For Q4 2025, as of April 23, 2026, this screen ranks banks by year-over-year growth in allowance for credit losses (ACL) relative to loans; the phrase loan-loss reserves is the plain-English search term for the same reserve concept. First Foundation Bank shows the largest ACL build at +101 basis points, followed by EagleBank at +75, First Guaranty Bank at +70, United Fidelity Bank, fsb at +61, Needham Bank at +52, and Medallion Bank at +51. EagleBank and First Guaranty need credit-stress review first because their NPL ratios are near 3%, while First Foundation, United Fidelity, Needham, and Medallion look more like mix, growth, or CECL-assumption cases until charge-offs or delinquency data say otherwise.
Verification note: This is a point-in-time Q4 2025 screen based on public filings and regulator pages available on April 23, 2026. Confirm the latest Call Report, merger history, and enforcement updates before citing a bank in a memo or investor document.
The screen comes from Deep Digital Ventures Banking. The goal is to identify where ACL coverage is changing, then separate ordinary growth-driven reserving from possible credit stress.
How the Screen Works
The screen compares ACL coverage at two year-end points, Q4 2025 and Q4 2024, then ranks banks by the change in percentage points.
Screen ACL coverage = allowance for credit losses / total loans and leases.
The universe is U.S. banks and thrifts with comparable Q4 2025 and Q4 2024 Call Report data in the screen, positive loans in both periods, and enough public fields to calculate ACL coverage and an NPL ratio. Institutions without a comparable prior-year filing, including de novo banks, are excluded; obvious merger discontinuities are held out rather than ranked mechanically. Specialty lenders are kept when the filings are comparable, but they are interpreted against their business model and peer set rather than against plain-vanilla community banks.
A move from 1.00% ACL coverage to 1.50% ACL coverage is a 0.50 percentage-point build, or 50 basis points. For this article, a 50-basis-point ACL build is the first review threshold because it is large enough to ask whether the move came from loan growth, loan mix, current expected credit loss (CECL) assumptions, or deteriorating borrowers. It is not a supervisory standard.
The 2.00% NPL marker is also a triage line, not a regulatory bright line. It puts banks with visible problem loans into the credit-quality queue first, while low-NPL banks get a mix, growth, and CECL review first.
Use the same unit every time. Call Report dollar fields are reported in thousands, while this screen displays assets in billions and ratios in percentages. A spreadsheet error between dollars and thousands can make an ACL ratio look 1,000 times too high or too low.
Examples From the Q4 2025 Screen
The first pass in the Q4 2025 table puts First Foundation Bank, EagleBank, First Guaranty Bank, United Fidelity Bank, fsb, Needham Bank, and Medallion Bank in the analyst’s queue because each cleared the 50-basis-point ACL-build threshold.
| Bank | State | Assets | ACL / loans 2025 | ACL / loans 2024 | ACL build | NPL ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Foundation Bank | CA | $11.88B | 1.36% | 0.35% | +1.01 pts | 0.55% |
| EagleBank | MD | $10.45B | 2.21% | 1.46% | +0.75 pts | 2.74% |
| First Guaranty Bank | LA | $4.08B | 2.01% | 1.31% | +0.70 pts | 2.98% |
| United Fidelity Bank, fsb | IN | $6.29B | 2.38% | 1.77% | +0.61 pts | 0.64% |
| Needham Bank | MA | $6.93B | 1.42% | 0.90% | +0.52 pts | 0.73% |
| Medallion Bank | UT | $2.62B | 4.51% | 4.01% | +0.51 pts | 0.64% |
Source note: the table is a Q4 2025 Deep Digital Ventures Banking screen output. Assets tie to reported balance-sheet assets; ACL coverage uses Call Report allowance and loan fields; the NPL ratio is problem loans over total loans.
A worked example shows why the screen ranks First Foundation Bank first: 1.36% ACL coverage in Q4 2025 minus 0.35% in Q4 2024 equals 1.01 percentage points, or 101 basis points. That is twice the 50-basis-point review threshold used here. The NPL ratio in the same screen is 0.55%, so the first follow-up is not bad bank; it is whether the ACL jump came from portfolio repositioning, risk-rating migration, a CECL overlay, or a loan category that has not yet produced reported NPLs.
EagleBank and First Guaranty Bank require a different first question because the same Q4 2025 screen shows NPL ratios of 2.74% and 2.98%. When an ACL build of at least 50 basis points appears beside an NPL ratio above 2.00%, the credit-quality follow-up should come before the growth story. For EagleBank, the concrete follow-up is concentration: identify whether problem loans sit in CRE, construction, C&I, or another category and whether charge-offs are catching up. For First Guaranty, the first read is category-level delinquency and reserve adequacy, because the 2.98% NPL ratio makes the build look less like pure forecasting and more like recognized borrower weakness.
United Fidelity Bank, fsb, Needham Bank, and Medallion Bank also clear the 50-basis-point ACL-build threshold. United Fidelity’s 2.38% ACL coverage with a 0.64% NPL ratio calls for a loan-mix and denominator check before a stress label. Needham’s move from 0.90% to 1.42% looks like a growth or mix question unless charge-offs have also moved. Medallion’s 4.51% ACL coverage is high in absolute terms, but as a specialty lender it should be compared with specialty-credit peers; net charge-offs matter more than a raw comparison with regional commercial banks.
What a Faster ACL Build Can Mean
- Visible credit stress: If ACL coverage rises and problem loans rise at the same time, treat the build as a current credit-quality signal. EagleBank’s 2.74% NPL ratio and First Guaranty Bank’s 2.98% NPL ratio in the Q4 2025 screen are examples that need this path first.
- Realized losses: If charge-offs are rising net of recoveries, the ACL build is no longer only forward-looking. The memo should compare the build, net charge-offs, and provision expense.
