Worked Example: Conventional Bank Marina Acquisition and Dock Expansion Feasibility Study in Kentucky
A worked example of the feasibility study a lender would read for a marina project in Kentucky, financed with a conventional bank loan.
The SBA loan record for marina projects nationally and by state, and what a feasibility study for one has to test.
Daniel Smith, MAI
Loan Analytics is the marina feasibility study consultant a borrower calls when the lender asks for an independent study of the project ahead of its credit decision. The SBA record we read every marina project against is long and thin at once: 1,083 SBA 7(a) loans to marina projects since FY1991, worth $641.9 million, and 276 SBA 504 loans, worth $214.9 million. In the window the state, lender and size tables use, FY2017 to FY2026, the counts are 220 under 7(a), worth $246.0 million, and 80 under 504, worth $101.7 million, at medians of $461,750 and $965,500. A marina request is rare at any credit desk: in FY2026 the SBA approved 11 marina loans under 7(a) nationwide and 5 under 504. Our study places the project inside that record, names the loans it most resembles by program, size band and state, and says plainly where it departs from them.
The floors decide what the study tests first. The 7(a) marina loans disbursed from FY2017 through FY2021 show no recorded charge-off: the floor reads 0.00%, and 0.00% again within 5 years. Under 504 the cohort is too small for a charge-off rate to print. The heavier recorded risk comes before funding. The cancellation floor is 27.9% for 504 marina approvals and 14.4% for 7(a), and Florida's state floor is 23.1%. So a Loan Analytics marina study is built for the deal to close as well as to perform. It counts slip and storage demand by boat length against the competing marinas and their waitlists; it prices wet slips, dry storage, fuel, service and retail as separate lines with their own months; it reads the dock, bulkhead and dredging budget against contractor evidence; it traces each permit still needed and the season in which the work can be done; it tests coverage month by month through the slow season and a storm year; and it documents who holds the bottomland under the docks and on what term.
Where the marina sits changes which record the lender reads. Florida leads with 46 loans and $61.6 million at a $1.1 million median, above both national program medians; Michigan is next, its 25 loans totalling $16.8 million at a $340,000 median, below them. From New York down, the state table prints counts and dollars only, so for most locations the study builds its comparison from the trade area itself. Of the lenders, only The Huntington National Bank is listed, with 26 marina loans for $14.6 million, and most of the record's marina loans came from lenders the table does not name, so the study also has to explain the business to a credit officer who may have underwritten few marinas. Conventional banks, USDA Business and Industry lenders and SBA lenders under 7(a) and 504 all read our marina studies, each signed by Daniel Smith, MAI. Describe the marina and its financing in the scope form below, and our reply gives the study's scope, its fee and a timeline that meets the date the lender has set.
Marinas took 220 SBA 7(a) loans in FY2017 to FY2026 worth $246.0 million, with a median of $461,750, and 80 SBA 504 loans worth $101.7 million, with a median of $965,500. Activity under 7(a) has thinned: 34 loans in FY2021 against 11 in FY2026, and FY2020's 26 loans carried $45.7 million, the heaviest dollar year. The 504 program's busiest year was FY2022, with 13 loans and $21.8 million.
No marina loan under 7(a) that funded in fiscal 2017 through 2021 has been charged off so far, a 0.00% floor. The 504 charge-off rate is withheld, its cohort being under 30 loans. The figure that should catch a borrower's eye is 504 cancellation: at least 27.9% of 504 marina approvals were cancelled, against 14.4% under 7(a). Waterfront projects carry permits from several agencies, dredging and environmental review, and construction windows tied to the season, and a 504 deal that waits for all of them can fall apart before closing.
Florida leads the state table with 46 loans and $61.6 million, and Michigan follows with 25 loans and $16.8 million; no other state reaches the threshold for listing.
A marina feasibility study has to measure demand for slips and dry storage by boat size, from boat registrations in the market, waitlists, and the occupancy and rates at competing marinas. It must split revenue among slip rent, storage, fuel, service, the ship store and any restaurant, because each carries a different margin and seasonality. Cost needs docks, pilings, bulkheads, lifts, fuel systems, dredging and a reserve for storm damage. Coverage of the debt must survive the off-season months and the year after a storm. The appraisal must establish the tenure of the water: whether the submerged land is owned or leased from the state, the lease term and its renewal, since a lender cannot rely on docks over water the borrower may lose.
Classification follows the borrower's line of business: a boat dealer or a waterfront restaurant with slips belongs to another class, and dry stack storage run by a dealer will not show up here. A borrower comparing a project to this record should remember how few loans stand behind each figure.
| Program | Loans | Dollars | Median loan | Cancelled (floor) | Charged off (floor) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBA 7(a) | 220 | $246.0 million | $461,750 | 14.4% | 0.00% |
| SBA 504 | 80 | $101.7 million | $965,500 | 27.9% | not reported: fewer than 30 loans in the cohort |
Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, SBA loan record for marina, United States, FY2017 to FY2026, https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#record-C30.
Cancellation counts FY2017 to FY2024 approvals; charge-off counts FY2017 to FY2021 disbursed loans to date. Both are floors, and a rate needs at least 30 loans in its cohort.
