View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

•

e .

•

•

#

e

e

#

#

.

#

e

E. 15 (125)

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE
DATABOOK
Fourth Quarter 1998
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

3

banks
Reserve bank surveys of farm credit conditions and farm land values ..

22

Division of Research and Statistics
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Washington, D.C. 20551
Nicholas A. Walraven and Melissa Post



Page

33

2

General Information
<

^ e 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 fourth quarter of 1998; the other data generally were available through September 1998.
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 Melissa Post
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
(including zip code) to:

(Statistical Release E.15) may be entered by sending a mailing
address
&

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,
6

SECTION

I:

Estimates

A M O U N T A N D C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF F A R M L O A N S M A D E BY C O M M E R C I A L B A N K S
f r o m the

quarterly

s u r v e y of n o n - r e a l - e s t a t e

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

SOURCES

Number
A v e r a g e size
Amount
Average maturity
Average effective interest
P e r c e n t a g e of l o a n s w i t h a
D i s t r i b u t i o n of f a r m l o a n s
Detailed survey results
R e g i o n a l d i s a g g r e g a t i o n of

rate
f l o a t i n g interest rate
by e f f e c t i v e i n t e r e s t rate
survey

results

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
21

OF D A T A :

T h e s e d a t a on the f a r m l o a n s of $ 1000 or m o r e m a d e by c o m m e r c i a l b a n k s are d e r i v e d from q u a r t e r l y s a m p l e
s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d by the F e d e r a l R e s e r v e S y s t e m during the first full w e e k of the second m o n t h of e a c h
quarter.
D a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m the s a m p l e are expanded into n a t i o n a l e s t i m a t e s for all c o m m e r c i a l b a n k s , w h i c h
are s h o w n in t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s .
B e f o r e A u g u s t 1989, the f a r m l o a n s u r v e y w a s part of a b r o a d e r s u r v e y of the t e r m s of l e n d i n g b y a s a m p l e of
348 c o m m e r c i a l b a n k s .
A subset of 250 b a n k s w a s asked for i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l l e n d i n g , and
about 15 0 t y p i c a l l y r e p o r t e d at least one f a r m loan.
S i n c e A u g u s t of 1989, the data h a v e b e e n d r a w n from a r e d e s i g n e d s a m p l e of 250 b a n k s that is no l o n g e r part of
the b r o a d e r s u r v e y .
In t h e r e d e s i g n e d s a m p l e , b a n k s are s t r a t i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r v o l u m e of f a r m l e n d i n g ;
p r e v i o u s l y , t h e y had b e e n s t r a t i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the v o l u m e of b u s i n e s s l o a n s .
H o w e v e r , the s a m p l e d a t a
a l w a y s h a v e b e e n e x p a n d e d i n t o n a t i o n a l e s t i m a t e s for all c o m m e r c i a l b a n k s , and t h e s e e s t i m a t e s n e c e s s a r i l y
e x h i b i t v a r i a b i l i t y d u e to s a m p l i n g e r r o r .
T h e e s t i m a t e s are s e n s i t i v e to the o c c a s i o n a l a p p e a r a n c e of v e r y
l a r g e l o a n s in the s a m p l e .
In a d d i t i o n , the b r e a k d o w n of n a t i o n a l e s t i m a t e s into t h o s e for l a r g e b a n k s and
s m a l l b a n k s m a y h a v e b e e n a f f e c t e d s o m e w h a t by the n e w s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e s that w e r e i m p l e m e n t e d in A u g u s t
1989; a p p a r e n t s h i f t s in the data as of that date should be t r e a t e d w i t h c a u t i o n .
B e g i n n i n g w i t h the M a y 1997 s u r v e y , d a t a on the a s s e s s m e n t by the l e n d e r of the risk a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each
loan, t h e next d a t e that the rate of i n t e r e s t could be a d j u s t e d , w h e t h e r the loan w a s c a l l a b l e by the b a n k ,
and w h e t h e r the b o r r o w e r could p r e p a y the loan w i t h o u t p e n a l t y b e g a n to be c o l l e c t e d .
O v e r t i m e , the d a t a on
the l e n d e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the r i s k i n e s s of f a r m loans should h e l p p r o v i d e a b e t t e r p i c t u r e of the e f f e c t of
f l u c t u a t i o n s in the c r e d i t w o r t h i n e s s of farm b o r r o w e r s as e i t h e r f a r m f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n s or t h e b r o a d e r
economic environment changes.
T h e n e w data on loan r e p r i c i n g d a t e s , c a l l a b i l i t y of the l o a n , and the
e x i s t e n c e of p r e p a y m e n t p e n a l t i e s should h e l p to refine e s t i m a t e s of the d u r a t i o n of f a r m l o a n s m a d e b y
commercial banks.
T a b l e s I.H.I t h r o u g h 1.H.6 c o n t a i n m o s t of the new d a t a , w h i l e the o t h e r t a b l e s in s e c t i o n I a t t e m p t to s h o w
e s t i m a t e s that are c o m p a r a b l e to t h o s e that h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d for a n u m b e r of y e a r s .
H o w e v e r , for s e v e r a l
q u a r t e r s w h i l e t h e n e w s u r v e y w a s b e i n g d e s i g n e d , b a n k s that left the s u r v e y p a n e l w e r e not r e p l a c e d
i m m e d i a t e l y , b e c a u s e n e w r e p l a c e m e n t b a n k s w o u l d soon h a v e b e e n forced to r e v i s e t h e i r n e w l y - i n s t i t u t e d
r e p o r t i n g p r o c e d u r e s w h e n t h e n e w s u r v e y form went i n t o e f f e c t .
As a r e s u l t , t h e size of the s u r v e y p a n e l
d w i n d l e d t h r o u g h e a r l y 1997, and w i t h t h e May 1997 s u r v e y , an u n u s u a l l y - l a r g e n u m b e r of n e w r e p o r t e r s (about
25) w e r e a d d e d .
W h i l e t h i s d o e s not a f f e c t the v a l i d i t y of the May s u r v e y i n f o r m a t i o n , it l i k e l y i n t r o d u c e d
s a m p l i n g e r r o r , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e M a y s u r v e y r e s u l t s are c o m p a r e d w i t h t h o s e of p r e v i o u s q u a r t e r s .
T h e f o r m a t and the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d
s u r v e y i n f o r m a t i o n is a c q u i r e d .




