The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
E.15 (125) n AGRICULTURAL FINANCE DATABOOK First Quarter 1997 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 1997; the other data generally were available through the end of 1996. 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 AND 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 348 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 1997 survey, 189 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled 4154. 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. 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 never has 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 1997 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks edged up relative to the reading of one year earlier. The average size of loans was near the middle of the range seen over the past several years, and together, these two estimates yield a projected annual volume of loans of about $85 billion, roughly in line with the average since 1990 for this volatile series. In the February survey, the average maturity of farm non-real- estate loans rose to 11.7 months, the highest early-season maturity since 1994. The average effective rate of interest on non-real- estate farm loans rose 40 basis points to 9.1 percent in the February survey, continuing the upward drift that has been evident since the spring of 1996. By purpose of the loan, rates of interest picked up most on loans for farm machinery and for farm loans for "other" purposes; the pickup in rates in February also seemed to be concentrated at larger banks and for larger loans. The percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats rose in the February to levels roughly in line with the average from 1993 through early 1996. This pickup largely reverses the decline in the prevalence of loans with floating rates that had been showing up in the surveys since early 1996. By farm production region, weighted average rates of interest rose in the February survey in all regions except the Northeast, the Lake States, and the Delta States. Also, the estimated standard errors of the weighted average rate of interest tightened in most regions. Chart 1 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Millions, Annual rate 5.0 Number of non-real-estate farm loans 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 -- Four quarter moving average 2.0 1.5 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 _L_ 1987 1988 _L_ 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Thousands of dollars Average size 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 1997 Billions of dollars. Annual rate Amount of non-real-estate farm loans Four quarter moving 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1.0 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 1997 Percent Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Percent Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate — Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 100 • • • • • • • • • • • 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 0 .36 0 .17 0 . 14 0 .14 0 .16 0,. 19 0,.17 0,.18 0,. 18 0..18 0,.17 0,. 14 0 .27 0 .24 0 .19 0,.21 0,.20 0,.19 0,.21 0,.24 0,.27 0,.27 0,. 39 0,.36 BY SIZE OF BANK 1 to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over 2 .06 1 .71 1 .57 1 .42 1 .67 1 .70 1..66 , 1 .67 . 1 .65 1 .55 1,.45 1,.33 0 .51 0 .46 0,.46 0,.43 0,.52 0,.49 0,.51 0,.54 0,.56 0,.51 0,.57 0,.48 0 .30 0 .29 0 .27 0 .28 0 .31 0 .35 0 .32 0 .37 0 .37 0 .35 0 .36 0 .31 0.,09 0.,08 0.08 0.,07 0.,09 0.,09 0. 10 0..11 0.,12 0.,12 0..12 0. 11 LARGE OTHER ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 .96 2 .55 2 .38 2 .21 2 60 2 . 63 2 . 60 2 . 69 2,.70 2,.53 2..49 2,.22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.34 0.30 0.39 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.28 0.26 0.18 0 23 0 17 0 13 0 11 0 20 0..24 0..23 0.,25 0.,27 0.,23 0.,19 0.,17 1 .77 1 .66 1 .54 1 .45 1 .73 1 .69 1 .64 1 .67 1 .62 1 .56 1 .48 1 .38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 .18 2,.78 0 .20 2,.34 2,.18 0 .20 1..99 0 .23 2 .23 0 .36 2 .20 0..44 2 .10 0 .50 2 .18 0 .51 2 .15 0 .55 1 .98 0 .54 0 . 6 6 1,.83 1,.69 0 .53 NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER,, ANNUAL RATE 1995 Ql. . . Q2... Q3 . . . Q4... 1 1 1 1 2..35 2..96 2.. 61 2..04 1 1 1 1 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,.60 0..47 0,.35 0,.40 0,.37 0,.31 0. 12 0. 14 0. 10 0. 13 1 1 1 1 0,.54 0,.74 0,.73 0..63 1.,81 2.,22 1..89 1.,41 1996 01... Q2 . . . Q3 . . . Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 1..95 2.,74 2.,24 1.,95 1 1 1 1 0.15 0.15 0.16 0 .25 0.22 0. 17 0. 11 0. 17 1..14 1..83 1..45 1..08 0.,15 0,,14 0.,15 0.,11 0..29 0.,45 0.,37 0..34 . 1 .10 1 .64 . 1 .38 . . 1 ,18 0..41 0.,60 0.,49 0.,41 0,.31 0,.38 0..28 0..25 0. 13 0. 13 0.09 0. 10 1 1 1 1 0,.45 0,.68 0..63 0..37 1.,50 2..07 1.,62 1.,58 1997 Ql... 1 2.,19 1 0 .20 0.24 1..13 0.,18 0. 46 1 ,18 . 0.,49 0.,37 0. 15 1 0..49 1.,70 1 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) 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 254..1 280..4 320..4 320..4 272,.1 487,.7 539,.9 468,.2 490,.3 480..7 451..3 545..9 82..0 62..0 85..5 70..0 53..7 100,.7 107,.0 97,.0 106..0 101,.3 84,.0 115,.0 13..4 15..3 14..9 16..3 14..4 13..9 13..9 15..8 15..8 15..4 15..7 15..4 ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17..6 19..0 20..8 21..8 19..9 28..4 31..9 31..2 34.,3 33..9 33..8 39..2 25,.7 35..0 33..8 34..1 42..7 69..7 61,.0 68..2 79,.7 60..3 49,.7 59,.0 22..5 25..8 26..3 40..6 29..5 22..7 25..2 26..9 23..1 27..6 26..7 24..2 12..8 14..0 14..6 16..7 14.,1 15..7 15.,6 14..7 15..2 16..3 18.,5 26.,0 12..4 13..6 16..1 13..9 12..1 11..9 15..1 15..9 13..9 17..5 15..6 17..2 3..5 3..5 3..6 3..7 3..6 3..6 3..6 3..7 3..7 3..7 3..7 3..7 42..1 32..9 44..6 34..7 32..2 94..3 129..3 108..7 112..0 123..6 93..6 95..2 14..4 14..9 14..7 14..8 14..7 14..8 14..9 14..8 14..9 14.. 6 14..7 15..0 45..5 44..9 46..5 45..2 45..9 46..1 46..6 45..9 46..1 47..0 44..9 45..2 AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1995 01... Q2. . . 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 34..8 33..0 27..7 41..7 1 1 1 1 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 1996 oi... 02... 03... 04. . • 1 1 1 1 43..4 43..3 33..3 36..2 1 1 1 I 59..7 44..0 116..7 31..3 23..2 25..4 25..6 . 23..5 27..1 39..6 15..5 15..8 18.. 4 15..7 16..2 19..0 127..0 73..2 76..4 118..1 3..6 3..7 3..7 3..9 15..1 14..9 14..5 15..5 45..0 44..8 45..8 45..5 474..1 673..1 554..3 467..7 122..8 131..1 89..6 119..1 19..6 14..5 11..4 16..9 1 38..1 1 50..7 28..1 24..3 18..5 3..7 14..7 48..0 371..9 95..0 22..4 1997 01... 