SBA 7(a) marina loans approved nationally, by fiscal year
| Fiscal year | Loans | Dollars |
|---|---|---|
| FY2017 | 21 | $18.3 million |
| FY2018 | 32 | $35.1 million |
| FY2019 | 25 | $30.2 million |
| FY2020 | 26 | $45.7 million |
| FY2021 | 34 | $36.6 million |
| FY2022 | 20 | $21.7 million |
| FY2023 | 14 | $10.5 million |
| FY2024 | 15 | $12.2 million |
| FY2025 | 22 | $25.2 million |
| FY2026 | 11 | $10.5 million |
Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, SBA loan record for marina, United States, FY2017 to FY2026, https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#record-C30.
SBA 504 marina loans approved nationally, by fiscal year
| Fiscal year | Loans | Dollars |
|---|---|---|
| FY2017 | 6 | $5.1 million |
| FY2018 | 6 | $7.7 million |
| FY2019 | 6 | $9.4 million |
| FY2020 | 8 | $15.2 million |
| FY2021 | 12 | $12.5 million |
| FY2022 | 13 | $21.8 million |
| FY2023 | 8 | $8.6 million |
| FY2024 | 9 | $9.0 million |
| FY2025 | 7 | $7.8 million |
| FY2026 | 5 | $4.5 million |
Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, SBA loan record for marina, United States, FY2017 to FY2026, https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#record-C30.
Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, SBA loan record for marina, United States, FY2017 to FY2026, https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#record-C30.
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, 7(a) and 504 loan-level FOIA files (data.sba.gov), as of 2026-09-30.
A worked example of the feasibility study a lender would read for a marina project in Kentucky, financed with a conventional bank loan.
State: Kentucky · Asset: Marina · Program: Conventional bank loan
Every SBA 7(a) and 504 loan approved for a marina project since FY1991, by fiscal year, nationally.
Marina projects have drawn SBA 7(a) approvals in each fiscal year of the record, FY1991 through FY2026, 1,083 loans for $641.9 million in all, yet the yearly count has never risen above 48, the FY1995 figure, and in FY2026 it fell to 11, the lowest in the series. Under 504 the record is thinner still: 276 loans for $214.9 million, with FY1991 not measured and no year above 15 approvals, a level reached in FY2002 and again in FY2012. The 504 dollars for FY1992, FY1993, FY1997, FY2013 and FY2014 are suppressed because each of those years rests on fewer than 5 loans, and the 7(a) dollars for the same years are withheld as well. For a feasibility study the shape matters more than any single total. A lender can find marina loans in every year of the record, but in no year enough of them to form a local comparison set, and the source note warns that any year in which more than a sliver of the SBA's records lack a placeable industry code prints its count as a floor. The study therefore uses the national series for direction and builds its comparables from the market around the site.
Set the early and late years side by side and the class changes character. FY1995 approved 48 7(a) marina loans for $13.0 million; FY2020 approved 26 for $45.7 million, the series high in dollars. FY2004's 47 loans carried $20.8 million, the highest printed total before FY2016, and FY1998's 44 carried $20.6 million. From FY2016 on, most years clear that old ceiling: $26.7 million on 28 loans in FY2016, $35.1 million on 32 in FY2018, $30.2 million on 25 in FY2019, $45.7 million on 26 in FY2020, $36.6 million on 34 in FY2021, $21.7 million on 20 in FY2022 and $25.2 million on 22 in FY2025. Fewer loans now carry far more money than the larger yearly counts of the 1990s did. Part of that is price, since each year is printed in the dollars approved that year, and part is the kind of marina being financed; the table cannot separate price from project mix, and a study should not claim to. What the table does show a lender is that the long-run record understates what marina borrowers ask for today, so the study benchmarks a request against FY2017 to FY2026 and says why.
In most years 7(a) carries more marina dollars than 504, but not in all. In FY2006, 504 approved $8.5 million against $6.6 million under 7(a); in FY2008, $8.4 million against $6.5 million; in FY2009, $5.2 million against $3.7 million, the smallest printed 7(a) total in the series; and in FY2022, $21.8 million against $21.7 million, on 13 504 loans against 20 under 7(a). FY2008 and FY2009 sit near the bottom of the 7(a) series, at 20 and 13 loans, and 504 still approved 10 and 7 in those years. FY2022 is a different case: it is the 504 program's own peak, the highest 504 marina dollar total in the record, above the $15.2 million of FY2020 that had been the earlier high. A study cannot take the program for granted. A lender will ask why the request sits in the program it does, and the study answers with that program's record, its sizes and its floors, not with the class as a whole.
The state, lender and size tables on this page all use FY2017 to FY2026, and that window is the large-loan era of the class. It holds 220 of the 1,083 7(a) marina loans in the full record but $246.0 million of its $641.9 million, and 80 of the 276 504 loans but $101.7 million of the $214.9 million. In both programs the window's weight in dollars is far greater than its weight in loans. Inside it, FY2021 is the busiest 7(a) year, 34 loans for $36.6 million and the most since FY2007's 40; FY2020 is the richest; and FY2022 is both the busiest and the richest 504 year, 13 loans for $21.8 million. A median or a floor quoted from this page therefore describes recent marina borrowing, not the long record, and a study that cites one should name the window it comes from and keep its comparisons inside it.
