The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
E.15 (125) ft AGRICULTURAL FINANCE DATABOOK First Quarter 1996 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 Douglas Carson Page 3 17 28 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 1996: the other data generally were available through the third 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 Doug Carson 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 A N D CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS Estimates from the quarterly survey of non-real-estate farm loans Summary charts Page 5 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 rate floating interest rate by effective interest rate survey results 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 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 1996 survey, 196 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled 3944. 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 afffected 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. SECTION I: (CONTINUED) More detailed results from each quarterly survey previously were published in Statistical Release E.2A, •Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers". Beginning in February, 1992, the more detailed results are included at the end of this section of the Databook. and the E2.A has been discontinued. Starting with the August 1986 survey, farm loans secured by real estate are included in the data shown in the table of detailed results, whereas such loans are excluded from the tabulations in Tables I.A through I.G and the summary charts. Beginning in November 1991, several survey statistics are estimated for each of ten farm production regions as defined by the USDA. These statistics, which are presented in table I.I, should be treated with some caution. Although an effort was made to choose a good regional mix of banks for the panel, the panel has never been stratified by region. Consequently, the survey results are less precise for each region than for the totals for the nation. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, In the February 1996 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks remained near the bottom end of the range seen since over the past decade. However, the average size of loans rose remained high as well, offsetting the low number of loans to leave the estimated volume of loans during the survey week about in line with the average of recent years. In the February survey, the average effective rate of interest on non-real-estate farm loans fell 70 basis points to 8.5 percent, roughly a percentage point than the rate that prevailed during 1995. Rates on loans for livestock remained rather high, perhaps reflecting some concerns about profits for livestock enterprises. In addition, rates on loans for farm machinery and equipment remained rather high, perhaps owing to strong demand for farm machinery, but also likely reflecting the longer average maturity that is typical for these loans. Rates on loans for operating expenses and for other purposes dropped about 75 basis points, on average, in the in the February survey. The percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats fell to 70.4 percent, towards the lower end of the range for the past couple of years. Table I.G offers a historical perspective on changes in the dispersion of rates of interest for non-realestate loans, which suggests that the dispersion of rates in the February survey was lower than the survey one quarter earlier. Since the November 1995 survey, the average rate of interest charged for farm loans fell in all USDA farm production regions except for the Delta States and the Southern Plains. The estimated standard errors of the weighted average rate of interest have been particularly high in the past two quarters in the Corn Belt, indicating a much wider range than usual in the rates offered to farmers there. Chart 1 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Millions, Annual rate Number of non-real-estate farm loans 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 - Four quarter moving average 2.0 1.5 i . . . » • . • i • • • t . . • i 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 i ... i ... » 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Thousands of dollars Average size of non-real-estate farm loans 1.0 45 40 35 30 ~ Four quarter moving 25 20 15 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ' 1985 ' 1986 ' 1987 ' 1988 ' 1989 ' 1990 ' 1991 ' 1992 ' 1993 ' 1994 ' 1995 ' 1996 Billions of dollars, Annual rate Amount of non-real-estate farm loans 10 110 100 90 — Four quarter moving average 80 70 60 50 40 1 1978 1979 1 1980 1 1981 1982 ' • ' • 1983 1984 1 ' • • 1985 1986 1987 1988 ... i ... t ... i 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 , 1995 1996 30 Chart 2 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Months Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans — Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans Percent Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate 100 40 - Four quarter moving average ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.A NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS) BY SIZE OF LOAN ($l # 000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER BY SIZE OF BANK 1 to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over 2 .42 2 .06 1 .71 1 .57 1 .42 1 .67 . 1,.70 1,.66 1 .67 , 1 .65 , 1 .55 , 1, .45 0 .53 0 .51 0 .46 0 .46 0 .43 0 .52 0,.49 0..51 0,.54 0,.56 0,.51 0..57 0,.40 0,.30 0,.29 0,.27 0,.28 0..31 0..35 0..32 0,.37 0.,37 0.,35 0.,36 0 .09 0 .09 0 .08 0,.08 0,.07 0,.09 0,.09 0,.10 0,.11 0..12 0..12 0..12 LARGE OTHER 0 .18 0 .18 0,.20 0,.20 0,.23 0,.36 0,.44 0,.50 0,.51 0,.55 0.,54 0.,66 3,.26 2,.78 2,.34 2 .18 1,.99 2,.23 2,.20 2..10 2.,18 2.,15 1.,98 1. 83 0.48 0.66 0.62 0.41 1.96 2.52 2.04 1.42 ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE 1984 . 1985. 1986. 1987 . 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992 . 1993 . 1994 . 1995. 3 .44 2 .96 2 .55 2 .38 2 .21 2,.60 2,.63 2,.60 2.,69 2. 70 2. 53 2. 49 0 .34 0 .34 0 .30 0 .39 0 .29 0,.30 0,.32 0..35 0..35 0.,36 0.,28 0. 26 0 .29 0 .23 0 .17 0,.13 0,.11 0,.20 0..24 0,.23 0,.25 0.,27 0.,23 0. 19 2 .06 1 .77 1. 66 1 .54 1 .45 1 .73 1 .69 1 .64 . 1 .67 1 .62 , 1 .56 . 1. .48 0,.35 0,.36 0,.17 0..14 0..14 0.. 16 0.,19 0.,17 0., 18 0. 18 0. 18 0. 17 0 .35 0 .27 0 .24 0,. 19 0,.21 0,.20 0,.19 0..21 0..24 0,,27 0. 27 0. 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1994 Ql. Q2 . Q3. Q4. 44 18 66 83 0.28 0.30 0.21 0.32 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.18 1.40 2.06 1.79 0.98 0.21 0.25 0.16 0.12 0.22 0.32 0.34 0.22 1.44 1 .97 1.72 1.08 0.50 0.65 0.52 0.36 0.38 0.42 0.33 0.28 1995 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4 . 