82..1 1 I # # # # # # # # # # # ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK MOW-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.C AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS) BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,0003) 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 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 14.,9 12.,6 17..1 15..9 19..6 44,.2 53,.7 49,.4 58,.8 55,.1 55,.3 61,.2 37 .3 . 35.,9 32.,5 32 ,3 . 32..0 30..5 29.. 1 34..3 33..8 30., 6 28.,8 26.,1 ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990, 1991, 1992 , 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 52 1 48 5 49 6 48 2 51 6 74,.7 82,.8 83,.7 92,. 6 85,.7 84..1 87,.3 I I | 1 I | | | | | I | 8 .6 10 .4 13 .2 10 .0 12 .9 22 .0 21 .4 23 .6 28 .7 16 .8 12 .7 . 10 .6 5 2 4 5 3 4 4 6 6 0 5,.5 5,.8 6,.7 6,.2 6,.4 5,.2 4 .0 , 22 6 23 2 22 5 24 3 24 3 26,.6 25..5 24..6 24..7 25..4 27 .3 . 35..9 4 .4 2 .4 2 .3 1 .9 2 .0 2 .3 2 .5 2 .9 2 .5 3 .2 2 .7 2 .4 11,.3 8,.0 8,.3 7,.4 6,.4 18,.3 27,.6 26,.0 30,.6 33 .9 , 36,.1 34,.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7,.2 6,.0 5,.7 5,.2 6,.1 6,.1 6,.1 6,.2 6,.1 5,.8 5,.4 5,.0 7..4 6..9 6..8 6..4 7..7 7 .3 . 7..6 8..0 8..3 7..4 8..3 7..1 13 .5 , 13 .2 , 12 .6 , 12 .9 , 14 .4 , 15,.9 15 .1 , 16 .8 , 17 .1 , 16 .5 . 16 .0 , 13 .9 , 24 .0 . 22 .3 , 24 .5 , 23 .7 , 23 ., 4 45 .3 , 54 .0 , 52 .8 , 61 .0 , 56 .0 . 54 .4 , 61,.3 AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK (DF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1995 oi... Q2 . . . Q3 . . . 04... 1 1 1 1 81..59 97..62 72..31 84..85 | 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 .2 , 17 .3 , 16 .3 . 14 .1 , 52 .2 . 64 .3 , 41 .7 . 59 .2 1 1 1 1 48,.8 61,.3 48,.6 62,.5 32.,8 36.,4 23.,7 22.,4 1996 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 I 84..76 118..96 74..72 70..77 I I 1 I 9,.1 6,.6 18 .6 8,.0 5..1 4..2 2..8 3 .9 . 31..0 72 .7 . 22,.6 17.,2 2 .7 2 .2 2 .4 2 .1 36..9 33..2 28,.3 39..6 1 1 1 1 4,.0 6,.1 5..1 4,.7 6..2 8..9 7..1 6..4 14 .1 , 16,.8 13 .0 , 11 .6 , 60 .5 , 87 .2 , 49,.5 48,.1 1 1 1 1 55,.3 89,.1 56,.3 44,.0 29.,5 29.,9 18.,5 26..7 1997 01... I 84..92 1 10,.1 6..7 27.,4 3 .2 37 .5 . 1 4..4 7..3 17 .8 , 55,.5 1 46,.8 38..2 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 ($l,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..7 8..0 8..1 9..2 8..3 9..2 8..3 9..7 10..0 11.,6 10.,8 10..5 9..1 9..8 9..3 10..2 9..3 11..9 10..6 11..1 11..1 13..5 12..1 12..1 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 6..9 5..5 5..9 8..1 7..8 4..7 5..2 6..4 6..4 5..8 7..3 6..4 8..4 8..8 9..3 8..8 8..2 10..2 9..6 10..1 10..4 12..6 11..4 12..3 ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8,.0 8,.0 8..4 8..7 8..1 7..5 7..3 8..9 9..2 10..3 9..9 8..5 6,.1 5..8 5,.5 6..4 6..8 6..0 6..7 6..1 7..3 7..6 8..7 7..8 7,.8 6,.3 7..7 4..7 7..4 8..8 8..5 9..5 9..6 9..8 9..9 11..3 7 .3 7..6 7,.6 8..5 7..2 7..5 7..2 8..6 8..3 8..6 8..5 7..6 13..4 21..0 22..8 19..8 18..7 21..9 24..6 20..1 30..4 36..6 26. 5 29. 4 8,.8 8..8 12..1 10..9 11..8 6..4 5..3 9..4 9..4 9..4 10..0 9..2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6,.7 6..8 7,.5 7..1 7..4 7..4 7..7 8..3 8..5 8..6 9..0 8..6 7..9 7..1 8..3 7..1 7..1 4..9 5..8 7..2 7..4 7..2 8..2 7.,3 MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1995 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 10..3 10..6 9..0 9..4 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 1 1 1 1 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 5..6 6,.9 6..7 9..6 12..3 12.. 6 10..1 9..2 1996 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 11..2 7..1 7..8 8..4 8.3 16.1 5.2 6.4 15..0 7..4 10..8 10..9 8..7 6..0 10..0 9..2 26..3 35..7 28..0 28..5 17..4 5..8 5..3 7..0 1 1 1 1 8..9 9..8 8..2 7..1 13..0 10..7 9..1 9..4 12..7 13..0 11..2 11..1 10..1 5..6 6..7 7..6 8..7 5..1 6..1 6..4 12.. 8 12..7 12..5 11..1 1997 Ql. . . 1 11.7 14.6 10..0 12..2 34.,1 8..5 1 9..5 11..8 13.,4 11. 3 9..1 14..2 | 1 I ESTIMATES T A B L E I.E FROM THE QUARTERLY S A M P L E SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE AVERAGE EFFECTIVE LOANS TO FARMERS INTEREST R A T E 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 11..2 9..6 9..2 10..2 12..1 10..9 9..0 6..8 6..7 7..2 9..0 7..8 13..4 12..1 11..3 11..6 12..7 12..3 11..3 9..4 8..7 8..8 10..4 10..0 ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 12..8 11..5 10..6 11..2 12..5 11..4 9..8 7..8 7..5 7..8 9.,5 8.,4 12..5 11..1 10..7 10..9 12..3 11..5 10..2 8..2 8..0 8..3 10..1 8..8 12,.7 11..9 10..2 11..9 12..4 12..0 11..0 8..6 8..1 8..0 10..2 9..5 13..0 11..5 10..8 11..2 12..6 11..7 10..4 8..8 8..1 8..4 10..0 8..6 13..7 12..2 11..5 11..7 12..8 12..3 11..3 9..3 8..7 8..6 10..3 9.,7 12..1 11..2 9..5 10..7 12..3 10..7 8..6 6..3 6..2 7..0 8..8 8..0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13..7 12..4 11..6 11..7 12..8 12..5 11..5 9..7 9..0 9..1 10..6 10..2 13..2 12..0 11..3 11..6 12,.7 12..4 11..2 9..3 8..7 8..8 10..5 10..1 13..2 11..8 11..1 11..4 12..7 12..1 10..7 8..8 8..3 8..6 10..3 9..8 12..1 10..8 9..9 10..8 12..2 10..9 9..2 7..1 6..9 7..3 9..0 7..8 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 1995 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 • 1 1996 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1997 Ql. . . 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..7 8..9 9..0 8..8 10..4 10..3 10..5 10..6 1 1 1 1 8..5 8..1 8..6 8..7 9..5 9..3 8..0 9..5 9..9 8..9 9..6 9..6 8..8 7..9 9..7 9..8 9..8 9.,8 9.,9 9..3 7..8 8..1 7..9 8..0 1 1 1 1 10..3 10..2 10..2 10..1 10..1 10..1 10..1 10..1 9..8 9..9 9..8 9..7 7..9 7..4 7..9 8..2 7,.7 7..4 8..1 8..0 10..0 10..1 10..2 9..9 1 9..1 9..2 9..6 9..8 9..7 8..5 1 10..1 9..8 9..7 8..8 8..6 9..8 I 1 I 1 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-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 FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over 31,.5 41,.8 45,.6 51.,5 49..6 59.,2 59.,0 59., 1 61.,0 59.,8 63.,9 61. 5 42 .0 , 48,.2 54,.4 60,.8 58,.5 66,.0 64..0 61,.2 64,.5 70.,4 73.,6 69.,1 56 .6 63 .7 68 .5 67 .0 69 .1 67 .5 67 .8 78 .6 83 .9 . 80 .2 76,.7 62,.2 BY SIZE OF BANK LARGE OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 77,. 1 71,.9 77,.6 79,.1 83,.6 69,.4 70,.0 82,.9 86,.9 83,.7 79,.9 65..4 32 .6 47 .0 49 .9 52 .6 47 .2 59 .3 56 .1 55 .5 58 .9 59,.7 62 .3 , 57 ,9 , ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45 .3 53 .4 59 .5 61 .4 61 .0 65 .2 65,.1 71,.7 76,.7 75,.1 73 .8 . 63 .1 . 61,.4 60,.5 51,.6 65,.3 71..4 76..8 81.,5 78.,5 84.,6 82.,9 83.,9 58. 