 25,613 19,128 28.9

Total equity capital (includes minority interests) 277,478 273,857 258,144 7.5

 Bank equity capital 277,368 273,756 258,057 7.5

Loans and leases 30-89 days past due 7,556 6,679 8,692 -13.1

Noncurrent loans and leases 13,132 13,593 11,642 12.8

Restructured loans and leases 5,594 5,602 5,679 -1.5

Mortgage-backed securities 201,821 189,156 179,931 12.2

Earning assets 2,381,694 2,343,428 2,040,596 16.7

FHLB Advances 73,192 84,071 92,025 -20.5

Unused loan commitments 349,895 340,796 311,703 12.3

Trust assets 380,409 262,884 316,128 20.3

Assets securitized and sold 23,237 21,601 17,285 34.4

Notional amount of derivatives 182,319 201,812 98,484 85.1

INCOME DATA

Full Year

 2020

Full Year

 2019 %Change

4th Quarter 

2020

4th Quarter 

2019

%Change 

19Q4-20 Q4

Total interest income $88,710 $90,198 -1.6 $22,289 $22,942 -2.8

Total interest expense 13,435 18,526 -27.5 2,676 4,693 -43.0

Net interest income 75,275 71,672 5.0 19,612 18,249 7.5

Provision for credit losses*** 7,029 2,909 141.6 1,207 874 38.1

Total noninterest income 24,342 18,202 33.7 7,021 5,010 40.1

Total noninterest expense 62,594 57,922 8.1 16,867 15,285 10.4

Securities gains (losses) 1,086 756 N/M 408 200 N/M

Applicable income taxes 5,102 4,905 4.0 1,502 1,160 29.5

Extraordinary gains, net**** 1 150 N/M 0 10 N/M

Total net income (includes minority interests) 25,980 25,045 3.7 7,465 6,149 21.4

 Bank net income 25,925 25,029 3.6 7,446 6,146 21.2

Net charge-offs 2,010 2,081 -3.4 633 753 -16.0

Cash dividends 12,066 13,012 -7.3 3,975 4,110 -3.3

Retained earnings 13,860 12,016 15.3 3,472 2,036 70.5

Net operating income 25,047 24,254 3.3 7,115 5,973 19.1

* For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, this item represents the allowance for credit losses on loans and leases held for investment and allocated transfer risk.

** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, securities are reported net of allowances for credit losses.

*** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, this item represents provisions for credit losses on a consolidated basis; for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13, 

this item represents the provision for loan and lease losses.

**** See Notes to Users for explanation. N/M - Not Meaningful
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

20 FDIC QUARTERLY

TABLE III-B. Aggregate Condition and Income Data by Geographic Region, FDIC-Insured Community Banks

Fourth Quarter 2020

(dollar figures in millions) All Community Banks

Geographic Regions*

New York Atlanta Chicago Kansas City Dallas San Francisco

Number of institutions reporting 4,559 504 518 998 1,238 1,018 283

Total employees (full-time equivalent) 392,769 80,110 43,315 82,541 70,856 82,193 33,754

CONDITION DATA

Total assets $2,547,151 $649,202 $271,896 $470,864 $434,401 $465,238 $255,549

Loans secured by real estate 1,225,669 358,967 131,089 217,603 190,769 209,338 117,904

1-4 Family residential mortgages 388,550 133,967 39,116 67,415 55,561 65,913 26,578

Nonfarm nonresidential 494,383 135,482 60,480 84,264 66,750 88,502 58,905

 Construction and development 115,654 26,154 14,859 18,071 17,199 29,077 10,293

Home equity lines 42,307 12,652 5,838 9,149 4,737 4,459 5,471

Commercial & industrial loans 316,643 78,006 34,547 58,879 53,458 55,345 36,407

Loans to individuals 65,272 17,253 6,110 12,413 11,350 12,345 5,801

 Credit cards 2,104 413 105 290 633 264 398

Farm loans 47,500 571 1,225 8,115 26,964 7,941 2,684

Other loans & leases 49,146 13,415 3,261 12,376 7,149 7,562 5,384

Less: Unearned income 1,042 189 191 99 133 221 209

Total loans & leases 1,703,189 468,023 176,041 309,286 289,556 292,311 167,971

Less: Reserve for losses** 22,515 5,669 2,307 3,997 4,118 3,936 2,487

Net loans and leases 1,680,674 462,354 173,734 305,289 285,438 288,375 165,484

Securities*** 444,963 94,881 48,282 88,895 77,572 90,875 44,457

Other real estate owned 1,859 295 323 355 365 439 82

Goodwill and other intangibles 18,013 5,180 1,356 3,555 2,758 2,834 2,330

All other assets 401,642 86,493 48,200 72,769 68,268 82,715 43,196

Total liabilities and capital 2,547,151 649,202 271,896 470,864 434,401 465,238 255,549

Deposits 2,126,475 529,661 229,965 390,651 365,792 396,486 213,921

 Domestic office deposits 2,124,074 528,921 229,955 390,651 365,792 396,486 212,270

Foreign office deposits 2,401 740 10 0 0 0 1,651

 Brokered deposits 61,484 24,353 4,039 10,187 10,885 8,062 3,959

 Estimated insured deposits 1,478,239 367,400 155,170 288,607 268,897 270,275 127,888

Other borrowed funds 118,188 40,157 10,657 24,031 18,252 14,425 10,665

Subordinated debt 362 242 21 34 11 42 11

All other liabilities 24,647 8,554 2,283 4,353 3,354 3,287 2,815

Total equity capital (includes minority interests) 277,478 70,588 28,970 51,795 46,992 50,997 28,136

 Bank equity capital 277,368 70,569 28,977 51,721 46,991 50,975 28,136

Loans and leases 30-89 days past due 7,556 2,217 855 1,274 1,078 1,724 409

Noncurrent loans and leases 13,132 4,047 1,167 2,356 2,088 2,582 893

Restructured loans and leases 5,594 1,793 487 1,338 880 728 368

Mortgage-backed securities 201,821 51,820 22,188 36,559 30,048 35,171 26,035

Earning assets 2,381,694 608,911 253,508 439,585 406,335 433,951 239,404

FHLB Advances 73,192 25,476 6,023 16,517 12,121 8,334 4,722

Unused loan commitments 349,895 92,395 31,524 64,821 66,414 55,044 39,696

Trust assets 380,409 74,669 13,339 75,567 118,460 76,484 21,891

Assets securitized and sold 23,237 8,643 109 5,138 4,397 4,729 220

Notional amount of derivatives 182,319 65,033 23,252 31,203 35,800 15,163 11,868

INCOME DATA

Total interest income $22,289 $5,483 $2,376 $4,057 $3,889 $4,257 $2,226

Total interest expense 2,676 775 260 483 509 471 177

Net interest income 19,612 4,708 2,116 3,574 3,380 3,786 2,048

Provision for credit losses  1,207 272 133 263 221 219 100

Total noninterest income 7,021 1,404 666 1,934 1,280 1,156 581

Total noninterest expense 16,867 3,965 1,855 3,299 2,946 3,192 1,611

Securities gains (losses) 408 261 32 34 29 46 5

Applicable income taxes 1,502 452 148 348 181 168 205

Extraordinary gains, net** *** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total net income (includes minority interests) 7,465 1,685 679 1,632 1,341 1,409 718

 Bank net income 7,446 1,681 676 1,629 1,341 1,400 718

Net charge-offs 633 157 54 93 127 147 56

Cash dividends 3,975 701 305 861 853 963 292

Retained earnings 3,472 981 371 768 488 438 426

Net operating income 7,115 1,466 647 1,604 1,316 1,369 714

* See Table V-A for explanation.

** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, this item represents the allowance for credit losses on loans and leases held for investment and allocated transfer risk.

*** For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, securities are reported net of allowances for credit losses.

  For institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-13, this item represents provisions for credit losses on a consolidated basis; for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-13, 

this item represents the provision for loan and lease losses.

** *** See Notes to Users for explanation.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 21

Table IV-B. Fourth Quarter 2020, FDIC-Insured Community Banks

Performance ratios (annualized, %)

All Community Banks Fourth Quarter 2020, Geographic Regions*

 4th Quarter 

2020

3rd Quarter 

2020 New York Atlanta Chicago Kansas City Dallas San Francisco

Yield on earning assets 3.78 3.80 3.63 3.81 3.69 3.88 3.98 3.75

Cost of funding earning assets 0.45 0.53 0.51 0.42 0.44 0.51 0.44 0.30

Net interest margin 3.32 3.28 3.12 3.39 3.25 3.37 3.54 3.45

Noninterest income to assets 1.11 1.14 0.87 1.00 1.64 1.20 1.01 0.92

Noninterest expense to assets 2.67 2.57 2.46 2.77 2.80 2.75 2.78 2.54

Loan and lease loss provision to assets 0.19 0.26 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.16

Net operating income to assets 1.13 1.14 0.91 0.97 1.36 1.23 1.19 1.13

Pretax return on assets 1.42 1.43 1.32 1.23 1.68 1.42 1.37 1.46

Return on assets 1.18 1.18 1.04 1.01 1.38 1.25 1.22 1.13

Return on equity 10.82 10.81 9.64 9.44 12.55 11.50 11.08 10.33

Net charge-offs to loans and leases 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.20 0.13

Loan and lease loss provision to net charge-offs 190.70 383.10 173.31 247.34 282.20 173.94 149.14 179.74

Efficiency ratio 62.92 60.60 64.46 66.14 59.39 62.76 64.32 60.99

Net interest income to operating revenue 73.64 72.82 77.03 76.05 64.89 72.53 76.61 77.90

% of unprofitable institutions 7.66 4.88 5.95 8.49 6.81 8.56 8.35 5.65

% of institutions with earnings gains 56.79 48.34 68.45 57.53 58.62 51.45 52.36 67.49

Table V-B. Full Year 2020, FDIC-Insured Community Banks

Performance ratios (%)

All Community Banks Full Year 2020, Geographic Regions*

Full Year

 2020

Full Year

 2019 New York Atlanta Chicago Kansas City Dallas San Francisco

Yield on earning assets 4.00 4.61 3.82 4.04 3.83 4.19 4.24 3.95

Cost of funding earning assets 0.61 0.94 0.70 0.56 0.57 0.66 0.58 0.43

Net interest margin 3.39 3.66 3.12 3.48 3.26 3.54 3.66 3.52

Noninterest income to assets 1.02 0.88 0.78 0.95 1.45 1.14 0.97 0.82

Noninterest expense to assets 2.63 2.76 2.42 2.75 2.72 2.69 2.78 2.51

Loan and lease loss provision to assets 0.30 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.33

Net operating income to assets 1.05 1.16 0.75 0.90 1.25 1.30 1.17 0.99

Pretax return on assets 1.31 1.43 1.00 1.15 1.55 1.54 1.37 1.28

Return on assets 1.09 1.20 0.79 0.94 1.28 1.34 1.21 1.01

Return on equity 9.74 10.25 7.10 8.51 11.37 12.03 10.77 8.91

Net charge-offs to loans and leases 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.13

Loan and lease loss provision to net charge-offs 349.74 143.94 409.59 502.72 374.18 277.74 262.75 377.65

Efficiency ratio 62.32 64.06 64.81 65.23 59.92 59.98 63.24 60.96

Net interest income to operating revenue 75.56 79.56 79.00 77.33 67.67 74.33 77.79 80.07

% of unprofitable institutions 4.41 3.98 6.75 7.14 4.01 2.34 4.13 6.71

% of institutions with earnings gains 54.22 63.68 48.41 48.84 60.82 57.19 49.80 54.06

* See Table V-A for explanation.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

22 FDIC QUARTERLY

Table VI-B. Loan Performance, FDIC-Insured Community Banks

December 31, 2020

Geographic Regions*

All Community Banks New York Atlanta Chicago Kansas City Dallas San Francisco

Percent of Loans 30-89 Days Past Due

All loans secured by real estate 0.44 0.48 0.49 0.46 0.36 0.53 0.20

Construction and development 0.38 0.39 0.30 0.52 0.31 0.41 0.28

Nonfarm nonresidential 0.32 0.42 0.27 0.31 0.26 0.36 0.15

Multifamily residential real estate 0.24 0.30 0.13 0.33 0.14 0.18 0.06

Home equity loans 0.41 0.51 0.45 0.33 0.32 0.50 0.25

Other 1-4 family residential 0.67 0.59 0.96 0.71 0.56 0.84 0.29

Commercial and industrial loans 0.32 0.31 0.33 0.26 0.32 0.42 0.28

Loans to individuals 1.34 1.38 1.46 0.69 0.85 2.50 0.98

Credit card loans 2.04 2.95 1.37 2.02 2.36 1.20 1.35

Other loans to individuals 1.32 1.34 1.46 0.66 0.76 2.53 0.95

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.31 0.22 0.18 0.22 0.38 0.47 0.24

Total loans and leases 0.44 0.47 0.48 0.41 0.37 0.59 0.24

Percent of Loans Noncurrent

All loans secured by real estate 0.82 0.96 0.69 0.84 0.72 0.90 0.50

Construction and development 0.59 0.82 0.56 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.50

Nonfarm nonresidential 0.79 0.97 0.56 0.91 0.74 0.84 0.42

Multifamily residential real estate 0.36 0.46 0.37 0.36 0.30 0.17 0.18

Home equity loans 0.58 0.69 0.39 0.50 0.27 0.47 1.04

Other 1-4 family residential 0.95 1.16 0.96 0.92 0.52 1.11 0.51

Commercial and industrial loans 0.66 0.67 0.57 0.66 0.63 0.78 0.57

Loans to individuals 0.60 0.47 0.61 0.35 0.36 1.33 0.38

Credit card loans 0.93 0.84 0.36 1.76 1.00 0.44 0.76

Other loans to individuals 0.59 0.46 0.61 0.32 0.32 1.35 0.36

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.67 0.10 0.56 0.44 1.01 0.70 0.85

Total loans and leases 0.77 0.86 0.66 0.76 0.72 0.88 0.53

Percent of Loans Charged-Off (net, YTD)

All loans secured by real estate 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.01

Construction and development 0.03 0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.07

Nonfarm nonresidential 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.00

Multifamily residential real estate 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Home equity loans 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00

Other 1-4 family residential 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00

Commercial and industrial loans 0.27 0.18 0.31 0.26 0.19 0.40 0.32

Loans to individuals 0.74 0.88 0.73 0.25 0.84 0.93 1.07

Credit card loans 3.46 3.86 1.50 0.35 11.07 1.30 2.20

Other loans to individuals 0.62 0.81 0.71 0.24 0.27 0.92 0.98

All other loans and leases (including farm) 0.23 0.27 0.32 0.16 0.19 0.25 0.42

Total loans and leases 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.13

Loans Outstanding (in billions)

All loans secured by real estate $1,225.7 $359.0 $131.1 $217.6 $190.8 $209.3 $117.9

Construction and development 115.7 26.2 14.9 18.1 17.2 29.1 10.3

Nonfarm nonresidential 494.4 135.5 60.5 84.3 66.7 88.5 58.9

Multifamily residential real estate 108.7 48.5 6.4 21.0 12.4 7.9 12.6

Home equity loans 42.3 12.7 5.8 9.1 4.7 4.5 5.5

Other 1-4 family residential 388.5 134.0 39.1 67.4 55.6 65.9 26.6

Commercial and industrial loans 316.6 78.0 34.5 58.9 53.5 55.3 36.4

Loans to individuals 65.3 17.3 6.1 12.4 11.3 12.3 5.8

Credit card loans 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4

Other loans to individuals 63.2 16.8 6.0 12.1 10.7 12.1 5.4

All other loans and leases (including farm) 96.6 14.0 4.5 20.5 34.1 15.5 8.1

Total loans and leases 1,704.2 468.2 176.2 309.4 289.7 292.5 168.2

Memo: Unfunded Commitments (in millions)

Total Unfunded Commitments 349,895 92,395 31,524 64,821 66,414 55,044 39,696

Construction and development: 1-4 family residential 28,382 5,016 4,245 3,406 4,587 8,300 2,828

Construction and development: CRE and other 67,252 19,420 7,064 11,110 10,365 12,884 6,409

Commercial and industrial 118,090 31,099 9,224 25,477 21,046 17,697 13,546

* See Table V-A for explanation.

Note: Noncurrent loan rates represent the percentage of loans in each category that are past due 90 days or more or that are in nonaccrual status.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 23

INSURANCE FUND INDICATORS

Deposit Insurance Fund Increases by $1.5 Billion

DIF Reserve Ratio Declines 1 Basis Point to 1.29 Percent

Two Institutions Failed During the Fourth Quarter

During the fourth quarter, the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) balance increased by 

$1.5 billion to $117.9 billion. Assessment income of $1.9 billion, interest earned on investments of $330 million, and negative provisions for insurance losses of $48 million were 

the largest sources of the increase. Operating expenses of $470 million, unrealized losses 

on available-for-sale securities of $301 million, and other unrealized losses of $37 million 

partially offset the increase in the fund balance. Two insured institutions with combined 

assets of $203 million failed in the fourth quarter. Four insured institutions with combined 

assets of $455 million failed in all of 2020.

The deposit insurance assessment base—average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity—increased by 1.8 percent in the fourth quarter and by 16.4 percent 

for the full year 2020.1,2  Total estimated insured deposits increased by 2.2 percent in the 

fourth quarter of 2020 and by 16.5 percent from a year ago. The relatively strong growth 

in estimated insured deposits continued to place downward pressure on the DIF reserve 

ratio. The reserve ratio stood at 1.29 percent on December 31, 2020, 1 basis point below the 

reserve ratio as of September 30, 2020. The fourth quarter reserve ratio is 12 basis points 

lower than the previous year. The sharp 12-month decline in the reserve ratio was the 

result of extraordinary insured deposit growth in the first and second quarters of 2020.