2.35 2.96 2.61 2.04 0.29 0.23 0.22 0.29 0.23 0.22 0.13 0.20 1.33 1.89 1.68 1 .01 0.17 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.33 0.39 0.44 0.38 1.31 1.80 1.55 1.13 0.56 0.63 0.47 0.35 0.12 0.40 , 0.14 0.37 0.10 0.31 0.13 0.54 0.74 0.73 0.63 1.81 2.22 1.89 1.41 1996 Ql. 1.95 0.15 0.22 1.14 0.15 0.29 1.10 0.41 0.31 0.45 1.50 0.60 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.13 7 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.B AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) FEEDER LIVESTOCK ALL LOANS OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES BY SIZE OF BANK BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over LARGE ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 17..7 17..6 19..0 20..8 21..8 19..9 28..4 31..9 31..2 34..3 33..9 33..8 31.8 25.7 35.0 33.8 34.1 42.7 69.7 61.0 68.2 79.7 60.3 49.7 21..9 22..5 25.,8 26.,3 40.,6 29..5 22..7 25..2 26..9 23..1 27..6 26..7 12.9 12.8 14.0 14.6 16.7 14.1 15.7 15.6 14.7 15.2 16.3 18.5 12..5 12..4 13..6 16..1 13..9 12..1 11..9 15..1 15..9 13..9 17..5 15..6 3.,7 3..5 3..5 3..6 3..7 3..6 3..6 3,.6 3..7 3..7 3..7 3..7 34.8 42.1 32.9 44.6 34.7 32.2 94.3 129.3 108.7 112.0 123.6 93.6 14..7 14..4 14..9 14.. 7 14..8 14..7 14..8 14..9 14..8 14,.9 14..6 14,.7 43.8 45.5 44.9 46.5 45.2 45.9 46.1 46.6 45.9 46.1 47.0 44.9 88..1 13.8 82.,0 13.4 62..0 15.3 85..5 14.9 70..0 16.3 53..7 14.4 100..7 13.9 107..0 13.9 97..0 15.8 106,.0 15.8 101,.3 15.4 84,.0 15.7 291.2 254.7 280.4 320.4 320.4 272.1 487.7 539.9 468.2 490.3 480.7 451.3 AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE Ql... Q2. . . 03... Q4. . . I I 1 1 34..9 28..9 31..3 45..0 72.5 57.0 72.3 44.9 27..3 27..9 24..0 30..7 19. 9 15..7 14.,2 16.,3 21.,5 19.,0 12..7 14..0 106.5 97.5 108.0 202.0 3..6 3..9 3..5 3..9 14..7 14..4 14..4 14..9 48.5 46.0 46.0 47.5 445.0 377.9 588.4 572.2 102.,8 77.,6 98..2 142..4 18..1 16..1 11..0 16..9 Ql... 02... Q3. . . 04... 1 I I 1 34..8 33..0 27..7 41..7 65.2 62.7 33.9 35.7 24..6 28..1 26..4 28..0 20..1 17..4 14..6 24..6 15..4 18..7 14..4 12..4 83.8 101.7 79.5 110.0 3..6 3..8 3..6 3..9 14..8 14..5 14..5 15..2 46.7 43.7 44.5 45.1 431.3 466.5 437.5 464.0 90..8 82..8 66..8 99..8 18..1 16..4 12..6 15..9 Ql... 1 43..4 59.7 23..2 27..1 18..4 127.0 3,.6 15..1 45.0 474.1 122..8 19..6 1 1 I ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.C AMOUNT OF LOANS M A D E (BILLIONS 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 BY SIZE OF BANK 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over 7.8 7.4 6.9 6.8 6.4 7.7 7.3 7.68.0 8.3 7.4 8.3 17,.6 13,.5 13,.2 .6 12 , 12,.9 14,.4 15,.9 15,.1 16,.8 17 , .1 16 .5 16 .0 26,.5 .0 24 , 22,.3 .5 24 , 23,.7 23,.4 45 .3 54 .0 52 .8 61 .0 56 .0 54 .4 LARGE OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15,.8 14,.9 12 .6 17 .1 15 .9 19 .6 44 .2 53 .7 49 .4 58 .8 55 .1 55 .3 45. 0 37. 3 35,,9 32,.5 32,.3 32,.0 30,.5 29,.1 34,.3 33,.8 30,.6 28,.8 ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS M A D E 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 , 1993 , 1994 . 1995 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 60 .8 52 .1 48 .5 49 .6 48 .2 51 .6 74,.7 82 .8 83,.7 92,.6 85,.7 84,.1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 10 .7 8 .6 10 .4 13 .2 10 .0 12 .9 22 .0 21 .4 23 .6 28 .7 16 .8 12 .7 6 .5 5 .2 4 .5 3 .4 4 .6 6 .0 5 .5 5 .8 6 .7 6 .2 6 .4 5 .2 26 5 22 6 23 2 22 5 24 3 24,.3 26,.6 25,.5 24,.6 24,.7 25,.4 27,.3 4 .4 4 .4 2 .4 2 .3 1 .9 2 .0 2 .3 2 .5 2 .9 2 .5 3 .2 2 .7 12,.2 11,,3 8,,0 8,.3 7,.4 6,.4 18,.3 .6 27 . 26,.0 30,.6 33 , .9 36,.1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8,,9 7,.2 6,.0 5,.7 5,.2 6,.1 6,.1 6,.1 6,.2 6,.1 5,.8 5,.4 AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK (DF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1994 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 85..27 91,.99 83,.14 82,.44 I 1 I I 20 .2 17 , .2 15 .4 14,.5 9 .1 , 7 .1 3 .8 5 .6 27,.7 32,.3 25,.5 16,.0 4 .5 4 .7 2 .0 1 .7 23,.7 30,.7 36,.5 44,.6 1 1 1 1 5,.2 7,.7 6,.0 4,.2 7.4 9.3 7.5 5.4 18 19 15 13 .3 .2 .0 .3 .3 .7 .6 .5 1 1 1 1 49 .9 51 .5 60 .6 58 .4 35,.4 40,.5 22,.5 24,.1 1995 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 81,.59 97,.62 72,.31 84,.85 I I I I 18,.9 14 .4 7 .5 , 10 , .2 5 .6 6 .3 3 .4 , 5,.6 26,.8 33,.0 24,.5 24,.9 2 .6 4 .2 2 .1 1 .9 27,.8 39,.7 34,.9 42,.2 1 1 1 1 4,.8 6,.9 5,.5 4,.4 8.4 9.2 8.7 7.1 16 17 16 14 .2 52 .2 .3 , 64.3 .3 ' 41 .7 .1 59 .2 1 1 1 1 48 .8 61 .3 48 .6 62 .5 32,.8 36,.4 23,.7 22,.4 1 84,.76 I 9 .1 5,.1 31,.0 2 .7 36,.9 1 4,.0 6.2 14 .1 60 .5 1 55 .3 29 .5 1996 oi... 54 55 54 59 9 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.D AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE (MONTHS) 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 7.5 7.7 8.0 8.1 9.2 8.3 9.2 8.3 9.7 10.0 11.6 10.8 7.,7 9..1 9..8 9..3 10.,2 9..3 11..9 10.,6 11..1 11..1 13..5 12..1 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 8..0 7..9 7..1 8.,3 7..7 7..1 4..9 5..8 7..2 7..4 7..2 8..2 7.0 6.9 5.5 5.9 8.1 7.8 4.7 5.2 6.4 6.4 5.8 7.3 7. 9 8.,4 8..8 9..3 8..8 8..2 10..2 9..6 10..1 10..4 12,.6 11..4 ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7,.7 8,.0 8,.0 8..4 8,.7 8..1 7..5 7..3 8..9 9..2 10..3 9..9 5.0 6.1 5.8 5.5 6.4 6.8 6.0 6.7 6.1 7.3 7.6 8.7 6.6 7.8 6.3 7.7 4.7 7.4 8.8 8.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 9.9 7..8 7..3 7.,6 7..6 8..5 7..2 7..5 7..2 8..6 8..3 8..6 8..5 12..6 13,,4 21..0 22..8 19..8 18..7 21..9 24..6 20..1 30..4 36..6 26..5 8.1 8.8 8.8 12.1 10.9 11.8 6.4 5.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 10.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 7..0 6..7 6..8 7..5 7..1 7..4 7..4 7..7 8..3 8..5 8..6 9..0 MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER,, ANNUAL, RATE 1994 01. .. Q2. . . 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 10..1 13..0 9..3 8..3 1 1 1 1 6.9 8.4 9.4 5.7 8..3 9..4 16..2 8..2 8.9 10.5 6.8 7.3 32. 0 45.7 32. 3 28.2 6.6 10.8 7.9 11.3 8..6 9..5 8..1 7..6 12.7 13.3 9.2 10.5 13..9 14..2 13..2 12..3 6. 6 10. 7 6. 8 4. 8 | | | | 4..5 7..0 5..9 5..8 12..8 15.,0 11..5 9..3 1995 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 10..3 10..6 9..0 9..4 1 1 I 1 8.0 7.1 7.9 13.0 9..8 9..2 10..4 10..6 10.5 9.5 6.8 6.8 28. 4 24.7 30.4 23. 9 7.0 12.7 10.9 8.6 9..3 10..2 8..0 8..2 11.2 12.1 9.8 10.0 13..9 13..6 9..4 11..4 8. 1 8. 4 7. 6 8.7 I | | | 5..6 6..9 6..7 9..6 12..3 12..6 10..1 9..2 1996 01. . . 1 11..2 I 8.3 15..0 8.7 26. 3 17.4 8..9 13.0 12..7 10. 1 1 8..7 12..8 1 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.E AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE 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 13.1 11.2 9.6 9.2 10.2 12.1 10.9 9.0 6.8 6.7 7.2 9.0 14.4 13.4 12.1 11.3 11.6 12.7 12.3 11.3 9.4 8.7 8.8 10.4 ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14.1 12.8 11.5 10.6 11.2 12.5 11.4 9.8 7.8 7.5 7.8 9.5 13 .7 12 .5 11 .1 10 .7 10,.9 12..3 11..5 10..2 8..2 8.,0 8..3 10.,1 14,.3 12..7 11..9 10..2 11..9 12..4 12..0 11..0 8.,6 8.,1 8.,0 10. 2 14.2 13.0 11.5 10.8 11.2 12.6 11.7 10.4 8.8 8.1 8.4 10.0 14,.6 13,.7 12..2 11..5 11..7 12..8 12..3 11..3 9..3 8..7 8..6 10..3 14,.0 12..1 11..2 9..5 10..7 12..3 10..7 8..6 6..3 6..2 7..0 8..8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 14..6 13..7 12..4 11..6 11..7 12..8 12..5 11..5 9..7 9..0 9..1 10..6 14..3 13..2 12..0 11..3 11..6 12..7 12..4 11..2 9..3 8.,7 8..8 10..5 14.3 13.2 11.8 11.1 11.4 12.7 12.1 10.7 8.8 8.3 8.6 10.3 13.7 12.1 10.8 9.9 10.8 12.2 10.9 9.2 7.1 6.9 7.3 ' 9.