Since FY2022 the 7(a) count has stepped down: 20 that year, 14 in FY2023, 15 in FY2024, a rebound to 22 in FY2025 and then 11 in FY2026. Dollars have held up better than counts. FY2026's 11 loans total $10.5 million, the same as FY2023's 14, so the marina loans approved in FY2026 were larger on the whole even as the count reached its lowest point; and FY2025's 22 loans carried $25.2 million, more than any year of the 1990s printed. The 504 series ran 8, 9 and 7 loans from FY2023 to FY2025 for $8.6 million, $9.0 million and $7.8 million, and FY2026 brought 5 loans for $4.5 million, the fewest since FY2014. For a borrower this is the credit climate a marina study now enters: a 7(a) marina flow at its thinnest in the record, with each approval still a sizable exposure. A marina request is likely to reach a credit desk that has seen few recent ones, so the comparables must come with the study, because the lender's own pipeline will not supply them.
The by-year table counts gross approvals, cancelled approvals included, and that changes how its totals should be read. Across the cohort of FY2017 to FY2024 marina approvals, the cancellation floors are 27.9% under 504 and 14.4% under 7(a), so the yearly totals in both programs include marina deals that were approved and never closed, and the 504 totals include more of them. FY2022's $21.8 million is the 504 peak in approvals; how much of it funded is not on this page. A study that cites a year's total as evidence of what lenders put into marinas overstates it, and a credit officer who knows the difference will notice. The honest use of the series is as a record of demand for SBA marina credit and of what lenders were prepared to approve, set beside the floors that show how often approval was not the end of the story.
| Fiscal year | SBA 7(a) loans | SBA 7(a) dollars | SBA 504 loans | SBA 504 dollars |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY1991 | 30 | $13.2 million | not measured | not measured |
| FY1992 | 34 | withheld | 2 | fewer than 5 loans |
| FY1993 | 44 | withheld | 1 | fewer than 5 loans |
| FY1994 | 37 | $14.9 million | 5 | $1.8 million |
| FY1995 | 48 | $13.0 million | 6 | $1.8 million |
| FY1996 | 36 | $10.9 million | 12 | $6.0 million |
| FY1997 | 47 | withheld | 2 | fewer than 5 loans |
| FY1998 | 44 | $20.6 million | 9 | $3.6 million |
| FY1999 | 34 | $13.5 million | 7 | $3.6 million |
| FY2000 | 36 | $12.1 million | 6 | $2.6 million |
| FY2001 | 30 | $10.6 million | 7 | $2.9 million |
| FY2002 | 38 | $20.4 million | 15 | $7.4 million |
| FY2003 | 36 | $14.5 million | 7 | $3.1 million |
| FY2004 | 47 | $20.8 million | 13 | $5.9 million |
| FY2005 | 44 | $12.2 million | 12 | $7.3 million |
| FY2006 | 22 | $6.6 million | 12 | $8.5 million |
| FY2007 | 40 | $12.7 million | 12 | $5.3 million |
| FY2008 | 20 | $6.5 million | 10 | $8.4 million |
| FY2009 | 13 | $3.7 million | 7 | $5.2 million |
| FY2010 | 28 | $16.0 million | 5 | $4.1 million |
| FY2011 | 27 | $13.4 million | 10 | $6.6 million |
| FY2012 | 27 | $18.7 million | 15 | $12.9 million |
| FY2013 | 19 | withheld | 3 | fewer than 5 loans |
| FY2014 | 33 | withheld | 1 | fewer than 5 loans |
| FY2015 | 21 | $16.9 million | 10 | $7.8 million |
| FY2016 | 28 | $26.7 million | 7 | $4.1 million |
| FY2017 | 21 | $18.3 million | 6 | $5.1 million |
| FY2018 | 32 | $35.1 million | 6 | $7.7 million |
| FY2019 | 25 | $30.2 million | 6 | $9.4 million |
| FY2020 | 26 | $45.7 million | 8 | $15.2 million |
| FY2021 | 34 | $36.6 million | 12 | $12.5 million |
| FY2022 | 20 | $21.7 million | 13 | $21.8 million |
| FY2023 | 14 | $10.5 million | 8 | $8.6 million |
| FY2024 | 15 | $12.2 million | 9 | $9.0 million |
| FY2025 | 22 | $25.2 million | 7 | $7.8 million |
| FY2026 | 11 | $10.5 million | 5 | $4.5 million |
| FY1991 to FY2026 | 1,083 | $641.9 million | 276 | $214.9 million |
| FY2017 to FY2026 | 220 | $246.0 million | 80 | $101.7 million |
Source: SBA 7(a) and 504 loan-level FOIA files as of 2026-09-30 (data.sba.gov; gross approvals, cancelled approvals included), aggregated by Loan Analytics; each figure is kept with its source file and retrieval date. A class figure counts the loans whose NAICS code places them in the class; in years when SBA's files leave the code missing or unplaceable for more than one loan in a hundred, the figure is a floor, and where too few loans are coded the year is not measured. Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, "SBA 7(a) and 504 loans to marina projects by fiscal year", https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#sba-record-sba-by-year.
SBA loans to marina projects in each state from FY2017 to FY2026, ranked, with loan size, program split and the cohort floors where at least 30 loans support them.