in the t a b l e s are

l i k e l y to c h a n g e

over t i m e as m o r e

of t h e n e w

3

SECTION

I:

(CONTINUED)

M o r e d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s f r o m each q u a r t e r l y s u r v e y p r e v i o u s l y w e r e p u b l i s h e d in S t a t i s t i c a l R e l e a s e E . 2 A ,
B e g i n n i n g in F e b r u a r y , 1992, the m o r e d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s are
" S u r v e y of T e r m s of B a n k L e n d i n g to F a r m e r s " .
i n c l u d e d at t h e end of t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e D a t a b o o k , and the E 2 . A h a s b e e n d i s c o n t i n u e d .
S t a r t i n g w i t h the
A u g u s t 1986 s u r v e y , f a r m l o a n s s e c u r e d by real e s t a t e are i n c l u d e d in the data s h o w n in t h e t a b l e of d e t a i l e d
r e s u l t s , w h e r e a s such l o a n s are e x c l u d e d f r o m the t a b u l a t i o n s in T a b l e s I.A t h r o u g h I.G and t h e s u m m a r y
charts.
B e g i n n i n g in N o v e m b e r 1991, s e v e r a l s u r v e y s t a t i s t i c s are e s t i m a t e d for each of ten f a r m p r o d u c t i o n r e g i o n s as
d e f i n e d by the U S D A .
T h e s e s t a t i s t i c s , w h i c h are p r e s e n t e d in t a b l e I.I, should b e t r e a t e d w i t h some c a u t i o n .
A l t h o u g h an e f f o r t w a s m a d e to c h o o s e a good r e g i o n a l m i x of b a n k s for the panel, the p a n e l n e v e r h a s b e e n
s t r a t i f i e d by r e g i o n .
C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e s u r v e y r e s u l t s are less p r e c i s e for each r e g i o n t h a n for the t o t a l s
for the n a t i o n .

