The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
E. 15 (125) AGRICULTURAL FINANCE DATABOOK First Quarter 1994 Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks Selected statistics from the quarterly reports of condition of commercial banks Reserve bank surveys of farm credit conditions and farm land values Division of Research and Statistics Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Washington, D.C. 20551 Nicholas A. Walraven and Michele Ricci Pagg. 3 17 28 2 General Information The Agricultural Finance Databook is a compilation of various data on current developments in agricultural finance. Large portions of the data come from regular surveys conducted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or Federal Reserve Banks. Other portions of the data come from the quarterly call report data of commercial banks or from the reports of other financial institutions involved in agricultural lending. When the current issue went to press, data from the survey of terms of bank lending were available for the first quarter of 1993; the other data generally were available through the fourth quarter. Parts or all of the Agricultural Finance Databook may be copied and distributed freely. Any redistribution of selected parts of the Databook should be accompanied by the "contents" pages at the beginning of the corresponding section, together with the front cover identifying the Databook and date of issue, and this page providing subscription information. Remaining questions may be addressed to Nicholas Walraven or Michele Ricci at the address shown on the cover. The Databook is furnished on a complimentary basis to college and university teachers, libraries of educational institutions, government departments and agencies, and public libraries. Others should enclose the annual subscription fee of $5.00. New subscriptions to the Databook (Statistical Release E.15) may be entered by sending a mailing address (including zip code) to: Publications Services, Mail Stop 138 Federal Reserve Board Washington, D.C. 20551 Notice of change of address also should be sent to Publications Services. the old address should be included. A copy of the back cover showing SECTION I: AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS Estimates from the quarterly survey of nonreal estate farm loans Page 5 Summary charts Tables: I.A I.B I.C I.D I.E I.F I.G I.H I.I Number Average size Amount Average maturity Average effective interest Percentage of loans with a Distribution of farm loans Detailed survey results Regional disaggregation of 7 8 9 10 rate floating interest rate.... by effective interest rate 11 survey results 16 12 13 14 SOURCES OF DATA: These data on the farm loans of $1000 or more made by commercial banks are derived from quarterly sample surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve System during the first full week of the second month of each quarter. Data obtained from the sample are expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks, which are shown in the following tables. Before August 1989, the farm loan survey was part of a broader survey of the terms of lending by a sample of 340 commercial banks. A subset of 250 banks was asked for information regarding agricultural lending, and about 150 typically reported at least one farm loan. Since August of 1989, the data have been drawn from a redesigned sample of 250 banks that is no longer part of the broader survey. In the redesigned sample, banks are stratified according to their volume of farm lending; previously, they had been stratified according to the volume of business loans. As before, however, the sample data are being expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks. In the February 1994 survey, 213 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled 4948. In both the previous survey and the new one, the national estimates exhibit variability due to sampling error. The estimates are sensitive to the occasional appearance of very large loans in the sample. In addition, the breakdown of national estimates into those for large banks and small banks may have been affected somewhat by the new sampling procedures that were implemented in August 1989; apparent shifts in the data as of that date should be treated with caution. 3 SECTION I: (CONTINUED) SS®®S85SS®8H!Kf§S!iHiSf RECENT DEVELOPMENTS• Chart 1 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Millions, Annual Rate Number of nonreal estate farm loans 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 -- Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 198519861987198819891990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1.0 Thousands of dollars Average size of nonreal estate farm loans -- Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Billions of Dollars, Annual Rate 110 Amount of nonreal estate farm loans 100 - Four quarter moving average L i ... i ... i ... i ... i ... « •» * i i • i I 1««» I i » i l • JL_I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1. 1. 1i 1... 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 vO Chart 2 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Months Average maturity of nonreal estate farm loans — Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Percent Average effective interest rate on nonreal estate farm loans 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Percent Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate 100 70 - Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.A NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN FEEDER LIVESTOCK ALL LOANS OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES BY SIZE OF BANK BY SIZE OF LOAN ($l,000s) FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER 1 to 9 0. 35 0. 32 0. 35 0 .27 0. 24 0. 19 0. 21 0. 20 0. 19 0..21 0 ,24 . 0.,27 2 .14 2 .32 2 .42 2 .06 1 .71 1 .57 1. ,42 . 1 .67 1 .70 . 1. 66 1,.67 1..65 25 to 99 100 and over 0 .67 0 .40 0 .60 0 .38 0 .53 0 .40 0. 51 0 .30 0. 46 0 .29 0 .4 6 0 .27 0 .43 0 .28 . 0 .52 0 ,31 . 0 .49 0 ,35 . 0 .51 0 .32 , 0 .54 0 .36 , 0 .56 0 .37 0 .09 0 .11 0 .09 0 .09 0 .08 0 .08 0. 07 0. ,09 . 0 ,09 0 .10 . 0 .11 , 0 .12 . 10 to 24 LARGE OTHER 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 0 .22 0.20 0 .18 0.18 0.20 0 .20 0 .23 0.,36 0 ,44 . 0 .50 . 0..51 0,.55 3. 08 3 .21 3 .26 2 .78 2 .34 2 .18 1. 99 2 .23 2 .20 2 . 10 , 17 2. , 15 2. ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE 3 .30 3 .41 3 44 2 96 2 .55 2 .38 2 .21 2 .60 2 .63 , 60 2. 2 . 68 2.,70 1982. 1983. 1984. 1985. 1986. 1987. 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993. I | | 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 0 33 0 37 0 34 0 34 0 .30 0 ,39 . 0 ,29 . 0 ,30 . 0,,32 0 .35 , 0,.35 0,.36 0. 26 0. 32 0. 29 0. 23 0 .17 0. 13 0. 11 0. 20 0. 24 0.,23 0.,25 0.,27 2 06 2 00 2 06 1 77 1 .66 ,54 1. 1 ,45 . . 1 ,73 1 .69 . 1 .64 . 1 .67 , 1 ,62 , 0. 30 .0.39 0. 35 0. 36 0. 17 0 .14 0. 14 0 .16 0. 19 0. 17 0.. 18 0., 18 NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE Q3., Q4., 2 . 45 2 . 88 2 .76 2 . 64 1 I I 1 0 .35 0 .28 0 .32 0 .43 0 .24 0 .27 0 .17 0 .30 1 .43 1 .95 1 .78 1 .52 0,.19 0 . 15 0 .20 0 . 19 0 .24 0 .23 0 .29 0 .20 1 .47 1 .80 1 .82 1 .57 0 .50 . 0 .61 . 0 .51 , 0 .53 . 0 .36 0 .37 0 .34 0 .40 0 .12 0 .10 0 .09 0 .13 1 I 1 1 0 .45 0 .53 0 .58 0 .48 2,.01 2 . 35 2 . 17 2 .16 1993 Ql., Q2., Q3. Q4 . 2 .74 2 . 90 2 . 68 2 .49 1 1 1 1 0 .39 0 .34 0 .28 0 .43 0 .27 0 .28 0 .20 0 .32 1 .62 1 .86 1 .70 1 .31 0 .23 0 .19 0 .16 0 . 14 0 .23 0 .22 0 . 34 0 .30 1 .62 1 .89 1 .68 1 .40 0 .55 0 .58 0 .57 0 .53 0 .42 .0 .14 0 .32 0 .10 0 .33 0 .11 0 .41 0 .14 1 1 1 1 0 .48 0 .53 0 .63 o .58 2 .26 2 .37 2 . 05 1 .91 1994 Ql. 2 . 44 1 o .28 0 .33 1 .40 0 .21 0 .22 1 .44 0 .50 0 .38 0 .12 1 o .49 1 .96 1992 Ql., Q2., 1 7 8 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.B AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 97 .8 92 .0 88 .1 82 .0 62 .0 85 .5 70 .0 53 .7 . 100..7 107 .0 , 97 .0 , 106,.0 14 .4 15 .2 13 .8 13 , .4 15,.3 14 .9 , 16,.3 14 ,4 . 13 . ,9 13 . ,9 15.,8 15.,8 ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 .0 19 .7 17 .7 17 .6 19 .0 , 20 .8 21 .8 . 