Charge-off and default signals before the portfolio conversation.
A loan-sale advisor’s weekly read of reported charge-offs, defaults, delinquencies, nonaccruals, reserve and provision context, recoveries when reported, and lender credit-quality disclosures.
4,388Monitored banks20Matched bank records4,462Credit unions4Matched bank quarters
Reported bank fields
Credit-quality field explorer
20 of 20 verified reads · Q2 2026
The verified Q2 2026 20-bank detail sample surfaces the reported fields available for a credit-quality screen. It does not state that an institution is selling, that a portfolio is distressed, or that any price, recovery, or buyer demand exists.
Separate delinquency, nonaccrual, collateral, servicing, and tape segments before treating one ratio as a portfolio signal.
Largest reported categories
Other$270.14B
Residential real estate$223.46B
C&I$200.25B
Consumer$121.20B
PreviousPage 1 of 3Next
Loan-sale advisor framework
Six layers for reading credit quality without overreaching
Signal → source → diligence question
01
Charge-offs
Question: Are realized losses changing across like-for-like periods?
Source discipline: Reported net charge-offs, product mix, period labels, and source definitions
02
Defaults & delinquencies
Question: Where may early-stage or nonperforming pressure deserve a closer look?
Source discipline: Reported delinquency and nonaccrual fields where the source publishes them; no proxy is substituted
03
Nonaccruals
Question: Is a reported nonaccrual measure moving independently of charge-offs?
Source discipline: Direct Call Report or 5300 field lineage and a matched reporting period
04
Reserves & provisions
Question: What balance-sheet context should be reviewed before discussing an asset class?
Source discipline: Original filing or call-report reserve and provision disclosures; no allowance amount is inferred here
05
Recoveries
Question: Do reported recoveries change the loss narrative?
Source discipline: Directly disclosed recovery information only; no recovery estimate or valuation is created
06
Lender disclosures
Question: What does a lender’s own 10-K say about credit quality and lending activity?
Source discipline: Primary-source SEC EDGAR language, kept separate from bank and credit-union measures
This week’s credit-quality read
The current release: what is verified, and what remains a question
Published Oct 6, 2026
01
Reported nonperforming loans were not uniform across the sample
Across the target cohort, reported nonperforming loans were concentrated rather than broad-based. The useful follow-up is not a market-wide conclusion; it is a tighter review of asset class, delinquency status, nonaccrual definition, servicing, and the stated reporting population.
02
Net charge-offs need a product and period lens
Reported net charge-offs can help frame a loss-formation question, especially when read with product mix and a matched period. They do not measure a portfolio’s recovery value, future loss rate, transaction timing, or buyer demand.
03
Reserve and provision context belongs in original source material
Capital, earnings, funding, and portfolio composition can describe balance-sheet context, but they do not replace a direct review of allowance, provision, and credit-policy disclosures. This archive edition intentionally does not invent reserve, provision, recovery, or delinquency values that were not present in its verified data extract.
Advisor interpretation boundaryBaseline archive: reported loss formation and asset-level diligence
This baseline archive helps establish the questions that later editions must answer with like-for-like source data. It should not be compared directly with a differently scoped population or converted into an opinion on any institution’s sale readiness, buyer interest, recovery, or pricing.
Separate primary-source layer · SEC EDGAR
Lender credit-quality disclosures in recent 10‑Ks
2026-10-06 to 2026-10-09
This screen captures lender activity and credit-quality disclosure only from a direct SEC filing that passes the weekly source check. It is not a list of sale candidates and is never blended into BankWatch call-report or CU Watch 5300 measures.
No qualifying lender 10-K card in this edition
The completed SEC screen found no lender 10-K card that met the monitor’s direct-source and lender-activity validation standard for this edition. The next weekly screen remains review-gated; no issuer is inferred from a keyword match.
Matched bank history
Four periods of nonperforming and charge-off context
Q3 2025 through Q2 2026
One matched 20-bank population, read across four verified periods. The series is useful for trend context, not a forecast or an institution-level transaction conclusion.
Q2 2026Latest verified
Weighted NPL
0.82%
Weighted net charge-offs
0.69%
vs Q1 2026: nonperforming loans -8.4% · charge-offs -1.5%
Q1 2026Prior verified
Weighted NPL
0.89%
Weighted net charge-offs
0.70%
vs Q4 2025: nonperforming loans -2.7% · charge-offs -9.0%
Q4 2025Prior verified
Weighted NPL
0.92%
Weighted net charge-offs
0.77%
vs Q3 2025: nonperforming loans +0.1% · charge-offs -1.2%
BankWatch Pro get_bank_history plus bounded get_bank_by_cert reads for missing bank-period records; same 20-bank population. Raw fields preserved as ASSET, NCLNLSR, RBC1RWAJ/RBCT1CER, and NTLNLSR. Q2 2026, Q1 2026, Q4 2025, and Q3 2025 are all represented for every selected bank.