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1994 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 7.3 7.8 7.9 8.3 7 .7 8 .1 8,.7 8..8 7.3 8.1 8.4 8.7 7..9 8..5 8..4 8..7 8.2 8.6 9.0 9.5 6,.1 6..6 7..0 7..8 1 1 1 1 8..8 8..9 9..2 9..6 8..4 8..7 9..0 9..4 8.1 8.5 8.7 9.1 6..1 7..2 7..3 7..9 6..6 7..0 7..4 7..8 8.3 8.7 9.2 9.5 1995 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 10.0 9.4 9.5 9.2 10..9 9..6 9..8 9..7 9.9 10.2 9.8 10.6 10..3 9..9 10..2 9..4 10.4 10.2 10.4 10.0 9..0 8..7 8..8 8..8 1 1 1 1 10.,6 10..6 10..6 10.,6 10..3 10..6 10..6 10..5 10.2 10.4 10.2 10.2 9.,8 8..8 8.,8 8.,8 9..1 8..9 9..0 8..8 10.4 10.3 10.5 10.6 1996 Ql. . . 1 8.5 9.,5 9.9 8. 8 9.8 7.,8 1 10.3 10..1 9.8 7. 9 7.,7 10.0 | | 1 ( 11 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK HON-REAL-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 12 FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 OTHER BY SIZE OF BANK to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over 23.,8 27. 6 40. 6 48.,5 49.,3 50.,4 53..6 52.,0 57,.3 60,.1 58,.6 61,.7 31.,3 31.,5 41.,8 45.,6 51,.5 49,.6 59,.2 59,.0 59,.1 61 .0 59 .8 63 .9 29.,0 42.,0 48.,2 54.,4 60.,8 58.,5 66.,0 64,,0 61,.2 64,.5 70,.4 73,.6 52.,7 56.,6 63..7 68..5 67.,0 69.,1 67,,5 67,.8 78,,6 83,.9 80,.2 76,.7 LARGE OTHER 71.,1 77.,1 71.,9 77..6 79..1 83,,6 69,,4 70,.0 82,.9 86,.9 83,.7 79,.9 27 .6 32 .6 47 , .0 49 .9 52 .6 47 .2 59 .3 56 .1 55 .5 58 .9 59 .7 62 .3 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38.9 45.3 53.4 59.5 61.4 61.0 65.2 65.1 71.7 76.7 75.1 73.8 41..2 61.,4 60..5 51..6 65..3 71..4 76.,8 • 81..5 78.,5 84..6 82..9 83,.9 32,.3 .9 44 , 34,.8 69,.6 39,.5 40,.0 .6 61 , 69,.3 63,.5 70,.0 74,.3 75,.9 41,.7 43,.0 57,.2 62 .1 63 .8 59 .7 68 .3 68 .8 66 .3 70 .3 72 .3 73 .0 .3 24 , 19,.6 30,,9 55,.5 54,.9 32 .9 40,.0 40 .6 .8 47 , 48 .2 .6 51 , 53 .1 39,.5 47,.3 50,.6 62 , .1 63 , .2 73,.6 51,.2 50,.3 75 .3 78 .1 75 .7 72 .2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER 1994 Ql. Q2 . Q3 . Q4. 77 .2 71.7 78.6 73.1 89.1 78.3 91.3 70.7 78.1 74.4 79.8 64.3 76.6 73.9 65.6 72.3 66.9 40.4 51.1 43 .3 69, 70, 83 , 76, 56.6 59.6 58.9 58.9 59.3 56.8 62.4 62.2 72.9 68.7 70.2 69.8 83.1 77.0 85.3 75.9 85.8 81.8 8 6.8 80.3 65.3 58.9 56.4 55.7 1995 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 79.0 67.3 73.4 76.7 88.3 82.8 76.3 82.8 76, 79, 51. 55.7 59.7 50.2 37.9 70.3 62.0 82.0 75.0 63. 60, 61.4 63.2 65.1 66.3 79.9 66.1 72.1 77.0 82.9 86, 84.3 65.7 65.3 78.0 77.2 79.1 83. 73. 83. 80.8 72.9 56.7 53.2 65.5 1996 Ql. 70.4 86.4 56.6 74.6 40.0 67.0 58.7 61.6 67.1 72.8 74.1 63.3 60. 61. f>9.0 Table I.G PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS, 1 ' 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... 12.0 to 12.9... 13.0 to 13.9... 14.0 to 14.9... 15.0 to 15.9... 16.0 to 16.9... 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 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 3 4 3 31 19 22 14 4 100 100 - 2 16 10 17 18 22 10 5 4 11 20 17 26 15 7 1 100 8 4 30 18 22 15 2 1 - 100 100 2 1 1 9 7 27 27 15 11 4 23 5 19 26 18 4 1 Memo: Percentage Distribution of Number of Loans, Nov 95 Feb 96 100 . * 1 6 27 42 19 4 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - . * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " " 1 2 13 33 37 11 2 - - - 100 . - - - - " - 1. Percentage distribution of the estimated total dollar amount of non-real-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. 13 SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING FEBRUARY 5-9,1996 Loans to farmers all sizes ALL 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 $100-249 $250 and over 1,728,651 39,642 15.0 79,640 22,040 9.1 125,686 8,293 13.8 138,775 4,128 16.6 166,052 2,489 28.2 262,914 1,752 14.9 955,584 941 11.0 8.58 0.21 9.92 10.28 0.05 9.75- 10.78 10.07 0.10 9.50 - 10.52 9.91 0.04 9.38- 10.47 9.65 0.14 9.01 - 10.25 9.57 0.20 8.68 - 10.16 7.60 0.33 8.77 9.12 8.84 7.21 6.94 - FARM 6.17 - 9.45 9.93 8.83 9.75 9.37 7.86 10.34 10.42 10.28 10.29 9.65 10.07 9.99 10.25 10.20 9.81 9.94 9.81 10.23 9.61 10.07 9.48 8.94 9.81 10.11 10.74 9.64 9.25 9.08 9.37 9.53 9.77 9.59 9.77 9.21 9.40 70.0 71.4 58.5 59.0 61.6 62.5 62.9 60.0 67.7 54.8 76.7 64.6 71.7 80.0 10.2 5.7 35.6 3.1 2.6 42.8 8.0 10.6 62.2 8.4 0.7 10.0 8.7 12.3 47.7 11.8 1.6 17.7 9.3 11.2 47.9 8.4 1.4 21.9 7.0 8.1 51.0 2.0 8.1 23.7 14.2 144 43.5 6.2 4.9 16.6 10.1 0.8 25.2 1.5 62.4 1,054,436 10,207 10.7 17,470 4,799 8.5 32,808 2,135 11.0 38,808 1,174 13.1 56,332 807 12.5 86,246 582 22.3 822,773 709 7.5 7.79 0.30 9.10 10.03 0.11 9.40 - 10.67 9.75 0.11 9.04 - 10.28 9.56 0.12 8.84 - 10.20 9.29 0.16 8.57 - 9.78 8.95 0.18 9.72 7.36 0.31 8.57 9.25 9.01 7.82 9.49 9.59 7.52 10.09 9.96 10.09 10.36 9.62 9.93 9.59 9.63 9.94 9.48 10.02 9.62 9.43 9.38 9.71 10.24 9.35 9.43 9.70 9.01 9.39 9.53 839 9.19 8.63 8.65 8.89 9.20 9.26 9.13 9.30 8.84 7.14 70.9 79.9 88.2 77.5 83.9 79.9 88.4 78.3 86.0 70.8 81.6 78.8 67.1 80.7 5.1 2.0 32.1 0.8 2.2 57.9 3.8 6.7 53.7 2.4 1.4 32.1 7.1 6.6 40.7 5.5 2.4 37.7 7.5 5.4 40.8 2.2 2.2 42.0 4.3 4.3 40.9 2.6 1.5 46.4 8.8 6.3 47.7 4.2 7.0 26.0 4.6 1.0 28.6 1.7 64.1 674,214 29,434 17.7 62,170 17,241 9.2 92,877 6,158 14.4 99,967 2,954 17.4 109,720 1,681 33.4 176,669 1,169 12.4 132,811 231 17.9 9.82 0.16 9.00 - 10.38 10.34 0.08 9.92 - 10.79 10.18 0.11 9.65 - 10.56 10.05 0.07 9.69 - 10.47 9.83 0.18 9.20 -10.26 9.87 0.27 9.26 - 10.40 9.07 0.28 9.65 10.22 11.12 9.73 9.03 9.09 9.72 9.76 9.95 9.99 9.94 9.18 9.68 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 9.75 7.44 LENDERS5 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans , Weighted average maturity (months) 1 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 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 Size class of loans (tttousands) $50-99 $25-49 $10-24 BANKS Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans , Weighted average maturity (months) 1 LARGE $1-9 6.53 - 8.34 - 6.10 - 9.75 7.24 BANKS5 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months) 1 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 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 8.57 - 9.00 9.54 10.18 10.07 9.80 9.15 9.45 10.37 10.49 10.33 10.29 9.67 10.40 10.09 10.35 10.27 9.85 9.90 10.05 10.46 9.64 10.18 9.42 8.63 10.24 68.5 58.1 50.1 53.8 53.7 56.4 53.0 523 58.3 46.6 74.2 57.6 100.0 75.6 18.1 11.5 41.2 6.6 3.3 19.2 9.2 11.7 64.6 10.2 0.5 3.8 9.3 14.3 50.2 14.1 1.4 10.7 10.0 13.5 50.6 10.8 1.1 14.0 8.4 10.1 56.1 1.7 11.6 12.0 16.9 18.4 41.5 7.2 3.9 12.1 44.1 10.28 9.04 4.1 51.8 NOTES TO TABLE I.H m 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) bv USDA Farm Production Region LS CB NP 2 .8 10 .3 25 .1 17 .2 6 .2 5 .1 6. 1 9 .6 7 .3 10 .3 Sample Coverage, Feb. 1996 14 .5 survey (%) 5 .2 8 .0 14 .7 11 .7 8 .5 6 .9 9 .3 21 .4 69 .4 19 7 87 .5 33 .7 271 .3 39 .6 17 .3 22 .5 127 .0 122 .3 NE Proportion of farm loans outstanding, Feb. 1996 survey Avg. Loan Size, Feb. 1996 survev ($1000) Survey date: 75 .2 AP SE DL SP MN PA Weighted Average Interest Rate During Samnle 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 ( .5 2) 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) May 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) May 1993 8,.1 (.,24) 8.,7 (,.21) 8 .1 ( .27) 7 .9 ( .3 2) 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 . (. 