19,. 9 28,.4 31 .9 . 31 .2 . 34 ,3 . 41 .5 32 .5 31 . 8 25,.7 35 . .0 33 . 8 34 , ,1 42 . .7 69,.7 61.,0 68., 3 79 ..7 17 .5 18 .2 21 .9 22 , .5 .8 25 , 26 . .3 40 . 6 29 , .5 22 . ,7 25 . .2 ,9 26 . 23 .,1 13 . 6 15 . 5 12 . 9 12 .8 14 .0 14 . 6 16 , .7 14 , .1 15..7 15,. 6 14 , .7 15,,2 17 .6 15 .6 12 .5 12 .4 13 .6 16 . .1 13 , .9 12 , .1 11 , .9 15 , .1 16 . .0 13 , .9 38 .9 37 .1 34 .8 42 .1 32 .9 44 .6 34 .7 32 . .2 .3 94 . 129,.1 108 , .8 112 , .0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 .7 3. 6 3 .7 3 .5 3 .5 3 .6 3 .7 . 3 .6 . 3 .6 , 3 .6 , 3 .7 , 3 .7 . 14,. 6 14..8 14,.7 14,.4 14,.9 14.,7 14 , .8 14.,7 14.,8 14.,9 14..8 14. 9 46 .1 46 .3 43 .8 45 , .5 44..9 46,.5 45,.2 45..9 46..1 46., 6 45.,9 46..1 326 294 291 255 280 320 320 272 488 540 468 490 AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1992 Ql.. Q2.. Q3.. Q4.. 36 .8 26 . 6 25 .2 37 . .3 68,.0 63 , .1 70,.5 70,. 1 24 .4 23 .4 20 .4 36 .0 17 . 4 .8 12 . 12 , .6 17 , .2 14 .4 24 .3 12 .9 14 .1 137 .8 104 .0 63 .8 143 .5 1 1 1 1 3 .8 3. 6 3 .5 4 .0 15 .0 14 .7 , 14,.7 14 .9 , 48 , .3 45.. 6 45,.0 44 , .6 482 440 432 503 1 1 1 1 121 .6 83 .0 72 .1 120 .1 18 .0 , 13 , .8 12 , .6 19 , .0 1993 Ql.. Q2.. Q3.. Q4.. 35 , .1 31 . .0 30 , .3 ,5 41 , 77 . , 73 . , 88., 80., 16 . .4 18 . .8 24 , .9 31 , .2 18., 8 13 . ,9 12 . .5 16 .,3 15 , .2 .8 12 , 14 , .7 .3 12 , 120 .2 138 .6 .3 82 , 119 , .9 1 1 1 1 3 .7 , 3 .9 , 3 .5 , 3 .8 , 15,,3 14..8 14., 9 14.,7 45..5 44 . ,8 46.,8 47 ..3 441 577 476 488 1 1 1 1 111 .7 , 112 .6 , 83 .7 , 119 .6 . 19.,0 12 .,8 13 ..8 17 .,8 1994 Ql... 34.9 72.5 27.3 19.9 21.5 106.5 3.6 14.7 48.4 445 102.6 18.1 4 9 3 8 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.C AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS) BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN FEEDER LIVESTOCK ALL LOANS OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 BY SIZE OF BANK 25 to 99 100 and over 18. 2 17. 5 17. 6 13. 5 13. 2 12. 6 12 .9 14 .4 15. 9 15.,1 16.,7 17.,1 30. 0 32 .4 26. 5 24. 0 22. 3 24. 5 23.,7 23.,4 45.,3 54.,0 52..8 61..0 LARGE OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21.7 18. 6 15. 8 14.9 12. 6 17.,1 15.,9 19.,6 44..2 53.> 7 49..4 58..8 44 ,3 . 48.,7 45.,0 37 .,3 35.,9 32 .,5 32.,3 32.,0 30..5 29..1 34,.3 33 , .8 ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 , 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 , 1992 , •1993 . 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 66 .0 67 .3 60.8 52 .1 48.5 49.6 48.2 51 .6 74.7 82 .8 83 .7 92 .6- 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 13 6 12 1 10 7 8 6 10 4 13..2 10.,0 12.,9 22,.0 21.,4 23..6 28..7 4 .5 5 .9 6 .5 5 .2 4 .5 3 .4 4 .6 6 .0 5 .5 5 .8 6. 6 6 .2 28. 1 31 1 26. 5 22 6 23 2 22 ,,5 24 .,3 24 .,3 26 ,,6 25 .,5 ,6 24 . ,7 24 . 5.,4 6.,1 4..4 4.,4 2..4 2..3 1..9 2..0 2 ,3 . 2..5 2,.9 2,.5 7 .9 . 8 ,4 . 8 ,9 . 7 ,2 . 6 .0 . 5..7 5,.2 6,.1 6,.1 6,.1 6 .2 . 6 .1 , 13 . .4 .9 11 . .2 12 . .3 11 . 8 .0 . 8 .3 , 7 .4 , 6,.4 18,.3 .6 27 , .0 26 . 30 . .6 9.,8 9,,0 7 ,8 . 7 ,4 . 6.,9 6..8 6..4 7 .7 . 7 .3 . 7 .6 , 8,.0 8,.3 AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE 1DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER,, ANNUAL RATE 1992 Q1. . . Q2... Q3... Q4. . . I I 1 1 90 .3 76.4 69.4 98.6 1 I I I 23,.9 17,.6 22,.8 30,.1 5 .9 6 .4 3 .6 10 .7 .0 25 . .0 25 . .3 22 , 26,. 2 2 .7 3 .6 2 .5 2 .7 32 .9 23 .9 18 .2 28 .9 5 .5 6 .4 6 .4 6 .2 7 .5 9 .0 7 .4 8 .0 17..2 16.. 7 15..1 17,.9 60,.1 44,.3 40,.4 6 6.5 1 1 1 1 54,. 2 44 .0 42 .1 57 .4 36 .1 32 .4 27 .4 41 .2 1993 Ql. . . Q2... Q3 . . . Q4... I 1 1 1 96.0 89.8 81.3 1021.5 I 1 1 1 30,.0 25,.5 24 .5 34 .7 4 .4 5 .3 4 .9 10 .1 30 , .5 25,.8 21,.3 21,.3 3 .5 2 .4 2 .4 1 .7 27 .6 30 .8 28 .2 35 .6 5 .9 7 .3 5 .8 5 .4 8 .5 8 .6 8 .5 7 .8 19,.2 14,.5 15,.2 19 , 6 62 .4 '59 .3 51 .7 70 .7 1 1 1 1 53 .2 59 .4 53 .1 69 .5 42 .8 30 .4 28 .2 34 .0 1994 Ql... 1 85.3 1 20 .2 9 .1 .8 27 . 4 .5 23 .7 5 .2 7 .4 18 .3 54 .3 1 49 .9 35 .4 1 9 10 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE X.D AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE (MONTHS) BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,0008) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 7 .0 8 .1 7 .5 7 .7 8 .0 8,.1 9..2 8..3 9.,2 8.,3 9..7 10. 0 6 .6 8 .1 7 .7 9 .1 9 .8 9,.3 10,.2 . 9 .3 11..9 10 .,6 11.,1 11. 1 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY 1982. 1983. 1984. 1985. 1986. 1987 . 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993 . 6.5 8.9 7.7 8.0 8.0 8.4 8.7 8.1 7.5 7.3 8.9 9.2 1 5 0 1 8 5 4 8 .0 .7 .1 .3 7.0 8.1 6.6 7.8 6.3 7.7 4.7 7.4 8.8 8.5 9.5 9.6 .1 10.. 4 7.. 8 7.. 3 7.. 6 7.. 6 .5 .2 .5 .2 .6 .3 8 .4 10 .6 12 .6 13 .4 21 .0 22 . .8 19,.8 18.,1 21 . ,9 24 . ,6 20.,1 30. 4 5 .4 7 .8 8 .1 8 .8 8,.8 12 .1 , 10,.9 11.,8 6.,4 5.,3 9. 4 9. 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 .0 7 .0 7 .0 6 .7 6 .8 7,.5 7 .1 , 7 .4 . 7 ,4 . 7 ,7 . 8.,3 8.5 6 .4 10 .0 8 .0 7,.9 7,.1 8..3 7.,7 7.,1 4. 9 5. 8 7. 2 7. 4 6 .0 6 .1 7 .0 6 .9 5,.5 5,.9 8.. 1 7.,8 4.,7 5. 2 6. 4 6. 4 6 .7 9 .9 7 .9 8 .4 8 .8 , , 9 .3 . 8 .8 8. .2 10 .,2 9. 6 10 .1 10 .4 MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1992 Ql. 03. 04. 9.9 9.5 8.8 7.7 1993 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 9.9 10.1 9.8 7.4 6 .8 6.5 9.2 7.0 11 , .4 , 8 .8 8 .2 . 9 .9 . 1994 Ql. 10 .1 6.9 8 .3 02. 6 .1 7.2 5.1 6.3 6 .5 9 .9 12 .5 9 .9 10 .0 9 .2 7. 0 7 .8 , 22 .6 18 .8 19 .7 19 .5 12 .0 8 .2 14 .3 4,.4 1 1 1 1 10 .1 8 .6 7 .5 7 .1 10 .4 10 .3 9,.3 8..7 11 .6 11 .8 10 .2 10 .6 8 .0 7 .5 7 .7 6,.0 7.5 7.0 6.8 4.5 10.9 10.6 9.8 9.1 8,.9 8..7 8., 1 7..2 32 , .5 34 , .0 24 . .5 29.,0 8..0 15..6 11..0 3 .8 1 1 1 1 8,.6 9..7 7 .3 . 8.,0 10.,8 10.,0 10. 6 8. 8 11..9 12 . .6 9 ,8 . 10 .3 7..5 7.,9 9. 7 5. 1 5.9 5.9 9.7 4.7 10.8 11.4 9.9 9.3 8. 9 32 ..0 6. 6 1 8.6 12. 7 13 .9 6. 6 4.5 12.8 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.E AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES BY SIZE OF BANK BY SIZE OF LOAN ($l,000s) FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 16 .8 14 .1 14 ,3 . 13 .,2 ,0 12 . 11.. 3 11 . 6 .7 12 , 12 . .4 11 .2 9. 3 8 .7 17.,0 .0 14 . .3 14 . .2 13 , .8 11 , 11 .1 11 . 4 12 .7 12 .1 10 .7 8 .8 8 .3 100 and over LARGE OTHER 16. 1 12.. 1 13., 1 11.,2 9.. 6 9.,2 10.,2 12,. 1 10 . 9 9. 0 6. 8 6 .7 17 .,0 14 ., 1 14 . 4 .4 13 , .1 12 , 11,. 3 11,. 6 12 .7 12 . 3 11 . 3 9. 4 8 .7 ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE 1982. 1983. 1984. 1985. 1986. 1987 . 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993. 16 .,7 ,5 13 . ,l 14 . 12 . 8 11.. 5 .6 10 , 11.. 2 12 . 5 11.. 4 9. 8 7. 8 7 .5 15.,9 ,6 13 . 13 . .7 12 .5 . 11,.1 10 .7 , 10 .9 . 12 .3 . 11 .5 10 .2 8. 2 8 .0 ,3 16 . .8 13 . .3 14 . .7 12 . .9 11 , 10 .2 11 .9 12 .4 12 .0 11 .0 8 .6 8 .1 16 ..9 13 .,5 14 ,2 . .0 13 . 11,.5 10,.8 11,.2 12 . 6 11 .7 10 . 4 8 .8 8 .1 17 . .1 14 .3 , .6 14 , .7 13 , 12 .2 11 .5 11 .7 12 .8 12 .3 11 .3 9 .3 8 .7 16..9 12 .,8 14 .,0 ,1 12 . 11..2 9,.5 10 , .7 .3 12 . 10,.7 8. 6 6 .3 6 .2 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 17 ,0 . 14 ,2 . 14 ,6 . 13 .7 . 12 .4 , 11 .6 , 11..7 12 .8 12 .5 11 .5 9 .7 9 .0 16. 4 13.,0 13.,7 12 .,1 10..8 9,.9 10,.8 .2 12 , 10,.9 9 .2 7 .1 6 .9 I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1992 Ql. Q2. Q3 . 04. 8, .7 8. ,3 8. ,0 8,.0 . 8 .4 9 .7 . 8 .4 8 .0 9., 1 9., 1 8.. 6 8..4 , 9 .9 9 .5 , 9 .2 , , 8 .7 6. 4 6..8 6 ,4 . 5.,5 1 1 1 I 10.,0 9 ,9 . 9 .5 , 9 .4 , 9..5 9. 6 9 .0 , 9,.0 9 .2 , 9 .1 , 8 .6 , 8 .5 7 ,2 . 7 ,5 , 7 (,1 6..7 6. 8 7 .2, 6.,8 6..3 9 .1 . 9..7 9. ,4 8 .9 1993 Ql. Q2 « 03, 04. 7 .9 8. 1 8 .0 8 .1 8 .9 8 .2 7 .9 7 .7 8,.3 8..1 8,.2 7 .8 8 .8 8 .6 9 .0 8 .4 6,.1 6,.2 6,,4 6,.1 1 I I I 9 .2 9 .0 9 .0 8 .9 8 .8 8 .8 8. 6 8 .5 8 .4 8 .4 ' 8 .1 8 .2 7 .0 . 6 .9 7 .0 6 .8 6,.6 6,.7 7 .0 6 .7 8 .8 8 .9 8. 6 8 .6 7 .7 7 .3 7 .9 8 .2 6. 1 1 8 .8 8 .4 8 .1 6 .7 6. 6 8 .3 1994 Ql. 7.3 1 11 12 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.F PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 65 . 6 77 .7 71 .1 77,.1 71,.9 77,.6 79,. 