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, contained several provisions to strengthen 

the DIF. Among other things, it: (1) raised the minimum reserve ratio for the DIF to 

1.35 percent (from the former minimum of 1.15 percent); (2) required that the reserve ratio 

reach 1.35 percent by September 30, 2020. Once the reserve ratio reaches 1.35 percent, the 

September 30, 2020, deadline in the Dodd-Frank Act will have been met and will no longer 

apply. If the reserve ratio later falls below 1.35 percent, even if that occurs before September 30, 2020, the FDIC will have a minimum of eight years to return the reserve ratio to 

1.35 percent, reducing the likelihood of a large increase in assessment rates. The reserve 

ratio exceeded the 1.35 percent minimum imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act on September 30, 

2018, when the reserve ratio was 1.36 percent. The reserve ratio continued to exceed the 

1.35 percent minimum for all subsequent quarters until June 30, 2020, when, due to extraordinary insured deposit growth, the reserve ratio dropped 8 basis points to 1.30 percent. 

Since the reserve ratio fell below its statutorily required minimum of 1.35 percent on 

June 30, 2020, the FDIC Board adopted a new Fund Restoration Plan in September 2020.

Author:

Kevin Brown

Senior Financial Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

1 There are additional adjustments to the assessment base for banker’s banks and custodial banks.

2 Figures for estimated insured deposits and the assessment base include insured branches of foreign banks, in addition 

to insured commercial banks and savings institutions.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

24 FDIC QUARTERLY

DIF Reserve Ratios

Percent of Insured Deposits

1.36 1.36

1.41 1.41 1.38

1.30 1.30 1.30 1.33 1.36 1.401.30 1.29

12/17 3/18 6/18 9/18 12/18 3/19 6/19 9/19 12/19 3/20 6/20 9/20 12/20

Table I-C. Insurance Fund Balances and Selected Indicators

(dollar figures in millions)

Deposit Insurance Fund*

4th 

Quarter 

2020

3rd 

Quarter 

2020

2nd 

Quarter 

2020

1st 

Quarter 

2020

4th 

Quarter 

2019

3rd 

Quarter 

2019

2nd 

Quarter 

2019

1st 

Quarter 

2019

4th 

Quarter 

2018

3rd 

Quarter 

2018

2nd 

Quarter 

2018

1st 

Quarter 

2018

4th 

Quarter 

2017

Beginning Fund Balance $116,434 $114,651 $113,206 $110,347 $108,940 $107,446 $104,870 $102,609 $100,204 $97,588 $95,072 $92,747 $90,506

Changes in Fund Balance:

Assessments earned 1,884 2,047 1,790 1,372 1,272 1,111 1,187 1,369 1,351 2,728 2,598 2,850 2,656

Interest earned on 

investment securities 330 392 454 507 531 544 535 507 481 433 381 338 305

Realized gain on sale of

investments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating expenses 470 451 465 460 460 443 459 434 453 434 445 433 443

Provision for insurance 

losses -48 -74 -47 12 -88 -192 -610 -396 -236 -121 -141 -65 -203

All other income, 

net of expenses 9 5 2 2 21 4 9 2 2 2 3 1 3

Unrealized gain/(loss) on 

available-for-sale 

securities** -338 -284 -383 1,450 -45 86 694 421 788 -234 -162 -496 -481

Total fund balance change 1,463 1,783 1,445 2,859 1,407 1,494 2,576 2,261 2,405 2,616 2,516 2,325 2,242

Ending Fund Balance 117,897 116,434 114,651 113,206 110,347 108,940 107,446 104,870 102,609 100,204 97,588 95,072 92,747

Percent change from 

 four quarters earlier 6.84 6.88 6.71 7.95 7.54 8.72 10.10 10.31 10.63 10.72 11.42 11.95 11.53

Reserve Ratio (%) 1.29 1.30 1.30 1.38 1.41 1.41 1.40 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.33 1.30 1.30

Estimated Insured 

Deposits 9,119,579 8,925,885 8,836,028 8,178,645 7,825,113 7,741,394 7,692,252 7,696,440 7,522,441 7,375,867 7,353,996 7,333,159 7,154,379

Percent change from 

 four quarters earlier 16.54 15.30 14.87 6.27 4.02 4.96 4.60 4.95 5.14 3.90 4.35 3.59 3.45

Domestic Deposits 16,339,025 15,714,977 15,562,010 14,350,253 13,262,206 13,020,253 12,788,773 12,725,363 12,659,406 12,367,954 12,280,904 12,305,817 12,129,503

Percent change from 

 four quarters earlier 23.20 20.70 21.68 12.77 4.76 5.27 4.14 3.41 4.37 3.36 3.83 3.79 3.73

Assessment Base*** 18,805,887 18,464,568 18,153,335 16,483,675 16,156,678 15,904,512 15,684,068 15,561,859 15,452,229 15,229,530 15,113,666 15,068,512 15,001,411

Percent change from 

 four quarters earlier 16.40 16.10 15.74 5.92 4.56 4.43 3.77 3.27 3.01 2.67 2.79 3.06 3.01

Number of Institutions 

Reporting 5,010 5,042 5,075 5,125 5,186 5,267 5,312 5,371 5,415 5,486 5,551 5,615 5,679

Deposit Insurance Fund Balance 

and Insured Deposits

($ Millions)

DIF 

Balance

DIF-Insured 

Deposits

12/17 $92,747 $7,154,379

3/18 95,072 7,333,159

6/18 97,588 7,353,996

9/18 100,204 7,375,867

12/18 102,609 7,522,441

3/19 104,870 7,696,440

6/19 107,446 7,692,252

9/19 108,940 7,741,394

12/19 110,347 7,825,113

3/20 113,206 8,178,645

6/20 114,651 8,836,028

9/20 116,434 8,925,885

12/20 117,897 9,119,579

Table II-C. Problem Institutions and Failed Institutions

(dollar figures in millions) 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

Problem Institutions

Number of institutions 56 51 60 95 123 183 291

Total assets $55,830 $46,190 $48,481 $13,939 $27,624 $46,780 $86,712

Failed Institutions

Number of institutions 4 4 0 8 5 8 18

Total assets**** $455 $209 $0 $5,082 $277 $6,706 $2,914

* Quarterly financial statement results are unaudited.

** Includes unrealized postretirement benefit gain (loss).

*** Average consolidated total assets minus tangible equity, with adjustments for banker’s banks and custodial banks.

**** Total assets are based on final Call Reports submitted by failed institutions.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 25

Table III-C. Estimated FDIC-Insured Deposits by Type of Institution

(dollar figures in millions)

December 31, 2020

Number of 

Institutions

Total 

Assets

Domestic 

Deposits*

Est. Insured 

Deposits

Commercial Banks and Savings Institutions

FDIC-Insured Commercial Banks 4,374 $20,505,942 $15,150,417 $8,189,613

FDIC-Supervised 2,909 3,468,076 2,838,153 1,757,840

OCC-Supervised 768 13,872,562 9,989,392 5,314,326

Federal Reserve-Supervised 697 3,165,304 2,322,873 1,117,446

FDIC-Insured Savings Institutions 627 1,377,928 1,139,322 891,685

OCC-Supervised 279 590,068 467,237 385,269

FDIC-Supervised 312 384,795 300,152 228,498

Federal Reserve-Supervised 36 403,065 371,933 277,918

Total Commercial Banks and Savings Institutions 5,001 21,883,869 16,289,739 9,081,298

Other FDIC-Insured Institutions

U.S. Branches of Foreign Banks 9 102,800 49,286 38,281

Total FDIC-Insured Institutions 5,010 21,986,669 16,339,025 9,119,579

* Excludes $1.5 trillion in foreign office deposits, which are not FDIC insured.

Table IV-C. Distribution of Institutions and Assessment Base by Assessment Rate Range

Quarter Ending September 30, 2020 (dollar figures in billions)

Annual Rate in Basis Points*

Number of 

Institutions

Percent of Total 

Institutions

Amount of 

Assessment Base

Percent of Total 

Assessment Base

1.50 - 3.00 2,910 57.72 $3,553.7 19.25

3.01 - 6.00 1,408 27.93 12,328.7 66.77

6.01 - 10.00 590 11.70 2,412.1 13.06

10.01 - 15.00 63 1.25 133.0 0.72

15.01 - 20.00 66 1.31 36.9 0.20

20.01 - 25.00 3 0.06 0.1 0.00

> 25.00 2 0.04 0.2 0.00

* Beginning in the second quarter of 2011, the assessment base was changed to average consolidated total assets minus tangible equity, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

26 FDIC QUARTERLY

Notes to Users

This publication contains financial data and other information for 

depository institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC). These notes are an integral part of this publication and provide information regarding the comparability of source 

data and reporting differences over time.

Tables I-A through VIII-A.

The information presented in Tables I-A through VIII-A of the 

FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile is aggregated for all FDIC-insured Call 

Report filers, both commercial banks and savings institutions. Some 

tables are arrayed by groups of FDIC-insured institutions based 

on predominant types of asset concentration, while other tables 

aggregate institutions by asset size and geographic region. Quarterly 

and full-year data are provided for selected indicators, including 

aggregate condition and income data, performance ratios, condition 

ratios, and structural changes, as well as past due, noncurrent, and 

charge-off information for loans outstanding and other assets.

Tables I-B through VI-B.

The information presented in Tables I-B through VI-B is aggregated for all FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions 

meeting the criteria for community banks that were developed for 

the FDIC’s Community Banking Study, published in December, 2012: 

https://www.fdic.gov/resources/community-banking/cbi-study.html.

The determination of which insured institutions are considered 

community banks is based on five steps.

The first step in defining a community bank is to aggregate all 

charter-level data reported under each holding company into a 

single banking organization. This aggregation applies both to 

balance-sheet measures and the number and location of banking 

offices. Under the FDIC definition, if the banking organization is 

designated as a community bank, every charter reporting under 

that organization is also considered a community bank when 

working with data at the charter level.

The second step is to exclude any banking organization where more 

than 50 percent of total assets are held in certain specialty banking 

charters, including: credit card specialists, consumer nonbank banks, 

industrial loan companies, trust companies, bankers’ banks, and banks 

holding 10 percent or more of total assets in foreign offices.

Once the specialty organizations are removed, the third step 

involves including organizations that engage in basic banking 

activities as measured by the total loans-to-assets ratio (greater 

than 33 percent) and the ratio of core deposits to assets (greater 

than 50 percent). Core deposits are defined as non-brokered deposits in domestic offices. Analysis of the underlying data shows that 

these thresholds establish meaningful levels of basic lending and 

deposit gathering and still allow for a degree of diversity in how 

individual banks construct their balance sheets.

The fourth step includes organizations that operate within a limited geographic scope. This limitation of scope is used as a proxy 

measure for a bank’s relationship approach to banking. Banks that 

operate within a limited market area have more ease in managing 

relationships at a personal level. Under this step, four criteria are 

applied to each banking organization. They include both a minimum and maximum number of total banking offices, a maximum 

level of deposits for any one office, and location-based criteria. 

The limits on the number of and deposits per office are adjusted 

upward quarterly. For banking offices, banks must have more 

than one office, and the maximum number of offices is 40 in 1985 

and reached 87 in 2016. The maximum level of deposits for any 

one office is $1.25 billion in deposits in 1985 and reached $6.97 

billion in deposits in 2016. The remaining geographic limitations 

are also based on maximums for the number of states (fixed at 3) 

and large metropolitan areas (fixed at 2) in which the organization 

maintains offices. Branch office data are based on the most recent 

data from the annual June 30 Summary of Deposits Survey that are 

available at the time of publication. 

Finally, the definition establishes an asset-size limit, also adjusted 

upward quarterly and below which the limits on banking activities and geographic scope are waived. The asset-size limit is $250 

million in 1985 and reached $1.39 billion in 2016. This final step 

acknowledges the fact that most of those small banks that are not 

excluded as specialty banks meet the requirements for banking 

activities and geographic limits in any event.

Summary of FDIC Research Definition of 

Community Banking Organizations

Community banks are designated at the level of the banking 

organization.

(All charters under designated holding companies are considered 

community banking charters.)

Exclude: Any organization with:

— No loans or no core deposits

— Foreign Assets ≥ 10% of total assets

— More than 50% of assets in certain specialty banks, including:

•	 credit card specialists

•	 consumer nonbank banks1

•	 industrial loan companies

•	 trust companies

•	 bankers’ banks

Include: All remaining banking organizations with:

— Total assets < indexed size threshold 2

— Total assets ≥ indexed size threshold, where:

•	 Loan to assets > 33%

•	 Core deposits to assets > 50%

•	 More than 1 office but no more than the indexed maxim

number of offices.3

•	 Number of large MSAs with offices ≤ 2

•	 Number of states with offices ≤ 3

•	 No single office with deposits > indexed maximum branch

deposit size.4

Tables I-C through IV-C.

A separate set of tables (Tables I-C through IV-C) provides comparative quarterly data related to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF), 

problem institutions, failed institutions, estimated FDIC-insured 

deposits, as well as assessment rate information. Depository insti1 Consumer nonbank banks are financial institutions with limited charters that 

can make commercial loans or take deposits, but not both.

2 Asset size threshold indexed to equal $250 million in 1985 and $1.39 billion in 

2016.

3 Maximum number of offices indexed to equal 40 in 1985 and 87 in 2016.

4 Maximum branch deposit size indexed to equal $1.25 billion in 1985 and 

$6.97 billion in 2016.
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 27

tutions that are not insured by the FDIC through the DIF are not 

included in the FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile. U.S. branches of 

institutions headquartered in foreign countries and non-deposit 

trust companies are not included unless otherwise indicated. Efforts 

are made to obtain financial reports for all active institutions. 

However, in some cases, final financial reports are not available for 

institutions that have closed or converted their charters.

DATA SOURCES

The financial information appearing in this publication is obtained 

primarily from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination 

Council (FFIEC) Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income 

(Call Reports) and the OTS Thrift Financial Reports (TFR) submitted 

by all FDIC-insured depository institutions. (TFR filers began filing 

Call Reports effective with the quarter ending March 31, 2012.) This 

information is stored on and retrieved from the FDIC’s Research 

Information System (RIS) database.

COMPUTATION METHODOLOGY

Parent institutions are required to file consolidated reports, 

while their subsidiary financial institutions are still required to 

file separate reports. Data from subsidiary institution reports are 

included in the Quarterly Banking Profile tables, which can lead to 

double-counting. No adjustments are made for any double-counting of subsidiary data. Additionally, certain adjustments are made 

to the OTS Thrift Financial Reports to provide closer conformance 

with the reporting and accounting requirements of the FFIEC Call 

Reports. (TFR filers began filing Call Reports effective with the 

quarter ending March 31, 2012.)

All condition and performance ratios represent weighted averages, which is the sum of the individual numerator values divided 

by the sum of individual denominator values. All asset and liability 

figures used in calculating performance ratios represent average 

amounts for the period (beginning-of-period amount plus endof-period amount plus any interim periods, divided by the total 

number of periods). For “pooling-of-interest” mergers, the assets 

of the acquired institution(s) are included in average assets, since 

the year-to-date income includes the results of all merged institutions. No adjustments are made for “purchase accounting” mergers. Growth rates represent the percentage change over a 12-month 

period in totals for institutions in the base period to totals for institutions in the current period. For the community bank subgroup, 

growth rates will reflect changes over time in the number and 

identities of institutions designated as community banks, as well 

as changes in the assets and liabilities, and income and expenses of 

group members. Unless indicated otherwise, growth rates are not 

adjusted for mergers or other changes in the composition of the 

community bank subgroup. When community bank growth rates 

are adjusted for mergers, prior period balances used in the calculations represent totals for the current group of community bank 

reporters, plus prior period amounts for any institutions that were 

subsequently merged into current community banks.

All data are collected and presented based on the location of each 

reporting institution’s main office. Reported data may include 

assets and liabilities located outside of the reporting institution’s 

home state. In addition, institutions may relocate across state 

lines or change their charters, resulting in an inter-regional or 

inter-industry migration; institutions can move their home offices 

between regions, savings institutions can convert to commercial 

banks, or commercial banks may convert to savings institutions.

ACCOUNTING CHANGES

Financial accounting pronouncements by the Financial Accounting 

Standards Board (FASB) can result in changes in an individual 

bank’s accounting policies and in the Call Reports they submit. Such 

accounting changes can affect the aggregate amounts presented in 

the QBP for the current period and the period-to-period comparability of such financial data. 

The current quarter’s Financial Institution Letter (FIL) and related 

Call Report supplemental instructions can provide additional explanation to the QBP reader beyond any material accounting changes 

discussed in the QBP analysis.

https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2021/

fil21002.html

https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/call/call.html

Further information on changes in financial statement presentation, income recognition and disclosure is available from the FASB. http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Page/

LandingPage&cid=1175805317350.

DEFINITIONS (in alphabetical order)

All other assets – total cash, balances due from depository institutions, premises, fixed assets, direct investments in real estate, 

investment in unconsolidated subsidiaries, customers’ liability on 

acceptances outstanding, assets held in trading accounts, federal 

funds sold, securities purchased with agreements to resell, fair 

market value of derivatives, prepaid deposit insurance assessments, 

and other assets.

All other liabilities – bank’s liability on acceptances, limited-life 

preferred stock, allowance for estimated off-balance-sheet credit 

losses, fair market value of derivatives, and other liabilities.

Assessment base – effective April 1, 2011, the deposit insurance 

assessment base changed to “average consolidated total assets 

minus average tangible equity” with an additional adjustment to 

the assessment base for banker’s banks and custodial banks, as 

permitted under Dodd-Frank. Previously the assessment base was 

“assessable deposits” and consisted of deposits in banks’ domestic 

offices with certain adjustments.