3 2) 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 1994 8..7 (.,28) 9.,0 (..26) 8 .0 (,.17) 8..1 (..23) 6..1 (..79) 8..2 (..29) 7. 8 (. 60) 8. 4 (.36) 7. 5 (.34) 7. 2 (. 26) Aug. 1994 9,.1 (..19) 8.,6 (. 41) 8,.3 (•.40) 8..6 (.,19) 6..5 (..83) 8..6 (..11) 7. 6 (. 72) 8. 6 (.37) 7. 6 (.35) 7. 5 (. 25) Nov. 1994 10..2 (.,38) 9, 7 (. 18) 8,.9 (-,18) 8..5 (..39) 7., 1 (..39) 8.,5 (..37) 8. 8 (. 68) 9.,0 (. 17) 8. 0 (.43) 8. 5 (. 20) Feb. 1995 11 . ,7 (..65) 10. 7 (. 14) 10..0 (.,14) 9.,9 (. 16) 8.,6 (. 79) 7..2 (1. 79) 10. 4 (.34) 10. 4 (. 21) 9. 4 (. 50) 9. 4 (. 25) 1995 9..0 (. 38) 10. 4 (. 29) 9..3 (..45) 9..4 (.42) 8. 5 (. 93) 10..2 (. 31) 10. 7 (. 74) 10. 1 (. 18) 9. 3 (. 23) 9. 3 (.34) Aug. 1995 9.,6 (.36) 10. 3 (. 21) 9..3 (..46) 9. 8 (. 16) 8.. 1 (. 96) 9. 6 (. 10) 10. 4 (.31) 10. 1 (. 22) 9. 4 (.39) 9. 5 (. 29) Nov. 1995 10. 8 (.32) 10. 3 (. 21) 8.,3 (. 93) 9. 6 (. 26) 7. 9 (. 80) 10. 1 (. 25) 10. 3 (.32) 9. 8 (. 24) 9. 3 (. 66) 8. 9 (.40) Feb. 1996 8.,8 May (, 32) 9. 9 8.,0 9. 4 7. 3 9. 4 10. 9 9. 9 8. 9 8. 1 ( , 22) 99) ( ,31) ( , 24) (, 22) ( , 65) f T95) * 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. f ,25) fl, 10) (, 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 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 non-real-estate farm loans at insured commercial banks net charge-offs of non-real-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 20 21 22 23 Agricultural banks: II.F II.G II.H II. I Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks Failures of agricultural banks !.!!!.!!!!!!!!!! 24 25 26 27 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 non-real-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 non-real-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 chargeoffs 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 chargeoffs 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 11:6 to its counterpart in table II.D to obtain total agricultural delinquencies. A similar caveat applies to the data concerning charge-offs 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 15.8 percent in December of 1995. 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. 18 SECTION II: (continued) Recent Developments: Loans outstanding: Over the four quarters of 1995, the volume of non-real-estate farm loans rose 2.8 percent, the smallest yearly rise since 1992. The volume of farm real estate debt that was held by commercial banks rose 5.9 percent in 1995, towards the low end of the range of increases seen during the past decade. Problem loans: At the end of December 1995, delinquent farm non-real-estate loans amounted to $0.8 billion, about 2 percent of such loans outstanding. After falling rapidly in the latter 1980s, delinquencies have remained about flat throughout the 1990s. In 1995 commercial banks charged off, on net, $51 million of farm production loans. The volume of delinquent farm real estate loans outstanding at yearend was a bit higher than than one year earlier, but as a percentage of farm real estate loans outstanding, the delinquencies were unchanged from the previous year. Beginning in the third quarter of 1995, the proportion of agricultural banks that reported a level of nonperforming loans that was greater than 2 percent of total loans began to edge up, perhaps foreshadowing a bit less favorable operating environment than agricultural banks have enjoyed since the latter 1980s. Nevertheless, most agricultural banks continued to report few problem loans. Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks in 1995 was 1.2 percent, identical to the past three years. The average capital ratio for both agricultural banks and other small banks, though already high when compared to the average over the past decade, edged up further in 1995, providing a substantial cushion for any losses on nonperforming loans. In December 1995, the ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks was higher than at the close of 1994 in all Federal Reserve districts except San Francisco. For all agricultural banks, the ratio of loans to deposits was 64.5 percent at yearend, the highest level since the late 1970s, when the liquidity of many agricultural banks was a concern. Failures of agricultural banks: No agricultural banks failed in the first quarter of 1995, the tenth consecutive quarter with no failures. Given the strong capital positions of most agricultural banks and their low levels of problem loans, the number of failures seems likely to remain quite low in coming quarters. TABLE II.A FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER LOAN VOLUME, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS 42.8 45.4 46.1 45.2 14.7 15.2 15.3 15.4 28.1 -1.5 44.2 47.0 48.0 47.4 15.8 16.3 16.5 TOTAL LOANS 1988 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1989 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1990 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1991 Ql. PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS QUARTER 46.1 49.0 50.5 50.1 16.6 16.8 17.1 17.3 17.2 6.0 1.9 3.0 1.5 -1.9 1.2 0.5 28.4 30.7 31.5 30.8 -2.2 6.3 2.7 3.0 29.3 31.9 33.2 32.9 -2.8 6.4 3.1 -0.8 -1.3 30.3 30.8 29.8 2.1 -1.2 49.5 52.6 53.9 53.0 17.5 18.3 18.4 32.0 34.5 35.6 34.6 51.9 55.1 56.2 54.5 18.9 19.5 19.9 19.9 33.0 35.6 36.2 34.7 -2.1 20.0 32.8 35.4 37.1 36.8 -3.2 03. 04. 52.8 56.0 58.0 57.7 1994 Ql. 56.8 21.2 21.9 22.4 22.6 35.5 39.2 40.6 38.7 -1.5 7.6 3.1 -2.7 22.9 23.6 23.8 23.9 36.9 40.0 41.5 39.8 -2.3 02. 03. 04. 1992 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1993 Ql. 02. 02. 61.1 03. 04. 63.0 61.3 1995 Ql. 59.9 63.5 65.3 63.7 02. 03. 04. 18.1 20.6 20.8 20.9 REAL ESTATE LOANS 6.2 2.5 -1.6 6.2 1.9 -2.9 6.0 3.5 -0.5 NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS -3.2 7.6 1.7 -3.1 2.2 2.6 3.0 4.0 8.6 6.7 2.6 -4.7 7.5 7.6 7.6 1.0 8.0 1.5 2.4 3.3 12.1 9.6 -2.3 -0.5 0.4 1.2 2.5 -2.2 3.2 3.5 4.1 4.9 0.7 -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 -2.8 7.4 7.2 4.3 5.5 5.8 7.0 9.1 0.9 2.2 1.1 -0.6 1.5 3.4 1.4 0.6 2.7 3.3 1.9 -0.2 0.5 3.1 8.2 7.7 3.1 -2.7 —4.6 7.8 1.9 -4.4 -5.3 1.2 0.1 7.8 4.9 -0.8 1.8 -3.4 3.2 10.2 0.7 -4.6 1.6 2.2 3.6 6.1 2.7 2.9 -2.5 -4.6 8.2 0.4 -4.1 1.1 3.9 6.6 5.7 4.9 4.9 4.2 2.9 8.2 8.1 8.6 8.1 7.1 5.1 3.1 3.2 1.9 7.8 0.2 3.2 5.8 5.6 5.4 4.7 5.0 -0.5 -0.6 7.6 9.1 8.7 6.4 6.4 7.5 8.3 10.7 9.3 5.2 5.4 4.0 3.7 3.9 7.5 6.3 5.9 1.7 1.6 6.2 8.2 8.0 2.4 6.2 3.9 2.0 2.3 2.8 20 TABLE II.B ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS NONPERFORMING NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL MEMO J RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL 6 .5 4 .5 3 .7 3 .1 3 .2 2 .8 2 .2 2 .0 2 .1 1,.7 1..2 1 .3 1..3 1 .3 1,.0 0..8 0 .9 0 .9 4,.8 3..3 2 .3 1,.9 1..9 1..8 1 .4 1..1 1 .1 NONACCRUAL MEMO: RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE 0.,7 0.,5 0.,5 0.,3 0.,3 0.,3 0,,2 0..2 0.,3 4,.2 2,.9 1,.9 1 .6 1,.6 1..5 1,.2 0 .9 0 ,9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 ND PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING December 31 of year indicated 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 .9 1 .4 1 .1 1 .0 1 .1 1 .0 0 .8 0 .8 0 .8 0 .5 0 .4 0 .4 0 .4 0 .4 0 .3 0 .3 0 .3 0 .4 1..4 1..0 0..7 0..6 0..7 0..6 0..5 0..4 0..4 0..2 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0,.1 1 .2 0..9 0 .6 0 .5 0,.5 0 .5 0,.4 0,.3 0..3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 ND 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 End of quarter 1 .0 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 2.8 1.0 1.8 0.3 1.5 0.7 1993 Ql. 1 .3 03. 