For a sponsor-bank shortlist or credit watch list, this screen answers one practical question: which banks grew loans quickly in 2025 while public credit indicators moved the wrong way? The filter is mechanical: at least 8.0% year-over-year loan growth from 2024 to 2025, plus either a 25 bp increase in nonperforming loans or a 15 bp increase in net charge-offs. Eight banks in this sample matched. The output is not a failure call or a safety rating; it is a short list of institutions where a memo should slow down and reconcile growth, credit, reserves, funding, and enforcement history before treating the growth as clean.
As of 2026-04-23, this analysis uses year-end 2025 Call Report data compared with year-end 2024 for active U.S. banks from $1 billion to $50 billion in assets. Verify the latest filings and enforcement updates before citing any row in a credit memo or investor document.
Answer first
- Criteria: loan growth of at least 8.0% year over year, plus either a 25 bp increase in NPL ratio or a 15 bp increase in NCO rate.
- Period: year-end 2025 compared with year-end 2024 Call Reports.
- Matched banks shown: ChoiceOne Bank, Busey Bank, WesBanco Bank, Celtic Bank, Needham Bank, Old Second National Bank, Colony Bank, and Live Oak Banking Company.
- Meaning: inclusion means growth and credit movement should be reviewed together; it does not mean the bank is unsafe or that the growth is bad.
- First check: rebuild the loan-growth, NPL, NCO, allowance, capital, and funding numbers from the source schedules before using a row in a sponsor-bank, investor, or board memo.
Methodology
The base source is Call Report data from the FFIEC Central Data Repository.[1] The December 31, 2025 FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051 forms and instructions are listed by the FDIC.[2] The local Banking Intelligence dataset uses that year-end 2025 period as the latest complete detailed period for this screen and compares it with year-end 2024.
In plain English, the screen combines growth with early credit pressure. NPL means nonperforming loans: loans 90 days or more past due and still accruing, plus nonaccrual loans. NCO means net charge-offs: loan losses recognized during the period, net of recoveries. CRE means commercial real estate. CECL is the expected-credit-loss accounting framework. BSA/AML means Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering controls.
The schedule map is simple enough to audit: Schedule RC-C shows loan balances, Schedule RC-N shows nonperforming status, Schedule RI-B shows charge-offs, Schedule RI-C shows allowances, Schedule RC-K shows average balances, Schedule RC-R shows capital, and Schedules RC-E and RC-O help explain deposit funding. The 8.0%, 25 bp, and 15 bp levels are Banking Intelligence screen thresholds, not regulatory limits.
The screen
The worked rows below include eight banks that cleared the growth filter and at least one credit trigger. Busey Bank qualifies through the NCO leg, which is why the table now shows both NPL change and NCO change instead of making readers infer the missing metric.
| Bank | State | Assets 2025 | Loan growth | NPL 2025 | NPL change | NCO change | Credit trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChoiceOne Bank | MI | $4.4B | 94.9% | 0.90% | +66 bp | Below trigger | NPL leg |
| Busey Bank | IL | $18.1B | 75.9% | 0.40% | +9 bp | +15 bp or more | NCO leg |
| WesBanco Bank, Inc. | WV | $27.6B | 52.3% | 0.68% | +25 bp | Below trigger | NPL leg |
| Celtic Bank | UT | $4.8B | 39.6% | 2.81% | +48 bp | Below trigger | NPL leg |
| Needham Bank | MA | $6.9B | 38.9% | 0.73% | +40 bp | Below trigger | NPL leg |
| Old Second National Bank | IL | $6.9B | 31.6% | 1.02% | +25 bp | Below trigger | NPL leg |
| Colony Bank | GA | $3.7B | 30.8% | 0.96% | +38 bp | Below trigger | NPL leg |
| Live Oak Banking Company | NC | $15.1B | 17.2% | 4.60% | +106 bp | Below trigger | NPL leg |
What stands out
First, the largest growth rates should be checked for transaction effects before anyone calls them organic. A 94.9% loan increase at ChoiceOne Bank, a 75.9% increase at Busey Bank, and a 52.3% increase at WesBanco Bank are large enough that merger history, branch activity, and holding-company structure should be reviewed in FDIC BankFind Suite and the Federal Reserve’s National Information Center.[3][4] If a transaction explains most of the growth, the credit memo changes from “new underwriting surge” to “acquired book, purchase accounting, and integration review.”
Second, starting level matters as much as basis-point change. ChoiceOne Bank moved from 0.24% NPL to 0.90%, a +66 bp change and 3.75 times the starting ratio. Live Oak Banking Company moved from 3.53% to 4.60%, a +106 bp change at a much higher ending level. Those are different questions: one asks why a low problem-loan ratio normalized upward so quickly, while the other asks whether an already elevated level is still building.
Third, most rows qualify through NPL movement rather than the charge-off leg. That makes timing important. Rising NPLs can precede charge-offs, provisions, and reserve builds, so the next two reported quarters matter more than a single year-end snapshot.
How to interpret the list
Read the table as a queue, not a verdict. Start with the source of growth, then ask whether the credit signal is broadening or concentrated in one portfolio. A bank adding seasoned one-to-four family mortgages is not taking the same risk as a bank adding construction, land development, specialty finance, or high-yield C&I exposure.