1 44 .9 34 .8 69 .6 39 .5 40 .0 61 .6 69 .3 63 .5 70 .0 74 .3 75,.9 71 .2 , 43,.0 57 .2 , 62,.1 63,.8 59,.7 68,.3 68,.8 66,.3 70..3 72 ,3 . 73 ,0 . 67 ,3 . 19 .6 30 .9 55 .5 54 .9 32 .9 40,.0 40,.6 47 .8 , 48,.2 51,. 6 53 .1 . 32 ,9 . 47 .3 . 50 .6 62 .1 63,.2 73,.6 51,.2 50,.3 75,.3 78..1 75,,7 72.,2 61.,4 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 27,.6 40..6 48,.5 49,.3 50,.4 53,.6 52.,0 57.,3 60.,1 58.,6 61.,7 60.,6 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER 1995 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 79 .0 67 .3 73 .4 76 .7 88,.3 82,.8 76,.3 82,.8 76 .1 79 .5 51 .1 86 .5 84,.3 65,.7 65,.3 78,.0 55 .7 59 .7 50 .2 37 .9 70 .3 62 .0 82 .0 75 .0 1 1 1 1 63 .6 60 .9 61,.7 60,.6 61 .4 63,.2 65,.1 66,.3 79,.9 66,.1 72,.1 77 .0 . 82 .9 69,.0 77,.2 79,.1 1 1 1 1 83 . 1 73 .7 83,.3 80,.8 72 .9 , 56,.7 53 .2 , 65,. 5 1996 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 70 .4 61,.9 55,.3 64,.8 86,.4 85,.9 34,.8 57..0 56 .6 82 .0 76 .3 75 .1 74..6 62.,4 70.,5 71.,0 40 .0 26 .9 32,.2 31,.2 67 .0 55,.8 56,.5 64 .4 , 1 1 1 1 58,.7 61,.8 62,.7 58,.3 61,.6 63,.9 63,.3 56.,2 67,.1 69.,2 73.,0 66.,7 72..8 60,.3 48..7 66.,1 1 1 1 1 74,. 1 63..7 54..8 71,. 1 63 .3 , 56,.4 56,.9 54 .3 , 1997 oi... 1 71,.2 72.,6 75 .0 , 67.,3 52 .0 , 74 .7 , 1 59.,8 56.,3 69. 2 74.,7 1 81.,3 58..9 1 Table I.G Effective interest rate (percent) All Loans PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS.1 BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE Memo: Perecentage Distribution of Number of Loans, February 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Nov 96 Feb 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Under 5 percent - - - - - - - 8 - - — — — 5.0 to 5.9 - - - - - 2 4 4 2 4 * * * 6.0 to 6.9 - - - - 3 16 11 30 1 23 5 1 1 7.0 to 7.9. , 19 - - - 4 10 20 18 1 5 10 2 2 8.0 to 8.9 16 3 - - 3 17 17 22 9 19 31 14 14 9.0 to 9.9 13 18 1 1 31 18 26 15 7 26 33 38 41 10.0 to 10.9 . . . 11 34 4 8 19 22 15 2 27 18 17 32 31 11.0 to 11.9... 26 30 30 34 22 10 7 1 27 4 4 10 9 12.0 to 12.9 . . . 12 10 46 38 14 5 1 13.0 to 13.9 . . . 2 3 15 14 4 - 1 3 3 1 1 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... - - — - — - 15 1 1 2 2 - 11 * * * * * * * * — — - — - — — * - - - — — — * - - - — — — — - - - - - — — — - - - - - — — — — 20.0 to 2 0 . 9 . . . - - - - - - — — — 21.0 to 2 1 . 9 . . . - - - - - - — — __ 22.0 to 2 2 . 9 . . . - - - - - - — — — — 23.0 to 23.9... - - - - - - — __ — — 24.0 to 24.9... - - - - - — — — — — 25.0 and over.. - - - - - - - - - - % __ - - - 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 percent because of rounding. 13 * indicates less than .5 percent. SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING FEBRUARY 3-7,1997 Loans to farmers Size class of loans (thousands) all sizes $1-9 $10-24 $25-49 $50-99 $100-249 $250 and over ALL BANKS 1 Amount of loans (thousands) 2 Number of loans 3 Weighted average maturity (months)1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 1,763,404 44,561 14.8 86,999 23,382 9.7 148,171 9,975 12.9 157,026 4,567 15.7 223,286 3,359 18.9 297,274 2,053 16.1 9.17 0.16 9.91 10.07 0.04 9.50- 10.59 9.83 0.02 9.33 - 10.35 9.75 0.08 9.25 - 10.25 9.60 0.10 8.81 - 10.20 9.46 0.15 8.75 - 10.00 9.25 9.70 9.75 9.71 9.30 8.52 10.19 10.05 10.17 9.86 11.17 9.78 10.05 9.85 10.02 9.65 9.35 9.47 10.02 9.77 9.83 9.69 9.79 9.52 9.45 9.99 9.91 9.69 10.15 9.05 9.87 10.07 9.66 9.89 8.87 8.91 8.76 9.22 9.51 9.66 8.61 8.22 68.6 75.2 59.6 60.9 56.1 59.7 65.3 64.5 67.3 67.9 68.9 61.0 72.6 88.3 11.1 7.9 32.5 3.8 3.6 41.2 6.4 12.8 54.9 9.8 0.6 15.5 11.8 10.7 42.6 11.8 3.6 19.4 10.6 10.4 40.6 9.9 5.0 23.5 12.1 7.4 36.9 6.0 6.7 30.9 7.6 10.1 45.9 1.7 7.9 26.8 12.5 5.8 21.1 0.7 1.3 58.5 1,090,223 16,542 13.8 29,402 7,839 8.4 52,578 3,502 10.7 62,050 1,816 10.0 101,820 1,499 16.2 157,918 1,075 15.1 686,455 811 14.0 8.81 0.22 9.50 9.91 0.10 9.36 - 10.48 9.68 0.08 9.11 - 10.25 9.53 0.14 8.94 - 10.20 9.31 0.11 8.57 - 9.75 9.23 0.19 8.57 - 9.73 9.37 9.23 9.52 9.63 8.70 8.44 9.74 9.83 10.07 9.68 9.82 9.80 9.78 9.52 9.92 9.58 9.68 9.46 9.67 9.26 9.89 9.63 9.67 9.29 9.32 9.40 9.77 9.67 9.46 9.01 9.36 9.46 9.70 9.45 8.21 8.77 9.22 9.09 9.10 9.66 8.61 8.22 78.0 87.4 78.1 81.5 78.2 80.1 84.3 85.2 84.1 84.9 83.8 83.9 75.2 89.6 5.1 5.8 23.8 1.4 1.9 62.0 6.6 10.4 44.1 3.7 0.5 34.6 8.6 7.0 38.3 6.0 2.2 37.9 9.9 9.3 31.9 2.4 1.0 45.4 6.4 5.4 30.4 2.6 2.3 53.0 5.8 3.6 44.6 0.7 3.3 42.0 4.0 5.7 15.2 0.9 1.6 72.5 673,181 28,020 16.1 57,596 15,543 10.3 95,593 6,474 14.1 94,976 2,751 19.0 121,466 1,860 20.9 139,356 978 17.1 164,194 414 13.2 9.74 0.13 9.07 - 10.36 10.15 0.09 9.58 - 10.70 9.91 0.06 9.42 - 10.42 9.90 0.08 9.50 -10.25 9.84 0.22 9.25 -10.52 9.72 0.25 9.27 - 10.36 9.34 0.36 8.57 - 9.96 9.20 10.08 9.94 9.74 9.59 9.60 10.43 10.13 10.21 9.89 11.70 9.69 10.14 9.95 10.06 9.67 9.26 9.49 10.22 10.05 9.80 9.69 9.80 10.27 9.49 10.29 9.99 9.70 10.28 9.20 10.21 10.21 9.62 10.00 9.06 9.65 8.60 9.69 10.07 53.4 55.5 50.2 50.4 44.0 48.5 52.9 50.9 53.2 53.6 51.9 35.2 61.6 82.7 20.8 11.4 46.6 7.5 6.3 7.3 6.2 14.1 60.4 13.0 0.6 5.8 13.6 12.8 44.9 15.1 4.4 9.2 11.1 11.0 46.3 14.8 7.6 9.2 17.0 9.0 42.3 8.8 10.4 12.5 9.7 17.5 47.3 2.9 13.2 9.5 48.1 6.4 45.5 8.57 - 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 850,648 1,225 13.8 8.00- 8.63 0.21 9.11 LARGE FARM L E N D E R S 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 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment DII purpose m imAcAuiA!loan IAQA oy Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 8.30 - 7.76 - 8.46 0.23 9.11 OTHER BANKS5 41 42 43 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 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 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 — NOTES TO TABLE I.H in 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 Proportion of farm loans outstanding, Dec. 1996 2. 7 VSDA Rfgivn SEu. _AL_ CB _L£ 10 .3 25 .5 _fA_ J2JL. 17 . 0 6 .5 5. 1 5 .9 9. 1 5. 6 6 .2 6 .6 21 .3 72 .4 64 . 6 52 .4 110 . 9 Sample Coverage, Feb. 1997 survey (%) 15 .3 4 .4 6 .7 13 .2 1 1.0 Avg. Loan Size, Feb. 1997 survev ($1000) 62 .2 18 6 28 .9 30 .8 102 . 7 55 .2 27 .6 7 .0 10 . 9 Weighted Average Interest Rate During Samele Week Survev date: 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) 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 ( .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) 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 1 1.7. (..65) 10.,7 10.,0 (., 14) (.. 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) 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 (.,32) 9. 