Assessment rate schedule – Initial base assessment rates for 

small institutions are based on a combination of financial ratios and 

CAMELS component ratings. Initial rates for large institutions—

generally those with at least $10 billion in assets—are also based 

on CAMELS component ratings and certain financial measures 

combined into two scorecards—one for most large institutions and 

another for the remaining very large institutions that are structurally and operationally complex or that pose unique challenges and 

risks in case of failure (highly complex institutions). The FDIC may 

take additional information into account to make a limited adjustment to a large institution’s scorecard results, which are used to 

determine a large institution’s initial base assessment rate.

While risk categories for small institutions (except new institutions) were eliminated effective July 1, 2016, initial rates for small 

institutions are subject to minimums and maximums based on an 

institution’s CAMELS composite rating. (Risk categories for large 

institutions were eliminated in 2011.)

The current assessment rate schedule became effective July 1, 2016. 

Under the current schedule, initial base assessment rates range 

from 3 to 30 basis points. An institution’s total base assessment rate 
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

28 FDIC QUARTERLY

may differ from its initial rate due to three possible adjustments: 

(1) Unsecured Debt Adjustment: An institution’s rate may decrease 

by up to 5 basis points for unsecured debt. The unsecured debt 

adjustment cannot exceed the lesser of 5 basis points or 50 percent 

of an institution’s initial base assessment rate (IBAR). Thus, for 

example, an institution with an IBAR of 3 basis points would have a 

maximum unsecured debt adjustment of 1.5 basis points and could 

not have a total base assessment rate lower than 1.5 basis points. 

(2) Depository Institution Debt Adjustment: For institutions that 

hold long-term unsecured debt issued by another insured depository institution, a 50 basis point charge is applied to the amount of 

such debt held in excess of 3 percent of an institution’s Tier 1 capital. (3) Brokered Deposit Adjustment: Rates for large institutions 

that are not well capitalized or do not have a composite CAMELS 

rating of 1 or 2 may increase (not to exceed 10 basis points) if their 

brokered deposits exceed 10 percent of domestic deposits.

The assessment rate schedule effective July 1, 2016, is shown in the 

following table:

Total Base Assessment Rates*

Established Small Banks Large and 

Highly 

Complex 

Institutions**

CAMELS Composite

1 or 2 3 4 or 5

Initial Base 

Assessment Rate 3 to 16 6 to 30 16 to 30 3 to 30

Unsecured Debt 

Adjustment -5 to 0 -5 to 0 -5 to 0 -5 to 0

Brokered Deposit 

Adjustment N/A N/A N/A 0 to 10

Total Base 

Assessment Rate 1.5 to 16 3 to 30 11 to 30 1.5 to 40

* All amounts for all categories are in basis points annually. Total base rates that are not the 

minimum or maximum rate will vary between these rates. Total base assessment rates do not 

include the depository institution debt adjustment.

 ** Effective July 1, 2016, large institutions are also subject to temporary assessment 

surcharges in order to raise the reserve ratio from 1.15 percent to 1.35  percent. The 

surcharges amount to 4.5 basis points of a large institution’s assessment base (after making 

certain adjustments).

Each institution is assigned a risk-based rate for a quarterly assessment period near the end of the quarter following the assessment 

period. Payment is generally due on the 30th day of the last month 

of the quarter following the assessment period. Supervisory rating 

changes are effective for assessment purposes as of the examination transmittal date.

Assets securitized and sold – total outstanding principal balance of assets securitized and sold with servicing retained or other 

seller-provided credit enhancements.

Capital Purchase Program (CPP) – as announced in October 2008 

under the TARP, the Treasury Department purchase of noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related warrants that is treated 

as Tier 1 capital for regulatory capital purposes is included in “Total 

equity capital.” Such warrants to purchase common stock or noncumulative preferred stock issued by publicly-traded banks are 

reflected as well in “Surplus.” Warrants to purchase common stock 

or noncumulative preferred stock of not-publicly-traded bank 

stock are classified in a bank’s balance sheet as “Other liabilities.”

Common equity Tier 1 capital ratio – ratio of common equity 

Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets. Common equity Tier 1 capital 

includes common stock instruments and related surplus, retained 

earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI), and 

limited amounts of common equity Tier 1 minority interest, minus 

applicable regulatory adjustments and deductions. Items that are 

fully deducted from common equity Tier 1 capital include goodwill, 

other intangible assets (excluding mortgage servicing assets) and 

certain deferred tax assets; items that are subject to limits in common equity Tier 1 capital include mortgage servicing assets, eligible 

deferred tax assets, and certain significant investments. Beginning 

March 2020, this ratio does not include institutions that have a 

Community Bank Leverage Ratio election in effect at the report 

date.

Construction and development loans – includes loans for all 

property types under construction, as well as loans for land acquisition and development.

Core capital – common equity capital plus noncumulative perpetual preferred stock plus minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries, less goodwill and other ineligible intangible assets. The amount 

of eligible intangibles (including servicing rights) included in core 

capital is limited in accordance with supervisory capital regulations.

Cost of funding earning assets – total interest expense paid on 

deposits and other borrowed money as a percentage of average 

earning assets.

Credit enhancements – techniques whereby a company attempts 

to reduce the credit risk of its obligations. Credit enhancement may 

be provided by a third party (external credit enhancement) or by the 

originator (internal credit enhancement), and more than one type 

of enhancement may be associated with a given issuance.

Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) – the Bank (BIF) and Savings 

Association (SAIF) Insurance Funds were merged in 2006 by the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act to form the DIF.

Derivatives notional amount – the notional, or contractual, 

amounts of derivatives represent the level of involvement in the 

types of derivatives transactions and are not a quantification of 

market risk or credit risk. Notional amounts represent the amounts 

used to calculate contractual cash flows to be exchanged.

Derivatives credit equivalent amount – the fair value of the 

derivative plus an additional amount for potential future credit 

exposure based on the notional amount, the remaining maturity 

and type of the contract.

Derivatives transaction types:

Futures and forward contracts – contracts in which the buyer 

agrees to purchase and the seller agrees to sell, at a specified 

future date, a specific quantity of an underlying variable or index 

at a specified price or yield. These contracts exist for a variety of 

variables or indices, (traditional agricultural or physical commodities, as well as currencies and interest rates). Futures contracts are standardized and are traded on organized exchanges 

which set limits on counterparty credit exposure. Forward contracts do not have standardized terms and are traded over the 

counter.

Option contracts – contracts in which the buyer acquires the 

right to buy from or sell to another party some specified amount 

of an underlying variable or index at a stated price (strike price) 

during a period or on a specified future date, in return for compensation (such as a fee or premium). The seller is obligated to 

purchase or sell the variable or index at the discretion of the 

buyer of the contract.

Swaps – obligations between two parties to exchange a series 

of cash flows at periodic intervals (settlement dates), for a 
QUARTERLY BANKING PROFILE

FDIC QUARTERLY 29

specified period. The cash flows of a swap are either fixed, or 

determined for each settlement date by multiplying the quantity 

(notional principal) of the underlying variable or index by specified reference rates or prices. Except for currency swaps, the 

notional principal is used to calculate each payment but is not 

exchanged.

Derivatives underlying risk exposure – the potential exposure 

characterized by the level of banks’ concentration in particular 

underlying instruments, in general. Exposure can result from 

market risk, credit risk, and operational risk, as well as, interest 

rate risk.

Domestic deposits to total assets – total domestic office deposits 

as a percent of total assets on a consolidated basis.

Earning assets – all loans and other investments that earn interest 

or dividend income.

Efficiency ratio – Noninterest expense less amortization of intangible assets as a percent of net interest income plus noninterest 

income. This ratio measures the proportion of net operating revenues that are absorbed by overhead expenses, so that a lower value 

indicates greater efficiency.

Estimated insured deposits – in general, insured deposits are 

total domestic deposits minus estimated uninsured deposits. 

Beginning March 31, 2008, for institutions that file Call Reports, 

insured deposits are total assessable deposits minus estimated 

uninsured deposits. Beginning September 30, 2009, insured 

deposits include deposits in accounts of $100,000 to $250,000 

that are covered by a temporary increase in the FDIC’s standard 

maximum deposit insurance amount (SMDIA). The Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act enacted on July 

21, 2010, made permanent the standard maximum deposit insurance amount (SMDIA) of $250,000. Also, the Dodd-Frank Act 

amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to include noninterestbearing transaction accounts as a new temporary deposit insurance 

account category. All funds held in noninterest-bearing transaction 

accounts were fully insured, without limit, from December 31, 2010, 

through December 31, 2012.

Failed/assisted institutions – an institution fails when regulators 

take control of the institution, placing the assets and liabilities into 

a bridge bank, conservatorship, receivership, or another healthy 

institution. This action may require the FDIC to provide funds to 

cover losses. An institution is defined as “assisted” when the institution remains open and receives assistance in order to continue 

operating.

Fair Value – the valuation of various assets and liabilities on the 

balance sheet—including trading assets and liabilities, availablefor-sale securities, loans held for sale, assets and liabilities accounted for under the fair value option, and foreclosed assets—involves 

the use of fair values. During periods of market stress, the fair values 

of some financial instruments and nonfinancial assets may decline.

FHLB advances – all borrowings by FDIC-insured institutions 

from the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB), as reported by 

Call Report filers, and by TFR filers prior to March 31, 2012.

Goodwill and other intangibles – intangible assets include 

servicing rights, purchased credit card relationships, and other 

identifiable intangible assets. Goodwill is the excess of the purchase 

price over the fair market value of the net assets acquired, less 

subsequent impairment adjustments. Other intangible assets are 

recorded at fair value, less subsequent quarterly amortization and 

impairment adjustments.

Loans secured by real estate – includes home equity loans, junior 

liens secured by 1-4 family residential properties, and all other 

loans secured by real estate.

Loans to individuals – includes outstanding credit card balances 

and other secured and unsecured consumer loans.

Long-term assets (5+ years) – loans and debt securities with 

remaining maturities or repricing intervals of over five years.

Maximum credit exposure – the maximum contractual credit 

exposure remaining under recourse arrangements and other sellerprovided credit enhancements provided by the reporting bank to 

securitizations.

Mortgage-backed securities – certificates of participation in pools 

of residential mortgages and collateralized mortgage obligations 

issued or guaranteed by government-sponsored or private enterprises. Also, see “Securities,” below.

Net charge-offs – total loans and leases charged off (removed from 

balance sheet because of uncollectability), less amounts recovered 

on loans and leases previously charged off.

Net interest margin – the difference between interest and dividends earned on interest-bearing assets and interest paid to depositors and other creditors, expressed as a percentage of average 

earning assets. No adjustments are made for interest income that is 

tax exempt.

Net loans to total assets – loans and lease financing receivables, 

net of unearned income, allowance and reserves, as a percent of 

total assets on a consolidated basis.

Net operating income – income excluding discretionary transactions such as gains (or losses) on the sale of investment securities 

and extraordinary items. Income taxes subtracted from operating 

income have been adjusted to exclude the portion applicable to 

securities gains (or losses).

Noncurrent assets – the sum of loans, leases, debt securities, and 

other assets that are 90 days or more past due, or in nonaccrual 

status.

Noncurrent loans & leases – the sum of loans and leases 90 days 

or more past due, and loans and leases in nonaccrual status.

Number of institutions reporting – the number of institutions 

that actually filed a financial report.

New reporters – insured institutions filing quarterly financial 

reports for the first time.

Other borrowed funds – federal funds purchased, securities 

sold with agreements to repurchase, demand notes issued to the 

U.S. Treasury, FHLB advances, other borrowed money, mortgage 

indebtedness, obligations under capitalized leases and trading liabilities, less revaluation losses on assets held in trading accounts.

Other real estate owned – primarily foreclosed property. Direct 

and indirect investments in real estate ventures are excluded. The 

amount is reflected net of valuation allowances. For institutions 

that filed a Thrift Financial Report (TFR), the valuation allowance 

subtracted also includes allowances for other repossessed assets. 

Also, for TFR filers the components of other real estate owned are 

reported gross of valuation allowances. (TFR filers began filing Call 

Reports effective with the quarter ending March 31, 2012.)

Percent of institutions with earnings gains – the percent of 

institutions that increased their net income (or decreased their 

losses) compared to the same period a year earlier.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

30 FDIC QUARTERLY

“Problem” institutions – federal regulators assign a composite 

rating to each financial institution, based upon an evaluation of 

financial and operational criteria. The rating is based on a scale of 

1 to 5 in ascending order of supervisory concern. “Problem” institutions are those institutions with financial, operational, or managerial weaknesses that threaten their continued financial viability. 

Depending upon the degree of risk and supervisory concern, they 

are rated either a “4” or “5.” The number and assets of “problem” 

institutions are based on FDIC composite ratings. Prior to March 31, 

2008, for institutions whose primary federal regulator was the OTS, 

the OTS composite rating was used.

Recourse – an arrangement in which a bank retains, in form or in 

substance, any credit risk directly or indirectly associated with an 

asset it has sold (in accordance with generally accepted accounting 

principles) that exceeds a pro rata share of the bank’s claim on the 

asset. If a bank has no claim on an asset it has sold, then the retention of any credit risk is recourse.

Reserves for losses – the allowance for loan and lease losses on a 

consolidated basis.

Restructured loans and leases – loan and lease financing receivables with terms restructured from the original contract. Excludes 

restructured loans and leases that are not in compliance with the 

modified terms.

Retained earnings – net income less cash dividends on common 

and preferred stock for the reporting period.

Return on assets – bank net income (including gains or losses on 

securities and extraordinary items) as a percentage of average total 

(consolidated) assets. The basic yardstick of bank profitability.

Return on equity – bank net income (including gains or losses on 

securities and extraordinary items) as a percentage of average total 

equity capital.

Risk-weighted assets – assets adjusted for risk-based capital 

definitions which include on-balance-sheet as well as off-balancesheet items multiplied by risk-weights that range from zero to 

200 percent. A conversion factor is used to assign a balance sheet 

equivalent amount for selected off-balance-sheet accounts.

Securities – excludes securities held in trading accounts. Banks’ 

securities portfolios consist of securities designated as “held-tomaturity” (reported at amortized cost (book value)), securities designated as “available-for-sale” (reported at fair (market) value), 

and equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held 

for trading.

Securities gains (losses) – realized gains (losses) on held-tomaturity and available-for-sale securities, before adjustments for 

income taxes. Thrift Financial Report (TFR) filers also include gains 

(losses) on the sales of assets held for sale. (TFR filers began filing 

Call Reports effective with the quarter ending March 31, 2012.)

Seller’s interest in institution’s own securitizations – the 

reporting bank’s ownership interest in loans and other assets that 

have been securitized, except an interest that is a form of recourse 

or other seller-provided credit enhancement. Seller’s interests 

differ from the securities issued to investors by the securitization 

structure. The principal amount of a seller’s interest is generally 

equal to the total principal amount of the pool of assets included 

in the securitization structure less the principal amount of those 

assets attributable to investors, i.e., in the form of securities issued 

to investors.

Small Business Lending Fund – The Small Business Lending 

Fund (SBLF) was enacted into law in September 2010 as part 

of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to encourage lending to 

small businesses by providing capital to qualified community 

institutions with assets of less than $10 billion. The SBLF Program 

is administered by the U.S. Treasury Department (https://

home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/small-business-programs/

small-business-lending-fund).

Under the SBLF Program, the Treasury Department purchased 

noncumulative perpetual preferred stock from qualifying 

depository institutions and holding companies (other than 

Subchapter S and mutual institutions). When this stock has been 

issued by a depository institution, it is reported as “Perpetual 

preferred stock and related surplus.” For regulatory capital 

purposes, this noncumulative perpetual preferred stock qualifies as 

a component of Tier 1 capital. Qualifying Subchapter S corporations 

and mutual institutions issue unsecured subordinated debentures to 

the Treasury Department through the SBLF. Depository institutions 

that issued these debentures report them as “Subordinated notes 

and debentures.” For regulatory capital purposes, the debentures 

are eligible for inclusion in an institution’s Tier 2 capital in 

accordance with their primary federal regulator’s capital standards. 

To participate in the SBLF Program, an institution with outstanding 

securities issued to the Treasury Department under the Capital 

Purchase Program (CPP) was required to refinance or repay in full 

the CPP securities at the time of the SBLF funding. Any outstanding 

warrants that an institution issued to the Treasury Department 

under the CPP remain outstanding after the refinancing of the CPP 

stock through the SBLF Program unless the institution chooses to 

repurchase them.

Subchapter S corporation – a Subchapter S corporation is treated 

as a pass-through entity, similar to a partnership, for federal 

income tax purposes. It is generally not subject to any federal 

income taxes at the corporate level. This can have the effect of 

reducing institutions’ reported taxes and increasing their after-tax 

earnings.

Trust assets – market value, or other reasonably available value of 

fiduciary and related assets, to include marketable securities, and 

other financial and physical assets. Common physical assets held 

in fiduciary accounts include real estate, equipment, collectibles, 

and household goods. Such fiduciary assets are not included in the 

assets of the financial institution.

Unearned income and contra accounts – unearned income for 

Call Report filers only.

Unused loan commitments – includes credit card lines, home 

equity lines, commitments to make loans for construction, loans 

secured by commercial real estate, and unused commitments to 

originate or purchase loans. (Excluded are commitments after 

June 2003 for originated mortgage loans held for sale, which are 

accounted for as derivatives on the balance sheet.)

Yield on earning assets – total interest, dividend, and fee income 

earned on loans and investments as a percentage of average 

earning assets.
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

The U.S. agricultural sector prospered from 2004 through 2013 as commodity prices soared 

to historic highs and farmers benefitted from strong income and farmland appreciation. 

The sector struggled from 2014 through 2019, however, after a sudden, sharp drop in prices 

and incomes was followed by a slow, weak recovery. The swings in farmers’ fortunes—both 

positive and negative—in these periods were far more pronounced in the middle of the 

country than elsewhere. The start of 2020 was a continuation of the weak trends of the prior 

five years, but the year ended as a fairly strong year for farmers. Early forecasts suggest 

2021 will not be as strong as 2020, but will still be above long-term average.1

As of year-end 2020, farm banks have held up well despite the agricultural industry’s challenges since 2014. The long period of prosperity in the agricultural sector that preceded 

the downturn positioned the vast majority of farm banks with strong capital levels, solid 

earnings, and low credit problems that largely continue today. Though a small subset of 

farm banks reports elevated loan delinquencies, problem loan levels at farm banks overall 

remain modest. Farm banks have been able to manage stress in the agricultural sector in 

part because many farmers still have the farmland equity needed to restructure debt to 

cope with operating shortfalls.