1 83,.6 69.,4 70.,0 82. 9 86.9 26 .3 29 .9 27 .6 32 . 6 47 .0 49,.9 52 .6 . 47 , .2 59,.3 56,,1 55.,5 58. 9 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE 1982. 1983. 1984. 1985. 1986. 1987. 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993 . 39 43 38 45 53 59 61 61.0 65.2 65.1 71.7 76.7 47.8 47.8 41 61 60 51 65 71.4 76.8 81.5 78.5 84.6 .2 .7 .3 32 . 44 . 9 34 . 8 69,. 6 39 . 5 .0 .6 .3 .5 .0 43 .0 48 . 1 41 .7 43 .0 57 , .2 62,. 1 63 , .8 59,.7 68.. 3 68.,8 6 6 .. 3 70. 3 15 .5 17 .6 24 .3 19 . 6 30 .9 55 .5 54 , .9 32 , .9 40 , ,0 40 . .6 47 .,8 48 ..2 31 .4 44 .3 39 .5 47 .3 50 . 6 62 .1 63 , .2 73 . .6 51..2 50,.3 75,.3 78..1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24 .3 25 . 6 23 .8 27 . 6 40 . 6 48,.5 49,.3 50..4 53 , .6 52 ,0 . 57 . 3 60. 1 25 . 6 29 . 1 31..3 31,.5 41,.8 45..6 51..5 49.,6 59..2 59. 0 59. 1 61. 0 29 .7 34 .9 29 .0 42 .0 48 .2 54,.4 60..8 58..5 6 6 ,0 , 64.,0 61. 2 64 .5 53 .4 55 .9 52 .7 56,. 6 63 , .7 68,.5 67 . ,0 69,.1 67 .,5 67 .8 78. 6 83 .9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER 1992 Ql. 03. 04. 71.0 71.9 69.7 73.5 76.1 84.2 78.7 77.0 43.0 53.5 78.4 75.8 59.6 67.0 68.9 70.0 39.8 56.9 39.7 51 .0 83.6 75.2 62.0 74.3 55.7 59.6 58.8 54.8 60.3 55.9 65.4 55.7 56.3 61.3 65.4 62.4 78.0 80.9 73.9 80.4 87.1 84.4 78.0 81.5 46.9 54.9 57.0 62.4 1993 01. 02. 03 . 04. 71.2 81.6 79.1 75.6 85.9 87.2 89.6 77.9 56.7 64.3 77.8 74.9 70.6 64.8 74.2 72.7 47.0 60.4 33.5 53.9 61.3 95.6 78.0 76.3 57.7 59.5 62.7 60.9 60.3 60.0 57.6 66.6 60.8 65.1 69.2 64.0 77.2 91.4 87.5 80.9 81.5 92.0 88.6 85.5 58.6 61.1 61.2 55.4 1994 Ql. 77.2 89.1 78.1 76.6 66.9 69.6 56.6 59.4 73.0 83.1 85.8 65.3 02, Table I.G PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS, BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE Effective interest rate (percent) All loans, Under 5.0... 5.0 to 5.9.. 6.0 to 6.9.. 7.0 to 7.9. . 8.0 to 8.9.. 9.0 to 9.9.. 10.0 to 10.9 11.0 to 11.9 to 12.9 12 . 13, to 13.9 14, to 14.9 15, to 15.9 to 16.9 16, 17.0 to 17.9 18.0 to 18.9 19.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 21.9 21.0 to 21.9 22.0 to 22.9 23.0 to 23.9 24.0 to 24.9. 25.0 and over February 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - . „ . 1 1 5 13 24 35 12 4 1 1 3 13 17 28 28 8 2 1 8 10 16 39 15 10 1 8 5 7 21 23 31 4 19 16 13 11 26 12 2 - - 3 18 34 30 10 3 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 4 30 46 15 3 1 1 8 34 38 14 3 1 100 - 3 4 3 31 19 22 14 4 1992 1993 1994 100 100 2 16 10 17 18 22 10 5 4 11 20 17 26 15 7 1 100 4 30 18 22 15 2 1 Memo: Percentage Distribution of Number of Loans, Nov 93 Feb 94 100 1 16 26 32 18 5 1 100 1 14 25 33 17 5 3 1 " " 1 Percentage distribution of the estimated total dollar amount of nonreal estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks during the week covered by the survey, which is the first full business week of the month specified. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve survey of terms of bank lending to farmers. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING FEBRUARY 7-11,1994 Loans to farmers all sizes ALL Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 4 5 6 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 Standard error 3 Interquartile range 4 By purpose of loan Feed# livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 $100-249 $250 and over BANKS 1 2 3 8 Size class of loans (thousands) $10-24 $25-49 $50-99 $1-9 1,779,537 49,751 14.9 6.14- 7.34 0.30 8.52 105,263 28,767 8.9 148,790 10,107 14.0 161,104 4,642 15.0 236,933 3,467 26.3 274,504 1,905 15.8 8.77 0.08 9.31 8.42 0.09 9.09 8.08 0.12 8.76 8.15 0.14 8.90 7.36 0.10 8.01 8.20 - 7.83 - 7.10- 7.38- 6.54- 852,944 863 9.8 6.00 - 7.68 7.31 7.96 8.17 7.87 6.02 8.87 9.05 8.69 9.14 8.94 8.04 8.20 8.70 8.41 8.66 8.48 7.83 8.01 7.62 8.28 8.49 7.89 7.72 7.60 8.11 8.40 8.07 7.81 7.96 7.32 6.51 7.85 6.97 7.71 6.82 7.63 6.44 7.02 8.20 7.82 5.45 76.8 71.9 56.8 55.1 59.2 58.5 70.9 51.2 71.9 53.2 83.8 69.5 82.6 86.2 22.6 9.8 32.1 5.0 5.0 25.5 10.6 14.9 54.7 10.4 2.6 6.9 13.6 15.3 49.9 11.6 3.2 6.4 15.7 14.1 45.2 5.6 11.3 8.1 9.3 7.9 47.2 12.1 7.1 16.4 16.6 9.5 39.3 6.4 8.0 20.3 32.7 8.0 17.2 0.2 3.9 37.9 1,030,009 22,482 5,900 8.5 35,061 2,337 9.6 53,402 1,546 11.8 66,485 973 12.5 123,176 842 16.0 729,404 570 4.6 8.01 0.21 8.75 7.75 0.20 6.75 - 8.40 7.61 0.15 6.67 - 8.50 7.35 0.12 8.20 6.46 0.45 7.25 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 1.ARGE FARM LENDERS 5 21 22 23 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 24 25 26 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 Standard error 3 Interquartile range 4 By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 44 45 46 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 Standard error 3 Interquartile range 4 By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 7.9 6.14 - 6.80 0.44 8.00 7.25 - 8.19 0.16 8.83 7.00 6.50 - 5.63 - 7.46 6.39 7.38 8.09 8.36 5.72 7.93 8.38 8.30 9.06 9.78 7.75 7.56 7.62 8.23 8.61 9.20 7.44 7.38 7.30 7.99 8.04 8.58 7.62 6.86 7.49 7.93 8.07 8.18 7.43 7.01 6.68 7.71 7.59 8.68 6.87 7.53 6.07 6.76 8.20 8.12 5.34 85.1 87.7 90.5 77.3 92.4 78.8 94.0 77.9 90.6 74.7 96.0 83.7 81.5 91.0 30.7 5.9 24.3 13.7 4.5 55.8 3.4 17.6 6.9 50.0 4.7 4.6 16.2 19.4 8.8 41.0 4.6 2.9 23.4 17.2 4.0 45.4 4.3 3.1 25.9 19.2 4.9 42.2 2.7 5.2 25.9 35.8 6.0 16.0 0.2 2.3 39.7 113,729 7,769 14.6 107,703 3,096 15.8 170,447 2,494 29.4 151,328 1,064 15.7 123,540 293 19.5 8.55 0.12 9.14 8.24 0.14 7.70 - 8.84 8.36 0.13 9.01 7.74 7.37 0.14 6.65 - 8.01 7.49 0.33 6.50 - 8.20 8.48 8.83 8.46 8.67 8.42 8.21 8.58 8.08 7.75 8.39 7.67 6.45 7.99 6.83 7.31 6.76 9.15 7.10 8.04 7.53 6.37 1.2 2.1 2.8 35.1 20.5 749,528 37,583 18.5 82,781 22,867 8.9 BANKS5 41 42 43 47 48 49 50 51 52 12,168 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other OTHER 6.61 0.44 7.74 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 7.50 - 8.09 0.12 8.94 8.48 - 8.93 0.07 9.35 8.02 8.47 7.80 8.41 8.18 7.63 7.20 9.23 9.10 8.80 9.15 8.77 8.57 8.39 8.44 7.70 8.41 8.59 7.75 7.94 65.5 50.2 47.7 49.1 49.0 52.2 59.5 38.0 64.6 44.8 73.8 57.9 89.1 58.1 11.6 9.7 17.7 54.4 12.3 2.7 3.1 12.4 17.9 49.8 13.7 2.8 3.4 13.9 16.8 47.3 9.9 6.9 5.2 6.1 9.5 47.9 15.2 8.6 12.7 14.4 13.2 36,9 9.4 10.2 15.8 14.4 20.2 24.7 15.2 42.8 10.2 8.0 12.2 8.12 13.5 27.2 NOTES TO TABLE I.H The Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers collects data on gross loan extensions made during the first full business week in the mid-month of each quarter by a sample of 250 banks of all sizes. The sample data are blown up to estimate the lending terms at all insured agricultural banks during that week. The estimated terms of bank lending are not intended for use in collecting the terms of loans extended over the entire quarter or residing in the portfolios of those banks. Loans of less than $1,000 are excluded from the survey. Beginning with the August 1986 survey, loans secured by farm real estate are included in the survey, and one purpose of a loan may be "purchase or improve farm real estate". In previous surveys, the purpose of such loans are reported as "other". 1. Average maturities are weighted by loan size and exclude demand loans. 2. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. 3. The chances are about two out of three that the average rate shown would differ by less than this amount from the average rate that would be found by a complete survey of lending at all banks. 