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
In the N o v e m b e r 1998 s u r v e y , the e s t i m a t e d n u m b e r of n o n - r e a l - e s t a t e farm loans m a d e by b a n k s w a s the l o w e s t
s i n c e 1994, and w e l l b e l o w the l e v e l s e e n one year e a r l i e r .
The l a r g e s t d e c l i n e a m o n g t h e s e y e a r - o v e r - y e a r
c o m p a r i s o n s a p p e a r e d in the n u m b e r of l o a n s for o p e r a t i n g e x p e n s e s .
H o w e v e r , the a v e r a g e s i z e of l o a n s
j u m p e d , e s p e c i a l l y l o a n s for f e e d e r l i v e s t o c k and f a r m m a c h i n e r y , l e a v i n g the d o l l a r v o l u m e of f a r m l o a n s
r o u g h l y e q u a l to the a v e r a g e for 1997.
In the N o v e m b e r s u r v e y , the a v e r a g e m a t u r i t y of f a r m n o n - r e a l - e s t a t e loans w a s about 8 - 1 / 4 m o n t h s , t o w a r d s t h e
lower end of the r a n g e seen for t h e past s e v e r a l y e a r s .
T h e a v e r a g e e f f e c t i v e rate of i n t e r e s t on n o n - r e a l e s t a t e f a r m l o a n s w a s 8 - 1 / 2 p e r c e n t in t h e N o v e m b e r s u r v e y , d o w n 50 b a s i s p o i n t s f r o m the p r e v i o u s q u a r t e r ,
and the l o w e s t r e a d i n g s e e n s i n c e mid 1996.
T h e p e r c e n t a g e of l o a n s that w e r e m a d e w i t h a rate of i n t e r e s t
that f l o a t s w a s about 52 p e r c e n t in N o v e m b e r , c o n t i n u i n g a trend t o w a r d s f i x e d - r a t e a r r a n g e m e n t s that s e e m e d
to b e g i n a r o u n d 1995.
T h e w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e r e p r i c i n g i n t e r v a l (line 4 of T a b l e s I.H.I t h r o u g h I . H . 6 ) w a s about 7 m o n t h s , w i t h t h e
i n t e r v a l n o t i c e a b l y l o n g e r for l o a n s of $50 t h o u s a n d to $250 t h o u s a n d .
The w e i g h t e d - a v e r a g e m a t u r i t y edged up
a bit and t h e p a t t e r n e v i d e n t in t h e last few s u r v e y s w h e r e m e d i u m sized ($50 t h o u s a n d to $ 2 5 0 t h o u s a n d ) l o a n s
bore the longest maturities.
T h e w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e r i s k r a t i n g fell for all sizes of l o a n s .
Relative
to s u r v e y s b e f o r e last s u m m e r , t h e p e r c e n t a g e of the v o l u m e of l o a n s that w e r e to p u r c h a s e or i m p r o v e f a r m
real e s t a t e (line 23) r e m a i n e d low, p e r h a p s r e f l e c t i n g h e i g h t e n e d c o n c e r n s in recent m o n t h s a b o u t l o n g e r - r u n
T h e p e r c e n t a g e of l o a n s that w e r e c a l l a b l e by the b a n k (line 17) p i c k e d up in t h e
farm p r o f i t a b i l i t y .
N o v e m b e r s u r v e y after f a l l i n g s h a r p l y t h e p r e v i o u s q u a r t e r .
B a n k e r s required c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e c o l l a t e r a l for
f a r m l o a n s (the t o t a l p e r c e n t a g e of l o a n s that are s e c u r e d , w h i c h is o b t a i n e d by s u m m i n g l i n e s 25 and 26, w a s
67.7 p e r c e n t in N o v e m b e r , c o m p a r e d w i t h 54.8 percent r e p o r t e d in the A u g u s t s u r v e y .
W h e n b r o k e n out by the r i s k i n e s s of the loan (Tables I.H.4 t h r o u g h I.H.6), about 60 p e r c e n t of the e s t i m a t e d
v o l u m e of l o a n s w a s rated e i t h e r " m o d e r a t e " or " a c c e p t a b l e " , r o u g h l y the same p r o p o r t i o n of l o a n s that
r e c e i v e d t h e s e r a n k i n g s in the p r e v i o u s s u r v e y .
L o a n s rated as " a c c e p t a b l e " risk c a r r i e d the l o w e s t rate of
i n t e r e s t , and c o l l a t e r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s w e r e lowest for t h i s c a t e g o r y of loans as w e l l - - l o a n s e i t h e r h i g h e r or
lower on t h e r i s k s c a l e w e r e m o r e l i k e l y to be s e c u r e d .
By f a r m p r o d u c t i o n r e g i o n , w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e r a t e s of i n t e r e s t fell in all r e g i o n s except D e l t a
it r e m a i n e d f l a t .
R a t e s fell by a l m o s t a full p e r c e n t a g e point in the N o r t h e a s t and C o r n b e l t ,
d e g r e e in t h e o t h e r r e g i o n s .