Most farmers and farm banks were cautious with farm real estate lending during the recent 

boom in farmland values. This contrasts with behavior during a similar price boom in 

the 1970s. Agricultural credit concentrations among farm banks remained flat during the 

recent boom, which has bolstered the resiliency of these institutions during the current 

downturn.

The COVID-19 pandemic initially looked to be devastating for U.S. agriculture, pushing 

income far lower than levels seen in the years since the previous boom and adding to financial stress. But record levels of government assistance, a rebound in commodity prices 

in the latter half of 2020, and a resurgence in export demand combined to significantly 

reverse the agricultural results. Net farm income for 2020 is forecast to increase 46 percent 

to $121.1 billion, a level not seen since the farm income boom. But the extent to which high 

income cures the industry’s challenges is unclear. Absent a sustained improvement in agricultural conditions, stress is likely to continue for some farmers and their lenders.

This paper is organized into two sections. The first analyzes the income boom in the U.S. 

agricultural sector from 2004 through 2013, weaknesses in the sector from 2014 through 

2019, and the events of 2020. We focus on 12 states in the Upper Midwest where the effects 

of the boom and subsequent downturn were most substantial.2 In the second section, we 

discuss the impact of agricultural issues on farm bank conditions during the downturn and 

assess potential challenges ahead.

1 Farm income figures are based on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Income and Wealth 

Statistics data as of February 5, 2021, and offer the USDA’s fourth forecast of 2020 results and first forecast 

of 2021 results. See https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/

data-files-us-and-state-level-farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/. 

2 For this article, the Upper Midwest states are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

FDIC QUARTERLY 31

Overview
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

32 FDIC QUARTERLY

Following a Decade of Prosperity, the U.S. Agricultural Sector Weakened in 2014

U.S. agricultural sector income has fluctuated widely in recent years. From 2004 through 

2013, inflation-adjusted U.S. net farm income averaged $101.6 billion per year, above the 

$76.5 billion annual average from 1987 through 2003.3 While farm income did not spike 

as high during the 2004 through 2013 period as it did during the farm income boom of the 

1970s, it was stronger for a much longer duration (Chart 1).4

U.S. Agriculture Experienced a Farm Income Boom From 2004 Through 2013

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: 2020 is a forecast.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020F

Farm Income Booms

(1972–1975 and 2004–2013)

Avg. Income

1987 Through 2003

Inflation-Adjusted Annual U.S. Net Farm Income

2020 Dollars (Billions)

Avg. Income

2004 Through 2013

Avg. Income

2014 Through 2019

Chart 1

The boom in farm income from 2004 through 2013 was fueled by significant price increases 

across many important agricultural commodities, including corn, soybeans, wheat, cattle, 

dairy, and hogs. Combined, these six commodities accounted for 61 percent of aggregate 

U.S. agricultural cash receipts during that period.5 Chart 2 shows the dramatic increases 

in average annual prices for these commodities during the farm income boom. Wheat 

prices peaked at 233 percent of 2003 levels in 2008, corn reached 294 percent in 2012, and 

soybeans reached 231 percent in 2013. Strong growth in U.S. agricultural exports, tight 

global supplies, and rapid growth in U.S. biofuel demand drove commodity prices higher.6

3 In this article, 1972 through 1975 and 2004 through 2013 are labeled “farm income boom” periods. Each period contains 

multiple years of abnormally high incomes. The 1972 through 1975 period includes three of the ten highest incomes 

reported from 1960 through 2019, and the 2004 through 2013 period includes six of the ten highest incomes. The year 

2014 rounds out the top ten.

4 According to agricultural economist David Kohl, 2003 through 2013 marked the fourth and longest commodity 

“super cycle” in the past century, lasting 2.5 times longer than the next longest. See David Kohl, “The History 

of the Great Commodity Super Cycles,” Farm Progress, February 12, 2013, https://www.farmprogress.com/blog/

history-great-commodity-super-cycles.

5 Shares of U.S. agricultural cash receipts from 2004 through 2013 are as follows: cattle (17 percent), corn 

(14 percent), milk and dairy products (10 percent), oilseed crops (10 percent), hogs (6 percent), and wheat (4 percent). 

Soybean cash receipts, which were not separately reported before 2008, represented between 93 percent and 

96 percent of oilseed crop totals annually from 2008 through 2019. See USDA Farm Income and Wealth Statistics 

data as of February 5, 2021, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/

data-files-us-and-state-level-farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/.

6 The Renewable Fuels Standard, introduced in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007, created significant new demand for U.S. corn to make ethanol fuel. Today, an estimated 

40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is used in ethanol production. See USDA, “Feedgrains Sector at a Glance,” 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feedgrains/feedgrains-sector-at-a-glance/.

I. U.S. AGRICULTURAL 

CONDITIONS
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 33

Prices of Many U.S. Agricultural Commodities More Than Doubled During the 

Farm Income Boom

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: Data are annual averages from 1990 through 2020.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Corn

Soybeans

Wheat

All Crops Prices Received by Farmers (Indexes)

2003=100

Farm Income Boom

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Cattle

Hogs

Milk

All Animals/

Animal Products

Prices Received by Farmers (Indexes)

2003=100

Farm Income Boom

Chart 2

During the farm income boom, production expenses rose as prices increased for inputs, 

such as seed and fertilizer. Farmland became more expensive to purchase or rent. But 

commodity prices rose more than expenses, leading to higher farm net income. The long 

period of prosperity ended in 2013 as strong farming returns incentivized farmers to 

expand production of crops in the United States and globally, pressuring commodity prices.

As Chart 2 shows, prices dropped precipitously following the boom, and by 2016, average annual prices farmers received for corn and wheat were nearly 50 percent below 

their peaks. Prices for hogs, milk, and soybeans were down by roughly one-third from 

recent peaks, and cattle prices were down by roughly one-fifth. Lower prices resulted in a 

19 percent decline in aggregate inflation-adjusted production value between 2013 and 2016, 

while total inflation-adjusted farm expenses declined by 6 percent during that period. Even 

though 2016 commodity prices were still above long-term averages, inflation-adjusted U.S. 

net farm income of $66.9 billion in 2016 was 52 percent below its 2013 peak.

From 2016 to 2019, farm income gradually improved as commodity prices found a floor and 

production expenses further declined. Still, 2019 inflation-adjusted net farm income of 

$84.0 billion remained well below the $94.9 billion average since the start of the previous 

farm boom.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions to food demand and supply chains 

in April and May. Closures of schools and entertainment venues and declines in restaurant 

dining and travel created a sudden drop in commercial demand for food products. In some 

instances, such as in dairy and fresh produce, farmers dumped their products because they 

had no buyers. COVID-19 outbreaks among plant workers at meat-processing facilities 

across the country caused shutdowns that created processing bottlenecks and backlogs of 

market-ready animals, forcing some growers to destroy animals.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

34 FDIC QUARTERLY

Prices farmers received for many of their commodities fell swiftly and sharply (Chart 3). 

Corn prices were particularly hurt by the severe curtailment in travel and commerce that 

led to sharp reductions in fuel demand, which caused many corn-fed ethanol plants to shut 

down or drastically curb production.

Many Agricultural Commodity Prices Fell Sharply When the COVID-19 Pandemic

Began but Rallied in Late 2020

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: Data are monthly prices from December 2019, through January 2021. Prices received by farmers are monthly U.S. average prices. Futures prices are end of month settlement prices for first expiring contracts; cattle futures price is based on live cattle prices and hog futures price 

is based on lean hog prices.

Dollars Per Bushel Dollars Per Bushel

75

Dollars Per Hundred Weight

Price Received by Farmers Price of Next Expiring Futures Contract

Corn Soybeans

125

Dollars Per Hundred Weight

Cattle Hogs

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Dec-19 Dec-20

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Dec-19 Dec-20

8.00

Dec-19 Dec-20 Dec-19 Dec-20

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

Chart 3

Given the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) February 2021 forecast for a $38.0 billion, or 46 percent, increase in net 

farm income from $83.1 billion in 2019 to $121.1 billion for 2020 seems counter-intuitive. 

While part of the improvement stems from the late 2020 commodity-price rallies shown 

in Chart 3, most of the increase stems from a significant jump in direct federal payments 

(projected to rise $23.8 billion, or 106 percent, in 2020) and a $3.5 billion reduction to total 

expenses that includes sizeable cuts in interest costs and fuel expenses (Chart 4).

Additional Government Payments Account for Two-Thirds of the Forecasted

Increase in Net Farm Income for 2020 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Note: Data are forecasts. Due to rounding of change figures, the summation of 2019 net farm income and changes diers slightly from the 2020

net farm income figure.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Dollars

(Billions)

$38 Billion Increase (45.7 Percent)

Net Farm

Income

2019

Change in

Crop

Production

Change in

Livestock

Production

Change in

Production

Expenses

Change in

Government

Payments

All Other ChangesNet Farm

Income

2020F

19.1 -9.3

0.8

3.5

23.8 121.1

83.1

Chart 4

Direct government payments forecast for 2020 include $32.1 billion in supplemental, 

ad-hoc payments that are mostly tied to COVID-19 pandemic relief programs. Also included 

is $3.7 billion in disbursements under the USDA’s Market Facilitation Program ($23.1 billion 

in total payments from 2018 through 2020).7 Payments from COVID-19 pandemic relief 

7 The USDA Market Facilitation Program was designed to offset harm to U.S. agricultural producers as a result of ongoing 

trade disruptions that began in early 2018 between the United States and some key agricultural trading nations. The 

program is forecast to have paid a total of $23.1 billion: $5.1 billion in 2018, $14.2 billion in 2019, and $3.7 billion in 2020.
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 35

programs and the Market Facilitation Program pushed direct government payments to a 

forecast record inflation-adjusted $46.3 billion in 2020, or 38 percent of net farm income in 

2020, the highest percentage since 2001 (Chart 5). This ratio was eclipsed only during the 

agricultural crisis of the 1980s and in the early 2000s when farm incomes were much lower.

Record Government Payments Are Forecast to Account for 38 Percent of 

Net Farm Income in 2020 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: Data are annual inflation-adjusted figures from 1933 through 2020. 2020 is a forecast.

1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 2013

Dollars

(Billions)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Total Direct Government Payments (Le Axis)

Direct Payments as Percentage of Net Farm Income (Right Axis)

Ratio

(Percent)

Chart 5

The U.S. Agricultural Sector Has Faced Margin and Income Challenges Since 2013, and 

Debt Levels Have Diverged From Income and Farmland Values

Financial stress in the U.S. agricultural sector has increased since the farm income boom 

ended in 2013. Although net farm income has improved since it bottomed in 2016, farmers 

have lower levels of working capital and rising debt burdens.

Working capital remains well below the levels achieved during the boom years (Chart 6). 

After peaking at $165 billion in 2012, U.S. farm working capital declined 61 percent to 

$65 billion in 2016. In the past four years, working capital inched up to a forecast $84 billion 

in 2020, though that level is still just half the 2012 peak. Indeed, at a forecasted 18 percent 

as a percentage of farm income for 2020, the ratio remains near the lowest since this series 

began being reported in 2009.

Aer Falling Sharply Between 2012 and 2016, Working Capital Has Stabilized 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: 2009 data are the earliest available. 2020 is a forecast.

Nominal Dollars 

(Billions)

Ratio

(Percent)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020F

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Working Capital (Le Axis)

Farm Income Boom Working Capital to Gross Revenue (Right Axis)

Chart 6
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

36 FDIC QUARTERLY

Farmers with very high debt burdens also have increased since the farming income boom 

ended. According to the USDA, the percentages of crop farm businesses and livestock and 

animal-product farm businesses that are highly or very-highly leveraged jumped sharply 

starting around 2012 (Chart 7).8 Higher leverage is worrisome as higher debt costs could 

create cash-flow difficulties for these producers, particularly should farm income decline. 

The percentage of very-highly leveraged farms, those with debt greater than 70 percent 

of assets, has returned to pre-farm boom levels for both crop producers and livestock and 

animal-product producers, and continues to rise in the latter.

The Percentage of Highly and Very-Highly Leveraged Farm Businesses Increased 

Sharply Following the End of the Farm Boom

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Note: Data are as of December 2, 2020. 2020 is a forecast. Highly leveraged operations have debt-to-asset ratios of 41 percent to 70 percent.

Very-highly leveraged operations have debt-to-asset ratios exceeding 70 percent. A farm business is one in which farming is the operator's primary 

occupation or any operation with annual gross cash farm income of $350,000 or more.

Percent of Farms Farm Income Boom

0

2

4

6

8

10

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020F

Highly Leveraged Very-Highly Leveraged

Percent of Farms Farm Income Boom

0

2

4

6

8

10

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020F

Highly Leveraged and Very-Highly Leveraged Livestock and

Animal-Product Farm Businesses 

Highly Leveraged and Very-Highly Leveraged Crop Farm Businesses

Chart 7

Perhaps most concerning for the sector since 2013 is that farm debt levels no longer track 

farm incomes. Indexed values of U.S. farm sector debt and gross farm income closely 

tracked each other since 1960, except during the agricultural crisis when debt levels rose 

even as incomes stagnated or declined (Chart 8).9 Since the crisis, indexed values for 

income and debt levels again closely tracked each other but diverged substantially when 

the farm income boom ended in 2013. U.S. net farm incomes declined in 2014 through 2016 

and then partially rebounded from 2017 through 2019. Yet total farm-sector debt rose from 

$315 billion at 2013 to $432 billion at 2020.

Much of the divergence in indexed income and debt levels is in loans secured by farm real 

estate (Chart 8). A divergence also occurred between indexed values of total farm-sector 

debt and indexed farmland values (Chart 9). Indexed farmland values have exceeded 

indexed total farm-sector debt since 2004, but indexed debt secured by farm real estate has 

outpaced indexed farmland values since 2016.

8 Highly leveraged operations have debt to asset ratios between 41 percent and 70 percent. Very-highly leveraged 

operations have debt to asset ratios exceeding 70 percent.

9 Divergences in indexed values show the cumulative effects of differing growth rates of farm debt and farm income. 

Similar indexed values indicate that debt and income were growing at similar rates; diverging indexed values indicate 

dissimilar growth rates. 
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 37

Comparison of Growth Between Farm Sector Debt and Gross Farm Income

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: Data are annual figures. 2020 is a forecast.

Indexed Values

(2000=100)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020F

Gross Farm Income Total Farm Debt Real Estate Debt Non-Real Estate Debt

Chart 8

Comparison of Growth Between Farm Sector Debt and Farm Sector 

Real Estate Valuation

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: Data are annual figures. 2020 is a forecast.

Indexed Values

(2000=100)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020F

Farm Real Estate Total Farm Debt Real Estate Debt Non-Real Estate Debt

Chart 9

Debt levels generally correlate with debt costs, though interest rates, especially when they 

are unusually high or low, can also play a significant role in costs. For example, the bank 

prime lending rate doubled between 1978 and 1981. Higher rates amplified farmers’ high 

leverage and severely strained their ability to service their debts. The debt-service ratio, or 

interest and principal payments as a percentage of the value of agricultural production, for 

the U.S. farm sector increased from 26 percent in 1972 to 38 percent in 1981 as debt levels 

and interest rates rose, and jumped to 46 percent in 1983 as farm incomes fell. This significant repayment load contributed to the agricultural crisis of the 1980s when weak farm 

incomes and sharply falling farmland values resulted in thousands of farm failures and 

hundreds of bank failures.

More recently, after reaching a decades-low debt-service ratio in 2013, the U.S. farm 

sector’s debt service ratio rose sharply through 2018 before moderating in 2019 and 2020 

(Chart 10). Because interest rates have been at or near historical lows for over a decade, 

debt service since the boom has been more moderate than overall debt levels might have 

suggested.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

38 FDIC QUARTERLY

The Share of Agricultural Production Going Toward Debt Service Is Elevated

Despite Historically Low Interest Rates

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Federal Reserve Board (Haver Analytics).

Note: Data are annual figures. 2020 is a forecast. Debt service ratio is the sum of interest expense and principal payments divided by the value of

agricultural production.

Percent Percent Farm Income Boom

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020F

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Debt Service Ratio (Le Axis) Bank Prime Loan Rate (Right Axis)

Chart 10

Agricultural Incomes in the Upper Midwest Fluctuated Widely 

During the Boom and Thereafter

Even before the farm income boom, the center of the country was more sensitive to changes 

in agricultural income. Swings in farm income in three USDA economic regions—the Corn 

Belt, Lake States, and Northern Plains, collectively referred to in this paper as the “Upper 

Midwest”—were much more pronounced than in any other USDA region from about 1987 

to about 2005 (Chart 11). The Upper Midwest had among the lowest net farm income of any 

region throughout the early 2000s but then quickly rose to among the highest. Then, during 

the farm income boom, the Upper Midwest often led all regions in income performance. As 

the farm income boom ended, the Upper Midwest again experienced a sizeable swing and 

fell to among the lowest-performing regions. At its peak in 2011 and 2013, aggregate farm 

income in Upper Midwest states was 2.4 times greater than its long-term pre-boom average. Income then fell by more than two-thirds to its bottom in 2016.

The Upper Midwest Has Had Much Greater Swings in Net Farm Income

Than the Rest of the Nation

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: Data are inflation-adjusted net farm income figures from 1987 through 2019 and are aggregated by USDA economic regions. “Upper Midwest”

contains USDA’s Corn Belt, Lake States, and Northern Plains regions. The base index period of 1987 through 2003 spans the relatively more calm 

period between the tail end of the 1980s agricultural crisis and the 2004 through 2013 farm income boom.