9 (• 25) 8.,0 (1.,10) 9. 4 (. 22) 7.,3 (.,99) 9. 4 (. 31) 10.,9 (.,22) 9. 9 (. 24) 8.,9 (.,85) 8. 1 (.65) 1996 10. 3 (. 25) 10. 2 (. 13) 7.,3 (.,93) 9. 0 (. 38) 8., 1 (.,86) 9. 6 (. 68) 10. 4 (. 3 6) 9. 8 (. 25) 8.,7 (.,78) 8. 3 (.65) Aug. 1996 8. 3 (. 87) 9. 9 (• 18) 8. 9 (.49) 9. 4 (. 25) 7.,6 (. 82) 9..4 (.59) 10. 0 (. 37) 9. 4 (. 18) 8.,9 (.,58) 8. 1 (•56) Nov. 1996 10. 1 (. 21) 9 .9 (. 14) 9. 3 (. 11) 9. 0 (.55) 7. 5 (• 82) 9. 3 (.57) 9 .9 (.40) 9. 1 (. 25) 9., 0 (. 75) 8. 6 (•48) 9. 5 8. 0 9. 9 9. 5 10., 1 9. 5 9. 5 9. 3 8. 8 ( .11) ft 32) ft 35) ft 24) f ,27) f ,51) ft 25) ft 22) f ,12) NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE Southeast, DL is Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. 8. 7 f .35) Nov May May Nov. 1995 ' May Feb. 1997 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 TABLES• Page 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 charge-offs 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 II.B 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 15.4 percent in December of 1996. 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. SECTION II: (continued) Recent Developments: Loans outstanding: At year-end 1996, the volume of farm loans was 2.8 percent greater than year-end 1995. This rate of increase in farm loans was considerably lower than the rate that has prevailed for most of the 1990s: indeed, and it was more than 5 percentage points less than the average rate of year-over-year growth that was seen in 1994. The slowdown in the growth of the volume of loans outstanding at commercial banks was apparent for both real estate and nonreal estate loans - - the volume of farm real estate debt that was held by commercial banks was 4.6 percent above the reading from one year earlier, while farm nonreal estate debt was up 1.8 percent. Both readings were near the low end of the range of growth rates seen during the past decade or so. Problem loans: At the end of December 1996, delinquent farm non-real-estate loans amounted to $1.0 billion, about 2.4 percent of such loans outstanding. Both in absolute levels and as a percentage of loans outstanding, these figures provided further evidence of a slight increase in delinquencies that first was noticeable in the first quarter of 1996. The pickup in delinquencies of farm non-real-estate loans likely reflected assorted production problems in 1996 for crops and cattle that arose in part from poor weather conditions in many parts of the Midwest. Net charge- offs of farm non-real- estate loans remained up as well, apparently as agricultural bankers dealt promptly with problem agricultural loans. The volume outstanding of delinquent farm real estate loans was unchanged from year-earlier levels, and charge-offs of these loans were about flat as well. The proportion of agricultural banks that reported a level of nonperforming loans that was greater than 2 percent of total loans was the highest since December 1993. Although farm banks now may face a bit less favorable operating environment than they have enjoyed since the latter 1980s, by far the majority of agricultural banks continued to report few problem loans. Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks in 1996 was 1.2 percent, identical to the annual return at agricultural banks for the past several years. On December 31, 1996, the average capital ratio for agricultural banks remained near the highs seen in mid 1995. Although capital ratios edged down slightly in early 1996 as the volume of problem loans grew, agricultural banks remained well- capitalized when compared to their average level of capital over the past decade. As has been the case for the past three or four years, at the close of 1996, the ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks remained quite high relative to historical norms. Failures of agricultural banks: No agricultural banks failed in the first quarter of 1997. Given the strong capital positions of most agricultural banks and their low levels of problem loans, the number of failures seems likely to remain fairly small in coming quarters. TABLE II.A FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER LOAN VOLUME, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOTAL LOANS 1989 Ql. REAL ESTATE LOANS 44.2 47.0 48.0 47.4 15.8 16.3 16.5 NONREAL ESTATE LOANS PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS QUARTER TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS -4.7 8.2 2.5 -2.2 3.2 3.5 4.1 4.9 7.5 7.6 7.6 8.0 1.5 2.4 3.3 -0.6 -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 7.7 3.1 -2.7 7.4 7.2 6.6 5.7 4.3 5.5 5.8 7.0 9.1 2.7 3.3 1.9 -0.2 -4.6 7.8 1.9 -4.4 4.9 4.9 4.2 2.9 8.2 0.5 3.1 -5.3 7.8 4.9 1.7 0.1 -0.8 1.8 -3.4 -2.2 6.3 2.7 3.0 16.6 28.4 30.7 31.5 30.8 -1.2 0.9 46.1 49.0 50.5 50.1 16.8 17.1 17.3 17.2 29.3 31.9 33.2 32.9 -2.8 6.4 3.1 -0.8 0.7 2.2 49.5 52.6 53.9 53.0 17.5 -1.3 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 03. 04. 52.8 56.0 58.0 57.7 20.0 20.6 20.8 20.9 32.8 35.4 37.1 36.8 -3.2 6.0 3.5 -0.5 1994 Ql. 56.8 35.5 39.2 40.6 38.7 -1.5 7.6 3.1 -2.7 -2.3 02. 03. 04. 1990 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1991 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1992 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 1993 Ql. 02. 18.1 2.1 6.2 2.5 -1.6 6.2 1.9 -2.9 03. 04. 63.0 61.3 21.2 21.9 22.4 22.6 1995 Ql. 59.9 63.5 65.3 63.7 22.9 23.6 23.8 23.9 36.9 40.0 41.5 39.8 2.9 -2.5 61.7 65.7 66.6 65.5 24.0 24.7 24.9 25.0 37.7 41.0 41.6 40.5 -3.1 6.5 1.3 -1.6 02. 02. 03. 04. 1996 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 61.1 6.1 PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR 1.2 1.1 1.2 3.2 2.2 0.7 1.6 2.7 1.1 0.4 0.5 2.7 1.1 0.3 REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS 1.0 8.1 7.1 5.1 8.1 8.6 7.8 3.1 3.2 1.9 0.2 5.6 5.4 4.7 5.0 -0.5 -0.6 2.4 6.2 7.6 9.1 8.7 6.2 6.4 6.4 7.5 8.2 8.3 10.7 9.3 5.2 -4.6 8.2 3.9 -4.1 5.4 4.0 3.7 3.9 8.0 7.5 6.3 5.9 3.9 2.0 2.3 2.8 -5.3 8.9 1.5 -2.8 3.1 3.4 1.9 2.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 2.0 2.7 0.3 10.2 3.6 -4.6 1.6 3.2 5.8 1.8 20 TABLE II.B ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NON-REAL-ESTATE LOAMS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS TOTAL BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS NONPERFORMING NONPERFORMING PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL MEMO: RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE MEMO: RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING 4 .5 . 3 .7 , 3 .1 . 3 .2 2 .8 2 .2 2 .0 2 .1 2 .4 1 .2 . 1..3 1 .3 , 1 .3 . 1 .0 0 .8 0 .9 0 .9 1. 