Bank lending capacity improved in the second quarter of 2026, but underwriting standards did not go anywhere. For SBA 7(a), SBA 504 and USDA Rural Development borrowers, a well-supported independent feasibility study is still one of the most important documents in a projection-based credit file.
Wert-Berater prepares independent, lender-grade feasibility studies for SBA 7(a), SBA 504 and USDA Rural Development financing. Since 1998 the firm has completed 3,969 feasibility studies representing approximately $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. Fixed fee, quoted before any work begins, never contingent on the finding.
By Donald Safranek, MSc · President, Wert-Berater, Inc. · Published August 25, 2026 · Updated August 25, 2026
On August 25, 2026 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published its Quarterly Banking Profile for the second quarter of 2026, drawing on reports from 4,238 insured commercial banks and savings institutions. The industry earned $90.1 billion, up $9.7 billion or 12.0% on the prior quarter, at a return on assets of 1.37%. Loans grew 1.8% in the quarter and 6.8% over the year, deposits rose for an eighth consecutive quarter, and both the past-due and nonaccrual rate and the net charge-off rate fell.
Read from the borrower's side of the table, that is a banking system with money to lend, funding to lend it with, and a loan book clean enough that it does not have to spend the quarter managing problems instead of writing new credits. It is a good environment in which to bring a project forward.
What it is not is a softer environment. Nothing in a profitable quarter changes what a credit committee has to document, what SBA's or USDA's programme requirements ask of a third-party report, or what a bank examiner will look at in eighteen months. In the files we are asked to review, the difference between an approval in weeks and a request for more information in months has almost nothing to do with the industry's return on assets and almost everything to do with whether the project's own numbers are evidenced.
Stronger banking-sector earnings mean banks have greater capacity to originate. They do not remove the requirement for project-level underwriting. A lender still has to satisfy itself that this specific business, property or development can generate enough sustainable cash flow to repay the proposed debt, and that question is answered by evidence about the project, not by the industry's return on assets.
On the SBA side the authority is discretionary and worth quoting precisely. 13 CFR §120.160(b) provides that SBA “may require professional appraisals of the applicant's and principals' assets, a survey, or a feasibility study.” It says may. There is no rule making a study automatic for every hotel, start-up or special-purpose property. In practice, lenders and Certified Development Companies frequently require independent feasibility analysis where repayment depends substantially on projections rather than operating history — start-ups, acquisitions, ground-up construction, expansions and special-purpose collateral — and the scope follows the transaction and the lender's own credit policy. Our SBA feasibility study requirements page sets out how that plays out under the SOP, and there is a fuller treatment for borrowers preparing for SBA underwriting.
USDA is more prescriptive, and the definition is in the regulation itself. Under 7 CFR §5001.3, a feasibility study means “a report including an opinion or finding conducted by an independent qualified consultant(s) evaluating the economic, market, technical, financial, and management feasibility of the proposed project or operation in terms of its expectation for success.” Five named dimensions, and an independence requirement written into the definition rather than left to the lender's discretion. Which new entities and new activities trigger the requirement is set by the applicable programme provisions — see USDA feasibility study requirements under 7 CFR Part 5001 and our enumeration of the 37 factors in Appendix A.
For borrowers, then, the Q2 2026 results are not a reason to prepare less documentation. They are a reason to enter the market with a stronger file. Greater lender capacity creates more opportunities for well-supported credits; a poorly documented projection can still delay or defeat an approval in any quarter.
The figures below are the FDIC's, as published in the second quarter 2026 Quarterly Banking Profile. Where the release stated a direction of travel rather than a level, that is what appears here.
