Banks earned $90.1 billion in the second quarter of 2026 and grew loans 6.8% year over year on a 3.32% margin. That is a lending environment with capacity. It is not a lending environment with a lower evidentiary bar — and the difference is where most loan files are won or lost.
Send the project type, the target market and the approximate total project cost. You get back a written scope, a delivery date and a fixed fee — by email, normally within one business day. The study is independent of the financing outcome and the fee never depends on the finding.
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.
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 | — |
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.
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.
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.
Independent 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.