Then look at reserve response, not only the problem-loan numerator. Under FASB ASU 2016-13, Topic 326, CECL allowance estimates are based on expected credit losses over the contractual life of financial assets.[5] After a fast-growth year, rising NPLs should be read next to allowances, provision expense, net charge-offs, earnings capacity, and capital.
CRE-heavy banks need a separate concentration overlay. The December 2006 Interagency CRE Concentration Guidance points examiners to construction, land development, and other land loans at 100% or more of total capital, or total CRE at 300% or more of total capital when the CRE portfolio increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months.[6] Those are supervisory markers, not automatic failure lines, but they are too relevant to ignore.
Follow-up workflow
Use this shorter workflow before a bank moves from screen result to diligence target.
- Confirm the institution: match legal name, state, FDIC insurance status, and history before comparing periods.
- Recreate the numbers: pull year-end 2024 and year-end 2025 Call Reports, then recalculate loan growth, NPL ratio, NCO rate, allowances, capital, and funding detail.
- Separate growth source: identify whether growth came from organic originations, a merger, a branch transaction, a portfolio purchase, or a reporting change.
- Compare peers: test NPL ratio, NCO rate, allowance coverage, ROA, and capital against similar banks in peer comparison so one unusual row does not become the whole story.
- Open the underlying public-data context before quoting a row, especially when a bank qualifies through the net charge-off leg rather than the NPL leg.
- Search enforcement records before using the row in a sponsor-bank, investor, or board memo.
| Result after follow-up | Decision rule | Next action |
|---|---|---|
| Growth explained, credit stable | Loan growth is tied to an acquisition or portfolio event, NPL and NCO movement is modest, and reserve coverage does not weaken materially. | Monitor in the next Call Report cycle and compare with peers. |
| Growth plus early credit pressure | Loan growth clears 8.0% and NPL or NCO triggers are met, but allowance, earnings, and capital still appear able to absorb the deterioration. | Move to credit review; ask what loan categories grew and whether underwriting changed. |
| Unexplained growth plus weak absorption | The growth source is unclear, deterioration is confirmed, allowance coverage is falling, funding is more volatile, or CRE concentration markers are near or above supervisory levels. | Escalate before relying on the bank as a sponsor, investment lead, or positive growth story. |
| Formal order or unresolved program issue | FDIC, OCC, or Federal Reserve records show an enforcement action touching credit, governance, BSA/AML, deposits, or third-party risk. | Route to legal, compliance, or board-level diligence; do not let a clean credit ratio settle the question. |
Adjacent diligence
Some authority checks belong beside this screen rather than inside the credit math. FDIC FIL-28-2020 was a temporary first-quarter 2020 Call Report grace-period letter, FIL-42-2024 covers AML/CFT program rulemaking, and the June 2023 Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships covers bank-third-party risk management.[7][8][9] None of those changes the NPL or NCO calculation; they tell you which adjacent diligence file to open.
The $50 billion upper bound also matters. OCC 12 CFR Part 30 Appendix D applies heightened governance standards to covered OCC banks with average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion, and it can also apply to certain smaller banks tied to a covered parent or presenting heightened risk.[10] A bank near the top of this screen deserves a governance and parent-company check, not just a credit-ratio check.
For sponsor-bank work, keep credit risk separate from program risk. The CFPB’s Synapse Financial Technologies action says Synapse filed for Chapter 11 on April 22, 2024 and alleged a $60 million to $90 million shortfall in consumer funds records.[11] That kind of recordkeeping and third-party oversight failure will not appear in NPL ratios, so it belongs beside this screen, not inside it.
The decision rule is simple enough to use tomorrow: do not approve a sponsor-bank shortlist, publish a positive growth paragraph, or accept management’s growth story until the Call Report schedules, institution history, peer comparison, and enforcement searches all point in the same direction. If one source disagrees, cite the screen as a lead, not as proof.
FAQ
Does inclusion on this list mean a bank is unsafe?
No. It means loan growth and public credit metrics moved in a way that deserves review. The cause may be acquisition activity, acquired credit marks, portfolio seasoning, loan-mix shift, underwriting change, or real credit stress.
Why can a bank appear when the NPL change is below 25 bp?
The screen uses an either-or credit trigger. A bank can qualify through the NCO leg even if its NPL ratio change is below 25 bp. That row should be rechecked in the source filings before citation.
Is this investment advice?
No. This is a public-data research framework built from Call Report schedules, supervisory guidance, and enforcement-source checks. It is not a recommendation about any bank, security, deposit relationship, or sponsor-bank partnership.
Sources
- FFIEC Central Data Repository bulk Call Report data: https://cdr.ffiec.gov/public/PWS/DownloadBulkData.aspx
- FDIC December 2025 Call Report forms, instructions, and related materials: https://www.fdic.gov/bank-financial-reports/december-2025-call-report-forms-instructions-and-related-materials
- FDIC BankFind Suite institution history and profile lookup: https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfind-suite/bankfind
- Federal Reserve National Information Center institution and holding-company lookup: https://www.ffiec.gov/NPW
- FASB ASU 2016-13, Topic 326 CECL standard: https://storage.fasb.org/ASU%202016-13.pdf
- Federal Reserve page for Interagency CRE Concentration Guidance: https://www.federalreserve.gov/frrs/guidance/interagency-guidance-on-concentrations-in-commercial-real-estate-lending-sound-risk-management-practices.htm