4. The interquartile range shows the interest rate range that encompasses the middle 50 percent of the total dollar amount of loans made. 5. Among banks reporting loans to farmers, most "large banks" (survey strata 1 and 2) had over $20 million in farm loans, most "other banks" (survey strata 3 to 5) had farm loans below $20 million. Table I.I Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, (selected quarters) by USDA Farm Production Region SE DL SP CB NP 3 2 10 4 25 6 17 0 6,.0 5,.0 5.,7 9.,5 7,,0 10..6 17 1 4 8 7 3 13 7 10,.2 10..0 5.,5 7.,9 23,.6 71..3 Avg. Loan Size, Feb. 1993 499 8 survey ($1000) 24 4 32 1 35 7 234,.0 66..9 26.,3 40..9 55,,2 96..2 Proportion of farm loans outstanding, Feb. 1993 survey Sample Coverage Feb. 1993 survey (%) Survey date: AP MN PA LS NE Weighted Average Interest Rate During: Sample Week Nov. 1991 9 8 ( 23) 10 6 ( 27) 10 2 ( 38) 9 3 ( 71) 7,.1 (1..03) 9..4 (,.18) 9..2 (..33) 10..0 (..52) 9,.5 (..58) 8..3 (,:36) Feb. 1992 8,.4 (,.15) 10..2 (..16) 9,.3 (,.21) 8,.8 (..44) 6,.3 (1,.06) 8..0 (..33) 8.,2 (..67) 8..7 (.,57) 8,.2 (..45) 6..8 (,.21) 1992 8,.6 (,.20) 9..8 (,.19) 9,.1 (..13) 8,.4 (..55) 6,.3 (1 .29) 8,.0 (,.35) 8..3 (,.53) 9..0 (..81) 7,.9 (.43) 7..3 (,.19) Aug. 1992 7,.7 (,.15) 9..3 (,.21) 9,.1 (..10) 8,.6 (,.50) 5,.6 (1 .36) 7,.0 (..17) 8..1 (.,30) 8..3 (..94) 7,.5 (,.32) 7..1 (..27) Nov. 1992 7,.9 (,.28) 9..2 (,.18) 8,,3 (..25) 7 .9 , (,.56) 5,.5 (1 .38) 7..3 (.,39) 8..4 (,.13) 8..2 (,.50) 7,.6 (,.47) 6.,9 (,,33) Feb. 1993 7,.8 (,.27) 9..0 (.,28) 8,.0 (..27) 8,.0 (.47) 5,.6 (,.90) 8,,3 (..22) 7 .8 . (..41) 7..8 (..61) 7,.5 (,.41) 6..5 (..44) 1993 8,.1 (..24) 8..7 (..21) 8,.1 (..27) 7,.9 (.32) 5 .2 (.57) 8,.4 (<.29) , 7 .8 (..43) 8..3 (,.48) 7,.7 (,.52) 6..8 (.,26) Aug. 1993 8,,2 (,.35) 7 .5 . (,.69) 8,.2 (..18) 8 .0 (.33) 5,.7 (.94) 7 .3 (..37) 7 .0 . (..74) 7 .7 , (,.62) 7 .1 , (•.34) 7 .2 . (,.39) Nov. 1993 8,.3 (.28) 8.,1 (..19) 7,.8 (..22) 7 .4 , (.50) 5 .3 (1 .73) 6,.3 (..07) 8..2 (..12) 7..8 (..57) 7,.1 (.36) 6..7 (,.49) Feb. 1994 7,.7 (.32) 8,.6 (,.25) 7,.9 ( .22) 7 .5 , (.39) 5,.2 (1 .09) 7,.3 (,.09) . 7 .7 (..33) 7 .6 , (,.43) 7 .3 , (.69) 6..9 (..31) May May * NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. Standard errors are in parentheses below each estimate. Standard errors are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region. SECTION II: SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS Page TABLES: Commercial banks: II.A II.B II.C II.D II.E Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated volume of farm loans at insured commercial banks delinquent nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial banks net charge - offs of nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial banks delinquent real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks...... net charge-offs of real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks 19 21 22 2J Agricultural banks: II.F Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans.. II. G Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity. II.H Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks II.I Failures of agricultural banks 24 25 ** SOURCES OF DATA: The data in tables II.A through II.H are prepared using data from the quarterly reports of condition and income for commercial banks. Delinquencies and charge-offs of nonreal estate farm loans for the nation as a whole (table II.B and table II.C) are estimated from reports of banks that hold more than 90 percent of total nonreal estate farm loans. The incomplete coverage arises because banks with less than $300 million in assets have been excused from some reporting requirements. First, these smaller banks report delinquencies and char&eoffs of "agricultural loans" according to the particular bank's own definition, which may include loans that are secured by farm real estate. Furthermore, small banks that hold less than 5 percent of total loans as farm production loans are not required to report any information regarding delinquencies or charge-offs of "agricultural loans." In constructing the data presented in the tables, banks that are not required to report these data are assumed to have the same delinquency rates as those that do report. Recently, banks began to report delinquencies of loans that are secured by farm real estate. These data, which are shown in tables II.D and II.E, are reported by all banks, regardless of the size of the institution or the relative amounts of farm loans that they hold. Because "agricultural loans" and loans secured by farm real estate may overlap for some small banks, it is unclear whether it is proper to add the data in table II.B to its counterpart in table II.D to obtain total agricultural delinquencies. A similar caveat applies to the data concerning charge - of f s in tables II.C and II.E. Examination of total lending at banks that have a high exposure to agricultural loans provides an alternative perspective on the agricultural lending situation. Agricultural banks in table II.D through table II.I are those that have a proportion of farm loans (real estate plus nonreal estate) to total loans that is greater than the unweighted average at all banks. The estimate of this average was 17.04 percent in December of 199 . Information on failed banks (table II.I) is obtained from news releases of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with agricultural banks broken out in our tabulation according to the definition stated in the previous paragraph. 17 18 SECTION II: (continued) Recent Developments: Loans outstanding: At the end of 1993, the volume of nonreal estate farm loans was 6.2 percent greater than one year earlier. Although the volume of these loans edged down during the fourth quarter, the decline was much less than seasonal patterns would predict: thus in the last three quarters of 1993, the demand for nonreal estate farm loans appears to have been quite strong. The volume of real estate debt that was held by commercial banks at the end of 1993 was 5 percent greater than at the same point in 1992. This year-toyear growth in farm real estate loans, while still fairly robust, is towards the low end of the range seen in the past several years. Problem loans: Delinquent farm nonreal estate loans dipped below $1 billion in 1993 for the first time since farm financial difficulties began to surface in the mid 1980s. As a percentage of farm production loans outstanding, delinquencies amounted to slightly more than 2 percent, which given the experience of the past decade, also is quite low. The volume of net charge-offs of farm production loans totaled $54 million in 1993, well below the volume of the past two years. The volume of delinquent farm real estate loans outstanding remained about flat in 1993. The rate of delinquency for these loans averaged about 2 percent in 1993. At the end of 1993, fewer than one of every five agricultural banks reported a level of nonperforming loans that was less than 2 percent of total loans, while fewer than one in fourteen agricultural banks reported a share of nonperforming loans that was greater than 10 percent. Performance of agricultural banks: Profits at agricultural banks were quite strong in 1993. Returns for the year amounted to 1.2 percent of assets, matching the performance that was posted in 1992, the most profitable year for agricultural banks in more than a decade. Much of the earnings appear to have been used to build capital--the average capital ratio for agricultural banks in December 1993 was 10.8 percent, an increase of 0.4 percentage points from the previous December. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks was above year-earlier levels in all Federal Reserve districts, suggesting substantial underlying strength in the demand for farm loans. Failures of agricultural banks: No agricultural banks failed in the first quarter of 1994, and during all of 1993, seven agricultural banks failed. Failures have averaged less than 2 banks per quarter for the past three years, far below the incidence of failure that was seen in 1985 through 1990. TABLE II.A FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER LOAN VOLUME, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS QUARTER PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS -0.9 14.2 13.7 13.9 -11.0 -8.9 -6.9 — 3.2 7.6 1.7 -3.1 2.2 2.6 3.0 4.0 12.1 9.6 8.6 6.7 -2.3 -0.5 0.4 2.6 2.7 3.0 1.2 0.9 -4.7 8.2 2.5 -2.2 3.2 3.5 4.1 4.9 8.0 1.0 1.5 2.4 3.3 0.7 2.2 -4.7 8.7 4.1 -0.9 4.3 4.3 5.3 5.7 5.9 5.1 5.0 3.5 3.4 3.9 5.5 6.9 1.5 3.4 1.4 0.6 —2.8 7.4 7.2 6.6 5.7 4.3 5.5 5.8 7.0 9.1 -2.1 6.2 1.9 -2.9 2.7 3.3 1.9 -0.2 —4.6 8.2 8.1 8.6 7.8 3.1 3.2 1.9 0.2 -3.2 6.0 3.5 -0.5 0.5 3.1 -5.3 7.8 4.9 -0.5 0.1 —0.8 5.6 5.4 4.7 5.0 REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS 1987 Q2.. 03.. 