Separate source layer · CU Watch
Credit-union charge-off and default context
Q2 2026 · verified full universe
The NCUA 5300 layer is intentionally separate from FDIC bank Call Reports. It surfaces reported nonperforming and net charge-off context across the credit-union universe; it does not rank sale candidates or imply portfolio availability.
Verified full-universe layer · CU Watch
Reported credit-quality context across 4,462 credit unions
Q2 2026 · 9 validated pages
Last verifiedOct 20, 2026REPDTE 202606304,462 unique charters
This source stays distinct from FDIC bank Call Report data. The full Q2 2026 CU Watch extract is normalized from reported 5300 fields, then grouped using stated U.S. Census-region denominators. It is a credit-quality context and screening layer—not a ranking of sale candidates, a default forecast, or an availability list.
Reported NPL ratio, weighted by reported total loans. It is credit-quality context, not evidence of a sale candidate.
Northeast
982 credit unions0.33%
$339.2B reported assets · $234.8B reported loans
Midwest
1,222 credit unions0.29%
$483.9B reported assets · $347.8B reported loans
South
1,533 credit unions0.35%
$906.8B reported assets · $639.8B reported loans
West
714 credit unions0.23%
$671.6B reported assets · $473.4B reported loans
Paginated institution explorer
Search the verified Q2 2026 5300 extract
4,462 matching records · page 1 of 372
Search credit unionsRegionAll regions and territoriesNortheastMidwestSouthWestOther / territories
Midwest · IA · Charter 63124
1ST GATEWAY
$165.8M assets · $125.8M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.17%
Net worth
14.13%
Net C/O
0.12%
Midwest · IA · Charter 64878
5 STAR COMMUNITY
$50.6M assets · $37.9M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.46%
Net worth
8.42%
Net C/O
0.14%
Midwest · IA · Charter 64323
ACE
$7.6M assets · $1.7M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.00%
Net worth
19.54%
Net C/O
0.00%
Midwest · IA · Charter 64030
ADVANTAGE
$104.4M assets · $69.7M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
1.06%
Net worth
13.96%
Net C/O
-0.23%
Midwest · IA · Charter 65521
AEGIS
$26.0M assets · $17.3M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.41%
Net worth
16.00%
Net C/O
0.38%
Midwest · IA · Charter 62829
AFFINITY
$149.8M assets · $102.6M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.36%
Net worth
12.02%
Net C/O
0.34%
Midwest · IA · Charter 64886
AIM
$189.6M assets · $125.4M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.21%
Net worth
12.89%
Net C/O
0.19%
Midwest · IA · Charter 67831
ALLEN HOSPITAL PERSONNEL
$6.0M assets · $3.4M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.22%
Net worth
18.26%
Net C/O
0.29%
Midwest · IA · Charter 63268
ASCENTRA
$571.2M assets · $409.8M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.28%
Net worth
10.08%
Net C/O
0.33%
Midwest · IA · Charter 65239
BURLINGTON MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
$4.6M assets · $3.4M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.10%
Net worth
14.49%
Net C/O
-0.03%
Midwest · IA · Charter 62878
CAPITOL VIEW
$45.4M assets · $25.9M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.00%
Net worth
18.39%
Net C/O
-0.05%
Midwest · IA · Charter 64868
CASEBINE COMMUNITY
$29.3M assets · $13.3M reported loans
Nonperforming loans
0.00%
Net worth
21.22%
Net C/O
0.10%
PreviousPage 1 of 372Next
Separate macro layer · FRED
Reviewed macro context for the weekly credit-quality read
Verified Oct 13, 2026
These reported FRED observations provide a broad credit backdrop only. They remain separate from BankWatch FDIC Call Report measures, CU Watch NCUA 5300 measures, and SEC EDGAR filings, and do not identify a lender, sale candidate, portfolio, buyer, price, recovery, or transaction outcome.
Reported FRED series · CORCCACBS
Charge-Off Rate on Credit Card Loans, All Commercial Banks
Fitzgerald Advisors reads reported BankWatch FDIC Call Report data, separate CU Watch NCUA 5300 data, and—when validated—separate SEC EDGAR and FRED materials as source-separated screening layers. A public credit-quality field does not establish distress, sale readiness, pricing, buyer appetite, recovery value, or transaction certainty. A specific portfolio tape, collateral, performance history, servicing, documentation, legal status, and transfer conditions govern any mandate review.
BankWatch
Full-directory count plus verified Q2 2026 detail for the 20-bank sample. Q3 record-level reconciliation remains open, so no Q3 bank ranking is implied.
CU Watch
Q2 2026 NCUA 5300 full-universe records remain a separate layer using stated Census-region denominators and reported fields only.
SEC EDGAR
Direct lender 10-K disclosures are primary-source research only. They are not blended into bank or credit-union ratios and do not imply a sale or transaction intent.
FRED
Macro observations require a documented series ID, units, period, release timing, retrieval date, and review before they can appear in a weekly briefing.