Florida carries the deepest marina book in the country: 46 loans for $61.6 million from FY2017 to FY2026, 34 of them under 7(a) and 12 under 504. Its dollar total is larger than the totals of Michigan, New York, Illinois and New Jersey added together, the states that follow it by count, and its $1.1 million median sits above both national program medians, $461,750 under 7(a) and $965,500 under 504. It is also the only state for which the table prints a cancellation floor, 23.1%, which falls between the 7(a) floor of 14.4% and the 504 floor of 27.9%; its charge-off rate is not reported, which is not a zero. A Florida marina study therefore meets a lender with more state comparables than anywhere else, larger typical loans and a recorded pattern of approvals that do not close. It has to show the permit, dredging and construction schedule as fully as the income, and place the request against the state's own median rather than the national one. The Florida marina page on this site carries the state record in more detail.
Michigan is second by count with 25 loans, but its $16.8 million ranks behind the $18.9 million Texas drew on 8 loans and the $17.0 million Missouri drew on 9. Its $340,000 median sits under the $461,750 national 7(a) median and far under Florida's $1.1 million; 18 of its loans came under 7(a) and 7 under 504. Neither floor is reported, each cohort holding fewer than 30 loans. The Michigan record is a book of modest loans, and a study there should expect the lender to size the request against $340,000 first and ask what makes a larger one different: land bought with the marina, a new dock system, an indoor storage building, or a fuel system replaced. The study answers with the cost and income evidence for that difference, and tests coverage across the months the water is open to boats in the market and the months it is not, because a Michigan lender reading a modest-loan record will look hardest at the slow months.
Below Florida and Michigan, the order by loans and the order by dollars part company. Texas has 8 loans and $18.9 million, second only to Florida among the dollar totals the table prints. Missouri's 9 loans carry $17.0 million and Tennessee's 5 carry $13.1 million. At the other end, Indiana's 11 loans total $3.1 million and Ohio's 9 total $3.3 million. States tied on count show the spread most plainly: Indiana and Maryland each have 11 loans, for $3.1 million and $15.1 million; Missouri and Ohio each have 9, for $17.0 million and $3.3 million; Massachusetts, Texas and Virginia each have 8, for $7.0 million, $18.9 million and $12.8 million; and among the states with 7, Connecticut's total is $5.6 million while South Carolina's is $13.7 million. The same number of SBA marina loans financed very different amounts of money from state to state. A study cannot borrow a size benchmark from the national median or from a nearby state's count. It starts from the subject state's dollar total, notes how thin the count beneath it is, and then turns to the sales, rents and occupancy of the marinas in the trade area.
New York, third with 20 loans and $13.9 million, is the first row the table prints without a median, a program split or a floor, and every state below it is printed the same way. Illinois follows with 15 loans and $12.6 million, New Jersey with 13 and $15.5 million, California with 12 and $12.8 million. For a marina in any of these states the SBA record gives the lender a count and a dollar total and nothing it can use to size a single loan or judge its risk. The study has to supply that evidence itself, from the competing marinas the project will draw customers from: their slip counts, occupancy and asking rates by boat length, their storage and service offer, and any waitlist they can document. The national figures help least here, because the New Jersey record, 13 loans for $15.5 million, and the Indiana record, 11 loans for $3.1 million, describe very different loans under the same class name.
The table is not only coastal. Missouri, with no sea coast, carries $17.0 million on 9 loans, Tennessee $13.1 million on 5 and Kansas $8.7 million on 6, and Arkansas adds 4 loans whose amount the table keeps back: marinas on lakes, reservoirs and rivers financed through the same programs as those on the ocean. Several Great Lakes states carry small totals for their counts: besides Michigan's $340,000 median, Indiana's 11 loans total $3.1 million and Ohio's 9 total $3.3 million, while Illinois carries $12.6 million on 15 and Wisconsin $7.3 million on 7; Minnesota, with 4 loans, and Pennsylvania, with 3, sit below the line at which the table prints dollars. South Carolina and North Carolina run the other way: South Carolina's 7 loans carry $13.7 million and North Carolina's 7 carry $12.8 million, and on the Gulf, Alabama's 6 carry $11.1 million. On the Pacific side California has 12 loans for $12.8 million and Oregon 6 for $8.8 million, while Washington's 4 loans show a count with no dollar figure. Each setting changes the study's first question about the water. On a coast it is the bottomland lease, storm exposure and dredging; in a Great Lakes state it is how many months boats stay in the water and where the lake level stands; on an inland reservoir it is who controls the lake and its shoreline and how far the water moves through the year. None of that is in the SBA files, and all of it belongs in the study.