- Loan mix change: If growth is concentrated in construction, land development, commercial real estate, C&I, or consumer categories, ACL can rise before NPLs rise. For CRE-heavy banks, interagency guidance flags further supervisory analysis when construction, land development, and other land loans reach 100% or more of total risk-based capital, or when total CRE loans reach 300% or more of total risk-based capital and grow 50% or more during the prior 36 months.[7]
- CECL assumptions: Under CECL, ACL reflects expected losses rather than only losses already incurred. A build with low NPLs can reflect economic forecasts, qualitative factors, or management overlays rather than visible borrower failures.[6]
- Growth-driven reserves: If total loans and quarterly average loans both rise, a larger ACL may follow the balance sheet. The question is whether ACL coverage rose faster than the loan categories that drove growth.
The decision rule is simple: an ACL build of 50 basis points or more deserves a memo; an ACL build of 50 basis points or more plus an NPL ratio above 2.00% deserves a credit-quality memo first. If NPLs and net charge-offs are low, write the memo around mix, growth, and CECL assumptions instead of treating the build as proof of distress.
Follow-Up Metrics
After the first flag, open the bank in the peer comparison view and line up its ACL build against banks with similar asset size, charter type, geography, and loan mix. A $2.62 billion specialty lender and an $11.88 billion regional commercial bank should not be judged by the same raw ACL percentage without that peer context.
| Metric | Public source | Decision use |
|---|---|---|
| ACL / loans | Allowance and loan schedules | Flag builds of 50 basis points or more for review. |
| NPL ratio | Past-due, nonaccrual, and loan fields | Prioritize credit-quality review when the ratio is above 2.00% or rising quickly. |
| Net charge-off rate | Charge-off and recovery fields | Separate expected-loss reserving from realized borrower losses. |
| Provision expense | Income statement fields | Measure how much current earnings are being used to build ACL. |
| Loan growth and mix | Loan category and average loan fields | Check whether ACL rose because the loan book grew or shifted toward higher-loss categories. |
| CRE concentration | Loan category and capital fields | Check the 100% construction and land development capital threshold, plus the 300% CRE and 50% growth over 36 months test. |
| Capital cushion | Regulatory capital fields | Ask whether credit costs are pressuring common equity tier 1, tier 1, total risk-based capital, or leverage ratios. |
| Institution identity | FDIC BankFind Suite and FFIEC institution data | Confirm the legal bank, location, merger history, and public reporting trail before publishing or sending a memo. |
A practical workflow is five steps. First, rank banks by the year-over-year ACL-coverage build. Second, isolate banks above 50 basis points. Third, split those banks into high-NPL and low-NPL groups using the 2.00% NPL marker. Fourth, read the filing detail to see whether the issue is charge-offs, loan mix, or growth. Fifth, check public enforcement sources before making a public claim.[8][9][10]
For fintech sponsor-bank diligence, keep the ACL screen in its lane. It is useful for loan-book risk and provisioning behavior, but it does not score program-manager controls, ledger reconciliation, deposit operations, or third-party oversight. If a sponsor bank also shows a fast ACL build, the right next step is a credit memo plus separate operational diligence, not a single blended conclusion.
Methodology / Sources
The data stack is the FFIEC Central Data Repository for Call Report retrieval[1], FDIC December 2025 Call Report forms and instructions[2], FFIEC 031/041 and 051 instruction sets for line-item definitions[3][4], and FDIC BankFind Suite for institution identity checks.[5] In Call Report language, the loan-loss-reserve concept used here maps to ACL and CECL reporting under ASU 2016-13 and ASC Topic 326.[6]
The numerator comes from Call Report allowance data, including the allowance schedules for credit losses; the denominator comes from total loans and leases. The NPL check uses loans reported past due or in nonaccrual status. The screen does not by itself adjust for every accounting nuance, purchased-credit mark, or post-quarter event, so flagged banks should be reviewed in the original filing before publication.
Inclusion rules are deliberately conservative: positive loans in both comparison periods, available allowance fields in both periods, and comparable reporting identity across the year. Exclusions include missing denominators, institutions without a prior-year comparison, and merger or charter events that make the year-over-year build mechanically misleading. Specialty lenders remain eligible, but the interpretation is peer-specific.
Sources
- [1] FFIEC Central Data Repository – Call Report retrieval and reporting gateway: https://www.ffiec.gov/node/31
- [2] FDIC December 2025 Call Report forms and instructions – quarter-specific reporting materials: https://www.fdic.gov/bank-financial-reports/december-2025-call-report-forms-instructions-and-related-materials
- [3] FDIC FFIEC 031 and 041 instructions – schedule definitions for full Call Report filers: https://www.fdic.gov/bank-financial-reports/ffiec-reports-condition-and-income-instructions-ffiec-031-and-041-report-3
- [4] FDIC FFIEC 051 instructions – domestic-office-only small-bank reporting instructions: https://www.fdic.gov/bank-financial-reports/ffiec-reports-condition-and-income-instructions-ffiec-051-report-form-1
- [5] FDIC BankFind Suite API documentation – institution identity and lookup fields: https://api.fdic.gov/banks/docs
- [6] FDIC FIL-17-2023 – CECL, ASU 2016-13, and ASC Topic 326 allowance framework: https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2023/fil23017.html
- [7] OCC Bulletin 2006-46 – interagency CRE concentration guidance: https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2006/bulletin-2006-46.html
- [8] FDIC orders database – public FDIC enforcement orders: https://orders.fdic.gov/
- [9] OCC enforcement actions – public national-bank and federal-thrift actions: https://www.occ.gov/topics/laws-and-regulations/enforcement-actions/
- [10] Federal Reserve enforcement actions – public Federal Reserve enforcement actions: https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/enforcementactions.htm