[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-324563-105":59,"doc-detail-324563-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","commercial-lending-ofohios-sls-read-online-free","Commercial Lending ofOhio's S&Ls - read online free","","Commercial Lending of Ohio’s S&Ls examines how early-1980s legislation—especially the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Garn–St Germain Act of 1982—expanded savings and loans’ authority to offer consumer transactions accounts and participate in commercial lending. It evaluates whether entry into nontraditional commercial activities strengthened or weakened thrifts, considering potential benefits, risks, and deposit-insurance incentives. Table 1 presents 1987 Ohio S&L commercial lending participation and volume by size class.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/commercial-lending-ofohios-sls-read-online-free/324563/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/commercial-lending-ofohios-sls-read-online-free/324563.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aurora","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-23","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What legislative changes enabled Ohio S&Ls to compete in commercial lending?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 allowed consumer loan and transaction account activities, and the Garn–St Germain Act of 1982 expanded S&Ls’ asset and liability powers, including authorization to make commercial loans and offer demand-deposit services to commercial customers.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What potential benefits and risks did commercial lending introduce for thrifts?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Commercial lending could diversify assets, potentially shorten maturities, reduce exposure to rising interest rates, and raise returns, improving profitability and/or risk profiles. However, start-up costs and inexperience could lead to excessive risk-taking, margin compression, and losses.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did Ohio S&Ls’ commercial lending participation look in 1987?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"In 1987, 96 Ohio S&Ls made some type of commercial loan, representing about 43% of operating S&Ls in the state. Participation rose from roughly 31% in 1984, with 82 having secured commercial loans and 59 having unsecured commercial loans.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},324563,1790122298,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},4810365810221,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","# Commercial Lending ofOhio's S&Ls\n\nby Gary Whalen  \npowers of thrifts were limited relativeto commercial banksIn particular,savings and loans(S&Is)could notgenerally make consumer or com-mercial loans or offer transactionsaccounts.Because S&Ls were statuto-rily precluded from providing theseimportant components of theproduct-service cluster offered bycommercial banks,they were notviewed as full,effective bank compet-itors either by regulators or by thecourts when evaluating the antitrustimplications of bank mergers.  \nThis situation was fundamentallychanged by passage of two pieces oflegislation in the early 1980s.TheDepository Institutions Deregulationand Monetary Control Act of 1980 per-mitted S&Ls to make various types ofconsumer loans and to provide con-sumer transactions accounts,thus allow.ingS&Lsto compete head-to-head withbanks for virtually the entire range ofhousehold business.However,theability of S&Ls to serve commercialcustomers remained limited.  \nThe Garn-St Germain Act of 1982 fur-ther expanded S&Ls'asset and liabilitypowers,particularly in the commer-cial area.Although permissible max-imums were specified for variousloan categories in the Act,S&Ls were  \nauthorized to make any type of com·mercial loan(including unsecuredones)and to offer demand·depositservices to their commercial custom-ers.Thus,the Act allowed S&Ls toenter a product market that,due toregulation,had largely been the privatepreserve of commercial banks.At leastin terms of authorized powers,banksand S&Ls became competitive equals.  \nEntry into nontraditional activitieslike commercial lending could eitherstrengthen or weaken thrifts.Forexample,engaging in such activitiesmight permit an S&Lto add assets toits balance sheet that have shortermaturities than the traditional fixed-rate mortgage loan,and so reduce itsexposure to rising interest rates.Benefits from increased diversifica·tion could be realized.Returns earnedin new activities might be higher thanthose obtainable in traditional mort-gage lending.Thus,S&Is engaging inthis activity could become more profitable and/or less risky.  \nOn the other hand,start-up costscould be high and inexperience couldresult in unintentional,excessive risk-taking and subsequent losses.S&Ls'entry and aggressive competition forincremental business could causelending margins to shrink or vanish.  \nDecember 1,1988  \nTwo new laws in the early 1980sfundamentally changed the relation-ship between thrifts and commercialbanks,allowing S&Ls to compete forthe full range of household andcommercial business.An examina-tion of Ohio S&Lsshows the impactof the expanded commercial lendingpowers on their performance.  \nFurther,these additional powers wereauthorized at a time when S&Is'earn-ings were generally weak or nonex-istent and their capital levels werelow and eroding.Thus,even a fewlending decisions that proved to bewrong could be fatal.  \nSimilarly,S&Ls'entry into commerciallending could generate public bene-fits and costs.Attempts byS&Ls toobtain this type of business shouldtheoretically intensify competition,lowering rates and increasing thesupply of commercial loan funds inlocal markets where they operate.However,the existence of flat-ratedeposit insurance creates incentivesfor S&L management to consciously  \n## TABLE 1 SUMMARY DATA FOR S&L COMMERCIAL LENDERS IN1987BY SIZE CLASS\n\n\n| Size Class   | Participation  \u003Cbr>Rate\"   | Total  \u003Cbr>Loan Volume  \u003Cbr>(8Millions)   | Commercial Loans/  \u003Cbr>Total Loans  \u003Cbr>S.D.'  \u003Cbr>Mean   |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  |  |\n| Above $1 bill.  \u003Cbr>(N=12)   | 85.7   | $262.1   | 1.84   | 161   |\n| 8250·$999 mill.  \u003Cbr>(N=21)   | 75.9   | $147.5   | 2.42   | 2.63   |\n| $100-249 mill.  \u003Cbr>(N =28)   | 61.7   | 88.1   | 2.74   | 3.83   |\n| $50·899 mill.  \u003Cbr>(N =13)   | 29.5   | $22.3   | 3.04   | 2.55   |\n| $25·849 mill.  \u003Cbr>(N=14)   | 26.9   | $9.3   | 2.02   | 2.92   |\n| Below $25 mill.  \u003Cbr>(N =8)   | 21.6   | $3.5   | 2.73   | 3.48   |\n\n\"Values are percentages.S.","cbCainv3wgTOOKn7","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainv3wgTOOKn7","pdf",1119169,"English","# Legislative Change and Competitive Effects\n## Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980\n## Garn–St Germain Act of 1982\n# Entry Impacts: Profitability vs. Risk\n## Diversification benefits\n## Start-up costs and risk-taking\n# Characteristics of Ohio’s Thrift Commercial Lenders\n## Participation and loan types\n## Loan volume and growth","[{\"question\":\"What legislative changes enabled Ohio S\\u0026Ls to compete in commercial lending?\",\"answer\":\"The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 allowed consumer loan and transaction account activities, and the Garn–St Germain Act of 1982 expanded S\\u0026Ls’ asset and liability powers, including authorization to make commercial loans and offer demand-deposit services to commercial customers.\"},{\"question\":\"What potential benefits and risks did commercial lending introduce for thrifts?\",\"answer\":\"Commercial lending could diversify assets, potentially shorten maturities, reduce exposure to rising interest rates, and raise returns, improving profitability and/or risk profiles. However, start-up costs and inexperience could lead to excessive risk-taking, margin compression, and losses.\"},{\"question\":\"How did Ohio S\\u0026Ls’ commercial lending participation look in 1987?\",\"answer\":\"In 1987, 96 Ohio S\\u0026Ls made some type of commercial loan, representing about 43% of operating S\\u0026Ls in the state. Participation rose from roughly 31% in 1984, with 82 having secured commercial loans and 59 having unsecured commercial loans.\"}]","Commercial Lending ofOhio's S&Ls - read online free | PDF",1789968255,13]