Every row below Tennessee holds 4 loans or fewer and shows "fewer than five loans" where a dollar total would stand, because a sum drawn from that handful of marina loans would let a reader work out what one of them was. At the foot of the table, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Wyoming each have 1 marina loan in the window, and Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota and Vermont have no row at all. A project in those states has no SBA marina record of its own to be measured against. The absence says nothing about whether marinas there find financing, since these tables count SBA loans only and a conventional or USDA loan never appears in them. The worked example on this site is set in Kentucky, whose row holds a single marina loan, and it is financed with a conventional bank loan: it shows the study a lender reads where the state's SBA history cannot carry the comparison. In these states the market case rests on fieldwork, every competing marina visited or verified directly, and the scope we quote is set accordingly.
| State | Loans | Dollars | Median loan | SBA 7(a) loans | SBA 504 loans | Cancelled (floor) | Charged off (floor) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | 46 | $61.6 million | $1.1 million | 34 | 12 | 23.1% | not reported: fewer than 30 loans in the cohort |
| Michigan | 25 | $16.8 million | $340,000 | 18 | 7 | not reported: fewer than 30 loans in the cohort | not reported: fewer than 30 loans in the cohort |
| New York | 20 | $13.9 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Illinois | 15 | $12.6 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| New Jersey | 13 | $15.5 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| California | 12 | $12.8 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Indiana | 11 | $3.1 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Maryland | 11 | $15.1 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Missouri | 9 | $17.0 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Ohio | 9 | $3.3 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Massachusetts | 8 | $7.0 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Texas | 8 | $18.9 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Virginia | 8 | $12.8 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Connecticut | 7 | $5.6 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| North Carolina | 7 | $12.8 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| South Carolina | 7 | $13.7 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Wisconsin | 7 | $7.3 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Alabama | 6 | $11.1 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Kansas | 6 | $8.7 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Oregon | 6 | $8.8 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Rhode Island | 6 | $8.1 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Tennessee | 5 | $13.1 million | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Arkansas | 4 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Delaware | 4 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Minnesota | 4 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Washington | 4 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Georgia | 3 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Louisiana | 3 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Pennsylvania | 3 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| West Virginia | 3 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Alaska | 2 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Arizona | 2 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Colorado | 2 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Maine | 2 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Mississippi | 2 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Oklahoma | 2 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Utah | 2 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Idaho | 1 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Kentucky | 1 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| North Dakota | 1 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Nebraska | 1 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| New Hampshire | 1 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures | ||||
| Wyoming | 1 | fewer than five loans | too few loans for these measures |
Source: Loan Analytics' SBA loan record from SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan-level files, approvals FY2017 to FY2026 as of 2026-09-30; rates are floors and need at least 30 loans in their cohort; dollars are not shown where fewer than five loans would reveal a single loan. Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, "SBA marina loans by state, FY2017 to FY2026", https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#states-states.
The lenders with a recorded book of marina loans, ranked; no lender with fewer than 5 loans is listed.
The lender table carries The Huntington National Bank and no other name: 26 marina loans approved from FY2017 to FY2026 for $14.6 million, with lenders below 5 marina loans excluded by the table's listing line. The bank's 26 loans are more than any state's count except Florida's 46, and more than Michigan's 25, yet its $14.6 million is below the dollar totals Texas reached on 8 loans and Missouri on 9. Its marina lending is a book of many modest loans rather than a few large ones, closer in shape to the Michigan record than to the Florida one. For a borrower approaching a lender with a book of that shape, the study has to be exact at the scale that lender knows: slip rates and occupancy at competing marinas, the condition and remaining life of the docks, and the monthly cash flow of a small operator, rather than the investment case for a large waterfront redevelopment.
The charge-off floor for The Huntington National Bank is withheld. It is not zero, and this page does not estimate it. The national 7(a) charge-off floor of 0.00% describes the class, not any lender's book, and a study should not imply a lender's own loss history from public data where the data withholds it. What a lender with a marina book brings to the file is its own experience of slip income, seasonal cash flow and the cost of keeping docks and bulkheads sound. A study sent to such a lender is read against that experience line by line, so its assumptions have to be specific enough to check: the competing marinas named, their rates dated, the repair and dredging costs tied to quotes, and the coverage stress stated in months rather than as a single annual ratio.
The 26 loans of The Huntington National Bank make up a small part of the 220 7(a) and 80 504 marina approvals in the window, and most marina borrowers in the record dealt with lenders this table does not name. For a borrower that is the practical message of this section: the credit officer who reads the study may have underwritten few marinas, or none, and the study has to explain the business as well as prove the numbers. It shows why demand is counted by boat size, why each revenue line, slips, storage, fuel, service and the store, earns its own margin in its own months, why the off months produce little income while the debt service does not pause, and why docks and bulkheads are collateral only as long as the right to the water beneath them lasts. A study written that way also travels: if the first lender declines, the same report goes to the next one without being rewritten.
| Lender | Loans | Dollars | Charged off (floor) |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Huntington National Bank | 26 | $14.6 million | withheld |
Source: Loan Analytics' SBA loan record from SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan-level files, approvals FY2017 to FY2026 as of 2026-09-30; rates are floors and need at least 30 loans in their cohort; dollars are not shown where fewer than five loans would reveal a single loan. Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, "SBA lenders by marina loans approved, FY2017 to FY2026", https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#lenders-lenders.
How large marina loans run under each SBA program, how they fall into size bands, and how often they were cancelled or charged off.