2 . 3 .3 2..3 1..9 1..9 1..8 1 .4 1 .1 1 .1 1 .3 0.,5 0.,5 0..3 0..3 0..3 0..2 0..2 0..3 0,.3 2 .9 . 1 .9 . 1 .6 . 1 ., 6 1 .5 1 .2 0 .9 0 .9 1 .0 1.6 1 .4 . 1 .1 , 0 .9 , 0 .7 . 0 .5 0 .4 0 .0 0 .0 PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL -December 31 of year indicated1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 .4 • 1 .1 , 1 .0 1 .1 1 .0 0 .8 0 .8 0 .8 1 .0 0..4 0 .4 . 0..4 0..4 0,.3 0..3 0 .3 . 0 .4 0,.5 1.,0 0..7 0.. 6 0..7 0..6 0..5 0..4 0..4 0,.5 0..1 0..1 0-.1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..9 0..6 0..5 0..5 0,.5 0,.4 0..3 0 .3 0 .4 0..5 0..4 0 .4 . 0..3 0 .2 . 0,.2 0 .1 . 0..0 0 .0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -End of quarter- 1993 Q4. 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 2.2 0.8 1.4 0.2 1.2 0.5 1994 Ql. Q2. 03. Q4. 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 2.0 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1995 Ql. Q2. Q3. 04. 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 Ql. 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.8 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 02. Q3. 04. 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. * # # # # e • • # • # TABLE II .C ESTIMATED MET CHARGE-OFFS OF MOM-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOA1IS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* TOTAL 1 9 89 1 9 90 1 9 91 1992 1993 1994 1 9 95 1 9 96 I I I I I I I I 91 51 105 82 54 69 51 95 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 10 -5 12 14 7 10 -2 16 26 19 25 20 16 11 14 27 15 10 36 29 5 15 13 24 40 28 32 18 26 33 25 30 TOTAL I | I I I I I I 0.27 0.20 0.32 0.24 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.24 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 -0.00 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07 * 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 TABLE II.D DELINQUENT FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS NONPERFORMING NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL -December 31 of year indicated1. 0 1 0 .. 4 0 . 2 0. 3 0 . 1 0 . 2 1 2 . 1 0..8 1. 3 0..3 1 9 9 3 . 1 0 .. 4 0. 1 0. 2 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 1. 8 0..7 1. 1 0..2 0. 8 1 9 9 4 . 1 0 .. 3 0.,1 0 .,2 0. 0 0 . 1 1 1. 5 0.,7 0. 8 0..2 0. 6 1 9 9 5 . 1 0 .. 5 0. 2 0 .,2 0. 1 0 . 1 1 2 . 1 1..0 1..0 0..4 1 9 9 6 . 1 0.. 4 0., 2 0.. 2 0. 1 0 . 1 1 1. 5 0., 7 0., 8 0.. 3 0.. 6 0.. 6 0., 7 1..1 0.. 2 0.. 8 1.. 0 1.. 1 0.. 4 0.. 4 0.. 3 0.. 2 0.. 7 0.. 7 0.. 7 0.. 6 0.. 3 0.. 3 0,. 3 0.. 2 0.. 6 0.. 6 0.. 6 0.. 6 0.. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0.. 6 0.. 6 0.. 6 0.. 6 1 9 9 2 . i o v t" r Lcl iV EiilvJl 'Uf L/ T IqUdl ... XT' r-\ /-Q 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 o.. 4 0.. 1 0.. 2 0.. 0 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.. 0.. 1 0.. 0 04... 1 1 1 1 0.. 4 0.. 4 0.. 3 o.. 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 - 1 0 . 5 1 0. 4 0,. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 2 0,. 2 0,. 3 0. 2 0,. 2 0.. 1 0.. 1 0.. 1 0,. 1 04... 0 1 . . . 02... 03... 04... 1 9 9 5 0 1 . . . 02... 0 3 . . . 1 9 9 6 . • 0 2 . . . 0 3 . . . 1 0 .4 04... 1 0 .4 1 All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. — 0 . 2 1 1..8 0 . 2 1 2..1 0 . 2 1 1..6 0 . 1 1 1..5 0 . 1 1 1..5 0 . 1 1 1.. 9 0 . 1 1 1.. 5 0 . 1 1 1..4 0 . 1 I 1.. 5 0 . 1 I 2.. 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 1.. 7 1.. 5 1.. 5 0.. 6 0.. 5 0.. 7 0.. 9 0.. 6 0.. 5 0,. 7 1. 0 0,. 7 0. 5 0. 7 1..0 1..0 0.. 8 1.. 0 0.. 9 0.. 9 0.. 8 1.. 0 1. 0 1 .0 0,. 8 TABLE II.E MET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* ESTIMATED AMOUNT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUAL TOTAL 199 1 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 I | I I I | 16 20 6 -1 3 1 Q2 01 1 4 0 CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING Q3 4 7 4 1 2 - 1 - 1 0 - 0 - 0 2 1 1 1 Q4 5 6 6 3 1 2 2 ANNUAL TOTAL Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 0,.09 0.. 11 0..03 0..00 0.,01 0..01 0,.004 0,.019 0,.002 -0..004 -0..001 -0,.004 0..027 0..033 0..003 -0..004 -0,.001 -0,.003 0..022 0..022 0..008 0..002 0..006 0..003 0..034 0,.029 0..015 0..003 0..007 0..009 * All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. 23 TABLE II.F DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY THE SHARE OF THEIR LOAMS THAT ARE MOWPERFORMING* 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.0 100 , 100,.0 .0 100 , 100,.0 100 .0 100,.0 .0 100 . 100 , .0 100 .0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 59 . .0 65,.8 .6 69 , 70,.8 76,.2 80,.6 .5 85 , 83 , .7 81 .8 , 28..9 25., 1 22.,7 22.,3 18..9 15..9 12 . ,3 13 .8 , 15,.5 9.,7 7, .6 6..4 5..8 3,.9 2,.8 1,.9 2,. 1 2,.3 1 .9 , 1 .2 , 1 .0 , 0,.7 0 .8 . 0,. 6 0,.2 0 .3 0 .2 . 0 .4 0 .2 , 0 .2 , , 0 .3 0 .1 , 0 .1 , 0 .1 . 0 .1 . 0 .1 0.,2 0..1 0 .0 , 0..1 0,.0 0,.0 0,.0 0 .1 0 .1 - Percentage distribution, end of quarter 1994 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 | 1 1 100.,0 100 . ,0 100..0 100 . .0 79 , .2 81 , .1 .6 83 , 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 I 1 1 100 , .0 100 , .0 100,.0 .0 100 , 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 1996 oi... 02-. 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 78 .4 78 .5 79 .3 81 .8 17 .2 . 16 .9 17 .0 15 .5 3 .5 3 .9 3. 1 2 .3 0 .5 0 .6 0 .5 0 .2 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 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* AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN TO EQUITY NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS 0 ALL BANKS NEGATIVE TO 4 5 TO 9 15 TO 19 20 TO 24 25 AND OVER 12.,0 14.,0 12.,9 13.,4 19..8 18..5 17..1 13. 3 14..3 3..0 4.,0 2. 6 2.,5 5.,1 4..6 3. 3 2..4 2 .6 2. 0 3 .0 1 .1 0,.9 1 .7 1 .3 0 .9 0 .6 0 .5 10 TO 14 AVERAGE CAPITAL RATIO (PERCENT) NET CHARGE-OFFS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS RATE OF RETURN TO ASSETS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS 10. 0 11. 0 10. 8 10. 9 12. 6 12. 4 11.,9 11. 3 11..5 9. 0 10. 0 8. 5 8. 9 11. 5 12. 4 12. 4 11. 6 11. 6 0. 9 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 1. 2 1. 2 1. 2 1. 2 1. 2 0..7 0..8 0,.7 0 .7 1 .0 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .1 0..7 0..6 0..4 0 .4 0 .4 0 .2 0 .2 0 .2 0 .3 0. 7 0. 7 0.,7 0. 8 0..7 0..4 0..3 0..3 0 .3 9..9 10..1 9..9 10..1 10..4 10 .8 10,.7 11 .1 10 .9 8..8 9.,0 9..0 9..2 9 .5 10 .0 9 .9 10 .5 10,.6 -percentage distribution1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 I | | | | I I I I 100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.,0 100,,0 9. 