04. , 44.3 44.8 43.5 13.8 14.1 14.5 30.4 30.6 29.0 5.6 1.2 -2.8 5.2 2.1 2.4 5.7 0.7 -5.2 -4.4 1988 Ql., 42.8 45.4 46.1 45.2 14.7 15.2 15.3 15.4 28.1 30.3 30.8 29.8 -1.5 6.0 1.5 -1.9 1.9 3.0 1.2 0.5 44.2 47.0 48.0 47.4 15.8 16.3 16.5 16.6 28.4 30.7 31.5 30.8 -2.2 6.3 2.1 -1.2 16.8 17.1 17.3 17.2 29.3 31.9 33.2 32.9 -2.8 03. 04. 46.1 49.0 50.5 50.1 6.4 3.1 -0.8 -0.6 1991 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 49.5 52.6 53.9 53.0 17.5 18.1 18.3 18.4 32.0 34.5 35.6 34.6 -1.3 6.2 2.5 -1.6 1992 Ql. 51.9 55.1 56.2 54.5 18.9 19.5 19.9 19.9 33.0 35.6 36.2 34.7 52.8 56.0 58.0 57.7 20.0 20.6 20.8 20.9 32.8 35.4 37.1 36.8 02. 03. 04. 1989 Ql. 02. Q3. 04. 1990 Ql. 02. 02. 03. 04. 1993 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1.1 1.2 7.7 3.1 -2.7 TOTAL LOANS -2.8 7.8 1.9 -4.4 1.7 1.6 3.2 5.8 8.1 7.1 5.1 -0.6 2.4 6.2 TABLE II.B ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONPERFORMING NONACCRUAL MEMO: RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL MEMO: RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE -December 31 of year indicated1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991...... 1992 ...... 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 .6 2 .9 1 .9 1 .4 1 .1 1 .0 1 .1 1 .0 0 .8 1 .0 0 .8 0 .5 0 .4 0 .4 0 .4 0 .4 0 .3 0 .3 2 .6 2 .2 1 .4 1 .0 0 .7 0. 6 0 .7 0. 6 0..5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 2 .2 1 .9 1 .2 0 .9 0 .6 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 0 .4 NA 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 | | | | | | | | | 10 .1 9 .4 6 .5 4 .5 3 .7 3 .1 3 .2 2 .8 2 .2 2 .8 2 .4 1 .7 1 .2 1 .3 1 .3 1 .3 1 .0 0 .8 7.3 7.0 4.8 3.3 2.3 1. 9 1.9 1. 8 1.4 1990 Q4... 1 1 .0 0 .4 0..6 0..1 0 .5 0.4 | 3 .1 . 1..3 1.9 0.3 1.6 1.1 1991 Ql... Q2 . . . Q3. . . 04... 1 1 1 1 1 .3 . 1 .2 . 1..0 1 .1 . 0 .6 . 0..4 0..3 0..4 0.,7 0.,7 0. 7 0. 7 0.,2 0.,2 0.,1 0.,1 0..5 0..6 0..6 0..5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 | | | | 4..2 3 -3 . 2 .9 . 3 .2 . 2..0 1.,3 0.,9 1.,3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 1992 Ql... Q2... Q3... Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 1 .4 . 1 ,2 . 1 ,1 . 1 .0 . 0. ,6 0. ,4 0.,4 0. 3 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 0. 6 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0.,6 0.,6 0. 6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 | | | | 4..3 3 .3 . 3. 0 2 .8 1. 9 1. 1 1. 1 1. 0 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 1993 Ql... Q2. . . Q3... Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 1 .3 1 .0 0.8 0.8 0. 5 0. 3 0. 2 0 .3 0. 8 0. 7 0, 6 0. 5 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 | | | | 3 .9 2. 7 2 .3 2 .2 1. 6 0. 8 0. 7 0. 8 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 °f national, totals for farm nonreal estate loans. estimates of delinquent ^ m ^ n ^ a r e After 1984, estimates are based on reports from banks that hold more than 90 one f urtl b a ^ d -" ° V ° f s u c h l o a n s reported nonaccrual and renegotiated farn loans, for other banks, on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks. TABLE II.C 198 6 1987 1988 1989 1990 199 1 1992 1993 ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* I | I | | | | I TOTAL Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1195 503 128 91 51 105 82 54 235 173 28 10 -5 12 14 7 360 133 39 26 19 25 20 16 230 57 24 15 10 36 29 5 370 140 37 40 28 32 18 26 TOTAL I I I I I I I I 3.36 1.60 0.46 0.27 0.20 0.32 0.24 0.16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 0.66 0.55 0.10 0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 1.07 0.46 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.67 0.19 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.01 1.10 0.46 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.07 * Data are estimates of the national charge-offs of farm nonreal estate loans based on reports from banks that hold more than o percent of the outstanding national volume of such loans. Additional uncertainty of the estimates arises because small banks report only charge-offs of 'agricultural' loans as defined by each bank for its internal purposes. Banks first reported these data on the March 1984 Report of Income. 21 TABLE II.D DELINQUENT FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONPERFORMING ACCRUAL TOTAL PAST DUE 3 0 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL -December 31 of year'indicated199 1 1992 1993 | | I 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0,2 0.2 0.2 | I I 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.2 1.0 0.8 -End of quarter- 1991 Q2.. . Q3.. . Q4. . . | | | 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 | | I 2.6 2.4 2.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1992 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . I | | I 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 I I I I 3.1 2.4 2.1 2.1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1993 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . | | I | 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 | I I | 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. TABLE II.E NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING ESTIMATED AMOUNT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 199 1 1992 1993 I I I ANNUAL TOTAL Q1 16 20 6 1 4 1 Q2 Q3 Q4 ANNUAL TOTAL 7 4 4 6 6 3 0.09 0.11 0.03 5 1 2 01 02 03 04 0.005 0.019 0.003 0.028 0.033 0.003 0.021 0.022 0.008 0.034 0.029 0.020 * All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. 23 TABLE II.F DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY THE SHARE OF THEIR LOANS THAT ARE NONPERFORMING* NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS TOTAL UNDER 2.0 2.0 TO 4.9 5.0 TO 9.9 10.0 TO 14.9 15.0 TO 19.9 20.0 AND OVER Percentage distribution, December 31 of year indicated 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 , .0 36 .4 39 .6 50 .3 59 .0 65 .8 69 .6 70 .8 76 .2 80 .6 33 .1 32 .2 30 .6 28 .9 25 .1 22 .7 22 .3 18 .9 15 .9 21 .6 19 .7 14 .4 9 .7 7 .6 6 .4 5 .8 3 .9 2 .8 Hi of-ri Vm i i~ i z-x ri 5 .6 5 .5 3 .3 1 .9 1 .2 1 .0 0 .7 0 .8 0 .6 2 .1 1 .9 0 .9 0 .4 0 .2 0 .2 0 .3 0 .1 0 .1 1 .2 1 .0 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 .0 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 | | | | | | I | | v J- v^uaj. i 1991 03... 04... | I ,0 100 , 100.,0 66 .5 70 .8 25..7 22.,3 6,.6 5,.8 1 .0 . 0..7 0 .2 0 .3 . 0,.0 0,,1 | | 1992 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 | 1 100.,0 100..0 100 .0 100 .0 6 6 .4 68 .2 71 .6 76 .2 24,.6 24.. 1 22. 1 18. 9 7. ,5 6.,5 5.,5 3. ,9 1..0 1.,0 0 .7 0 .8 0..3 0 .2 . 0. .1 0. ,1 0.,1 0.,1 0.•1 0 .o | | 1 | 1993 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 | 1 1 100. 0 100 .0 100. 0 100. 0 .8 71 , 74 , .5 76,.6 80 , .6 21. 8 20. 3 19. 1 15. 9 5. 3 4 .4 3 .6 2. 8 0. 9 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0 .2 0. 1 0 .1 0. 1 0. 0 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 | 1 | | * Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccrual status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section II. TABLE II.G SELECTED MEASURES OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS* AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN TO EQUITY NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS ALL BANKS NEGATIVE 0 TO 4 5 TO 9 15 TO 19 10 TO 14 20 TO 24 AVERAGE CAPITAL RATIO (PERCENT) AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS 14. 0 11.,0 8.,0 6.,0 5.,0 8,.0 10..0 11..0 10 .8 10 .9 12 . 6 12 .4 12.,0 12.,0 12..0 11..0 8..0 8..0 9..0 10 .0 8 .5 8 .9 11 .5 12 .4 1. 1 1..0 0..7 0..5 0..4 0..7 0..9 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .2 1 .2 0.,9 0..9 0..8 0..8 0 .6 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .7 0 .7 1 .0 1 .1 ,7 0. .9 0. 1..2 2. .1 .3 2. 1..3 0 .7 0 .6 0 .4 0 .4 0 .4 0 .2 0. 6 0. 7 0. 6 0.,8 1.,1 0.,9 0..7 0..7 0..7 0 .8 0 .7 0 .4 9. 3 9..4 .5 9. 9.. 6 9..5 9..8 9 .9 10 .1 9 .9 10 .1 10 .4 10 .8 8.,5 8 .4 . 8 ,5 . 8..5 8 .4 . 8..8 8 .8 9 .0 9 .0 9 .2 9.5 10 .0 10.,9 8. 9 1.0 0 .7 . 0. .4 0. 8 10..1 9.2 3 ,4 . 6.,7 10..0 12 .6 . 