7(a) marina loans have a lower quartile of $147,600, a median of $461,750 and an upper quartile of $1.8 million; 504 marina loans have a lower quartile of $513,750, a median of $965,500 and the same $1.8 million upper quartile. The programs meet at the top, but the 504 lower quartile, $513,750, sits above the 7(a) median, $461,750. 7(a) finances marinas across a wide range, from loans below $147,600 to loans above $1.8 million, while 504 marina loans gather in a narrower, higher range. A lender places a request in its own program's quartiles before anything else. A 504 marina request below $513,750 sits among that program's smallest marina loans, and a 7(a) request near $1.8 million sits among its largest, and in each case the study should name the position and say what about the project explains it.
The 7(a) size bands do not describe a single market. The smallest band holds 65 loans, the most of any band, for $5.4 million; the top occupied band holds 48 loans, the next most, for $157.5 million, more dollars than every smaller band together. Between them sit 33, 41 and 33 loans, for $8.7 million, $25.6 million and $49.0 million. The 7(a) median of $461,750 therefore falls between a cluster of small loans and a cluster of large ones and describes neither well. A lender compares the request with the band it falls in, and the study should do the same: a small 7(a) request is read against the 65 loans of the smallest band and a large one against the 48 at the top, with the purpose of the loan stated, because the ends of this record are probably different kinds of borrowing, and the large end holds most of the class's 7(a) money.
Under 504 the weight sits in the middle. The band that holds the 504 median is also its fullest, 35 loans for $22.1 million; the next band up carries 20 for $27.1 million, and the top occupied band 17 for $50.5 million. Below the middle there is almost nothing: 1 loan in the smallest band and 7 in the next, their dollars suppressed or withheld. Set the programs band by band and the comparison favours 7(a) as size rises. In the median band of 504, 7(a) and 504 are close, 41 loans for $25.6 million against 35 for $22.1 million; in the band above, 7(a) has 33 loans for $49.0 million against 20 for $27.1 million; and at the top, 48 for $157.5 million against 17 for $50.5 million. Most of the large marina loans in this record are 7(a) loans. A study for a large 504 marina project is read against a short list of comparable 504 loans, and should say so rather than borrow the depth of the 7(a) record.
The highest size band prints 0 loans and $0 in both programs: no marina loan from FY2017 to FY2026, 7(a) or 504, reached it. A project whose debt would exceed every loan in this record has no SBA comparable on this page, and the study must say so rather than stretch the top occupied band to cover it. It then has to show where the rest of the capital comes from and why a lender should accept a request larger than any marina loan the SBA approved in the window. For most marina projects the useful reading is the reverse: the top occupied band, 48 7(a) loans and 17 504 loans, already holds the largest marina loans of the class, and a large request belongs among them.
The cancellation floors count FY2017 to FY2024 approvals, and the gap between the programs is the sharpest outcome contrast on this page: 27.9% for 504 against 14.4% for 7(a), with Florida's state floor at 23.1%. Each is a floor, so the true rate may be higher. The 504 approvals behind it ran between 6 and 13 a year across that cohort, a small book in which every cancelled marina deal shows. The table does not give reasons. A study cannot make a lender close, but it can bring the likely causes forward: a permit path with every agency named and its status, a dredging plan with its disposal site and its window, a construction schedule that fits the months when work on the water is allowed, a budget with contingency for the waterfront items, and a bottomland lease and an appraisal that will both be in hand at closing. A 504 marina file that settles those points before approval removes reasons the deal could otherwise stall on after approval.
Under 7(a) the charge-off floor is 0.00% for marina loans disbursed in FY2017 to FY2021, and the floor within 5 years is 0.00% as well. Its window takes in FY2020, the richest approval year in the record at $45.7 million, and FY2021, the busiest recent one at 34 loans, so many of the loans it counts are likely still early in their terms, and the floor holds only what has been recorded so far. No 504 rate prints, the cohort falling short of 30 loans. A missing rate is not a zero rate, and the same holds for Florida, Michigan and The Huntington National Bank, whose figures are not reported or withheld. A lender reads the 0.00% as encouraging and nothing more. The study's coverage case cannot rest on it. It has to be built from the project's monthly figures: slip rent by season, storage income across the off months, fuel and service following boat traffic, and the fixed costs, insurance and debt service that run all year.
| Program | Loans | Dollars | Lower quartile | Median loan | Upper quartile | Cancelled (floor) | Charged off (floor) | Charged off within 5 years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBA 7(a) | 220 | $246.0 million | $147,600 | $461,750 | $1.8 million | 14.4% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| SBA 504 | 80 | $101.7 million | $513,750 | $965,500 | $1.8 million | 27.9% | not reported: fewer than 30 loans in the cohort | not reported: fewer than 30 loans in the cohort |
Source: Loan Analytics' SBA loan record from SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan-level files, approvals FY2017 to FY2026 as of 2026-09-30; rates are floors and need at least 30 loans in their cohort; dollars are not shown where fewer than five loans would reveal a single loan. Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, "SBA marina loans by program, FY2017 to FY2026", https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#loan-sizes-programs.
| Loan size | SBA 7(a) loans | SBA 7(a) dollars | SBA 504 loans | SBA 504 dollars |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $150,000 or less | 65 | $5.4 million | 1 | fewer than 5 loans |
| Over $150,000 to $350,000 | 33 | $8.7 million | 7 | withheld |
| Over $350,000 to $1 million | 41 | $25.6 million | 35 | $22.1 million |
| Over $1 million to $2 million | 33 | $49.0 million | 20 | $27.1 million |
| Over $2 million to $5 million | 48 | $157.5 million | 17 | $50.5 million |
| Over $5 million | 0 | $0 | 0 | $0 |
Source: SBA 7(a) and 504 loan-level FOIA files as of 2026-09-30 (data.sba.gov; gross approvals, cancelled approvals included), aggregated by Loan Analytics; each figure is kept with its source file and retrieval date. Download this table (CSV). Cite as: Loan Analytics, "SBA marina loans by size band, FY2017 to FY2026 approvals", https://www.analytics.loan/marina-feasibility-study#loan-sizes-size-bands.