All Other USDA Regions (Low-High Range)

All Other USDA Regions Combined Upper Midwest

Indexed Aggregate Net Farm Income, by Region

17-year average (1987 through 2003) = 100

Chart 11
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 39

The large swing in farm income among Upper Midwest states mirrors the swings in corn, 

soybean, and hog prices shown in Chart 2. Corn and soybeans generate the largest share 

of total agriculture cash receipts in these twelve states, and hog and cattle production are 

also important. The twelve Upper Midwest states include the ten leading states in both corn 

receipts and soybean receipts, eight of the ten leading states in hog receipts, and six of the 

ten leading states in cattle production.10

Although state-level 2020 forecasted results will not be available from the USDA until 

mid-2021, the latest forecast by USDA resource regions suggests that the large government 

payments shown in Chart 5 and late rally of commodity prices shown in Chart 3 will boost 

incomes of Upper Midwest states in 2020 (Chart 12). Each of the resource regions shown in 

Chart 12 overlap the Upper Midwest states to a varying degree.11

Net Cash Income Is Forecast to Increase Sharply in 2020 Across USDA Farm 

Resource Regions That Overlap the Twelve Upper-Midwest States

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Note: Resource regions are defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Farm-Level Average Net Cash Income by Resource Region

Inflation-Adjusted Indexed Values (2017=100)

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Heartland Northern Crescent Northern Great Plains Prairie Gateway

2017 2018 2019 2020F

Chart 12

Farmland Values Rose Substantially From 2005 to 2014, Especially in the Upper Midwest

Farmland values are important to farmers as farmland constitutes a large percentage of 

farm assets. In the 50 years from 1971 through 2020, farm real estate (including land and 

improvements) accounted for 71 percent to 83 percent of total farm assets on the USDA’s 

annual farm sector balance sheet.12 Increases in farmland values augment farmers’ wealth 

and expand their collateral position for future borrowing to grow operations in good times 

or to restructure debt in stressful periods.

Chart 13 shows that farmland values tend to fluctuate with the prosperity of the agricultural industry. Ignited by booming farm incomes in the mid-1970s, on an inflation-adjusted 

basis, average U.S. farm real estate values doubled during the ten years from 1972 through 

1981.13 Farm real estate values then fell sharply during the agricultural crisis of the 1980s, 

erasing nearly all the former gains by the time real estate values bottomed in 1987. Following the crisis, farm real estate values grew much more slowly for the next 17 years, and the 

average U.S. farm real estate value did not eclipse its 1981 peak until 2005.

10 Based on USDA 2019 (latest available) state ranking of cash receipts by commodity. Upper Midwest states also include 

the top two states in wheat production. See “Cash Receipts by State, Commodity Ranking, and Share of U.S. Total,” 

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17843.

11 For a map and description of USDA resource regions, see USDA, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Information 

Bulletin, Number 760, September 2000, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42298/32489_aib-760_002.

pdf?v=6384.5. 

12 See USDA, “Farm Balance Sheet and Financial Ratios, U.S.,” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/

farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/data-files-us-and-state-level-farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/.

13 Based on U.S. average per-acre values reported by the USDA. 
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

40 FDIC QUARTERLY

U.S. Farm Real Estate Values Rose Substantially Between 2005 and 2015

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Note: Figures are as of August 6, 2020, and represent annual average per-acre values of farm real estate in the U.S. through 2020. Farm real estate

includes land and improvements.

Inflation-Adjusted U.S. Farm Real Estate Values

Dollars per acre (2020 Dollars)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Farm Income Boom Periods

Percent Change

(2005–2015)

81%

Percent Change

(2016–2020)

–3%

Percent Change

(1972–1981) 99%

Percent Change

(1988–2004) 50%

Percent Change

 (1982–1987) 

–41%

Chart 13

Beginning in 2005, U.S. average farm real estate values again grew more rapidly, peaking 

in 2015 at 62 percent above the 1981 peak, after adjusting for inflation. This boom in farm 

real estate values coincided with the strong commodity prices and farm incomes discussed 

earlier and was also fueled by low interest rates.

Although the increase in the average per-acre value of farm real estate in the United States 

from 2005 through 2015 was lower than the increase from 1972 through 1981, many states 

reported greater increases in the recent boom. Chart 14 shows the state-by-state increases 

in real farmland values for the two booms. Farmland values in 20 states doubled or more 

than doubled during the 1972 through 1981 boom and increased at least 50 percent in 

another 22 states. During that boom, Minnesota recorded the highest increase in farmland values at 173 percent. The recent farmland price boom was characterized by greater 

polarization. Less than half of all states experienced real price increases of more than 

50 percent, and 40 states reported a lower valuation change in the recent farmland price 

boom than in the previous boom.

The Recent Farmland Boom Was Concentrated in the Upper Midwest, but the 

1970s Boom Was Broad-Based

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Note: Change based on inflation-adjusted farm real estate values.

300

Ten-Year Change in Farm Real Estate Values: 1972 Through 1981

Percent Change

300

Ten-Year Change in Farm Real Estate Values: 2005 Through 2015

Percent Change

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

U.S. Average = 99%

Lower 48 States

MN

ND NE

IA

IL

KS

WI

SD

IN

MI MO OH

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

U.S. Average = 81%

Lower 48 States

MN

ND

NE

IA

IL KS

SD

IN

MOOH WI MI

Upper Midwest States All Other States

Chart 14
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 41

As illustrated by Chart 14, Upper Midwest states were heavily represented among leading 

states in both farmland booms, but price increases were more concentrated in those states 

in the recent boom.14 The eight states in which farmland values at least doubled during 

the 2005 through 2015 boom all were in the Upper Midwest. In addition, valuation changes 

among some Upper Midwest states were far greater in the recent boom than in the previous boom. The valuation change during the 2005 through 2015 boom in South Dakota was 

3.1 times greater than during the 1972 through 1981 boom. In Kansas, North Dakota, and 

Nebraska, the recent run-up was 1.6 to 1.8 times greater.

Farmland Values Have Remained Resilient in the Nation and Upper Midwest

Despite lower farming returns in recent years, farmland values have remained relatively stable nationally. Since peaking in 2015, the average per-acre U.S. farm real estate 

value declined just 3 percent through 2020. Even in Upper Midwest states, valuation 

declines compared with recent peaks are modest in comparison with the increases 

reported during the boom (Chart 15).15 For example, by 2020, Iowa farmland valuations 

had declined 23 percent from peak levels reached in 2014 but still remained 140 percent 

above their valuation from 2004. In fact, all twelve states in the Upper Midwest have 

retained at least two-thirds of the farmland price increases they gained during the boom 

in farmland prices.16

Upper Midwest States Retained Over Two-Thirds of Their Increases in Farmland 

Values Since the Farm Boom Ended

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Note: Data are based on inflation-adjusted values.

Percentage Change From Base Year

(Base Year Is 10 Years Prior to Each State’s Peak Year)

0 50 100 150 200 250

Michigan (2015)

Wisconsin (2015)

Missouri (2015)

Ohio (2015)

Indiana (2015)

Minnesota (2014)

Illinois (2014)

Kansas (2014)

North Dakota (2015)

Iowa (2014)

Nebraska (2014)

South Dakota (2015)

U.S. Total (2015)

State (Peak Year) Peak Year

2020

Chart 15

14 A significant reason why these states are among leading states in farmland appreciation is that the price increases 

of corn and soybeans—leading crops in these states—were much greater than price increases of other agricultural 

commodities (Chart 2).

15 The farm real estate values discussed extensively in this paper come from USDA Land Values Summary Reports, which 

provide a lengthy time series of state and regional values using a consistently applied methodology. We also performed 

a limited review of alternative farmland survey data of some Upper Midwest states. Differences in methodologies 

(geographies, survey respondents, land attributes) prevent direct comparisons with USDA results, but overall, the 

alternative survey data were generally consistent with that of the USDA.

16 When comparing each state’s farmland values during its peak year, values 10 years prior to its peak, and values in 2020.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

42 FDIC QUARTERLY

Low and stable interest rates have kept capitalization rates low and have supported farm 

real estate values.17 Few active farmers are willingly selling land. Possible reasons include a 

bullish long-term outlook for U.S. agriculture, projections of global population growth and 

economic development, lackluster investment alternatives, tax considerations, and a desire 

to maintain family farm legacy.18

Government aid also helped bolster farmland values after the recent boom. Crop and livestock insurance programs, federal farm commodity programs, and ad hoc assistance such 

as natural disaster aid have provided substantial downside risk protection for the U.S. farm 

sector and farmland values.19

II. THE U.S. AGRICULTURAL 

LENDING LANDSCAPE

Farm banks provide a significant share of financing to the agricultural sector. According 

to the USDA, U.S. commercial banks held 40 percent of all U.S. farm debt in 2019, the latest 

data available.20 This article focuses on farm banks, defined by the FDIC as banks with 

25 percent or more of total loans concentrated in agriculture.21 As of December 31, 2020, the 

number of farm banks in the nation totaled 1,163, or about one-quarter of all commercial 

banks. These farm banks held $76 billion of agricultural loans, or 44 percent of aggregate 

agricultural loans held by commercial banks.

The vast majority of farm banks report that their agricultural loans exceed their total capital levels; in other words, they report a “capital concentration” of more than 100 percent.22

But many farm banks are focused on the agricultural sector to a greater degree. Specifically, 59 percent of all farm banks have capital concentrations of at least 200 percent, 

and 25 percent have concentrations of 300 percent or more. A small minority of 26 farm 

banks, or 2 percent of all farm banks, have agricultural loan concentrations in excess of 

500 percent of capital.

Farm banks tend to be small: nearly three quarters of these institutions have less than 

$250 million in total assets.23 About 35 percent of farm banks are very small, with 

under $100 million in total assets. Because of their small size and geographic footprint—45 percent of farm banks have only one or two locations—nearly all farm banks are 

considered “community banks” by the FDIC’s definition.24 The Upper Midwest has a disproportionate share of farm banks. More than 78 percent of all farm banks in the nation are 

headquartered in the Upper Midwest (see Map 1 and Table 1).

17 Bruce J. Sherrick, “Understanding Farmland Values in a Changing Interest Rate Environment,” Choices Magazine, 

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, 1st Quarter 2018 33(1), Farmer Mac, https://www.farmermac.com/

choices-understanding-farmland-values-changing-interest-rate-environment/.

18 Nathan Kauffman, “2019 Agricultural Symposium Summary: Exploring Agriculture’s Path to the Long Term,” August 5, 

2019; Ed Maixner and Sara Wyant, “Big Changes Ahead in Land Ownership and Farm Operators?” Agri-Pulse, February 5, 

2019, https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/11869-big-changes-ahead-in-land-ownership-and-farm-operators.

19 Christopher Burns, Nigel Key, Sarah Tulman, Allison Borchers, and Jeremy Weber, “Farmland Values, Land Ownership, 

and Returns to Farmland, 2000–2016,” USDA Economic Research Report, No. 245, February 2018, https://www.ers.usda.

gov/webdocs/publications/87524/err-245.pdf?v=0.

20 The Farm Credit System’s share of all U.S. agricultural debt was just slightly higher at 43 percent. Other agricultural 

lenders include input suppliers, such as feed and equipment dealers, and insurance companies and private lenders.

21 Since this farm bank definition is based solely on loan portfolio mix, it captures some banks that, because of low 

loan volumes, have low asset and capital concentrations in agriculture. Conversely, the loan portfolio test can overlook 

banks with higher asset or capital concentrations because of high loan volume or low capital levels. Overall though, the 

definition has done a good job identifying groups of banks with heavy agricultural concentration exposure for analytical 

purposes. It also has a long track record, including usage in the FDIC publication History of the Eighties, which covers the 

1980s agricultural crisis.

22 “Capital concentration” in this article is shorthand for the volume of a bank’s agricultural loans expressed as 

a percentage of its total qualifying capital. It is used as a numerical measurement and is not intended to denote 

examination concerns.

23 At December 31, 2020, the median size of farm banks was $143 million compared with a median $356 million for 

nonfarm banks.

24 At December 31, 2020, only nine farm banks were not community banks. For more information about how the FDIC 

defines community banks, refer to the FDIC Community Banking Initiative web page, https://www.fdic.gov/resources/

community-banking/cbi-study.html.
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 43

Given the dominance of corn and soybean production in the Upper Midwest, it is not 

surprising that FDIC examiners overwhelmingly list corn and soybeans among the three 

most important commodities at farm banks.25

Map 1

Three of Every Four U.S. Commercial Farm Banks Are Based in Upper Midwest States

Source: FDIC.

Note: Data are as of December 31, 2020. The FDIC defines farm bank as an FDIC-insured institution with 25 percent or more of total loans concentrated 

in agriculture. Farm banks located based on state of headquarters o­ice. Shaded states are defined as Upper Midwest states.

Dots represent 1,163 farm banks

25 As part of examinations at farm banks in the FDIC’s Chicago and Kansas City Regions, examiners are asked to identify 

up to three agricultural commodities deemed most important to the bank’s loan portfolio. These two FDIC regions 

encompass all 12 Upper Midwest states, as well as Kentucky, and were headquarters to 79 percent of all farm banks as 

of December 31, 2020. Out of 930 responses, corn was listed in 90 percent of the responses and soybeans were listed in 

84 percent of the responses. At 65 percent, cattle was the third most commonly listed commodity.

Three of Every Four U.S. Commercial Farm Banks Are Based in Upper Midwest States

State

Farm Bank Totals Capital Concentrations in Agricultural Loans

Number of 

Farm Banks 

in State

Percentage of 

All Farm 

Banks in U.S.

Median Ratio 

(Percent)

Number With 

Ratio Exceeding 

200%

Number With 

Ratio Exceeding 

300%

Number With 

Ratio Exceeding 

500%

Illinois 133 11.4 208.2 74 23 1

Indiana 19 1.6 191.9 9 2 0

Iowa 185 15.9 247.7 124 55 5

Kansas 130 11.2 206.6 69 22 0

Michigan 6 0.5 178.7 3 1 0

Minnesota 103 8.9 258.1 79 37 7

Missouri 79 6.8 200.2 40 13 0

Nebraska 122 10.5 286.9 95 56 7

North Dakota 52 4.5 302.7 42 27 4

Ohio 10 0.9 144.9 2 1 0

South Dakota 39 3.4 272.3 28 17 1

Wisconsin 33 2.8 190.7 14 4 0

Upper Midwest States 911 78.3 237.0 579 258 25

All Other States 252 21.7 182.6 103 30 1

Total for U.S. Farm Banks 1,163 100.0 223.7 682 288 26

Source: FDIC.

Note: Data are as of December 31, 2020. Banks are assigned to states based on their headquarters location. Capital concentration ratio is total agricultural loans divided by total 

qualifying capital.

Table 1
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

44 FDIC QUARTERLY

Farm Banks Reported Strong Financial Results During the Farm Income Boom

Although financial results at farm banks greatly improved during the boom in farm 

income, loan demand became a challenge. Similar to agriculture sector economic conditions, farm bank financial conditions changed when the boom in U.S. agriculture ended. 

The farm income boom occurred from 2004 through 2013, a period that encompassed one 

of the deepest U.S. recessions since the Great Depression. Despite the economic stress of the 

recession, the rural locations and agricultural focus of farm banks largely insulated these 

institutions from much of the negative financial effects. In particular, farm banks’ lower 

concentrations in hard-hit residential and commercial real estate loans resulted in much 

lower volumes of credit delinquencies and credit losses compared with nonfarm banks 

during this period.

But not all factors were positive for farm banks during the boom. While loan demand from 

residential and commercial real estate developers broadly slowed across the banking 

industry during the recession and its aftermath because of weaknesses in those sectors, 

farm borrowers also required less agricultural credit, but for the opposite reason.26 Flush 

with cash from multiple years of exceptionally strong incomes, many farmers self-financed 

operating expenses and capital expenditures, or reduced debt. As a result, even though the 

U.S. agricultural sector was booming, many rural banks simultaneously faced increasing 

deposit balances and declining loan demand.27 The median fourth quarter loan-to-deposit 

ratio among farm banks declined from a decades-high 77 percent in 2008 to a 16-year low 

of 66 percent in 2012.

As a group, farm banks have maintained strong capital ratios. As seen in Chart 16, farm 

banks with relatively high capital ratios (at the 90th and 75th percentile among all 

farm banks) saw those ratios decline during the farm income boom and U.S. recession. 

Conversely, farm banks with relatively lower capital ratios saw those ratios stay the same, 

or slightly increase, during that period. But since the end of the farm income boom, farm 

banks across the spectrum of capital positions have bolstered their capital ratios, generally 

to levels exceeding capital ratios before the boom. For example, fourth quarter 2020 ratios 

were greater than fourth quarter 2003 ratios for all percentile groups in the chart except the 

90th percentile. The across-the-board drop in capital ratios between fourth quarters 2019 

and 2020 reflects the unprecedented effects of the COVID-19 pandemic including significant growth in loans, deposits, and assets that depressed capital ratios.28

26 Banker survey data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (districts that 

encompass a large share of the nation’s farm banks) show that during the agricultural boom, demand for agricultural 

credit fell to its lowest level since the aftermath of the agricultural crisis of the 1980s.

27 Not only was agriculture booming, but oil production was also booming, creating windfall oil royalties for many farm 

customers in oil production areas in Kansas, North Dakota, and Texas.

28 91 percent of farm banks experienced a year-over-year increase in Tier 1 risk-based capital in fourth quarter 2020, in 

line with the 90 percent to 92 percent range the previous five years. However, because of the pandemic-induced balance 

sheet growth, just 13 percent of farm banks reported an increase in their Tier 1 Leverage capital ratio compared with the 

previous five-year range of 60 percent to 74 percent.
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 45

Farm Banks Have Bolstered Their Capital Positions Since the Farm Boom Ended

Source: FDIC.