3.,0 6..1 8..9 11..5 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.2 0..3 0..5 0 .8 . 1..0 0..1 0. .2 0 .2 . 0..4 0..1 0..3 0..4 0..7 10.,3 10..5 10..7 10 .4 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.5 3 .5 . 6 .8 9 .9 12 .4 3..6 6..8 9 .7 12 .4 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.2 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1 .1 0 .0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .2 0..1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 10 .6 10 .9 11 .0 10 .8 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.0 AGRICULTURAL BANKS 25 AND OVER NET CHARGE-OFFS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS RATE OF RETURN TO ASSETS -percentage distribution100..0 100.,0 100..0 100..0 100..0 100..0 100..0 100,.0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 1982. 1983 . 1984. 1985. 1986. 1987. 1988 . 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993 . 4..0 7..0 13..0 18..0 19..0 13..0 9 .0 5 .0 4 .9 4 .1 1 .9 1 .6 5.,0 7.,0 9.,0 11..0 14..0 13..0 9..0 7 .0 7 .5 7 .7 5 .0 5 .6 15. 0 18.,0 ,0 23 . .0 22 . 27..0 31..0 30..0 29..0 33 , .4 32 .2 25 .5 27 .7 33. 0 36..0 36..0 33.,0 28..0 31..0 36..0 38..0 37 .6 39 .2 41 .1 40 .6 28. 0 11. 0 7.,0 24. 0 3..0 15.,0 3..0 13..0 2..0 9..0 2..0 9..0 12,.0 : 3..0 4 .0 14..0 2. 6 12 .9 . 2 .5 13 .4 5 .1 19 .8 4 .5 18 .6 4.,0 2..0 1..0 1..0 1..0 1 .0 2 .0 3 .0 1 .1 0 .9 1 .7 1 .3 QUARTERLY 1991 Q4... 1 . . . . 100..0 100..0 100..0 100..0 1993 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 100..0 100..0 100 .0 100 .0 1992 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . .. 100.,0 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 the annual data in the upper panel. 25 26 TABLE II.H AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS* DECEMBER 31 u..S. CLEVELAND ATLANTA CHICAGO MINNEAPOLIS ST. LOUIS KANSAS CITY DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO MINIMUM FARM LOAN RATIO NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS OF TO OF TO OF TO OF TO OF TO OF TO OF TO OF TO OF TO BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS 198 9 199 0 199 1 199 2 1993 4181 4068 3955 3854 3723 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.58 84 77 71 75 67 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.66 138 135 133 131 131 0.588 0.595 0.609 0.607 0.621 1055 1009 969 948 912 0.548 0.563 0.572 0.574 0.600 477 477 470 456 432 0.558 0.566 0.567 0.563 0.590 758 743 725 694 669 0.552 0.559 0.569 0.579 0.615 1196 1171 1135 1092 1063 0.511 0.511 0.522 0.533 0.566 3 93 385 378 384 378 0.481 0.460 0.438 0.422 0.442 57 57 60 61 57 0.637 0.699 0.711 0.708 0.736 15.87 15.92 16.56 16.72 17.04 1991 Q4... 3955 0.55 71 0.64 133 0.609 969 0.572 470 0.567 725 0.569 1135 0.522 378 0.438 60 0.711 16.56 1992 Ql... Q2. .. Q3. .. Q4. .. 3977 3970 3942 3854 0.54 0.57 0.58 0.55 72 76 78 75 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.64 157 153 147 131 0.611 0.626 0.639 0.607 964 959 964 948 0.563 0.586 0.597 0.574 460 474 481 456 0.562 0.590 0.608 0.563 725 725 703 694 0.568 0.601 0.611 0.579 1133 1118 1110 1092 0.506 0.528 0.539 0.533 386 385 387 384 0.428 0.446 0.455 0.422 58 59 58 61 0.662 0.753 0.728 0.708 16.43 16.98 17.08 16.72 1993 Ql... Q2. .. Q3. .. Q4. .. 3822 3820 3794 3723 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.58 73 74 73 67 0.65 0.68 0.67 0.66 140 144 144 131 0.616 0.633 0.654 0.621 931 925 925 912 0.574 0.594 0.609 0.600 437 458 459 432 0.563 0.593 0.618 0.590 682 678 676 669 0.579 0.621 0.640 0.615 1091 1076 1067 1063 0.532 0.556 0.564 0.566 391 389 377 378 0.431 0.439 0.463 0.442 59 57 59 57 0.722 0.765 0.756 0.736 16.47 16.97 17.27 17.04 * The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total deposits. that shown in the last column, as described in the introduction to section II. Agricultural banks are defined as banks with farm loan ratio at least as great as TABLE II.I FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS* NUMBER OF FAILURES Q1 1986.,.. . . 14 1987 . . 22 1988.... . . 11 5 1989 3 1990 2 1991.... 1992. . . . 1 1 1993 1994 . . . . 0 Q2 Q3 Q4 ANNUAL TOTAL 14 19 6 7 5 2 1 2 21 12 12 5 6 3 1 2 16 16 7 5 3 1 4 0 65 69 36 22 17 8 7 5 * * * * * * * * * Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section II. 28 SECTION III: FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS AND FARM LAND VALUES TABLES: III.A III.B III.C III.D III.E Page Nonreal estate lending experience Expected change in non-real- estate loan volume and repayment conditions Average loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availability Interest rater, Trends in reel estate values and loan volume 30 32 34 36 38 SOURCES OF DATA: Data are from quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks. These surveys are conducted at the end of each quarter by five Federal Reserve Banks. The size of the surveys differs considerably, as is noted in the information below. In addition, the five surveys differ in subject matter covered (as is evident in the tables), wording of basically similar questions, and type of banks covered. Most of the differences in wording are reflected in the use of different column headings on the two pages of each table. The states included in each district are indicated in the table headings; states that fall only partly within a given district are marked with asterisks. Research departments at each of the five Reserve Banks issue more detailed quarterly reports on their survey results; these reports are available at the addresses given below. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Box 834, Chicago, Illinois, 60690 The sample includes member banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total loans as of June 1972 (a 10 percent standard is used for banks in the state of Michigan). The sample has undergone periodic review. The latest survey results were based on the responses of about 450 banks. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198 The sample chosen originally in 1976 consisted of 181 banks selected from banks at which farm loans constituted 50 percent or more of total loans, with appropriate representation of all farm areas. The sample was redrawn and significantly expanded in 1987; 317 banks responded to the latest survey. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480 Before 1987, the sample provided a cross-section of banks of all sizes that were engaged in farm lending. Members of the Upper Midwest Agricultural Credit Council formed the core of the survey panel. Beginning in 1987, the sample was redrawn to include only banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total loans. In the fourth quarter of 1993, 160 banks responded to the survey. Section III: (continued) Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. P.O. Box 655906, Dallas, Texas 75265-5906 The sample is stratified regionally and includes banks at which farm loans are relatively important or which hold a major portion of bank loans in their region. The sample was enlarged in the first quarter of 1985 and was redrawn in the second quarter of 1989. The results for the most recent quarter were based on the responses from 205 respondents. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Richmond, Virginia 23261 The number of agricultural banks in this district is much smaller than those of the other districts. When the survey was initiated in 1975, the sample consisted of 43 banks of all sizes; banks with larger amounts of farm loans were sampled more heavily. More recently, the sample has consisted of about 30 banks, roughly three-fourths of which typically respond to the quarterly surveys. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: Bankers responding to the surveys indicate that farm loan demand continued on a course of moderate expansion in 1993. However, some of the strength in demand for loans may have arisen from financial problems associated with the flooding in several midwestern states in the summer of 1993. Repayment rates for loans worsened slightly according to bankers that were surveyed in the Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Chicago districts, which span most of the areas that were damaged by flooding. Renewals and extensions generally were up in these Districts as well, especially in areas most directly affected by the flooding, according to more detailed discussion in some of the survey reports from individual Reserve Banks. The survey responses continue to suggest that commercial banks have ample funds available for farm lending. The number of respondents saying that fund availability is greater than a year ago (or, in some surveys, greater than normal) has continued to exceed --by wide margins --the number of those reporting diminished fund availability. In most districts, a large majority of the respondents still characterizes its current loan-todeposit ratio as being lower than desired. Rates of interest on farm loans edged down further in all districts and for nearly all types of farm loans in the fourth quarter. The declines amounted to an additional 10 to 20 basis points in most cases. The rates that were reported in the fourth quarter generally were the lowest in about 15 years; some of the rates were at the lowest levels since the mid-1970s. The slight pickup in the rate of increase in prices for farmland that was noted in the past couple of editions of the Databook seems to have persisted only in the Minneapolis district. In the other districts that report, prices for farmland have risen less than 3 percent or have actually fallen. The rate of increase in prices for ranchland in the Kansas City and Minneapolis districts seems to have slackened a bit towards the end of 1993, after posting some substantial increases earlier in the year. 29 30 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.A FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) DEMAND FOR LOANS LOWER SAME FUND AVAILABILITY HIGHER LOWER SAME LOAN REPAYMENT RATE HIGHER LOWER SAME RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS HIGHER LOWER SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER Ill • Al SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL* / IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1991 Q4 • • • 1 23 45 32 1 5 59 36 1 40 52 9 1 7 52 41 1 1 79 21 1992 01... Q2... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 15 15 20 20 42 47 50 52 44 38 30 28 1 1 1 1 6 8 9 7 59 62 59 60 34 31 32 33 1 1 1 1 34 27 19 30 55 67 73 47 11 6 8 23 1 1 1 1 10 10 9 21 53 60 69 52 37 30 22 26 I 1 1 1 I 1 73 77 80 83 26 22 19 16 1993 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 23 24 20 15 46 49 50 44 31 27 30 40 1 1 1 1 8 5 10 6 53 61 59 62 39 34 31 32 1 1 1 1 20 18 21 29 58 68 67 46 22 13 11 25 I 1 1 1 20 13 13 21 58 65 64 49 22 22 23 30 I 1 1 1 1 1 82 85 84 87 16 15 15 12 III . A2 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1991 04... 1 20 58 23 1 7 64 30 1 31 61 8 1992 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 16 22 21 16 53 48 51 55 31 31 28 28 1 1 1 1 10 15 16 10 58 57 54 60 32 28 30 30 1 1 1 1 30 22 20 13 62 72 70 69 1993 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 18 14 16 14 56 58 57 56 25 28 26 30 1 1 1 I 8 11 17 12 64 62 61 68 28 27 22 20 1 1 1 1 10 7 12 20 5 68 26 1 1 76 24 8 6 10 19 10 8 16 16 63 72 69 72 27 19 15 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 76 78 77 82 23 21 20 16 74 82 80 71 15 11 8 10 14 11 7 10 75 82 81 74 11 7 12 16 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 86 88 89 91 13 11 11 9 13 59 29 1 o 61 39 1 (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA* / NM*, TX ) III,• A3 ELEVENTH I 1991 04... 1 22 53 26 1 6 56 38 1 30 56 14 1992 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 18 19 24 26 49 57 53 55 33 24 22 19 1 I I I 5 7 5 5 59 62 66 56 36 31 29 39 1 1 1 1 29 18 14 16 58 67 67 62 13 15 19 21 13 14 14 22 56 65 70 62 31 20 15 17 0 0 0 1 64 65 73 75 35 34 27 24 1993 01... 02... Q3. . . 04... 1 1 1 1 20 20 18 8 58 58 54 62 22 22 28 30 I 1 I I 2 4 4 3 62 59 65 70 37 38 31 27 1 1 1 1 9 6 10 12 70 75 77 70 22 18 13 18 24 16 14 24 68 78 76 63 9 6 11 14 1 0 1 0 75 85 82 86 24 15 17 14 1 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.A (CONTINUED) FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH NORMAL CONDITIONS (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) DEMAND FOR LOANS LOWER Ill •A4 SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME LOAN REPAYMENT RATE HIGHER LOWER SAME RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS HIGHER LOWER SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI* ) 33 63 3 1 7 64 29 17 24 19 10 31 19 30 30 65 78 70 63 4 3 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 5 7 9 69 81 82 65 30 14 11 26 13 12 16 18 33 20 44 49 60 78 54 45 7 2 2 6 1 I 1 1 8 8 7 8 64 77 73 52 28 15 20 40 1991 04... 1 8 75 17 1992 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 6 6 8 7 77 70 73 83 1993 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 7 9 9 3 80 79 75 79 III .A5 FUND AVAILABILITY *** 1 | 1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV* ) 1991 04... 1 27 68 5 1 o 59 41 I 14 86 0 1 14 59 27 1 o 76 24 1992 Ql. . . 02... 03... Q4... 1 1 1 1 22 33 29 17 65 54 63 65 13 13 8 17 1 I 1 I o o 0 o 52 58 58 67 48 42 42 33 | | I | 9 17 13 25 78 79 75 71 13 4 13 4 1 1 1 1 23 21 17 9 59 67 71 57 18 13 13 35 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 0 82 70 75 71 18 26 25 29 1993 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 8 9 23 30 83 83 73 57 8 9 5 13 I I 1 I o o 0 o 67 70 73 74 33 30 27 26 | | | | 17 5 14 30 78 91 86 65 4 5 0 4 1 1 1 I 4 18 5 5 75 77 86 64 21 5 10 32 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 76 87 86 70 19 13 14 30 31 32 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.B FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) FEEDER CATTLE LOWER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME DAIRY HIGHER LOWER SAME CROP STORAGE HIGHER LOWER SAME OPERATING HIGHER LOWER SAME FARM MACHINERY HIGHER LOWER SAMg HIGHER Ill • Bl SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL* , IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1991 Q4. . . 1 18 48 34 | 36 59 5 I 20 73 8 1 20 63 17 I 7 44 49 | 37 48 15 1992 Ql. . . 02... Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 11 14 16 15 49 57 56 57 40 29 28 29 | | | | 24 23 19 16 69 72 67 70 7 5 14 14 I | | | 19 15 19 16 71 78 74 78 10 7 7 6 | | | | 21 16 14 16 72 74 51 55 7 9 35 29 | | | | 8 8 14 13 43 51 57 48 49 41 29 39 | | 1 | 27 31 28 22 51 56 51 53 22 13 21 25 1993 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 16 18 13 10 59 58 56 43 25 23 31 47 | | | | 19 22 18 19 66 69 68 72 15 9 14 8 | I | | 20 16 17 16 74 77 78 75 5 6 5 8 | | | | 23 24 18 28 66 67 59 59 11 9 23 13 | | | | 16 14 12 7 46 51 53 36 38 35 35 57 | | | | 20 33 30 21 51 47 47 43 29 20 23 36 III .B2 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1991 04... 1 19 57 24 | 29 64 7 1 18 79 3 1 22 73 5 I 18 53 29 | 27 57 15 1992 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 17 20 18 20 58 63 65 62 24 17 17 18 | | | | 18 18 15 18 72 72 72 69 11 10 13 13 | | | | 17 13 14 16 75 79 79 78 7 8 7 6 | | | | 15 17 15 16 80 74 68 75 5 9 17 9 | I | I 14 19 16 13 55 65 68 67 31 17 16 19 J | | | 28 27 21 18 58 59 65 63 14 14 14 19 1993 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 14 13 13 7 65 63 59 62 21 24 28 31 | | I | 15 10 13 11 71 75 63 69 13 16 24 19 | | | | 14 7 11 12 78 85 82 79 8 8 7 9 | | | | 17 11 11 9 78 76 82 81 5 13 7 10 | | I | 13 10 10 7 61 65 65 61 26 25 25 31 | | | | 16 13 12 10 67 69 67 62 17 18 21 28 III.B3 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC , SC, VA, WV*) 1991 04... 