Loan Analytics writes them. We have no part in the loan or the project, and each study carries the signed conclusion of Daniel Smith, MAI. The study is addressed to the credit officer, not to investors, and it is accepted when the officer can check it: each market claim tied to a named competitor or a dated source, each cost line tied to a bid or quote, and the project placed in the SBA marina record on this page, 220 7(a) loans and 80 504 loans from FY2017 to FY2026. We prepare marina studies for conventional, USDA and SBA lenders alike, for purchases of operating marinas, dock and slip expansions and new builds.
Because the lender's own evidence is thin. A marina is a seasonal business on water the operator may not own, and the SBA record a credit officer could compare it with is small: 11 7(a) marina approvals nationwide in FY2026 and 5 under 504, and outside Florida and Michigan no state with enough loans for a median. The record also shows where marina loans go wrong first, before funding, with cancellation floors of 27.9% under 504 and 14.4% under 7(a). A study fills the gap with market evidence from the trade area and tests the items that stall a closing, so the lender decides on facts rather than on a short national history.
The prices below come from our 2026 survey of fees, published on this site, which records what feasibility providers list for their studies. The survey does not name marinas among its examples, so the band depends on the project. A single-site study of what the survey calls a standard special-purpose asset is listed at $5,000 to $12,500. Its complex band, $10,000 to $25,000, covers ground-up work, multi-site projects, unusual concepts and construction with phased delivery, the band a new marina or a phased dock expansion is most likely to fall in. Where a USDA lender asks for the 7 CFR Part 5001 standard, the survey's price runs from $7,500, with $18,750 the highest it prints and some quotes above that. We quote the fee for the specific marina in the scope reply.
That depends on the marina, and the timeline arrives with the scope reply, worked back from the lender's deadline; no fixed turnaround is published. What sets it for a marina is specific. A purchase with years of slip, storage and fuel records needs less fieldwork than a new build that has to establish demand from registrations and waitlists. A project outside Florida and Michigan has no state median to lean on, so its competing marinas are verified one by one. And a project whose permits or bottomland lease are still open needs each traced to its agency before the study can say when the docks can be built.
7(a), by loans and by dollars. From FY2017 to FY2026 it approved 220 marina loans for $246.0 million against 80 for $101.7 million under 504, and over the full record since FY1991, 1,083 loans against 276. It also holds the large loans: in the top occupied size band 7(a) has 48 loans for $157.5 million and 504 has 17 for $50.5 million. 504 marina loans are larger at the middle, a $965,500 median against $461,750, partly because 504 has almost no small marina loans. The programs differ most on cancellation, a floor of 27.9% under 504 against 14.4% under 7(a), the risk a 504 study has to address before anything else.
The median 7(a) marina approval in FY2017 to FY2026 was $461,750, with a lower quartile of $147,600 and an upper quartile of $1.8 million. Under 504 the median is $965,500 and the quartiles $513,750 and $1.8 million. By state, Florida's median is $1.1 million and Michigan's $340,000, and no other state has enough loans for one. The 7(a) record is heavy at both ends, 65 loans in the smallest band and 48 in the top occupied band, and no loan in either program reached the band above it. A study places the request in its own program, band and state, because the national median sits between distinct groups of borrowers and fits neither closely.
Florida, with 46 loans for $61.6 million from FY2017 to FY2026, then Michigan with 25 and $16.8 million, New York with 20 and $13.9 million, Illinois with 15 and $12.6 million, New Jersey with 13 and $15.5 million, California with 12 and $12.8 million, and Indiana and Maryland with 11 each. Ranked by the dollar totals the table prints, the list changes: Texas is second with $18.9 million on 8 loans, Missouri third with $17.0 million on 9, and Michigan fourth. Florida is the only state with a cancellation floor, 23.1%, and Florida and Michigan the only ones with a median, so below them a state row gives a lender a count and little else.
Then the study says so and builds the market case from the site outward. At the foot of the state table several states hold a single marina loan and several have no row, and a marina there has no SBA state record to be measured against. That is not evidence that lenders avoid marinas there, because the tables count SBA loans only. The study identifies the marinas a boater in the market would choose between, verifies their slips, rates and occupancy directly, and ties demand to the boats kept in the area. The worked example on this site, a conventional bank marina acquisition and dock expansion in Kentucky, shows that kind of study.
The Huntington National Bank is the lender this page lists, with 26 marina loans approved from FY2017 to FY2026 for $14.6 million; its charge-off floor is withheld. Lenders under 5 marina loans are not listed, and the bank's 26 make up a small part of the record's marina lending, so most borrowers in these years worked with a lender the table does not name. That shapes how we write. The study is built so that a credit officer new to marinas can follow how slips, storage, fuel and service earn their income, and so that a lender with a marina book can check each assumption against what it already knows.