04. 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 1994 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1 .1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.1 2.2 1.9 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.2 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1995 Ql. 02. 1.1 0.9 0.6 03. 04. 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 ND ND ND ND 2 .9 2.3 1.9 1.6 0.9 Q.7 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1992 Q4. 02. 1 .0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 2.0 2.1 0.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 ND ND ND ND Data are estimates of the national totals for farm non-real-estate loans. After 1984, estimates are based on reports from banks that hold more than 90 percent of such loans. Earlier, only large banks that held about one-fourth of such loans reported nonaccrual and renegotiated farm loans; for other banks, estimates of delinquent farm loans are based on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks. TABLE II.C ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* 1988 1989 199 0 199 1 1992 1993 1994 199 5 I I I | I I | | TOTAL Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 128 91 51 105 82 54 69 51 28 10 -5 12 14 7 10 -2 39 26 19 25 20 16 11 14 24 15 10 36 29 5 15 13 37 40 28 32 18 26 33 25 TOTAL I I I I I I I I 0.46 0.27 0.20 0.32 0.24 0.15 0.19 0.13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 0.10 0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 -0.00 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.06 * Data are estimates of the national charge-offs of farm non-real-estate loans based on reports from banks that hold more than 90 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 22 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 NONACCRUAL TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL -December 31 of year indicated1992 1 1 9 93 1 1 9 94 1 1 9 95 I °- 4 °-4 °-3 °-4 °- 2 °-1 0-1 0.2 °- 3 0.1 0.2 | 2.1 0.8 1.3 0.3 1.0 °.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 | | | 1.8 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 -End of quarter04... 1 0 .4 0 .2 0 .3 0,.1 0..2 1 2.1 0 .3 1.3 0.3 1.0 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 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 1 1 1 1 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 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 Ql. . . Q2... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 0..4 0..4 0.,3 0..3 0.,2 0..1 0.,1 0.,1 0,. 2 0..2 0..2 0..2 0..1 0.,1 0.,1 0.,0 0..2 0..2 0..1 0..1 1 1 1 1 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.5 1,.0 0..6 0..5 0..7 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 0.4 0.4 0. 3 0.4 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0..2 0.,2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 1 1 1 1 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.5 0..9 0..6 0..5 0.,7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* 1992 1993 1994 199 5 I I I I 20 6 - 1 3 4 0 - 1 -0 7 1 - 1 -0 0 4 2 2 6 3 1 2 * All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. I I I I 0.11 0.03 -0.00 0.01 0.019 0.002 -0.004 -0.001 0.033 0.003 -0.004 -0.001 0.022 0.008 0.002 0.006 0.029 0.015 0.003 0.007 I I I I 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 indicated1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 50,.3 59 .0 65,.8 69,.6 70,.8 76 .2 80,.6 85,.5 83 .7 , 30,,6 28,.9 25,,1 22,.7 22,.3 18,.9 15,.9 12,.3 13,.8 14..4 9.,7 7.,6 6..4 5,,8 3,,9 2,.8 1,,9 2..1 3 .3 1 .9 1 .2 1 .0 0 .7 0 .8 0 .6 0 .2 0 .3 0,,9 0,,4 0,.2 0,.2 0,.3 0,.1 0,.1 0,.1 0 .1 0,.3 0,.2 0,.1 0,.0 0,.1 0,.0 0,.0 0,.0 0,.1 Percentage distribution, end of quarter 1993 03... 04... I 1 100,.0 100,.0 76,.6 80,.6 19,.1 15,,9 3..6 2,.8 0,.6 0,.6 0,.1 0,.1 0,.0 0,,0 1994 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 79,.2 81,.1 83 .6 , 85,.5 16,.8 16,.0 13,,6 12,,3 3,,3 2,.4 2,.4 1,.9 0,.5 0,.4 0,.3 0,.2 0,.1 0,.1 0,.0 0 .1 0,.0 0,.0 0.,0 0,.0 1995 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 I I 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 81,.7 82 .1 , 83 .0 , 83 .7 , 15,,3 15,.0 14,,3 13,,8 2,,7 2,.5 2,,3 2,.1 0 .2 0 .2 0 .3 0,.3 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 0 .1 0,.1 0,.1 0,,1 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.O SELECTED MEASURES OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS* NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS ALL BANKS NEGATIVE 0 TO 4 5 TO 9 10 TO 14 AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN TO EQUITY 15 TO 19 20 TO 24 15.0 13.0 9.0 9.0 12.0 14.0 12.9 13.4 19.8 18.5 17.1 13.3 3,.0 3,,0 2,,0 2,.0 3 ,0 4 ,0 2.,6 2.,5 5. 1 4 6 3 3 2. 4 25 AND OVER AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS RATE OF RETURN TO ASSETS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS 0.,7 0. 5 0. 4 0. 7 0. 9 1.,0 1. 0 1. 0 1. 2 1. 2 1. 2 1. 2 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 NET CHARGB-OFFS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS AGRICULTURAL BANKS AVERAGE CAPITAL RATIO (PERCENT) OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS 1.2 2.1 2.3 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.8 9.9 10.1 9.9 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.7 11.1 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.5 10.0 9.9 10.5 -percentage distribution1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 13,,0 18,.0 19..0 13.,0 9.,0 5.,0 4. 9 4. 1 1. 9 1. 5 1. 5 1. 4 9,,0 11.,0 14.,0 13.,0 9. 0 7. 0 7. 5 7. 7 5. 0 5.7 5.7 5. 6 23 .0 22,.0 27,.0 31,.0 30,.0 29,,0 33, 4 32,,2 25.,5 27.,8 31. 3 36. 8 36.0 33.0 28.0 31.0 36.0 38.0 37.6 39.2 41.1 40.6 40.2 39.9 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 o o o o 1 9 7 3 9 6 | | I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 8.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 10.0 11.0 10.8 10.9 12.6 12.4 11.9 11.3 12.0 11.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 8.5 8.9 11.5 12.4 12.4 11.6 QUARTERLY -YEAR TO DATB1993 Q4... 100.0 12.4 12.4 1,.2 1 .1 0.2 0,.4 10.8 10.0 1994 Ql... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.0 6.2 9.2 11.9 3.1 6.3 9.4 12.4 0. 3 0.,6 0. 9 1. 2 0 .3 0 .6 0,.9 1 .1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0,,1 0.,1 0. 2 0. 3 11.0 11.0 11.1 10.7 10.1 10.1 10.1 9.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.0 5.8 8.9 11.3 3.1 6.1 9.3 11.6 0. 3 0. 6 0. 9 1. 2 0, 3 0,.6 0,,9 1,.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0. 1 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 11.1 11.3 11.3 11.1 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.5 02... 03... 04... 