1 24 57 19 I 21 68 11 1 26 74 0 1 20 65 15 I 14 59 27 | 23 64 14 1992 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 13 17 22 5 78 74 65 82 9 9 13 14 | 1 | | 5 15 14 20 90 85 73 75 5 0 14 5 | | | | 15 30 24 11 80 70 76 90 5 0 0 0 | | | | 10 23 14 15 85 73 68 70 5 5 18 15 | | I | 17 8 21 17 65 83 79 71 17 8 0 13 | | | | 13 17 33 21 74 75 67 71 13 8 0 8 1993 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 9 0 10 11 87 96 80 74 4 4 10 16 I I | | 11 10 11 11 78 85 84 78 11 5 5 11 | | | | 6 5 17 18 94 95 78 82 0 0 6 0 | | | | 17 9 23 30 83 82 55 70 0 9 23 0 | I | | 4 13 9 4 88 78 64 70 9 9 27 26 1 1 | | 4 83 83 59 64 13 4 14 18 27 18 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.B (CONTINUED) EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM LOANS DURING NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH NORMAL DEMAND (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER LOWER III.B4 SAME HIGHER SAME DEBT EXTENSION OR REFINANCING LOWER HIGHER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 8 69 23 9 81 10 1 11 68 20 5 4 3 8 72 75 78 75 23 21 18 18 12 14 12 11 82 84 81 82 6 2 7 7 1 1 | | 6 5 5 4 83 78 66 69 12 16 29 27 1992 oi... 02... 03... 04... 2 8 10 5 86 78 80 86 11 14 10 9 3 11 13 14 90 86 82 80 7 3 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 7 79 86 78 68 18 11 14 25 1993 oi... 02... 03... 04... 5 3 7 3 84 81 62 69 11 16 32 28 8 13 15 7 85 82 71 75 7 6 14 18 1 1 1 1 3 6 6 6 84 78 55 56 13 17 39 38 1990 04... 1991 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 34 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.C AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) AVERAGE LOAN-TODEPOSIT RATIO, END OF QUARTER PERCENT III .CI REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS LOWER AT THAN DESIRED DESIRED LEVEL HIGHER THAN DESIRED NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO CORRESPONDENT : BANKS NONE NONBANK AGENCIES COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 <22. 03. 04. 58 59 59 1 I I 67 60 64 26 30 29 7 10 8 1 | | 1993 01. 02. 03. 04. 58 59 59 60 1 1 1 1 68 66 64 65 24 25 26 25 8 9 10 10 | 1 | | III . C2 ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 02. 03. 04. 53 55 54 1 1 1 80 77 78 7 8 8 13 15 14 | | | 2 2 0 73 76 75 76 78 77 24 27 18 70 69 76 6 4 6 1 1 1 66 69 67 22 24 18 64 67 71 13 9 11 1993 01. 02. 03 . 04. 53 55 57 56 1 1 1 1 82 79 75 77 6 6 8 8 11 15 17 15 | | | | 2 1 2 2 76 75 76 75 78 78 79 77 16 15 14 12 77 80 79 83 7 5 7 5 1 1 1 1 66 68 68 69 16 14 15 13 73 77 76 78 11 9 9 9 III,. C3 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX) 1992 02. 03. 04. 1 1 1 41 43 41 *** *** | 1 1 3 1 3 12 12 15 80 80 76 8 7 9 1 1 1 *** *** 9 6 11 74 84 79 16 11 10 1993 01. , 02., 03., 04. , 1 1 1 1 41 42 44 45 *** *** *** *** j j 1 1 1 0 1 1 15 14 13 12 80 80 80 84 5 6 7 4 1 1 | 1 *** *** *** *** 8 16 14 11 84 77 81 85 8 7 5 4 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) AVERAGE LOAN-TODEPOSIT RATIO, END OF QUARTER PERCENT IH.C4 REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS LOKER AT THAN DESIRED DESIRED LEVEL HIGHER THAN DESIRED NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS NONBANK AGENCIES CORRESPONDENT BANKS NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1992 Q2... Q3. . . Q4• • • 1 1 I 57 58 56 I I | 39 44 53 50 48 41 11 9 6 34 32 41 5 7 2 58 60 57 3 1 0 | | | 30 31 38 4 5 2 62 62 56 4 2 3 1993 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 54 58 60 56 I | I I 40 f 'I 41 36 45 45 44 54 7 9 15 10 31 40 32 31 3 2 4 3 64 57 59 62 1 0 5 3 | | | I 27 28 32 28 3 3 4 4 64 63 60 63 6 6 4 6 III.C5 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1992 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 69 68 69 1 1 1 45 52 52 45 44 44 10 4 4 1 1 1 0 8 14 74 64 71 21 18 24 1993 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 67 67 69 68 1 I 1 1 50 62 60 53 42 33 30 37 8 5 10 11 1 1 1 1 4 0 5 0 82 20 71 65 14 75 29 35 35 36 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS Ill •Dl OTHER OPERATING SHORTTERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER SAME LOWER HIGHER 1 1 1 9. 6 9. 2 9. 1 9,, 6 9,. 2 9,.1 *** *** *** 9< >0 8.,6 8,- 6 1 1 1 1993 Ql. . . 02... Q3... 04... 1 1 1 1 8. 8 8. 7 8. 6 8. 5 8, g 8, 8 8,• 6 8,. 5 *** 8,. 3 8,,2 8,.0 7,.9 1 1 1 1 LOWER HIGHER *** *** *** *** *** 1 1 1 *** ; *** *** 1 1 1 *** *** *** 1 1 1 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NB:, NM*, OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 02... 03... Q4... 1 1 1 9. 7 9. 4 9. 2 9,, 9 9,,6 9, 4 1993 Ql. . . Q2... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 9. 0 8. 9 8. 8 8. 7 9, 2 9,,1 9., 0 8, 9 SAME SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI* , WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 02... Q3. . . 04... III .D2 LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS INTBRMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS *** *** *** 9.9 9.6 9.4 9,»3 8,.9 8,.9 1 1 1 *** 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.8 8,. 6 8,, 5 8,»4 8,»3 1 1 1 1 *** *** *** *** | *** *** 1 1 1 SAME HIGHER FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D (CONTINUED) INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS III.D3 OTHER OPERATING LOANS 1993 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1992 02... 03... 04... 1993 01. . . 02... 03... 04... LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS SHORT-TERM NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER LOWER SAME HIGHER SAME HIGHER LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER SAME HIGHER 10.3 10.0 9.8 10,,3 9,.9 9,.8 9.8 9.3 9.1 | | | 7 32 12 89 61 62 5 7 26 I I I 6 31 10 89 62 64 5 7 26 1 I | 9 23 10 86 70 69 5 7 22 9.4 9.3 9.0 8.8 9..5 9.,3 9.,0 8.,9 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.4 I | | | 10 6 12 7 80 86 82 85 10 8 6 8 I I I I 11 7 9 5 79 85 85 86 10 8 6 9 1 1 1 1 8 5 9 3 81 90 83 88 11 5 7 9 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1 I I 10.2 9.8 9.7 1 I 1 1 III.D5 INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1992 Q2... Q3. . . 04... III.D4 SHORTTERM NONRBAL ESTATE 9.5 9.4 9.1 9.1 10.2 9.9 9.8 9.7 8.5 7.9 7.9 10,.4 10,,0 10,,0 9,,7 9,.5 9,,4 9,,3 10,,4 10,,0 9,,9 9,,5 8,,7 8,> 2 8,,2 *** 1 I | 1 *** 1 *** | 1 1 I | 1 *** *** 1 I *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1992 02... 03... 04... 1 1 I 9.5 8.5 8.6 9.4 8.9 8.8 9.6 9.3 9.4 9.8 9 .2 9.4 *** *** *** | 1 | 1 1 1993 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 I I | 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.7 9 .1 8,.6 8,.4 8,.3 *** *** *** *** 1 I | | 1 1 I *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 37 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.B TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER ALL TTT 01 III.El DRYLAND IRRIGATED TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER RANCHLAND ALL DRYLAND IRRIGATED RANCHLAND DOWN 1 1993 Ql... 02... Q3. . . 04... -6 4 10 1993 01... -3 -5 -3 0 03... 04... III.E3 10 11 15 20 16 16 65 67 65 15 17 18 3 3 3 3 79 78 74 66 18 13 21 30 15 23 17 14 63 62 65 57 22 15 18 29 4 18 18 18 73 82 82 0 0 24 9 33 19 76 86 62 71 5 5 10 27 23 23 67 70 61 16 17 13 15 8 64 73 72 74 19 13 13 17 I 91 100 88 *** 1 1 | *** j 4 6 -0 -9 96 100 100 91 0 13 4 0 0 5 9 0 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1993 Ql... 1 -0 1 1 HIGHER 86 84 82 -10 -0 10 *** -1 0 -0 03... 04. . . SAME 2 2 1 1 | *** 1992 02... 03... 04. . . 02... LOWER FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1992 02... 03.., 04... 02... UP emrviima /nnrn*n/N\ SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 Q2... 03.., 04... III.E2 STABLE EXPECTED TREND IN FARM PVIT, fiOXAlJS TCfHItftllie T/MU miO *vbaaj iiUAN fMT VOliUMH DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) 1 3 6 2 -1 -1 2 1 -5 2 -3 -2 0 -2 -4 -3 -7 -2 -2 -3 -2 7 1 1 13 8 2 3 -0 -7 1 0 3 1 0 6 6 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.E (CONTINUED) TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER ALL III.E4 IRRIGATED RANCHLAND ALL DRYLAND IRRIGATED RANCHLAND DOWN STABLE UP LOWER SAME HIGHER TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) *** 1992 Q2., Q3. . Q4.< DRYLAND TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE PROM A YEAR EARLIER EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH NORMAL (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) *** 1993 Ql.. Q2. Q3. Q4. 1 0 1 2 0 2 -0 2 III.E5 0 1 -1 2 2 1 1 -1 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 5 2 3 2 3 5 4 3 2 *** *** I 5 I 6 8 I I 7 I *** *** NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SC, WI*) 1992 Q2 1993 Ql 39
@FedFRASER