Note: Data are fourth quarter figures from 1996 through 2020.

Tier 1 Leverage Capital Ratio

(Percent)

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

U.S. Recession 

10th Percentile 25th Percentile 50th Percentile

75th Percentile 90th Percentile

Farm Income Boom

Chart 16

Farm Bankers and Borrowers Were Cautious During the Agricultural Boom

On the credit side, the large increase in farm real estate values between 2005 and 2015 

provided ample opportunity for farmers to seek more credit and for farm banks to allow 

increased borrowing regardless of cash-flow considerations. Nevertheless, farm bankers and their borrowers were generally conservative during this period. This cautious 

behavior contrasted with the previous farm boom in the 1970s, a period in which farm 

banks responded to surging farmland prices by dramatically increasing lending to fund 

expanding farms. The two panels in Chart 17 show the relationship between U.S. farmland 

values and the median capital concentration in agricultural loans at farm banks. The left 

panel shows that farm banks increased agricultural loan concentrations in tandem with 

increases in farm real estate values throughout most of the 1970s. It was not until 1979, 

after several years of lower farm income and on the cusp of the 1980s agricultural crisis, 

that banks reined in agricultural lending concentrations. During the more recent period, 

shown in the right panel of Chart 16, the median farm bank agricultural loan concentration 

ratio—which was already lower than before the boom of the 1970s—remained low even as 

farmland values soared.

Agricultural Loan Concentrations at Farm Banks Remained Low During the 

Recent Boom in Farm Real Estate Values

Sources: FDIC; U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Note: Farm real estate values are inflation-adjusted annual figures representing the average per-acre value of farm real estate in the United States.

Concentration ratios are median fourth quarter ratios. Because total qualifying capital is not available prior to 1996, and for consistency,

concentration ratios for all periods are calculated by dividing total agricultural loans by total equity capital and loan loss reserves.

Concentration Ratio Farm Real Estate Value

150

200

250

300

350

1972 1976 1980

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Agricultural Loan

Concentration Ratios (Percent)

Farm Real Estate

Value Per Acre

150

200

250

300

350

2005 2010 2015

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Agricultural Loan

Concentration Ratios (Percent)

Farm Real Estate

Value Per Acre

Chart 17
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

46 FDIC QUARTERLY

Even in Upper Midwest states, where farmland values rose higher and peaked later and 

where concentration ratios have tended to run higher, agricultural credit concentration 

ratios remained stable. Chart 18 shows capital concentrations among Upper Midwest farm 

banks by percentiles. Identified on each percentile series are the concentration ratios at the 

beginning and end of the farming boom, the peak value during the boom, and finally, the 

2020 value. Farm bank agricultural loan concentration ratios rose slightly from the start of 

the farm income boom to the peak and then generally retreated by the end of the boom.

Farm Banks in Upper Midwest States Maintained Steady Capital Concentrations of

Agricultural Loans During the Farm Income Boom

Source: FDIC.

Note: Data are fourth quarter figures through 2020. Capital concentration ratios are calculated as total agricultural loans divided by total qualifying 

capital. Upper Midwest states are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,

and Wisconsin.

0

100

200

300

400

500

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020

10th Percentile 25th Percentile 50th Percentile 75th Percentile 90th Percentile

Percent Farm Income Boom

123.5 129.7 121.9 127.7

171.4 182.5 171.1 174.3

242.3 255.5 241.9 247.9

335.7 340.3 338.6 340.0

433.8 463.4 454.3 429.6

Chart 18

Agricultural concentration ratios remained subdued partly because farmers were increasingly self-financing during the good times. But just as important was farm bankers’ 

cautious approach to underwriting. At agricultural banker outreach meetings conducted 

by the FDIC over the past 15 years, farm lenders commonly told regulators they were wary 

of repeating the aggressive lending that occurred during the 1970s farm boom; instead, 

they were showing restraint in lending for expansion against rapidly increasing farmland 

values. To insulate themselves from a possible crash in farmland values, lenders commonly 

described how they lowered loan-to-value policy limits on farm real estate loans or even 

placed hard-dollar limits on the amount of funds they would lend per acre of farmland, 

regardless of how high farmland values climbed.

The Post-Boom Period Has Begun to Weigh on Agricultural Loan Quality, 

but Carryover Debt Has Masked the Stress

Agricultural credit quality at farm banks steadily improved during the decades following 

the aftermath of the 1980s agricultural crisis. Shares of farm banks reporting agricultural 

delinquencies and charged-off agricultural loans both declined, and farm banks with 

delinquencies and charge-offs reported fewer of them.29 By the time the farm income boom 

began in 2004, agricultural credit quality was already strong, but the boom drove delinquency and charge-off metrics to historic lows.30 Agricultural credit delinquencies and 

charge-offs have since edged higher, echoing the ongoing stress in the agricultural sector 

described earlier, but they generally remain at or below levels seen immediately before 

the boom (Chart 19). These trends are not unique to the commercial farm bank sector. The 

29 Bank reporting of delinquent and charged-off agricultural loans began in 1984 for agricultural production loans and 

1991 for loans secured by farmland. As a result, any calculated delinquency or charge-off ratio for total agricultural loans 

(production plus farmland-secured) before 1991 will be understated.

30 The share of farm banks reporting delinquent agricultural loans fell to 57 percent in first quarter 2013 from 78 percent 

a decade earlier. There is considerable seasonality in agricultural loan data. As a result, historical analysis is best done 

by same-period comparisons. Delinquencies typically are highest in the first quarter as bankers and borrowers work 

through results of the previous harvest season. Charge-offs typically spike in the fourth quarter.
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 47

Farm Credit System has seen similar trends in its aggregate loan portfolio.31 Where more 

significant increases in delinquent loans have occurred is in the “tail” of agricultural 

banks—those at the 90th percentile of delinquencies. The March 31, 2020 90th-percentile 

delinquency ratio of 7.3 percent among Upper Midwest banks was the highest first quarter 

figure since 2003.

Agricultural Loan Delinquencies and Charge-O	s Have Risen in Recent Years but 

Remain Low by Historical Measures

Source: FDIC.

Note: Agricultural loan delinquency ratios at farm banks typically spike in the first quarter while agricultural loan charge-os typically spike in the 

fourth quarter. As a result, the data shown is first-quarter delinquency ratios and fourth-quarter net charge-o ratios from 1985 through 2020. 

Upper Midwest states are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Ratio

Percent Farm Income Boom Farm Income Boom

Ratio

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Past-Due and Nonaccrual Agricultural Loan Ratios at

Farm Banks Reporting Delinquent Agricultural Loans

Net Charged-O Agricultural Loan Ratios at Farm Banks

Reporting Net Charged-O Agricultural Loans

0

2

4

6

8

10

Upper Midwest States (90th Percentile) Upper Midwest States (Median) All Other States (90th Percentile) All Other States (Median)

90th Percentiles

Medians

90th Percentiles

Medians

Chart 19

Reported delinquency ratios may not fully reflect loan repayment weaknesses. Because 

of the variability in agricultural production factors beyond producers’ control, such as 

weather conditions, crop yields, and commodity prices, it is not unusual in any given 

season that some farmers cannot repay their debt obligations. In these cases, it is common 

for farm lenders to “carry over” the remaining debt into the next year if the farmer has the 

collateral (usually farmland equity) to support the new loan.32 Since these unpaid balances 

are carried over into new loans, they are not reflected in delinquent-loan figures on bank 

financial reports.

When the agricultural sector turns downward, as it did after the farm income boom, this 

carryover practice can occur for several years until there is a positive outcome (farm 

returns improve so that the carryover debt is extinguished) or a negative one (the farmer 

runs out of equity to support increasing carryover debt). Therefore, the level of agricultural 

credit delinquencies may not reflect weaknesses in the sector for some time.

In this post-boom period, the lag in reported credit stress may be longer than usual. Farmers had high working capital coming out of the boom (Chart 6), and those with cash-flow 

issues in subsequent years likely tapped into those reserves to help cover shortfalls. When 

working capital no longer covered operating shortfalls, most farmers used their improved 

farmland equity positions to secure carryover debt. Many farmers now use that farmland 

equity to rebalance debt loads into more manageable repayment cash flows.

Although banks do not report specific levels of carryover debt, FDIC bank examiners have 

noted increasing carryover debt at farm bank examinations, and industry participants 

have discussed the trend at meetings with regulators. Recent quarterly agricultural credit 

condition data from the Federal Reserve Banks of Chicago, Kansas City, Minneapolis, 

and St. Louis noted continued weakness in loan repayment rates and higher renewal and 

31 Steven Koenig and Hal Johnson, “Quarterly Report on FCS Condition,” Farm Credit Administration, December 10, 2020, 

https://www.fca.gov/template-fca/about/2020DecQuarterlyReportonFCSCondition.pdf.

32 Carryover debt is extended at normal interest rates and terms and with firm expectation of full repayment. Carryover 

debt is not considered abnormal, and though it may be a precursor to problems, it does not in itself indicate a problem 

credit. It should not be confused with troubled debt restructurings, which involve impaired credits that have been given 

some form of concession.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

48 FDIC QUARTERLY

extension rates among surveyed bankers, a pattern seen since late 2013.33 These Federal 

Reserve Banks cover most of the Upper Midwest.

The ability to carry over debt likely has kept credit problems at bay for many struggling 

farm borrowers, but debt carryover cannot continue indefinitely. Increasing debt balances 

eventually strain debt-servicing ability and collateral protection margins. Once restructuring capacity is exhausted, problems can escalate quickly, as was the case during the 

agricultural crisis of the 1980s. Farm income had been sliding throughout the latter half 

of the 1970s, but it was not until the mid-1980s that problems became widely evident.34 As 

Chart 20 shows, farm real estate values began to decline significantly in 1982 in response to 

weaknesses in the agricultural sector. Farmers could restructure their loans for a few years, 

but as farmland values continued to fall and loan balances continued to rise, past-due and 

nonaccrual agricultural production loans spiked in 1986 when carryover debt capacity 

reached its limits for many borrowers.35

Substantial Loan Delinquencies Lagged the Drop in Farm Income by Several Years

Sources: FDIC; U.S. Department of Agriculture (Haver Analytics).

Note: Past-due and nonaccrual ratios are first quarter data. Farm real estate values and net farm income are inflation-adjusted annual figures.

Median Percent Index (1970=100)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990

0

50

100

150

200

250

Median Past-Due and Nonaccrual Production Loan Ratio (Le Axis)

Average U.S. Farm Real Estate Value (Right Axis)

U.S. Net Farm Income (Right Axis)

Chart 20

The benefit that resilient farm real estate values have provided in agriculture lending today 

is significant. Land values have provided the capacity for operating loan restructuring 

over the past few years. But the concern is that carryover debt capacity may be reaching its 

end for some borrowers who continue to experience operating shortfalls, especially those 

who are highly leveraged. At some point, financially stressed borrowers could place much 

greater quantities of land on the market, outpacing demand and causing prices to decline 

rapidly. In such a scenario, the equity positions of farmers—and therefore their restructuring capacity—would be adversely affected.

Looking Ahead: Ongoing Concern for Highly Leveraged Farmers

Overall, farmers and their lenders remain financially sound despite weaknesses in 

commodity prices and farm incomes that began in 2014. Strong working capital positions 

helped farmers for a few years. Since then, strong equity levels have allowed operating 

losses to be carried over to subsequent years in hopes that rising farm incomes will cure 

the accumulated shortfalls. A strong 2020, with higher commodity prices late in the year, 

33 Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City/ag credit survey data/historical data https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/

indicatorsdata/agfinancedatabook. Combined, quarterly reports from these four Federal Reserve Banks include all of the 

Upper Midwest states except Ohio.

34 For a fuller description of carryover debt’s “lag effect” on delinquencies, see John Anderlik and Jeffrey Walser, 

“Agricultural Sector Under Stress: The 1980s and Today,” FDIC Regional Outlook (Third Quarter 1999): 18–26, 

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/regional/k3q1999.pdf.

35 Banks did not report farmland-secured loan delinquencies and charge-offs before 1991.
FARM BANKS: RESILIENCE THROUGH CHANGING CONDITIONS

FDIC QUARTERLY 49

improved exports, and record-high governmental support, boosted the sector overall. And 

the USDA’s 2021 forecast suggests a continuation of the positive trends.

Highly leveraged farmers, however, face greater challenges in the near term than those 

with continued strong equity positions. These borrowers have continued to struggle despite 

improving U.S. net farm income over the past three years, and it is unclear whether the 

strong results in 2020 have provided enough income to mitigate their struggles. How such 

borrowers react—or are forced to react—if they reach the end of their ability to restructure 

loans is the most important issue we will continue to monitor.

Richard D. Cofer Jr.

Kansas City Regional Manager

Division of Insurance and Research

John M. Anderlik

Assistant Director, National and Regional Risk Analysis

Division of Insurance and Research

FDIC QUARTERLY 51

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

Introduction The 2020 Summary of Deposits (SOD) Survey showed a 21.7 percent increase in deposits, 

the largest one-year percentage increase in nearly 80 years.1 The increase in deposits held 

by FDIC-insured institutions from June 2019 to June 2020 occurred primarily in the first 

two quarters of 2020, and was likely driven by reactions of individuals, businesses, and U.S. 

fiscal and monetary authorities to the COVID-19 pandemic.2

The survey also showed a decrease in the number of offices of FDIC-insured institutions. The number of bank offices declined nationwide between June 2019 and June 2020, 

continuing an 11-year trend, but the rate of decline was lower in 2020 than in the three 

previous years. The lower rate of decline in the number of offices was influenced by both 

a relatively high rate of office openings and a relatively low rate of office closures. The 

number of offices declined across all three county types—metropolitan, micropolitan, and 

rural—and the rate of decline was fastest among offices in metropolitan counties.

Total Deposits Grew 

at a Record Rate

Total deposits increased 21.7 percent, from $12.77 trillion to $15.54 trillion, between June 

2019 and June 2020 (Chart 1). This one-year rate of deposit growth was the highest in 

77 years. In the year ending June 30, 2020, the rate of deposit growth increased for community banks and noncommunity banks, for small, midsize, and large banks, for banks located 

in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties, and for all but one lending specialization.

The additional funds that individuals and businesses received from programs that 

were implemented in the first half of 2020 to alleviate financial hardship caused by the 

pandemic, paired with economic uncertainty resulting from the pandemic, drove individuals and businesses to save more, leading to the sharp increase in bank deposits.3 Actions 

by U.S. fiscal and monetary authorities included the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment 

Compensation Program, the U.S. Small Business Administration Paycheck Protection 

Program, the Federal Reserve Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility, Economic 

Impact Payments (coronavirus stimulus checks), and aggressive interest rate cuts by the 

Federal Reserve. Additionally, the Federal Reserve purchased U.S. Treasury securities, 

mortgage-backed securities, and other financial instruments to support the flow of credit 

to U.S. households and businesses and to promote financial stability.4

1 “Deposits” refers to deposits in offices of FDIC-insured institutions in the United States, U.S. territories, and 

possessions. U.S. offices of foreign institutions and their deposits are not included. The FDIC’s 2020 Annual Report 

shows growth in domestic deposits of 26.2 percent in 1942, 24.2 percent in 1943, and 46 percent in 1989, all of which are 

higher than the 21.7 percent deposit growth reported in the 2020 SOD survey. The high growth in 1989 is the result of 

the fact that 1989 was the first year in which deposits of institutions covered under both the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) 

and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) were included in the domestic deposit totals shown in the Annual 

Report. According to FDIC Call Report data, if institutions covered under both the BIF and the SAIF are included in the 

sum of total domestic deposits in 1988, deposit growth in 1989 would be much lower at 2.9 percent. Given that growth in 

domestic deposits in 1989 was driven by this change in how deposit totals were reported, 1943 is the most recent year in 

which deposit growth was higher than the growth shown in the 2020 SOD survey. Importantly, the Annual Report shows 

deposit totals as of December 31 of each year while the SOD survey reports deposit totals as of June 30 of each year, so 

year-over-year growth rates calculated based on these two sources would be similar but not identical. See FDIC Annual 

Report 2020: 138-140, https://www.fdic.gov/about/financial-reports/reports/2020annualreport/2020ar-final.pdf.

2 FDIC Call Report data from 2019 and 2020 show that domestic deposits of FDIC-insured institutions increased about 

1.8 percent in both the third and fourth quarters of 2019, by 8.2 percent in the first quarter of 2020, and 8.5 percent in the 

second quarter of 2020.

3 Total personal income increased in the second quarter of 2020, despite a decrease in employment income, because 

of increased government transfer payments. Savings as a percentage of disposable personal income increased from 

7.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2019 to 26 percent in the second quarter of 2020. See U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, “Personal Income and Outlays, November 2020,” news release no. BEA 20-68, December 23, 2020, 

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/pi1120.pdf.

4 See Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act: H.R. 748 Section 2107; Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act: H.R. 748 Section 1102; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Paycheck Protection Program 

Liquidity Facility,” https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/ppplf.htm; U.S. Department of the Treasury, 

“Treasury, IRS Announce Delivery of 159 Million Economic Impact Payments,” June 3, 2020, https://home.treasury.

gov/news/press-releases/sm1025; Jane Ihrig, Gretchen Weinbach, and Scott Wolla, “How the Fed Has Responded to the 

COVID-19 Pandemic,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, August 12, 2020, https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2020/

august/fed-response-covid19-pandemic; and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Federal Reserve 

Announces Extensive New Measures to Support the Economy,” March 3, 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/

newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20200323b.htm.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

52 FDIC QUARTERLY

Both community and noncommunity banks reported high deposit growth rates in the year 

ended June 30, 2020 (Table 1). On both a merger-adjusted basis and a non-merger-adjusted 

basis, deposits increased faster at noncommunity banks than at community banks.5

Noncommunity banks reported year-over-year merger-adjusted growth of 22.6 percent, 

while community banks reported 16.5 percent growth.6

From 2019 to 2020, deposits at community banks increased much more on a mergeradjusted basis than on a non-merger-adjusted basis. Merger adjustment is a way of 

measuring the “organic growth” of a cohort of institutions—the portion of growth not 

attributable to mergers. In this case, the merger-adjusted deposit growth of community banks reflects changes in deposits over the previous year of the community banks 

that existed as of June 30, 2020. Non-merger-adjusted growth, by contrast, compares the 

performance of the 4,874 community banks that existed as of June 30, 2019, to that of the 

4,624 community banks that existed as of June 30, 2020.