1995 Ql... 02... Q3... Q4. .. * Agricultural and other bank, are defined in the introduction to section II; small banks have less than 500 million dollars in assets. Total primary and secondary capital (items that are available at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets. Quarterly data in the lower panel are cumulative through the end of the quarter indicated and, for periods of less than a year, are not comparable to 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 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 3955 3854 3723 3550 3482 0 .551 0 .555 0..582 0 .625 0 .641 71 75 67 56 60 0..642 0..643 0,.660 0..707 0,.717 133 131 130 125 135 0..609 0..607 0,.618 0..646 0..647 969 948 912 860 841 0..572 0..574 0..600 0..643 0..658 470 456 432 402 393 0..567 0..563 0..590 0..629 0..654 725 694 669 658 637 0..569 0,.579 0..615 0,.674 0..681 1135 1092 1063 1014 981 0.,522 0..533 0..566 0..618 0..634 378 384 378 366 359 0,,438 0.,422 0..442 0..474 0..499 60 61 58 53 55 0. 711 0.,708 0,,733 0. 747 0.,741 16.56 16.72 17.04 16.99 15.79 1993 04... 3723 0..582 67 0..660 130 0.,618 912 0..600 432 0.,590 669 0..615 1063 0..566 378 0..442 58 0..733 17.04 1994 Ql. . . <22... 03... 04... 3705 3689 3640 3550 0,.586 0..621 0..643 0..625 66 64 61 56 0..670 0..704 0..701 0..707 132 138 131 125 0.,620 0.,652 0. 669 0.,646 894 886 889 860 0..606 0..634 0..658 0..643 421 431 432 402 0. 590 0.,626 0.,657 0.,629 672 668 664 658 0..622 0..677 0..702 0..674 1057 1046 1023 1014 0..570 0..601 0..618 0..618 387 379 367 366 0..453 0..476 0..503 0,.474 58 59 56 53 0..749 0,.764 0 .768 0,.747 16.88 17.42 17.55 16.99 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 3484 3488 3617 3482 0.,634 0.,655 0..668 0..641 56 55 64 60 0..718 0..730 0..736 0..717 129 136 150 135 0. 653 0. 668 0. 680 0. 647 847 844 868 841 0..650 0..664 0..685 0..658 389 397 432 393 0.,634 0.,665 0.,692 0,,654 638 639 652 637 0..684 0..714 0.,717 0..681 993 984 1007 981 0,.622 0..637 0..647 0..634 364 361 368 359 0,.491 0..518 0..525 0..499 50 52 56 55 0,.768 0,.791 0,.763 0 .741 16.75 17.12 17.27 15.79 * The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total depsits. Agricultural banks are defined as banks with a farm loan ratio at least as great as that shown in the last column, as described in the introduction to section II. TABLE II.I FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS* NUMBER OF FAILURES 1988.... . . 1989 , , 1990 .. 1991 , , 1992.... , , 1993,„. .. . 1994 .. 1995 ., 1996 .. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 ANNUAL TOTAL 11 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 6 7 5 2 1 2 0 0 12 5 6 3 1 2 0 0 7 5 3 1 4 0 0 0 36 22 17 8 7 5 0 0 * * * * * 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. 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 rates Trends in real 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. Beginning in 1994, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank revised its survey considerably. Many questions were changed and it was not always possible to match the data to the categories that we have shown in previous editions of the Databook. Whenever possible, we have tried to fit the data from the revised survey into the older format. Series that were discontinued show no data for the first quarter, while those that were added suddenly appear. When a significant break in the data occurred, we included the new data and added a footnote to highlight the changes. 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; roughly 300 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. As outlined above, the Minneapolis survey was changed considerably beginning in the first quarter of 1994. In recent surveys, about 130 banks responded. 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 about 200 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 indicated that the demand for farm loans remained fairly steady in the fourth quarter of 1995. The availability of funds. which may have tightened a bit early in 1995. appears to have been adequate at the end of the year. The rate of loan repayment relative to one year earlier was lower in all the districts that report except the Chicago district. Similarly, bankers in most districts reported somewhat higher renewals and extensions. These indicators may be showing some early hints of debt repayment problems. Consistent with the data from the Call reports shown in the previous section, the ratio of loans to deposits was well above year-earlier levels at banks in all the districts that report. However. bankers in most districts reported the loan-deposit ratio as "higher than desired". Rates of interest on farm loans edged down, on balance, in all districts in the fourth quarter of 1995, consistent with the widespread declines that were reported in section I. The timing of these surveys varies across districts, and the average speed at which banks pass along changes in costs of funds may vary across districts as well. Relative to one year earlier, prices for agricultural land seem to be up about 5 percent in the Chicago, Kansas City, and Minneapolis districts. In contrast, prices for farmland in the Richmond district were 9 percent greater than one year earlier, while in the Dallas district, prices for cropland edged down as prices for ranchland soared. 29 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP 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 Ill •A1 SAME FUND AVAILABILITY HIGHER LOWER SAME LOAN REPAYMENT RATE LOWER HIGHER SAME HIGHER 1 15 44 40 1 6 62 32 1 29 46 25 1994 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 12 10 13 21 41 41 42 46 47 49 45 33 1 f I 1 9 13 22 18 61 67 60 63 30 20 18 19 1 1 1 1 28 20 20 18 50 69 66 53 1995 01. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 15 13 13 20 49 50 52 48 37 37 36 32 1 1 1 1 20 14 16 6 64 67 65 65 16 18 19 29 1 1 1 1 19 16 13 15 64 76 76 53 SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME: HIGHER 21 49 30 1 1 87 12 22 11 14 29 18 10 13 24 50 65 68 60 32 25 19 17 1 1 1 1 0 o 1 1 86 89 88 90 14 11 11 9 17 9 11 32 17 13 13 29 63 71 72 57 20 16 16 14 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 1 87 89 90 90 12 10 9 9 1 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO* , NB, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1993 04... 1 14 56 30 1 12 68 20 1 20 71 10 1994 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 9 10 10 9 59 53 49 56 32 37 41 35 1 1 I 1 10 19 28 26 72 67 62 65 18 13 9 9 1 1 1 1 16 16 18 25 76 78 74 65 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 10 11 16 16 51 58 53 56 39 32 32 28 1 1 I 1 21 18 20 14 69 69 67 66 10 14 14 20 1 1 1 1 28 32 32 43 III, A3 LOWER COLLATERAL REQUIRED SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL* / IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1993 04... III .A2 RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS 10 74 16 1 1 91 9 8 6 8 10 7 5 8 10 78 84 77 69 15 12 15 21 1 I I 1 1 0 0 o 89 92 90 89 10 8 9 11 67 67 63 53 5 1 5 4 6 2 5 5 69 70 67 55 25 27 28 41 1 1 1 1 0 0 o 1 87 88 86 84 13 12 13 15 24 63 14 1 o 86 14 1 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA* / NM*, TX ) 1993 04... 