0 5. 0 4. 9 4. 1 1. 9 1. 5 1. 5 1. 4 2.,0 9. 0 7. 0 7. 5 7.,7 5.,0 5.,7 5.,7 5.,6 5,,5 30. 0 29. 0 33. 4 32. 2 25.,5 27,.8 31. 3 36..8 33..5 36. 0 38. 0 37. 6 39. 2 41. 1 40. 6 40. 2 39..9 41..5 | | | | | | | | | QUARTBRLY YEAR TO DATE 1994 Ql. . . Q2. . . Q3 • . • Q4. . . 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100., 0 0 2 2 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 1995 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. .. .. .. .. 100. 0 100. 0 100..0 100..0 0 8 9 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 1996 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . .. .. .. 100..0 100..0 100..0 100..0 1 2 2 .5 3..1 6..1 9..0 11..6 0. 3 0..6 0..9 1..2 0. 3 0,.6 0..9 1 .1 0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0..1 0,.1 0,.2 0 .3 11,.0 11 .0 11 .0 10 .9 10 .6 10 .5 10 .5 10 .6 * Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section II; email bank# 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 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 FRANCISC<^ 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 1996 3955 3854 3723 3550 3482 3347 0..551 0..555 0..582 0..625 0..641 0..658 71 75 67 56 60 55 0 .642 0,.643 0,.660 0,.707 0,.717 0,.775 133 131 130 125 135 126 0..609 0..607 0..618 0..646 0..647 0..682 969 948 912 860 841 814 0..572 0.. 574 0..600 0..643 0.. 658 0..681 470 456 432 402 393 384 0..567 0..563 0..590 0..629 0..654 0..66 6 725 694 669 658 637 619 0..569 0..579 0..615 0.. 674 0.. 681 0..698 1135 1092 1063 1014 981 944 0..522 0.,533 0..566 0.,618 0..634 0..649 378 384 378 366 359 331 0,.438 0,.422 0,.442 0,.474 0..499 0,.492 60 61 58 53 55 55 0,.711 0..708. 0,.733 0..747 0..741 0,.734 16 .56 16 .72 , 17 .04 , 16 .99 , 15..79 15 .41 , 1994 01... Q2... 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 1996 oi... 02... 03... 04... 3471 3461 3400 3347 0..639 0..665 0.. 674 0..658 58 57 58 55 0..721 0..743 0..780 0..775 143 151 140 126 0..664 0..690 0..708 0..682 828 829 814 814 0.,657 0..671 0..690 0..681 394 402 406 384 0..650 0..692 0..699 0..666 632 630 623 619 0..682 0.,712 0.,716 0.,698 978 964 952 944 0.,629 0. 651 0. 662 0. 649 357 349 331 331 0..489 0..515 0.,510 0..492 57 54 54 55 0..737 0..778 0..757 0..734 15,.46 15,.94 15,.84 15,.41 * 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 a farm loan ratio at least as great as TABLE II.I FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS* NUMBER OF FAILURES 1986.., . . 1987 .. 1988.... , , 1989.... . , 1990 .. 1991..., . . 1992.... . . 1993 .. 1994.... . . 1995 .. 1996 .. 1997 .. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 ANNUAL TOTAL 14 22 11 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 14 19 6 7 5 2 1 2 0 0 2 21 12 12 5 6 3 1 2 0 0 0 16 16 7 5 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 65 69 36 22 17 8 7 5 0 0 2 * * * * * * * 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, arid 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 was roughly unchanged in the fourth quarter of 1996. Repayment rates improved somewhat in both the Dallas and Kansas City districts, where in the past spring and summer drought and low prices for cattle had reduced farm returns. Bankers in the Chicago and Dallas districts continued to anticipate higher loan volumes for feeder livestock, and bankers responding to the Minneapolis survey seemed to become more optimistic about the demand for loans for feeder livestock. Relative to one year earlier, bankers in the Chicago district anticipate stronger demand for loans to facilitate crop storage. The ratio of loans to deposits edged above year-earlier levels at banks in the Chicago and Kansas City districts. Despite the high level of this measure of liquidity, most bankers characterized their loan-deposit ratio as "lower than desired". Reported rates of interest on farm loans were little changed in all districts in the fourth quarter of 1996. The year-over-year rate of increase in the price for agricultural land seemed to slow a bit in the Chicago district, but still, prices for farmland in that district were up 10 percent over the four quarters of 1996. Year-over-year changes in other districts ranged from a decline of 13 percent in the Richmond district to increases of about 4 percent in the Kansas City and Minneapolis districts. 29 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 III .A1 SAME FUND AVAILABILITY HIGHER LOWER SAME LOAN REPAYMENT RATE HIGHER LOWER SAME LOWER SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1 21 46 33 1 18 63 19 1 18 53 29 1995 Ql. . 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 1996 01. . 02.. . 03.. . 04.. • 1 1 1 1 15 17 17 14 44 49 45 50 41 34 38 36 1 1 1 1 6 11 11 9 62 65 65 71 31 24 24 19 1 1 1 1 13 13 7 24 57 66 74 58 24 60 17 1 1 90 9 17 9 11 32 17 13 13 29 63 71 72 57 20 16 16 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 87 89 90 90 12 10 9 9 30 21 19 18 29 23 23 19 56 62 69 61 15 16 8 21 1 1 I 1 1 0 91 89 92 90 9 10 7 10 1 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, , KS, MO*, NB, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 04. .• 1 9 56 35 1 26 65 9 1 25 65 10 1995 Ql. . 02.. . 03. .. 04. .• 1 1 1 1 10 11 16 16 51 58 53 56 39 32 32 28 1 1 1 1 21 18 20 14 69 69 67 66 10 14 14 20 1 1 1 1 28 32 32 43 67 67 63 53 1996 Ql. . 02.. . 03.. . 04. .• 1 1 1 1 18 15 14 11 56 54 60 64 26 30 26 26 1 1 1 1 10 16 16 12 69 66 67 71 21 19 16 17 1 1 1 1 51 38 22 15 III, A3 RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS HIGHER 1994 Q4. .• III . A2 QQ 10 69 21 1 o 89 11 5 1 5 4 6 2 5 5 69 70 67 55 25 27 28 41 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 87 88 86 84 13 12 13 15 46 58 65 66 4 4 13 20 5 6 11 14 49 57 67 70 45 37 23 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 79 78 84 87 20 22 16 13 13 68 20 1 o 88 11 1 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX ) 1994 04.. . 1 13 54 33 1 7 71 22 1 16 72 12 1995 Ql.. 02. .. 03.. . 04.. • 1 1 1 1 13 12 17 20 53 50 50 44 34 38 33 35 1 1 1 1 8 8 10 9 78 79 76 78 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 1 20 21 28 40 72 74 63 53 7 5 9 7 11 9 12 8 67 70 64 54 22 21 24 39 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 83 81 78 75 16 19 20 24 1996 Ql.. 02. .. 03.. . 