Veterinary Clinic Feasibility Study in Oklahoma

Common in the state, light on dollars

Oklahoma veterinary lending is frequent but small. The 2.03x location quotient shows clinics taking roughly twice the weight they carry nationally, and within Oklahoma the class holds the 10 of 39 spot among asset types. Yet the median loan of $342,000 is just 0.55x the national median for the class, the lowest ratio among the veterinary cells we have written. Over FY2017 to FY2026 the file counts 59 approvals totaling $41.6 million, and the state ranks 20 of 53. The median is the distinctive metric: many clinics, each borrowing a little more than half of what a clinic elsewhere typically borrows.

Programs and lenders

The middle half of loans runs from $203,500 to $918,500. Oklahoma clinics took 55 loans through 7(a), only 4 through 504, and no franchise lending shows. BancFirst leads the lender list with 10 loans totaling $4.1 million, First Financial Bank follows with 8 loans for $4.9 million, and Live Oak Banking Company has 6 loans for $13.2 million, a far larger average that points to practice acquisitions and larger builds. Tulsa County has 13 loans, Oklahoma County 11, Comanche County 5 and Cleveland County 4. Volume was heaviest early, with 13 loans in FY2017, and again in FY2021 with 10 loans and $11.0 million, then dropped to 3 loans in FY2023 and FY2025.

Cancellation removes 11.1% or more of the FY2017 to FY2024 approvals and could reach 14.8% should the undisbursed balance fall through. Among 32 loans that reached funding in the early cohort, the charge-off floor sits at 0.00%, and the early-default tally is also 0.00%. A cohort of 32 is only just large enough to publish, and open loans can still turn.

What the study should show

A clinic study in Oklahoma has to explain why the typical ticket is low. Smaller practices in smaller towns, lower build costs and purchases of existing clinics all produce lower loans, and the study should say which applies. Demand should be shown from pet and livestock-related client bases in the catchment, since mixed practices behave differently from small-animal clinics, and the rival practices within driving distance should be counted. Costs should be set against the $342,000 median and justified when higher. The coverage test on the loan payment should include recruiting a second veterinarian, and the appraisal of a practice purchase leans on goodwill and transferable clients, so documented revenue by service line is part of the evidence.