Among marina approvals from FY2017 through FY2024, at least 14.4% under 7(a) and 27.9% under 504 were cancelled, and Florida's state floor is 23.1%. These are floors, the cancellations the files record, and a rate prints only where 30 or more loans support it, so Michigan and every smaller state have none. The table gives no reasons. For a waterfront project the candidates are the items that must all be in hand at closing: permits from more than one agency, a dredging approval, the bottomland lease, a construction window, and an appraisal that supports the loan. The study traces each of them before approval.
Under 7(a), not yet on the record: for marina loans funded from FY2017 through FY2021 the floor is 0.00% overall and 0.00% within 5 years. That floor is a minimum on a young cohort whose window takes in FY2020, the year of the most 7(a) marina dollars, $45.7 million, and FY2021, with 34 loans, so it can rise as those loans age. No 504 rate prints, the 504 cohort holding fewer than 30 loans, and Florida, Michigan and The Huntington National Bank show no rate either. None of those blanks is a zero. A lender will not accept a clean floor in place of coverage, so the study tests debt service on the project's own monthly income, in a weak season and after a storm.
The count has shrunk and the loans have grown. 7(a) marina approvals ran between 30 and 48 a year through the 1990s, while FY2026 brought 11, the fewest in the record. Dollars moved the other way: no printed 7(a) total before FY2016 reaches FY2016's $26.7 million, and FY2020 set the record high, $45.7 million on 26 loans. Under 504, FY2022's 13 loans for $21.8 million set the high, and FY2026's 5 loans for $4.5 million are the fewest since FY2014. A lender reads this as a class financed less often but in larger amounts, and expects the study to justify the size of the request against the recent window, not the long average.
Yes. Our marina studies serve USDA Business and Industry lenders and conventional banks as well as SBA lenders. Every table here is built from SBA approvals, so a study for a USDA or conventional lender cannot present them as its own lending history; it uses them as context on loan size and outcomes and builds its case from the market. The worked example on this site is a conventional bank marina acquisition and dock expansion in Kentucky, a state whose SBA row holds one marina loan and no printed dollar total, and it shows how such a study reads when the SBA record offers little to compare against.
Who has the right to use it, for how long, and what it costs to keep it usable. The study records whether the marina owns the bottomland under its docks or leases it, from whom, on what term and with what renewal rights, because the docks are collateral only while that right lasts. It sets out each permit the project needs for docks, dredging and shoreline work with its agency and status, the dredging history and the cost of the next dredge, and the condition of docks, pilings and bulkheads with the reserve they need. On a coast it adds storm exposure; on an inland lake or reservoir it adds who controls the water level.
Month by month. It splits revenue into its lines, wet slips, dry and winter storage, fuel, service and repair, the ship store and any restaurant, and gives each its own calendar and margin, because a year-end total hides the months when little comes in while debt service is still due. It then tests coverage in the weakest months, in a short season, and in the year after a storm when docks may be closed for repair. A Michigan marina, where the median loan is $340,000, and a Florida marina, where it is $1.1 million, do not face the same season or the same storm, and the study sets its stress cases to the market the marina is in.
This record holds such a project only if the borrower's main line of business is the marina. These tables count loans by the industry code that places them in the class, so a waterfront restaurant with slips or a boat dealer is counted elsewhere, and storage in dry stacks operated by a boat dealer is not in these figures. A study for a mixed operation has to say which record the lender should read, show the revenue split that supports that choice, and test each part on its own economics, because the lender will underwrite the restaurant or the dealership as what it is, not as a marina.
Lenders usually pair the study with an appraisal, environmental work and title, and each has a price line in our 2026 fee survey, published on this site. A marina appraisal falls in one of the survey's appraisal bands: $2,500 to $7,500 for standard commercial work or, where the appraiser values the marina's slip, fuel and service business as a going concern, the special-purpose band of $5,000 to $15,000. Environmental review opens with a questionnaire and records search, $300 to $1,500. If the lender escalates to a Phase I, the survey prices a standard site from $2,000 to $5,000 and gas stations and similar high-risk uses from $3,500 to $6,000, the band a lender may apply where a marina sells fuel. Title, survey and recording are listed at $2,000 to $5,000, and business valuations at $1,800 to $7,000. The lender decides which reports it orders.
The marina's location and the water it sits on; the number of wet slips and dry storage spaces by boat length; the fuel, service, ship store and restaurant lines it runs or plans; whether you are buying a running marina, expanding one or building new; the bottomland arrangement and any lease term; the permits held and those still needed; the financing program and the lender, if either is chosen; the loan size; and the lender's closing date if one is set. For an operating marina, add recent years of revenue by line and by month. We then locate the project in this page's record, by program, size band and state row, and reply with the study's scope, its timeline and its fee.
Loan Analytics prepares the feasibility study a lender reads before it commits: for a marina project anywhere in the United States, financed under SBA 7(a), SBA 504, USDA Business and Industry or a conventional bank loan. Tell us the project and the lender's deadline, and we reply with scope, timeline and fee.
Daniel Smith, MAI
Start with the data.
Contact Us