04.. • 1 1 1 1 18 26 24 21 51 42 44 50 31 32 32 28 1 1 1 1 5 7 8 7 73 77 75 74 22 16 16 19 1 1 1 1 49 59 44 31 45 39 47 53 6 2 9 17 7 2 8 10 41 38 48 51 52 60 44 40 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 66 61 65 73 34 39 34 27 1 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP 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 1994 Q4. . . SAME FUND AVAILABILITY HIGHER LOWER SAME LOAN REPAYMENT RATE HIGHER LOWER SAME RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS HIGHER LOWER SAME 11 64 25 COLLATERAL REQUIRED HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER 1 o 86 14 NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI* ) 1 1 17 66 17 1 36 47 17 1995 Ql. . . 02... Q3. .. 04. . . 1 1 1 1 21 20 21 11 66 62 60 62 13 18 20 27 1 1 1 1 43 45 35 36 51 53 59 49 6 2 6 15 10 7 9 4 55 63 66 60 35 30 25 26 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 81 74 84 84 1996 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 1 1 1 1 11 12 18 13 57 65 61 67 32 23 21 20 1 1 1 1 46 37 19 34 37 48 69 45 17 14 12 21 15 15 15 17 49 54 68 64 36 31 31 19 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 76 75 81 85 20 24 18 15 .. .. .. .. III.A5 1 • 19 25 15 16 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV* ) 1994 04... 1 19 71 10 1 0 76 24 1 10 81 10 1 14 76 10 1 o 76 24 1995 Ql. .. 02... 03... 04. .. 1 1 1 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 1 1 1 12 12 9 29 84 88 82 67 4 0 9 5 | | 1 | 12 4 14 5 84 88 68 67 4 8 18 29 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 0 80 84 91 90 16 12 9 10 1996 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04. .. 1 1 1 1 14 12 12 10 71 71 77 76 14 17 12 14 1 I 1 1 0 3 12 3 81 71 67 85 19 26 22 12 1 1 1 1 14 17 17 5 81 78 72 78 5 5 12 17 | | | | 5 3 13 32 75 76 68 56 20 21 18 12 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 90 83 85 93 10 17 15 5 31 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.B FARM NONRBAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) TOTAL LOWER SAME FEEDER CATTLE HIGHER LOWER SAME DAIRY LOWER SAME HIGHER CROP STORAGE LOWER SAME HIGHER OPERATING LOWER SAME HIGHER 32 FARM MACHINERY LOWER SAME HIGHER HIGHER SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN* , IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS Ill B1 1994 Q4... 1 18 52 30 I 31 62 7 1 21 74 5 1 19 58 23 I 12 46 42 I 16 54 30 1995 Ql. . . Q2. . . 03... Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 14 14 15 17 53 60 59 50 33 26 26 32 | I I I 32 38 40 47 62 58 54 48 6 3 6 5 | | | I 19 21 21 21 71 74 75 71 10 5 5 8 | | | | 19 26 23 37 68 65 58 52 13 9 19 11 | 1 | I 13 11 13 13 42 53 60 46 46 36 27 41 | | | | 15 22 16 8 53 61 55 46 33 17 29 45 1996 Ql. . . 02... 03... Q4... 1 1 1 1 17 17 17 12 44 54 55 48 39 29 28 40 I | | | 59 62 38 27 38 36 52 59 4 2 10 15 | I | | 23 25 18 22 68 67 72 69 9 8 10 9 1 | | | 36 33 16 15 56 57 50 58 8 10 34 27 I | I I 14 12 21 8 37 47 50 39 50 41 29 53 | I | | 10 14 10 12 37 48 39 42 53 38 51 46 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) III ,B2 1994 04... 1 6 63 31 1 18 68 13 1 13 81 6 1 11 84 6 1 5 60 36 I 12 69 19 1995 Ql. . . 02... 03... Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 15 16 15 16 65 54 59 57 21 30 25 27 | | | I 22 33 31 41 63 55 50 49 15 12 20 10 | I I I 13 20 25 20 83 78 71 77 3 3 4 3 | | | | 12 11 16 18 86 79 75 71 3 10 9 11 | | 1 I 12 8 13 15 55 58 54 49 34 33 33 36 | I | | 12 15 23 26 67 69 64 54 21 16 14 20 1996 Ql. . . 02... Q3... Q4... 1 1 1 1 30 40 19 18 52 44 58 54 18 17 23 27 | I | I 49 57 31 24 45 36 51 56 6 7 18 20 I I | I 29 31 20 22 71 67 74 73 1 2 7 5 I 1 I | 29 30 24 20 65 56 63 76 6 14 13 5 | | | I 19 22 18 16 47 42 49 55 34 36 33 30 | | | | 33 42 25 22 56 50 55 63 11 8 20 15 III • B3 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1994 Q4. .. 1 11 72 17 1 13 81 6 1 7 87 7 1 5 95 0 1 5 71 24 | 0 81 19 1995 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 17 8 16 20 67 79 74 65 17 13 11 15 | | 1 I 25 20 18 35 70 80 82 65 5 0 0 0 | 1 I | 14 21 27 25 76 79 73 75 10 0 0 0 | | | | 14 14 25 20 77 86 60 65 9 0 15 15 1 | I I 12 4 15 19 72 88 80 62 16 8 5 19 | | | | 8 4 19 19 71 84 67 67 21 12 14 14 1996 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 20 11 11 7 70 73 71 81 10 16 18 12 | I I I 31 35 29 23 69 63 62 75 0 3 10 3 I I 1 1 20 24 21 19 80 71 71 75 0 6 8 6 | | | | 11 18 13 18 83 68 72 67 6 14 15 14 I I | I 14 7 10 8 57 58 66 70 29 35 24 22 | | | I 10 17 14 7 81 60 66 65 10 22 20 28 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) FEEDER LIVESTOCK LOWER SAME III.B4 1994 Q4... OTHER INTERMEDIATE HIGHER LOWER SAME OTHER OPERATING FARM REAL ESTATE HIGHER LOWER SAME NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( Ml HIGHER LOWER SAME FARM MACHINERY HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1 31 61 7 I 13 77 10 1 33 55 12 1 3 66 31 1 24 61 15 . . . . 1 1 1 1 28 47 43 53 68 49 50 36 4 4 7 11 I I | | 15 27 25 26 75 58 64 59 10 16 11 15 1 I 1 I 30 44 38 31 60 48 52 53 10 8 10 16 I I 1 I 5 5 16 9 58 59 64 62 37 36 20 29 1 1 I 1 29 45 36 32 58 49 55 55 13 7 9 12 1996 Ql. . . 02... Q3. .. Q4... 1 1 1 1 52 60 51 28 44 35 41 58 4 6 8 15 | | | | 24 16 17 19 62 68 73 74 14 17 10 7 1 1 I 1 31 28 30 30 50 56 56 60 19 16 14 10 1 1 1 1 5 9 16 14 64 56 65 72 31 35 19 14 I 1 1 I 30 24 24 26 54 58 54 57 15 18 22 17 1995 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . 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 Ill .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 1 64 1 50 32 18 1 1995 Ql... 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 | | | | 1996 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 65 66 68 68 1 1 1 1 56 54 50 48 30 32 33 35 14 14 17 17 | | | | NONE 1 NONBANK AGENCIES COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER *** 1 *** TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 04... 1 60 1 61 7 30 | 4 72 1995 Ql... Q2... Q3... Q4... 1 1 1 1 61 62 63 61 1 1 1 1 61 61 58 59 7 7 7 7 29 26 25 24 | | | | 5 5 4 3 1996 Ql... Q2... Q3... 04... 1 1 1 1 60 62 64 63 1 1 1 1 77 76 70 69 10 9 8 9 24 26 31 28 | | | | 3 4 3 2 III.C3 CORRESPONDENT BANKS SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 Q4... III .C2 NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS | 1 75 12 81 7 1 67 9 77 14 70 66 64 66 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 79 79 81 83 80 79 83 82 8 9 12 10 88 86 83 86 4 5 5 4 1 1 1 1 65 65 70 71 6 8 12 10 77 78 78 83 17 14 10 8 13 80 7 1 *** 13 84 4 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX) 1994 Q4... 1 44 1 *** 1995 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 45 47 51 49 1 1 1 1 *** *** *** * 1 1 1 1 9 14 9 10 85 80 83 81 5 6 8 9 11 18 10 8 84 76 84 81 5 6 6 11 1996 Ql... Q2... Q3... 04... 1 1 1 1 46 51 52 49 | 1 1 *** *** 1 *** 1 1 2 2 15 11 8 12 80 78 82 78 5 12 9 10 11 7 10 10 70 73 75 75 20 19 16 14 *** *** 1 1 1 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE XII.