1 8 62 30 1 3 70 27 1 12 70 18 1994 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 11 22 16 13 62 56 49 54 26 21 35 33 I 1 1 1 3 3 10 7 78 79 72 71 19 18 18 22 1 1 1 1 9 14 13 16 78 75 76 72 13 11 12 12 17 12 10 13 76 77 75 68 7 ' 11 16 20 I I 1 1 1 1 2 o 86 91 88 88 13 8 10 11 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 13 12 17 20 53 50 50 46 34 38 33 34 1 1 1 1 8 8 10 9 78 79 76 77 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 1 20 21 28 40 72 74 63 53 7 5 9 7 11 9 12 7 67 70 64 54 22 21 24 39 I 1 1 I 1 0 2 1 83 81 78 74 16 19 20 25 1 • • e e # • ^ • # • • FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.A (CONTINUED) FARM NONRBAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH NORMAL CONDITIONS (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) DEMAND FOR LOANS LOWER III.A4 1993 Q4 • • • 1 1994 Ql. . . Q2.. . 03... 04... SAME 1995 Ql.. . 02... 03... 04... 3 79 LOWER SAME www www 18 1 *** *** WW* *** www www 1 1 1 1 11 16 29 17 61 64 54 66 1 21 20 21 11 66 62 60 62 *** | *** www I *** *** *** III.A5 HIGHER LOAN REPAYMENT RATE HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS LOWER SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI* ) *** 1 FUND AVAILABILITY www www www 1 1 1 WWW | 49 45 6 8 52 40 1 *** 28 19 17 17 | | | | 30 25 28 36 59 71 62 47 10 5 9 17 7 10 10 11 63 71 74 64 30 20 16 25 1 1 1 1 13 18 20 27 | | | | 43 45 35 36 51 53 59 49 6 2 6 15 10 7 9 4 55 63 66 60 35 30 25 26 www www 1 1 0 0 83 86 93 86 16 13 7 14 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 81 74 84 84 19 25 15 16 FIFTH[ (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV* ) 1993 04... 1 30 57 13 1 o 74 26 | 30 65 4 5 64 32 1 0 70 30 1994 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 4 5 13 19 72 76 79 71 24 19 8 10 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 64 67 75 76 32 33 25 24 | | | | 20 10 4 10 64 90 88 81 4 0 8 10 0 0 17 14 76 86 79 76 24 14 4 10 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 88 80 83 76 13 20 17 24 1995 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 I 1 20 20 32 24 68 76 64 62 12 4 5 14 1 1 1 1 16 12 9 0 72 72 64 76 12 16 27 24 | | | | 12 12 9 29 84 88 82 67 4 0 9 5 12 4 14 5 84 88 68 67 4 8 18 29 1 I 1 1 4 4 0 0 80 84 91 90 16 12 9 10 31 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) TOTAL LOWER SAME III.B1 FEEDER CATTLE HIGHER LOWER SAME DAIRY HIGHER LOWER SAME CROP STORAGE HIGHER LOWER SAME OPERATING HIGHER LOWER SAME 09 FARM MACHINERY HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1993 04... 1 10 43 47 I 19 72 8 1 16 75 8 I 28 59 13 1 7 36 57 1 21 43 36 1994 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 11 13 23 18 42 55 48 52 48 32 29 30 | | | | 22 48 44 31 72 50 50 62 6 2 5 7 | I | I 16 24 20 21 74 70 74 74 10 6 6 5 I 1 1 1 28 19 12 19 64 67 45 58 8 14 43 23 1 1 1 1 7 8 21 12 38 50 49 46 55 42 29 42 1 1 1 1 15 25 17 16 48 54 50 54 36 21 34 30 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 14 14 15 17 53 60 59 50 33 26 26 32 | | | | 32 38 40 47 62 58 54 48 6 3 6 5 | | | | 19 21 21 21 71 74 75 71 10 5 5 8 1 I I 1 19 26 23 37 68 65 58 52 13 9 19 11 1 1 1 1 13 11 13 13 42 53 60 46 46 36 27 41 1 1 1 1 15 22 16 8 53 61 55 46 33 17 29 45 III.B2 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1993 04... 1 7 62 31 1994 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 7 18 10 6 75 67 62 63 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 15 16 15 14 65 54 59 59 III.B3 11 69 19 1 12 79 9 I 9 81 10 1 7 61 31 1 10 62 28 18 15 28 31 14 38 28 18 74 51 55 68 12 10 17 13 | | | | 13 16 9 13 77 80 88 81 9 4 3 6 I I | | 17 15 8 11 79 72 74 84 5 13 17 6 1 1 1 1 7 5 10 5 65 63 63 60 28 32 28 36 1 1 1 1 8 15 15 12 74 69 66 69 18 16 19 19 21 30 25 27 22 33 31 42 63 55 50 50 15 12 20 7 | | | I 13 20 25 19 83 78 71 79 3 3 4 2 | | I I 12 11 16 19 86 79 75 68 3 10 9 12 1 1 1 1 12 8 13 15 55 58 54 50 34 33 33 35 1 1 1 1 12 15 23 27 67 69 64 55 21 16 14 19 1 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, sc, VA, WV*) 1993 04... | 11 74 16 1 11 78 11 1 18 82 0 1 30 70 0 1 4 70 26 1 18 64 18 1994 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 | | | 14 5 18 11 59 65 68 72 27 30 14 17 f 1 1 1 5 16 15 13 90 74 70 81 5 11 15 6 1 1 1 I 11 18 11 7 89 82 84 87 0 0 5 7 1 1 1 1 14 10 9 5 82 86 77 95 5 5 14 0 1 1 1 I 13 10 17 5 57 62 71 71 '. 30 29 13 24 1 1 1 I 23 10 13 0 59 67 67 81 18 24 21 19 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 | | | 17 8 16 20 67 79 74 65 17 13 11 15 1 1 1 1 25 20 18 35 70 80 82 65 5 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 14 21 27 25 76 79 73 75 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 14 14 25 20 77 86 60 65 9 0 15 15 1 1 1 1 12 4 15 19 72 88 80 62 16 8 5 19 1 1 1 1 8 4 19 19 71 84 67 67 21 12 14 14 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP 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 HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI *) 1990 04... 1 8 69 23 1 9 81 10 1991 01. .. 02... Q3 . ..« 04... 1 1 1 1 5 4 3 8 72 75 78 75 23 21 18 18 1 1 1 1 12 14 12 11 82 84 81 82 1992 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 2 8 10 5 86 78 80 86 11 14 10 9 1 1 1 1 3 11 13 14 1993 01. .. 02... Q3. .. Q4. . . I 1 1 1 5 3 7 3 84 81 62 69 11 16 32 28 1 1 1 1 8 13 15 7 FEEDER LIVESTOCK LOWER SAME 11 68 20 I 6 2 7 7 6 5 5 4 83 78 66 69 12 16 29 27 | | | | 90 86 82 80 7 3 5 6 2 2 8 7 79 86 78 68 18 11 14 25 | | | | 85 82 71 75 7 6 14 18 3 6 6 6 84 78 55 56 13 17 39 38 | | | | OTHER INTERMEDIATE HIGHER LOWER SAME 1 FARM REAL ESTATE HIGHER LOWER SAME OTHER OPERATING HIGHER LOWER SAME FARM MACHINERY HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER 1994 04... | 31 61 7 1 13 77 10 1 33 55 12 1 3 66 31 1 24 61 15 1995 Ql... Q2... 03... Q4... 1 | | | 28 47 43 53 68 49 50 36 4 4 7 11 | I I 1 15 27 25 26 75 58 64 59 10 16 11 15 1 1 1 1 30 44 38 31 60 48 52 53 10 8 10 16 1 | I 1 5 5 16 9 58 59 64 62 37 36 20 29 | | | | 29 45 36 32 58 49 55 55 13 7 9 12 1996 Ql... *** 52 44 4 *** 24 62 14 *** 31 50 19 *** 5 64 31 *** 30 54 15 33 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 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 1994 02... 03... 04... I 1 1 62 65 64 1 1 I 55 50 50 33 30 32 12 20 18 | | | 1995 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 65 66 67 65 1 1 1 1 49 48 51 53 34 35 32 36 17 17 17 11 | | | | III.C2 NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **• *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NB, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 Q2... 03... 04... | I I 59 61 60 I 1 1 69 59 61 8 10 7 23 26 30 | | | 1 3 4 76 70 72 1 1 1 77 74 75 11 11 12 82 81 81 7 9 7 1 1 1 68 70 67 10 11 9 78 77 77 12 12 14 1995 Ql... 02... 03... 04... | | I I 61 62 63 61 1 1 1 1 61 61 59 60 7 7 8 7 29 26 25 25 | | | | 5 5 4 3 70 66 65 67 1 1 1 1 76 78 80 78 9 11 11 8 85 84 83 86 6 5 6 6 1 1 1 1 68 70 74 68 8 9 11 9 79 81 78 77 13 10 11 14 I 1 *** *** 13 12 13 84 82 80 3 6 7 1 1 1 *** *** *** 10 10 13 86 83 84 4 7 4 I I I I *** *** *** *** 9 14 9 9 85 80 83 83 5 6 8 9 1 *** 1 1 *** *** 11 18 10 7 84 76 84 81 5 6 6 12 III.C3 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX) 1994 Q2... 03... 