| Measure | Second quarter 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Aggregate net income | $90.1 billion | +$9.7bn (+12.0%) vs Q1 |
| Return on assets | 1.37% | — |
| Community bank net income | — | +8.2% vs Q1 |
| Net interest margin | 3.32% | +1 basis point |
| Domestic deposits | — | +0.8%, eighth consecutive increase |
| Total loans | — | +1.8% vs Q1; +6.8% vs Q2 2025 |
| Past-due and nonaccrual rate | — | Declined |
| Net charge-off rate | — | Declined |
| Deposit Insurance Fund reserve ratio | 1.48% | +5 basis points |
| Reporting institutions | 4,238 | — |
| FDIC indicator | Second quarter 2026 | Borrower interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Bank net income | $90.1 billion | Capacity to lend is not the constraint this quarter |
| Return on assets | 1.37% | Profitability healthy enough to support new origination |
| Net interest margin | 3.32% | Thin spread — credit performance still has to be proved |
| Loan growth, year over year | +6.8% | Banks actively expanding their books across categories |
| Domestic deposits | +0.8% | Funding side supports continued lending |
| Asset quality | Improved | Credit staff freed to underwrite new business, not workouts |
FDIC figures: Quarterly Banking Profile, second quarter 2026. Borrower interpretation: Wert-Berater, Inc. Interpretations are the firm's own reading of the lending environment and are not attributable to the FDIC.
The single most useful line for a borrower is that loan growth was widespread, at 1.8% in the quarter and 6.8% over the year. Widespread growth means banks were adding credits across categories rather than concentrating in one product, and a bank that is growing its book is a bank whose lenders are being measured on origination volume.
Practically, that shows up in three ways. Loan officers return calls. Deals that would have been declined at the screening stage in a defensive quarter get a first look. And a sponsor with a credible project has more than one institution to approach, which matters more than the headline rate on the term sheet.
It also raises the cost of arriving unprepared. When a lender has pipeline, the file that is ready moves and the file that needs three rounds of clarification gets set aside for one that does not. Capacity rewards preparation; it does not substitute for it. That is the same argument we make about when in the process to commission the study — the answer is before the lender asks, not after.
Community bank net income rose 8.2% on the prior quarter, ahead of the industry's own trajectory in percentage terms. That segment matters to SBA and USDA borrowers out of proportion to its share of industry assets, because a great deal of guaranteed lending — SBA 7(a) and 504, USDA Business and Industry, Community Facilities, and the OneRD guaranteed programmes — is originated by banks of that size rather than by the largest institutions. In the credit files we review, the counterparty is far more often a regional or community lender than a money-centre bank.
A profitable quarter in that segment translates into capital capacity for exactly the kind of credit these programmes exist to support: owner-occupied real estate, rural manufacturing and processing, agricultural infrastructure, healthcare and community facilities. It also means the underwriters at those institutions are busy, which is the practical reason a complete third-party report earns disproportionate goodwill.
The net interest margin rose one basis point to 3.32%. That is the spread between what the industry pays for funding and what it earns on assets, and it is the number that explains lender behaviour better than the profit figure does.
At that spread, a loan that underperforms does not simply earn less — it consumes the margin on several loans that performed. This is why debt service coverage requirements are not treated as negotiable decoration, why guarantee structures matter, and why underwriters test whether coverage survives a bad year rather than whether it works in the base case. Our comparison of DSCR requirements across SBA, USDA and conventional programmes sets out where those thresholds typically sit and why they differ by programme.
The corollary for a feasibility study is specific: a coverage conclusion that holds only under the projection you hope for is not an answer to the question the credit committee is asking. A study should show what happens to coverage when revenue lands ten or twenty per cent below plan, when the construction schedule slips, and when interest costs move against the borrower — which is the discipline behind sensitivity analysis and interest rate stress testing.
Both the past-due and nonaccrual rate and the net charge-off rate declined in the quarter. It is tempting to read falling problem loans as a signal that credit standards will loosen. The more common institutional response is the opposite: clean books are the result of the standards a bank has been applying, and the internal incentive is to keep applying them while growth is available on those terms.
What improving asset quality does buy a borrower is attention. A workout department that is not overwhelmed frees credit staff to underwrite new business, and a bank not provisioning heavily against existing problems has more capital to deploy. Speed improves. The threshold does not.
Domestic deposits rose 0.8%, the eighth consecutive quarterly increase, and the Deposit Insurance Fund reserve ratio rose five basis points to 1.48%. Neither figure will appear in any loan document a borrower signs, but together they describe the funding side of the system: deposits are the raw material of bank lending, and a growing, stably insured deposit base is what allows loan growth to continue without a bank rationing credit to protect liquidity.
For a project sponsor, the honest translation is modest but real. Funding conditions were not the constraint in this quarter. If a project does not get financed in an environment like this one, the reason is very likely to be found inside the file rather than in the banking system.