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 1994 Q4... 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 ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS CORRESPONDENT BANKS NONBANK AGENCIES COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 66 36+ 57 34+ 56 10 1995 Ql... 02... 03... 04... | 1 | I 66 69 68 71 10 9 7 4 36 36 44 43 58 55 53 57 6 9 3 0 | 1 | | 31 32 42 39 57 57 50 58 12 11 8 3 1996 Ql... 02... 03... 04... | | I | 72 71 73 69 6 7 7 7 46 35 33 38 51 57 64 56 3 8 3 6 | | | | 40 33 32 40 47 51 59 54 13 16 9 6 III.C5 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1994 04... | 70 I 37 58 5 1 0 90 I 88 0 13 0 1 71 0 24 6 1995 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 | | | 75 76 75 71 | I | | 42 36 45 52 46 41 50 43 13 23 5 5 | | | | 0 0 0 0 76 83 68 86 I I 1 1 83 86 81 95 4 0 0 0 13 14 19 5 0 0 0 0 I I I I 70 77 89 90 9 0 0 0 22 23 11 10 0 0 0 0 1996 01... Q2... 03... 04... 1 | | | 72 73 73 71 I | | | 53 45 31 39 42 40 56 50 5 15 13 11 | | | | 0 0 0 0 90 71 75 82 1 I I 1 89 89 88 91 0 2 2 0 11 9 11 7 0 0 0 2 I I I 1 84 80 80 79 0 4 4 0 16 13 14 21 0 4 2 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 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 ,D1 SHORTTERM NONRBAL ESTATE INTERMEDIATE NONRBAL ESTATE LOWER SAME LOWER HIGHER 9.9 10.0 *** 9.5 1995 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . 1 1 1 1 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.9 10.3 10.2 10.2 9.9 *** *** *** *** 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.9 1 1 1 1 1996 Ql. . . Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4 • . . 1 1 1 1 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.6 *** *** *** 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 *** 1 10.0 10.1 * * 10.1 9.7 1995 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 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 1 1 1 1 1996 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 *** *** *** *** 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.3 1 1 1 1 # LOWER HIGHER *** 1 *** 1 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NB, NM*, OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 Q4. . . SAME SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI* , WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1 . . . . LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS SHORT-TERM NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS 1994 Q4. . . III ,D2 e OTHER OPERATING LOANS # # # 1 1 e # # # SAME HIGHER 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 OTHER OPERATING LOANS SHORTTERM NONREAL ESTATE INTERMEDIATE NONRBAL 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 1 10 .3 10 .4 9 .7 | 1995 01. .. 02... 03... Q4... 1 1 1 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 I | | | 1996 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 9 .9 10 .0 10 .0 10 .0 9 .9 10 .0 10 .0 10 .0 9 .2 9 .3 9 .4 9 .4 | | | | 1 10 .5 10,.5 10 .6 10 .6 | 1995 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 11 .0 11 .0 10 .8 10 .7 11,.1 11,.0 10,.9 10,,8 11 .2 11 .1 10 .7 10 .8 11 .0 10 .7 10 .5 10 .6 | | | | 1996 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 10 .4 10 .5 10 .5 10 .5 10,,6 10,,6 10.,6 10.,6 10,.4 10,.4 10,.5 10,.4 10 .0 10 .1 10 .0 9 .9 | | | | LOWER SAME HIGHER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME 1 *** *** 1 *** *** *** 1 *** | *** *** *** *** *** FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1994 04... 1 10,.0 10. 2 10,,2 1995 01. .. 02... 03... 04. . . 1 1 1 1 10,,7 10,,4 10,,4 10,,1 10. 5 10. 4 10.2 10. 1 10. 5 10..4 10. 2 10. 1 10,.2 10, 0 10,>0 9, 5 | | | | 1996 01. .. 02... 03... 04. . . 1 1 1 1 9, 8 9. 9 9. 8 10. 0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9. 9 9.7 9.7 10. 0 9, 5 9. 5 9.,4 9. 5 | | | | LOWER LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1994 04... III.D5 INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1994 Q4... III.D4 SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS 9,• 8 | *** | 1 1 *** 37 HIGHER FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.E TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME 38 EXPECTED TREND IN FARM REAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND ALL III.El DRYLAND IRRIGATED TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER RANCHLAND ALL DRYLAND IRRIGATED RANCHLAND DOWN STABLE UP LOWER SAME HIGHER 19 63 18 SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1994 Q4... 65 32 1995 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 I | I 1 0 1 2 5 5 4 5 2 3 3 1 67 73 65 41 31 23 31 58 1 1 1 1 18 18 16 11 60 69 63 60 22 13 21 29 1996 Ql... 02... 03... Q4... 1 I I I 4 1 3 1 9 11 12 10 0 1 1 6 30 42 35 61 69 57 64 33 1 1 1 1 12 11 9 16 52 63 58 59 36 26 33 25 15 80 III.E2 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 95 -1 1994 Q4. 1995 01... Q2... 03... 04... 1 I I I 18 —6 -8 8 8 9 -3 9 4 0 5 0 96 96 91 100 0 4 5 0 I I I I 17 26 16 26 83 74 74 68 0 0 11 5 1996 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 I I -3 3 3 -15 -9 -1 11 -13 0 2 3 0 95 86 82 83 5 12 15 17 I I I 1 17 16 10 5 83 75 80 90 0 9 10 5 11 79 10 6 14 24 1 10 17 14 20 78 73 73 67 12 10 13 12 -2 30 38 24 17 58 52 62 69 12 10 14 14 III.S3 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, MM*, TX) 1994 Q4... 1995 01... Q2. . . 03... 04... 1996 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 9 3 -11 -1 -1 -0 2 -10 -13 1 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 Ill .B4 DRYLAND IRRIGATED TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER RANCHLAND ALL DRYLAND IRRIGATED RANCHLAND DOWN 1 2 -0 1 1 6 5 7 I 1995 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 3 -0 2 1 | | | I 7 7 6 5 4 4 3 4 6 5 5 5 | | | | 1996 01. . . Q2... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 -2 0 2 1 -2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 | | | | 1 1 2 2 -0 -0 1 2 3 4 5 6 I I | | *** | 4 4 5 1 1995 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 *** | 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 6 3 2 3 2 | I | 1 1996 01. .. 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 4 5 4 5 6 4 3 5 2 2 3 4 I I | I UP LOWER SAME HIGHER j *** 1 *** NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI* , MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1 1994 04... STABLE TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NB, NM* , OK, WY) 1994 04... III,,B5 EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH NORMAL (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) 39
@FedFRASER