04... | | | 44 47 44 | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** * * *** *** | | | o 1 l 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... I I | I 45 47 51 49 | | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | | | 1 l l 0 *** *** *** | *** FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.C (CONTINUED) 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.C4 LOWER AT THAN DESIRED DESIRED LEVEL HIGHER THAN DESIRED NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS CORRESPONDENT BANKS NONBANK AGENCIES COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER HIGHER LOWER SAME NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1994 Q2... 03... 04... | 1 | 65 68 66 | | 1 *** *** *** 1995 Ql... 02... 03... 04... | | I | 66 69 68 71 1 | j 1 *** *** *** *** III.C5 REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS *** *** *** **• *** | | *** | 5 11 7 10 9 7 4 *** *** | | *** | *** *** • | 49+ 42 36 44 50 57 7 8 7 I | I 48 41 34 45 51 56 7 8 10 36 36 44 43 58 55 53 57 6 9 3 0 I | | | 31 32 42 39 57 57 50 58 12 11 8 3 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1994 Q2... 03... 04... | | | 68 71 70 1 1 1 45 38 37 50 52 58 5 10 5 | | | 5 0 0 76 78 90 1 1 I 90 85 88 0 0 0 10 15 13 0 0 0 1 1 1 74 74 71 5 0 0 21 26 24 0 0 6 1995 Ql... 02... 03... 04... | | | | 75 76 75 71 1 1 1 1 42 36 45 52 46 41 50 43 13 23 5 5 | | | | 0 0 0 0 76 83 68 86 I 1 1 1 83 86 81 95 4 0 0 0 13 14 19 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 I I 70 77 89 90 9 0 0 0 22 23 11 10 0 0 0 0 ••Beginning in 1994, Minneapolis omitted the response "none" for the number of referrals to either correspondent banks or nonbank agencies. The column that has been added combines responses that formerly would have been reported as either "none" or "low". 35 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS III.D1 OTHER OPERATING LOANS INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER LOWER SAME HIGHER 1 1 1 9.0 9.3 9.9 9.0 9.4 10.0 1995 01. . . 02... 03... 04... I I 1 1 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.9 10.3 10.2 10.2 9.9 *** *** *** 8,,5 8,.9 9,,5 HIGHER *** *** *** *** *** *** 9 ,7 9,,6 9,,3 8.,9 | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | *** *** *** *** *** *** | | *** *** *** *** *** LOWER SAME HIGHER *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM* , OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 02... 03... 04... 9.1 9.4 10.0 9.2 9.6 10.1 9 .2 9 .6 10 .1 6 »8 9 .2 9,.7 *** *** *** *** *** *** 1995 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.5 10.5 10.4 10.2 10 .5 10 .4 10 .3 10 .1 10,,1 9 .9 9,,8 9,,6 *** SAME LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL* , IN*, IA, MI* , WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 02... 03... 04... III.D2 SHORTTERM NONREAL ESTATE 36 . |1 |1 *** *** | *** *** *** |1 |1 *** 1 |1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** • ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D (CONTINUED) INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS III.D3 1994 02... Q3 .. . 04... 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... SHORTTERM NONRBAL ESTATE INTERMEDIATE NONRBAL ESTATE LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS SHORT-TERM NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER SAME INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS HIGHER LOWER SAME *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **• *** *** *** *** *** *** HIGHER LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER SAME HIGHER *** *** *** *** *** * A* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) | | *** *** | | *** *** III.D4 OTHER OPERATING LOANS AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) 9.1 9.5 10.3 9.2 9.8 10.4 8.4 8.7 9.7 | 1 i | | 1 *** *** *** 10.6 10.8 10.3 10.0 10.6 10.8 10.3 10.4 10.1 10.2 9.9 9.7 |1 |1 |I I1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1994 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 9.6 10.1 10.5 9.8 10.1 10.5 9.7 10.1 10.6 9.7 10.1 10.6 *** 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.6 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.8 11.2 11.1 10.7 10.7 11.0 10.7 10.5 10.4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** III.D5 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1994 02... 03... 04... 9.8 9.6 10.0 9.7 9.5 10.2 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 10.7 10.4 10.4 10.1 10.5 10.4 10.2 10.1 *** *** *** *** *** 9.9 9.7 10.2 10.0 9.4 9.8 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | I 1 1 10.5 10.4 10.2 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.0 9.5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | I I 1 | 1 *** | *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** #«* *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 38 MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER ALL III.El IRRIGATED TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER RANCHLAND ALL DRYLAND IRRIGATED RANCHLAND DOWN STABLE UP LOWER SAME HIGHER SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 Q2... Q3. . . 04... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1995 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 III.82 DRYLAND EXPECTED TREND IN FARM REAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | | 6 7 7 *** *** *** *** *** | 5 5 4 5 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **• | | | 2 4 3 70 59 65 28 37 32 1 1 1 16 17 19 66 64 63 18 19 18 | | 2 3 3 1 67 73 65 41 31 23 31 58 1 I 1 1 18 18 16 11 60 69 63 60 22 13 21 29 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1994 Q2... 03... 04... 1 1 1 -8 4 -5 *** *** *** 1 1 1 -3 4 -1 *** *** *** | | | 0 4 5 100 92 95 0 4 0 1 1 1 10 17 15 80 74 80 10 9 5 1995 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 18 -6 -8 8 ** * *** *** 1 1 1 1 8 9 -3 9 *** *** *** | | | 4 0 5 0 96 96 91 100 0 4 5 0 I 1 1 1 17 26 16 26 83 74 74 68 0 0 11 5 1 1 1 17 14 11 73 72 79 10 14 10 1 1 I 1 10 17 14 21 78 73 73 68 12 10 13 11 III.E3 1994 02... 03... 04... | | | 1995 01... 02... Q3... 04... 1 I | | ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) *** *** *** 1 0 1 3 -2 3 1 5 9 | | | -1 1 -2 0 1 4 -3 -2 1 9 3 8 | I | | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 5 4 4 3 5 5 2 -0 3 I | | *** *** *** *** *** *** 1 1 -1 -2 4 5 4 -0 6 14 24 23 | | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.E (CONTINUED) TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER ALL III.E4 ALL DRYLAND IRRIGATED RANCHLAND DOWN *** 1 2 -0 1 1 1 | | | *** *** *** 3 6 6 4 6 5 7 7 7 I I I *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 3 -0 2 1 | | I I *** *** *** *** 7 7 6 5 4 4 3 4 6 5 5 5 | | | | *** *** *** 1 1995 01. .. 02... 03... 04... | 1 1 1 STABLE UP LOWER SAME HIGHER *** *** *** *** *** *** | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | • *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** i | | *** *** *** *** *** *** | | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI* , MN, Mr, ND, SC, WI*) 1994 02... 03... 04... RANCHLAND 0 2 2 1 | 1995 01. . . 02... 03... 04... IRRIGATED TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NB, NM* , OK, WY) 1994 Q2. . . 03... Q4. . . III.B5 DRYLAND EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH NORMAL (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 7 6 4 4 4 4 6 4 5 | I I 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 6 3 2 3 2 | I | | *** *** *** *** *** 39
@FedFRASER