Programme requirements are set by SBA and USDA, not by the earnings cycle. A quarter of strong results does not change the scope of what a third-party feasibility study must address, does not lower the standard of independence expected of whoever prepares it, and does not shorten the list of items a credit memorandum has to evidence.
Most rejections we see are failures on this list rather than failures of the project itself. We have written separately about why feasibility studies get rejected and what a lender-accepted report contains.
Aggregate banking data belongs in a feasibility study in exactly one place: describing the financing environment the project will be seeking capital in, with the source and the period named. It is context for the reader.
The same caution applies in the other direction. A weak quarter for banks would not have made a well-evidenced project unfinanceable, and this strong one does not make a thin file financeable. The industry cycle changes how many doors are open; the file determines what happens once you walk through one.
A feasibility study consultant should be evaluated on more than report length or delivery time. For lender- and agency-facing assignments the relevant questions are narrower: does the consultant understand the financing programme, do they have experience in the project's specific asset class, can they establish market demand independently, can they build and defend the financial model, and does their work survive lender or agency review without a second round.
For an SBA project, ask whether the firm regularly works with SBA 7(a) lenders and Certified Development Companies, whether it understands projection-based underwriting and special-purpose collateral, and whether market conclusions reconcile directly to the cash-flow model rather than sitting beside it. An independent SBA feasibility study consultant should be able to show you how a demand conclusion becomes a revenue line, and how that revenue line becomes a coverage ratio.
For a USDA project, the consultant should be able to explain the five feasibility components named in 7 CFR Part 5001 — economic, market, technical, financial and management feasibility — and show where each is addressed in the report. The regulation defines the study around those five dimensions and around an independent qualified consultant, so a report that quietly omits one of them is not organised the way the reviewer expects. That is the framework an independent USDA feasibility study consultant should work to for a USDA B&I feasibility study, a Community Facilities credit or a USDA OneRD feasibility study.
| Experience | Wert-Berater, Inc. |
|---|---|
| Feasibility studies completed | 3,969 |
| Project value evaluated | $41.2 billion |
| SBA studies accepted by lenders and CDCs | 1,283 |
| USDA studies reviewed in agency financing | 823 |
| Geographic coverage | All 50 states, and internationally |
| Standard delivery | 10–15 business days (RUSH available at additional cost) |
| Compensation | Fixed fee, quoted in advance; never contingent on the finding or the funding outcome |
Request an SBA or USDA feasibility study quote → · What a feasibility study costs · SBA 7(a) and SBA 504 feasibility study · USDA Rural Development feasibility study
All banking figures on this page are taken from the FDIC's press release of August 25, 2026 announcing the second quarter 2026 Quarterly Banking Profile, and are reported as published. Where the FDIC stated a percentage change or a direction of movement without a level, this page does the same rather than inferring a level. No figure here is a Wert-Berater estimate, projection or adjustment, and nothing on this page is a forecast of future banking conditions, interest rates or credit availability.
Primary sources. FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile · 13 CFR §120.160 · SBA SOP 50 10 · 7 CFR Part 5001 · USDA 7 CFR Part 5001. Regulatory language quoted on this page is quoted verbatim from the current text of the cited provision; readers should confirm against the source before relying on it, as agency guidance changes.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent feasibility study and valuation firm. It does not arrange, package or place financing, does not accept success fees or any fee contingent on a finding or a funding outcome, and expresses no opinion on whether any lender should approve any loan. Nothing on this page is financial, investment, legal or tax advice, and no part of it should be relied on as a conclusion about a specific project or a specific lender.
President, Wert-Berater, Inc. — independent feasibility study consultants since 1998. 3,969 feasibility studies completed across all 50 states and internationally, evaluating $41.2 billion in project value for SBA, USDA, EB-5, conventional, and institutional financing decisions. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and agency in every engagement.
+1 310-857-2443 ext. 800 · email · 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 · 111 Town Square Pl Ste 1238 PMB 657834, Jersey City, NJ 07310 · 539 W. Commerce St #8486, Dallas, TX 75208 · 66 W Flagler Street, Suite 900, PMB 12704, Miami, FL 33130
Schedule a ConversationIndependent feasibility studies since 1998 — 4,000+ engagements, $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. Standard delivery 10–15 business days; RUSH delivery available at additional cost. Fixed fee, quoted before any work begins, never contingent on the finding.
Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.