Deposit Growth Rates Increased More for Community Banks on a Merger-Adjusted Basis Than a Non-Merger-Adjusted Basis

Category

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Noncommunity Banks 5.6 6.3 4.9 3.7 4.0 22.6

Community Banks 4.4 5.2 6.2 4.8 5.3 16.5

All Banks 5.5 6.1 5.1 3.9 4.2 21.7

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Not Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Noncommunity Banks 5.9 6.6 5.5 4.3 4.5 23.9

Community Banks 2.7 2.5 2.9 0.9 2.2 8.9

All Banks 5.4 5.9 5.1 3.8 4.2 21.7

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 1

5 In this article, merger-adjusted performance measures the performance of the cohort of institutions as of June 30, 

2020. Merger-adjusted performance of institutions segregated by asset size, lending specialization, and community 

banks versus noncommunity banks all measure the performance of institutions that belonged to each cohort as of 

June 30, 2020.

6 Community banks are identified using criteria in the FDIC Community Banking Study, December 2012:1-2, 

https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/cbi/report/cbi-full.pdf.

Total Deposits Increased at a Record Rate From 2019 to 2020

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2005 to June 2020.

Dollars 

(Trillions) Percent Total Deposits (Le Axis)

Percent Change From the Previous Year (Right Axis)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2005 2010 2015 2020

0

5

10

15

20

25

Chart 1

Noncommunity Bank 

Deposits Increased 

Faster Than Community 

Bank Deposits
FDIC QUARTERLY 53

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

The fact that deposits of community banks grew more slowly on a non-merger-adjusted 

basis than on a merger-adjusted basis indicates that some community banks either were 

redesignated as noncommunity banks or were acquired by noncommunity banks.7 During 

the year ended June 30, 2020, noncommunity banks acquired 57 community banks, while 

community banks did not acquire any noncommunity banks. Further, 33 community banks 

were redesignated as noncommunity banks, while only 6 noncommunity banks were 

redesignated as community banks. In the same period, 161 community banks acquired 

another community bank, and 14 noncommunity banks acquired another noncommunity 

bank. In short, over this period it was more common for community banks to be acquired 

by or be redesignated as noncommunity banks than it was for noncommunity banks to 

be acquired by or be redesignated as community banks. As a result, deposits moved from 

community banks to noncommunity banks. Therefore, non-merger-adjusted deposit 

growth of community banks is less than merger-adjusted growth.

Noncommunity bank deposit growth was similar on a merger-adjusted and non-mergeradjusted basis every year from 2015 to 2020. Over this time, few community banks acquired 

noncommunity banks and few noncommunity banks were redesignated as community 

banks, so mergers and redesignations had less impact on deposit growth for noncommunity banks than for community banks.8

Large Banks Continue to 

Increase Deposits and 

Gain Market Share

On a merger-adjusted basis, total deposits have increased over the past five years for 

each of the bank asset-size groups in Table 2. From 2015 to 2020, deposits increased on a 

merger-adjusted basis the most for midsize banks—47.6 percent—followed by large banks 

at 46.7 percent and small banks at 46.4 percent.9

The difference between the non-merger-adjusted increase and the merger-adjusted 

increase in deposits for large banks from 2019 to 2020 is heavily influenced by two midsize 

banks merging to form one large bank, thereby shifting their deposits from the midsize 

bank category to the large bank category (Table 2). This merger also accounted for a large 

part of the difference between the non-merger-adjusted gain in market share by large 

banks and the merger-adjusted gain in market share by large banks, shown in Table 3, as 

well as the difference between the non-merger-adjusted and merger-adjusted reduction in 

market share for midsize banks.

Meanwhile, small banks consistently lost market share from 2015 to 2020 on a nonmerger-adjusted basis but have maintained a fairly consistent market share on a mergeradjusted basis. Large and midsize bank market shares have fluctuated over the same period. 

The merger-adjusted versus non-merger-adjusted results for large and midsize banks 

indicate that banks transferred into and out of these asset size categories from year to year 

because of organic deposit growth or through mergers and acquisitions.

7 “Redesignation” refers to a change in the designation of a community or a noncommunity bank that the FDIC uses for 

research purposes as noted in footnote 6. For an explanation of the reasons for and process of merger adjusting bank 

data, see Eric C. Breitenstein and Derek K. Thieme, “Merger Adjusting Bank Data: A Primer,” FDIC Quarterly 13, no. 1 

(2019):31-49, https://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/quarterly/2019-vol13-1/fdic-v13n1-4q2018.pdf.

8 The tendency of community banks to be acquired by or be redesignated as noncommunity banks at higher rates was 

evident from 2015 to 2020. Over that period, noncommunity banks acquired 320 community banks and community 

banks acquired six noncommunity banks. Further, 130 community banks were redesignated as noncommunity banks, 

while 33 noncommunity banks were redesignated as community banks. Meanwhile, 808 community banks were 

acquired by other community banks, and 110 noncommunity banks were acquired by other noncommunity banks.

9 For this article “midsize banks” refers to banks with total assets between $10 billion and $250 billion. “Small banks” 

have total assets less than $10 billion, and “large banks” have total assets greater than $250 billion.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

54 FDIC QUARTERLY

On a merger-adjusted basis, deposits increased from 2019 to 2020 for banks in all lending 

specializations (see Table 4 for definitions of lending specializations). Deposits increased 

the most—31.3 percent—for banks with a mortgage specialization, followed by banks 

with an international specialization (27.9 percent) and a consumer lending specialization 

(27.0 percent), as shown in Table 5.

If an acquisition results in a change in portfolio composition, the resulting organization 

may no longer meet the concentration thresholds defining a lending specialization category, without any underlying change in its lending volumes or strategies. Accordingly, the 

merger-adjusted data in Table 5 better reflects deposit growth by lending specialty.

Total Deposits Increased More for Large Banks on a Non-Merger-Adjusted Basis Than a Merger-Adjusted Basis

Bank Asset Size

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2015 to 2020

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Large: Assets More Than $250B 4.3 5.3 5.6 3.0 2.9 24.5 46.7

Midsize: Assets $10B to $250B 8.6 7.7 3.6 4.8 5.6 19.6 47.6

Small: Assets Less Than $10B 3.4 5.8 6.3 5.0 5.6 17.5 46.4

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Not Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Large: Assets More Than $250B 10.9 8.8 4.7 2.0 3.9 41.2 70.3

Midsize: Assets $10B to $250B 0.2 4.3 8.5 10.5 7.0 3.1 37.9

Small: Assets Less Than $10B 2.9 2.4 0.8 -3.0 -0.4 10.8 10.5

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 2

Large Banks Gain Deposit Market Share While Small Banks Continue to Lose Market Share

Bank Asset Size

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Share of Total Domestic Deposits, Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Large: Assets More Than $250B 52.5 52.1 52.3 51.9 51.2 52.4

Midsize: Assets $10B to $250B 30.8 31.2 30.8 31.1 31.5 30.9

Small: Assets Less Than $10B 16.7 16.7 16.9 17.1 17.3 16.7

Share of Total Domestic Deposits, Not Merger Adjusted (Percent)

Large: Assets More Than $250B 45.0 46.2 46.1 45.3 45.2 52.4

Midsize: Assets $10B to $250B 32.8 32.4 33.4 35.5 36.5 30.9

Small: Assets Less Than $10B 22.1 21.4 20.5 19.2 18.3 16.7

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 3

Deposits Increased Across 

All Lending Specializations
FDIC QUARTERLY 55

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

Asset Characteristics of Banks With Lending Specializations

Lending Specialization Asset Characteristics

International Assets exceed $10 billion. More than 25 percent of total assets are in foreign offices.

Agricultural Agricultural production loans, added to real estate loans that are secured by farmland, exceed 

25 percent of total loans and leases.

Credit Card The total of credit card loans and securitized receivables exceeds 50 percent of total assets plus 

securitized receivables.

Commercial Lending The total of commercial and industrial loans, real estate construction and development loans, and 

loans secured by commercial real estate properties exceeds 25 percent of total assets.

Mortgage Lending The total of residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities exceeds 50 percent of total assets.

Consumer Lending The total of residential mortgage loans, credit card loans, and other loans to individuals exceeds 

50 percent of total assets.

Other Specialized < $1 Billion Assets are less than $1 billion. Loans and leases are less than 40 percent of total assets.

All Other < $1 Billion Assets are less than $1 billion, and the institution does not meet any of the definitions above. There is 

significant lending activity with no identified asset concentrations.

All Other > $1 Billion Assets are greater than $1 billion, and the institution does not meet any of the definitions above. There 

is significant lending activity with no identified asset concentrations.

Source: FDIC Statistics on Depository Institutions Glossary.

Note: Groups are hierarchical and mutually exclusive.

Table 4

Total Deposits Increased for Every Lending Specialization on a Merger-Adjusted Basis

Lending Specialization

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Merger Adjusted (Percent)

International Specialization 4.6 3.4 3.9 1.9 2.3 27.9

Agricultural Specialization 2.3 2.7 3.8 3.9 2.8 13.1

Credit Card Specialization 27.0 14.9 7.9 10.7 10.6 3.7

Commercial Lending Specialization 6.1 5.9 4.9 3.9 5.1 18.9

Mortgage Lending Specialization 9.6 12.8 12.2 12.2 3.0 31.3

Consumer Lending Specialization 6.0 18.6 -5.2 4.9 9.1 27.0

Other Specialized < $1 Billion 2.9 3.4 3.1 2.2 1.6 15.8

All Other < $1 Billion 2.2 2.9 3.2 1.2 1.8 13.0

All Other > $1 Billion 4.0 6.8 5.4 3.7 3.7 22.9

Year-Over-Year Deposit Growth, Not Merger Adjusted (Percent)

International Specialization 3.4 8.3 7.3 1.9 4.4 27.9

Agricultural Specialization 2.5 4.5 3.8 1.9 1.6 -3.2

Credit Card Specialization -15.2 0.6 -3.1 31.5 -4.3 0.0

Commercial Lending Specialization 3.4 15.1 0.2 4.3 6.3 17.5

Mortgage Lending Specialization -1.1 -6.6 -9.8 -2.2 -0.5 92.8

Consumer Lending Specialization -14.1 15.1 26.1 -18.5 3.1 -40.7

Other Specialized < $1 Billion -5.6 -6.5 -13.2 -19.6 -5.4 1.0

All Other < $1 Billion -11.6 -14.8 -6.6 -16.4 -7.7 14.6

All Other > $1 Billion 13.5 -3.1 11.7 4.7 3.1 25.0

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 5
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

56 FDIC QUARTERLY

As shown in Table 6, total deposits have increased for bank offices in all three county 

types—metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural.10 Table 6 also shows that an overwhelming 

majority of deposits—roughly $14.53 trillion (93.5 percent) out of $15.54 trillion—are held 

by bank offices in metropolitan counties. The share of total domestic deposits in metropolitan counties ranged from 92.4 percent in 2015 to the five-year high of 93.5 percent in 2020. 

Not surprisingly, bank offices in metropolitan counties accounted for most of the increase 

in domestic deposits in the United States.

Metropolitan counties had the most pronounced increase in total deposits in 2020—

22.3 percent year-over-year. Between 2015 and 2019, the year-over-year percentage change 

in total deposits in metropolitan counties ranged from 3.9 percent to 6.2 percent.

Total deposits in micropolitan counties also grew rapidly in 2020. Micropolitan county 

year-over-year percentage increases in total deposits ranged from 2.3 percent to 3.4 percent 

between 2015 and 2019, but deposits increased 15.3 percent in 2020. The share of domestic 

deposits in micropolitan counties declined from 4.3 percent in 2015 to 3.8 percent in 2020.

Total deposits increased the least in rural counties: 22.6 percent between 2015 and 2020, 

compared with a 48.1 percent increase in metropolitan counties and a 28.6 percent increase 

in micropolitan counties. Between 2015 and 2019, rural counties’ year-over-year percentage 

change in total deposits ranged from 1.4 percent to 3.1 percent, but in 2020, total deposits 

in rural counties increased 11.6 percent. The percentage increase in deposits in rural counties was less than the percentage increase in metropolitan and micropolitan counties, and 

consequently the share of total domestic deposits in rural counties declined slightly, from 

3 percent in 2019 to 2.7 percent in 2020. The share of domestic deposits in rural offices 

declined slightly each year from 2015 to 2020, from 3.2 percent in 2015 to 2.7 percent in 2020.

Total Deposits and Year-Over-Year Percent Change Increased for Every County Type

County Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Percent Change 

2015 to 2020

Metropolitan

Total Domestic 

Deposits 

($ Thousands)

9,811,277,966 10,421,196,119 10,965,395,803 11,395,933,075 11,881,610,748 14,532,213,568 48.1%

Year-Over-Year 

Percent Change – 6.2% 5.2% 3.9% 4.3% 22.3% –

Micropolitan

Total Domestic 

Deposits 

($ Thousands)

458,714,275 470,798,099 486,877,782 498,100,344 511,496,980 589,863,257 28.6%

Year-Over-Year 

Percent Change – 2.6% 3.4% 2.3% 2.7% 15.3% –

Rural

Total Domestic 

Deposits 

($ Thousands)

344,784,355 349,564,466 360,270,967 368,324,735 378,823,452 422,618,792 22.6%

Year-Over-Year 

Percent Change – 1.4% 3.1% 2.2% 2.9% 11.6% –

All

Total Domestic 

Deposits 

($ Thousands)

10,614,776,596 11,241,558,684 11,812,544,552 12,262,358,154 12,771,931,180 15,544,695,617 46.4%

Year-Over-Year 

Percent Change – 5.9% 5.1% 3.8% 4.2% 21.7% –

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 6

10 Counties are labeled metropolitan, micropolitan, or rural depending on whether they are in areas designated by the U.S. 

Census Bureau as metropolitan statistical areas or as micropolitan statistical areas. Metropolitan statistical areas have 

a core urban area with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Micropolitan statistical areas have urban clusters with 10,000 to 

50,000 inhabitants. All other areas are considered rural.

Metropolitan 

Domestic Deposits 

Lead Deposit Surge
FDIC QUARTERLY 57

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

Average Deposits of 

FDIC-Insured Institutions 

and Offices Increased

The number of FDIC-insured institutions decreased from 5,303 to 5,066 between June 

2019 and June 2020, and the number of offices decreased from 86,382 to 85,040. Average 

deposits per institution and office increased from 2019 to 2020 at higher rates than they 

did from 2018 to 2019. From 2015 to 2020, the number of FDIC-insured institutions declined 

20.2 percent while the number of offices declined 8.8 percent. These declines increased the 

average number of offices per institution from 14.7 offices in 2015 to 16.8 offices in 2020 

(Table 7). Similarly, the number of institutions declined at a higher rate than the number 

of offices from 2019 to 2020. As a result, deposits per institution increased at a higher rate 

than did deposits per office.

From 2015 to 2019, average deposits per office increased at an average rate of 6.8 percent, 

and in 2020 average deposits per office increased 23.6 percent. The average annual increase 

in deposits per institution from 2015 to 2019 was 9.6 percent, and in 2020 average deposits per institution increased 27.4 percent. Average deposits per institution in 2020 was 

$3.1 billion, and average deposits per office was $182.8 million (Table 7).

Deposits per Institution and Office Increased in 2020

Year

Number of 

Institutions

Number of 

Offices

Offices per 

Institution

Total Deposits 

($ Thousands)

Deposits 

per Institution 

($ Thousands)

Deposits 

per Office 

($ Thousands)

2015 6,348 93,262 14.7 10,614,776,596 1,672,145 113,817

2016 6,058 91,824 15.2 11,241,558,684 1,855,655 122,425

2017 5,787 89,839 15.5 11,812,544,552 2,041,221 131,486

2018 5,541 88,065 15.9 12,262,358,154 2,213,023 139,242

2019 5,303 86,382 16.3 12,771,931,180 2,408,435 147,854

2020 5,066 85,040 16.8 15,544,695,617 3,068,436 182,793

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 7

Using SOD Deposit Data for Geographic Research Requires Caution

The Summary of Deposits (SOD) is a unique source of information about the number and physical locations of the tens of 

thousands of bank offices across the United States. The SOD data also include a dollar amount of deposits for each bank 

office. Methods used by banks for attributing deposits to bank offices may differ considerably from bank to bank, as 

described below. Accordingly, researchers should be cautious about using SOD data to draw firm conclusions about the 

geographical distribution of banking activity.

The full reporting instructions for the SOD can be found at https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/call/sod/2020-

06-sod-instructions.pdf.

The relevant reporting instructions are below.

Institutions should assign deposits to each office in a manner consistent with their existing internal record-keeping practices. The following are examples of procedures for assigning deposits to offices:

· Deposits are assigned to the office in closest proximity to the account holder’s address.

· Deposits are assigned to the office where the account is most active.

· Deposits are assigned to the office where the account was opened.

· Deposits are assigned to offices for branch manager compensation or similar purposes.

Other methods that logically reflect the deposit gathering activity of the financial institution’s branch offices may also 

be used. It is recognized that certain classes of deposits and deposits of certain types of customers may be assigned to a 

single office for reasons of convenience or efficiency. However, deposit allocations that diverge from the financial institution’s internal record-keeping systems and grossly misstate or distort the deposit gathering activity of an office should 

not be utilized.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

58 FDIC QUARTERLY

The number of offices of FDIC-insured institutions declined 1.6 percent between June 

2019 and June 2020, a slower rate than the past few years (Chart 2). The number of offices 

declined 2.7 percent among community banks and 0.9 percent among noncommunity banks. On a merger-adjusted basis, between 2019 and 2020, 471 banks (9.3 percent) 

increased their number of offices, 4,259 banks (84.1 percent) maintained the same 

number of offices, and 336 banks (6.6 percent) decreased their number of offices. Banks 

that increased their number of offices had a total increase of 668 offices, and banks that 

decreased their number of offices had a total decrease of 1,945 offices, for an aggregate net 

decrease of 1,277 offices on a merger-adjusted basis.11

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

2005 2010 2015 2020

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Total Oices Declined at a Slower Rate Than in Recent Years

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2005 to June 2020.

Oices Percent Total Oices (Le Axis)

Percent Change From the Previous Year (Right Axis)

Chart 2

As shown in Table 8, full-service brick-and-mortar offices represent almost 92 percent 

of all banking offices, and this office type accounted for most of the total decrease in the 

number of offices, with a net decrease of 977 offices in the 12 months ending June 30, 2020. 

Full-service brick-and-mortar offices had the lowest rate of decline (1.2 percent) among 

all office types. The rate of decline in full-service brick-and-mortar offices was the lowest 

since 2013, and the relatively low rate of decline in this office type drove the slower overall 

pace of decline in bank offices nationwide in 2020. The rate of decline in limited-service 

offices was only slightly lower than in 2019. Home banking and full-service retail office 

types declined at faster rates in 2020 than in 2019.12 The rate of decline in the number of 

full-service retail offices was the highest of all office types at 5.8 percent. Full-service 

retail offices represent a little less than 5 percent of bank offices.

11 The number of offices declined by 1,277 on a merger-adjusted basis and by 1,342 on a non-merger-adjusted basis. The 

difference is because 65 offices belonged to banks that were acquired by nonbanks between June 2019 and June 2020. 

Those offices could not be counted in merger-adjusted analysis since they could not be assigned to an acquiring bank in 

the 2020 SOD data.

12 The SOD survey collects information on the service type of each office:

∙ Full-service brick-and-mortar—locations owned or leased by a bank at which customers can open and close 

accounts, apply for loans, deposit and withdraw funds, and receive other banking services.

∙ Full-service retail—full-service offices in a retail facility such as a store or supermarket.

∙ Home banking—full-service offices that customers can access on a website or by telephone.

∙ Limited-service—offices that exist for the sole purpose of cashing payroll checks or conducting administrative 

services for the bank, or that accept deposits but do not provide any other services.

See pages 31-32 of the Summary of Deposits Reporting Instructions, https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/call/

sod/2020-06-sod-instructions.pdf.

The Number of Bank 

Offices Declined at a 

Slower Rate Than in 

Recent Years
FDIC QUARTERLY 59

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

The Low Rate of Decline in the Number of Full-Service Brick-and-Mortar Offices Drove the Overall Rate of 

Decline in the Number of Offices to a Four-Year Low

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Full-Service, Brick-and-Mortar 84,295 83,236 81,760 80,425 79,054 78,077

Change, number – -1,059 -1,476 -1,335 -1,371 -977

Change, percent – -1.3% -1.8% -1.6% -1.7% -1.2%

Full-Service, Retail 5,261 5,014 4,706 4,441 4,250 4,005

Change, number – -247 -308 -265 -191 -245

Change, percent – -4.7% -6.1% -5.6% -4.3% -5.8%

Full-Service, Home Banking* 179 179 189 192 194 190

Change, number – 0 10 3 2 -4

Change, percent – 0.0% 5.6% 1.6% 1.0% -2.1%

Limited-Service Offices 3,527 3,395 3,184 3,007 2,884 2,768

Change, number – -132 -211 -177 -123 -116

Change, percent – -3.7% -6.2% -5.6% -4.1% -4.0%

All Offices 93,262 91,824 89,839 88,065 86,382 85,040

Change, number – -1,438 -1,985 -1,774 -1,683 -1,342

Change, percent – -1.5% -2.2% -2.0% -1.9% -1.6%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

*Home banking offices are sometimes called “cyber offices” since they are typically accessed online.

Table 8

Office Closings Are 

Widespread Although 

Relatively Less Frequent 

in Rural Counties

As shown in Table 9, the total number of bank offices declined across all three county 

types—metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural. Table 9 also shows that an overwhelming majority of bank offices—roughly 67,000 out of 85,000—are in metropolitan counties. 

Between 2015 and 2020, the number of offices in metropolitan counties declined 9.3 percent 

and accounted for most of the total reduction in the number of offices in the United States.

The ongoing office reduction trend has been particularly pronounced for community banks 

in metropolitan counties, with a decrease of 3,322 in the past five years. While noncommunity banks operating in metropolitan counties reduced their number of offices by 

3,536, this amounted to a 6.7 percent decrease over the past five years, less than half the 

15.9 percent decrease for community banks.

The difference in office reduction rates between community banks and noncommunity 

banks in metropolitan counties is considerably different on a merger-adjusted basis. On 

a merger-adjusted basis, the number of community bank offices increased 4.1 percent 

from June 2015 to June 2020, while the number of noncommunity bank offices decreased 

13 percent. This result indicates that the declining number of community bank offices in 

metropolitan counties is heavily influenced by the relatively high rate at which community 

banks were acquired by, or redesignated as, noncommunity banks from 2015 to 2020.

The number of bank offices has declined the least in rural counties: 526 (5.9 percent) 

between 2015 and 2020. The number of community bank offices in rural counties declined 

5.6 percent, while the number of noncommunity bank offices in rural counties declined 

6.8 percent (Table 9). While the smallest decline in office numbers occurred in rural counties, office closures in rural counties are felt more keenly by those communities than are 

closures in metropolitan counties, since rural bank offices are fewer in number and often 

serve large geographic areas.13

13 For a discussion of closures of banking offices in rural areas, see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 

“Perspectives From Main Street: Bank Branch Access in Rural Communities,” November 2019, 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/bank-branch-access-in-rural-communities.pdf.
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

60 FDIC QUARTERLY

Most offices in rural counties (72.5 percent) and micropolitan counties (57.2 percent) are 

operated by community banks. Community banks have reduced their number of offices at 

slower rates than noncommunity banks in rural counties. Similarly, the five-year reduction 

rate in the number of bank offices in micropolitan counties is higher for noncommunity 

banks (9.5 percent) than for community banks (7.1 percent).

Although community banks have reduced their number of offices at a slower rate than 

noncommunity banks in micropolitan and rural counties, their share of offices in those 

counties remained fairly stable from 2015 to 2020. Community bank offices represented 

56.6 percent of offices in micropolitan counties in 2015, compared with 57.2 percent in 2020. 

Similarly, community bank offices represented 72.2 percent of offices in rural counties in 

2015, compared with 72.5 percent in 2020. Community banks continue to serve an essential 

purpose by providing banking services in less-populated counties and counties with few 

bank offices.

The Number of Banking Offices Declined for All Bank and County Types From 2015 to 2020

County Type Bank Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Percent 

Change 

2015 to 2020

Metropolitan

All Banks 74,058 72,889 71,213 69,731 68,301 67,200 -9.3%

Noncommunity Banks 53,158 52,749 51,887 50,985 50,127 49,622 -6.7%

Community Banks 20,900 20,140 19,326 18,746 18,174 17,578 -15.9%

Micropolitan

All Banks 10,290 10,129 9,931 9,755 9,592 9,452 -8.1%

Noncommunity Banks 4,463 4,365 4,309 4,204 4,076 4,041 -9.5%

Community Banks 5,827 5,764 5,622 5,551 5,516 5,411 -7.1%

Rural

All Banks 8,914 8,806 8,695 8,579 8,489 8,388 -5.9%

Noncommunity Banks 2,478 2,409 2,389 2,311 2,293 2,310 -6.8%

Community Banks 6,436 6,397 6,306 6,268 6,196 6,078 -5.6%

All

All Banks 93,262 91,824 89,839 88,065 86,382 85,040 -8.8%

Noncommunity Banks 60,099 59,523 58,585 57,500 56,496 55,973 -6.9%

Community Banks 33,163 32,301 31,254 30,565 29,886 29,067 -12.4%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 9

Office Closings Outpaced 

Office Openings in 

Metropolitan Areas

Over the past year, the number of bank office closings outpaced bank office openings in 

metropolitan counties (Table 9). Metropolitan counties had a net decrease of 1,101 bank 

offices between June 2019 and June 2020. In 2020, the New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJPA (New York City) metropolitan area had 4,916 bank offices, the most of any metropolitan 

area. It also led the United States in metropolitan area bank office openings (48) and office 

closings (261), for a net decrease of 213 bank offices. Most of the New York City metropolitan 

area’s net decrease in bank offices were in New York County, New York (34 offices), Bergen 

County, New Jersey (33), and Suffolk County, New York (23).

Five of the metropolitan areas with the highest number of office closures accounted for 

a higher share of total office closures than their share of total offices among all metropolitan areas nationwide: New York City; Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI (Chicago); 

Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA–NJ-DE–MD (Philadelphia); Phoenix-MesaChandler, AZ (Phoenix); and Cleveland-Elyria, OH (Cleveland). In each of these areas, the 

high number of closures was driven by just one or two institutions. For example, New 

York City accounted for 12 percent of office closings among all metropolitan areas nationwide and 7.3 percent of total offices in metropolitan areas nationwide as of June 30, 2020. 

Of the 42 banks that closed offices in New York City, two banks accounted for nearly half 

(46 percent) of the 261 office closures. Similarly, Chicago accounted for 6.5 percent of office 

closures in metropolitan areas and 3.7 percent of offices in metropolitan areas nationwide 
FDIC QUARTERLY 61

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

in 2020. While 22 banks closed offices in Chicago, one bank accounted for 34 percent of the 

closures. Philadelphia accounted for 3.2 percent of closures in metropolitan areas nationwide and 2.4 percent of offices in metropolitan areas in 2020. Nineteen banks closed offices 

in Philadelphia and one bank accounted for 32.8 percent of closures. Similarly, Phoenix 

accounted for 1.5 percent of closures in metropolitan areas nationwide and 1.1 percent 

of offices in metropolitan areas in 2020. Of the 11 banks that closed offices in Phoenix, 

two banks accounted for 54.5 percent of office closures. Finally, Cleveland accounted for 

1.3 percent of closures in metropolitan areas and 0.9 percent of offices in metropolitan areas 

in 2020. Eight banks closed offices in Cleveland, and one bank accounted for 51.7 percent of 

the closures.

As shown in Tables 10 and 11, eight metropolitan areas were in the top ten metropolitan 

areas for total office openings and were also in the top ten for total office closings. Four of 

the eight metropolitan areas reported a net gain of bank offices over the past year: DallasFort Worth-Arlington, TX (Dallas) (11); Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX (Houston) 

(6); Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH (Boston) (5); and Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (Washington, DC) (1). Office openings by a single bank drove 

the net gain in bank offices in three of these four metropolitan areas. A single bank opened 

10 (28.6 percent) of the 35 offices opened in Houston. In Boston, a single bank opened 

14 (38.9 percent) of the 36 offices opened, and in Washington, DC, a single bank opened 

23 (59 percent) of the 39 offices opened. By contrast, in Dallas no single bank accounted for 

more than 3 (7.3 percent) of the 41 total office openings.

The Dallas metropolitan area led the United States in net bank offices gained, with 11 bank 

offices: 41 office openings and 30 office closings. Dallas County, Texas, contributed to a net 

gain of 7 bank offices. In the Dallas metropolitan area, 23 banks had a net increase, 3 banks 

had no change, and 8 banks had a net decrease in their numbers of bank offices.

In the Houston metropolitan area, 15 banks had a net increase, 2 banks had no change, 

and 9 banks had a net decrease in their numbers of offices. In the Boston metropolitan 

area, 17 banks had a net increase, 2 banks had no change, and 10 banks had a net decrease 

in their numbers of offices. In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, 6 banks had a net 

increase, 1 bank had no change, and 13 banks had a net decrease in their numbers of offices.

New York City Leads the Metropolitan Areas With the 

Most Office Openings From 2019 to 2020

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Offices 

Opened

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 48

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 41

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 39

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 36

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 35

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 35

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GA 30

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 27

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 23

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 22

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2019 to June 2020.

Note: The metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) are based on the 2010 U.S. Census. 

These areas correspond to the state and county relationships as defined by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 10

New York City Leads the Metropolitan Areas With the Most 

Office Closings From 2019 to 2020

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Offices 

Closed

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 261

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 141

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 70

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 54

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 40

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 38

Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 33

Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 31

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 30

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 29

Cleveland-Elyria, OH 29

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2019 to June 2020.

Note: The metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) are based on the 2010 U.S. Census. 

These areas correspond to the state and county relationships as defined by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 11
2021   •   Volume 15  • Number 1

62 FDIC QUARTERLY

As discussed earlier, the rate of decline in the number of offices was lower in 2020 than in 

the three previous years because the rate of office openings was relatively high and the rate 

of closures was relatively low (Table 12). While the percentage decrease in the number of 

offices was lower in 2020 than in the previous three years, it was slightly higher than the 

average percentage decrease from 2010 to 2020 (1.4 percent).

A Higher Rate of Office Openings, and a Lower Rate of Office Closings, Contributed to the Lower Rate of Decline 

in the Number of Offices

2009 

to 

2010

2010 

to 

2011

2011 

to 

2012

2012 

to 

2013

2013 

to 

2014

2014 

to 

2015

2015 

to 

2016

2016 

to 

2017

2017 

to 

2018

2018 

to 

2019

2019 

to 

2020

Starting Number of Offices 99,540 98,510 98,184 97,331 96,330 94,715 93,262 91,824 89,839 88,065 86,382

Offices Opened 2,406 5,160 1,556 1,462 1,272 1,100 1,121 972 1,027 1,180 1,213

Percent Change in 

Office Count Due to 

Office Openings

2.4% 5.2% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4%

Offices Closed 3,436 5,486 2,409 2,463 2,887 2,553 2,559 2,957 2,801 2,863 2,555

Percent Change in 

Office Count Due to 

Office Closings

-3.5% -5.6% -2.5% -2.5% -3.0% -2.7% -2.7% -3.2% -3.1% -3.3% -3.0%

Net Change in Number of 

Offices -1,030 -326 -853 -1,001 -1,615 -1,453 -1,438 -1,985 -1,774 -1,683 -1,342

Percent Change in 

Number of Offices -1.0% -0.3% -0.9% -1.0% -1.7% -1.5% -1.5% -2.2% -2.0% -1.9% -1.6%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 12

One factor that influenced the lower rate of decline in the number of offices in 2020 

compared with previous years is that a smaller percentage of offices that were acquired 

through mergers subsequently closed. As shown in Table 13, 4.5 percent of offices that 

were acquired through mergers between June 2019 and June 2020 closed before June 30, 

2020. By comparison, from 2010 to 2019, 28,939 offices were acquired in mergers and 3,559 

(12.3 percent) of those offices closed before the next SOD filing. The average annual closure 

rate for offices acquired in a merger from 2010 to 2019 was 11.7 percent.

Offices Acquired in Mergers Closed at Lower Rates in 2020 Than in Previous Years

2009 

to 

2010

2010 

to 

2011

2011 

to 

2012

2012 

to 

2013

2013 

to 

2014

2014 

to 

2015

2015 

to 

2016

2016 

to 

2017

2017 

to 

2018

2018 

to 

2019

2019 

to 

2020

Number of Offices 

Acquired in Mergers 9,304 2,534 2,439 1,767 2,053 1,769 2,353 2,676 2,100 1,944 3,195

Number of Offices Acquired 

in Mergers That Closed 

Before the Next Summary 

of Deposits Filing

1,231 406 285 140 254 133 215 442 285 168 145

Percent Closed 13.2% 16.0% 11.7% 7.9% 12.4% 7.5% 9.1% 16.5% 13.6% 8.6% 4.5%

Source: FDIC Summary of Deposits, June 2015 to June 2020.

Table 13

The Rate of Decline in 

the Number of Offices 

Was Lower in 2020
FDIC QUARTERLY 63

2020 SUMMARY OF DEPOSITS HIGHLIGHTS

The rate of growth in total deposits of domestic offices of FDIC-insured institutions 

between June 2019 and June 2020 was the highest in nearly 80 years. This increase occurred 

primarily as a result of consumer, business, and fiscal and monetary policy responses 

to the coronavirus pandemic. Deposits increased for community banks and noncommunity banks; for small, midsize, and large banks; for banks with a wide variety of lending specializations; and for banks in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural counties. 

On a merger-adjusted basis, the largest increases in deposits occurred among offices of 

noncommunity banks and midsize banks, and among offices of banks with a mortgage, 

international, or consumer lending specialization. Offices in metropolitan counties had 

higher rates of deposit growth than offices in micropolitan or rural counties.

The trend of net decreases in the number of bank offices nationwide that began more than 

a decade earlier continued, albeit at a slower rate than in recent years, as fewer offices that 

were acquired through mergers closed before the next SOD survey. The number of community bank offices declined at a higher rate than the number of noncommunity bank offices 

from 2015 to 2020. This trend was driven by a reduction in the number of community bank 

offices in metropolitan counties. Decreases in the number of community bank offices have 

also been influenced by the tendency of community banks to be acquired by noncommunity 

banks or be redesignated as noncommunity banks at relatively high rates.

Community banks operate more offices than noncommunity banks in rural and micropolitan counties, and have closed offices at slower rates in those counties. The relatively large 

presence of community banks in rural and micropolitan counties reflects their important 

role in serving their local communities.

Authors:

Joseph R. Harris III

Economic Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

Caitlyn R. Kasper

Economic Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

Camille A. Keith

Economic Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

Derek K. Thieme

Financial Economist

Division of Insurance and Research

Conclusion