States, where
and by a l e s s e r

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
2.0

- Four quarter moving average

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

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 1998

Billions of dollars, Annual rate
Amount of non-real-estate farm loans

10

130
120
110
100

— Four quarter moving average

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998




ID

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

1998

Percent

20
18

Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans

16
14
12
10

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Percent
Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate

100
90
80
70

60
50
40
30

— Four quarter moving average

20
10
1978

1979




1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO F A R M E R S
TABLE I.A

NUMBER OF LOANS M A D E

(MILLIONS)

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

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

0. 19
0. 21
0. 20
0. 19
0. 21
0. 24
0. 27
0.,27
0.,39
0., 36
0 .33
.
0..22

1. 57
1. 42
1. 67
1. 70
1. 66
1 .67
1. 65
1.,55
1.,45
1.,33
1.,32
1,.20

0. 46
0. 43
0 .52
0. 49
0 .51
0. 54
0. 56
0. 51
0. 57
0. 48
0 .50
0 .45

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

• 20
• 23
o. 36
0
• 44
0.50
0.51
0.55
0.,54
0., 66
o., 53
0.46
0.,39

2 .18
1 .99
2 .23
2 .20
2 .10
2 .18
2 .15
1. 98
1.. 83
1.. 69
1.. 82
1.,71

1

o .37

1 .58

0 .49
0 . 51
0 .43
0 .38

1 .70
2 . 14
1 .77
1 . 66

0 .38
.47
0 .38
0 .33

1 .70
2 .04
1 .74
1 . 37

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS M A D E

1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

38
21
60
63
60
• 69
• 70
•, 53
•, 49
• 22
•. 27
•. 10

1
1
1
1
1
1

1

o 39
o 29
0 30
0 32
0 35
o,,35
0..36
0,,28
o .26
0.
, 18
0 . 19
o.. 15

0. 13
0. 11
0. 20
0 24
0 23
0. 25
0. 27
0. 23
0. 19
0 .17
0. 20
0 . 18

1 54
1 45
1 73
1 69
1 64
1 .67
1. 62
1. 56
1. 48
1. 38
1.,40
1. 39

0. 14
0. 14
0 .16
0. 19
0. 17
0. 18
0. 18
0. 18
0.. 17
0.. 14
0., 15
0,
. 17

0. 27
0. 28
0. 31
0. 35
0. 32
0. 37
0. 37
0. 35
0.,36
0.,31
0,
. 34
0 ,33
.

0. 08
0. 07
0. 09
0. 09
0. 10
0. 11
0. 12
0. 12
0. 12
0. 11
0. 11
0. 12

1
1
1
1
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|

0
0

NUMBER OF LOANS M A D E DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, A N N U A L R A T E

1996 Q4 . . .

1

1997 Q1 . . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4...

1
1

1998 Ql . . .
Q2...
Q3 . . .
Q4...

1




1

|
|

1 .18

0. 41

0 .25

0..10

0 .46
0 .40
0 .23
0 .22

1 . 18
1 .62
1 .34
1 . 15

0. 49
0. 57
0. 47
0.,45

0 . 37
0 . 37
0 .31
0 .33

0
0
0
0

. 15
.09
.09
. 12

1
j

0 .22
0 .24
0 .20
0 .20

1 .07
1 .44
1 .36
0 .94

0.,47
0.,58
0.,41
0..36

0 .38
0 . 37
0 .26
0 .30

0 . 16
0 . 12
0 .09
0 . 11

|

1 .95

1

o .25

0., 17

1,.08

0,. 11

0 .34

2 . 19
. 65
2 .21
2 . 05

1

0 .20
0 . 17
0 . 15
0 .23

0,.24
0 .22
0 . 14
0 .21

1 . 13
1 .72
1 . 53
1 . 23

0.
0.
0.
0.

18
14
14
15

2 .08
2 .51
2 . 12
1. 70

|

0.
0.
0.
0.

0 .20
0 .22
0 . 16
0 . 14

1 .29
1 .72
1 . 50
1 . 05

0 . 18
0 .22
0 . 15
0 . 14

2

1

1

19
12
10
17

1

1
1

1
1
j

0

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

OTHER

85. 5
70 .0
53 .7
100. 7
107 .0
97 .0
106 .0
101. 3
.0
84 .
115..0
92 .0
.
95.. 0

14 .9
16 .3
14 .4
13 .9
13 .9
15 .8
15 .8
15 .4
15 .7
15 ,
.4
16 ,
.3
18 . 1

ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE

1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

|
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
1
|

20 8
21 8
19
9
28 4
31 9
31 .
2
34 .3
33 .9
33 .8
39 .2
31 .4
32 .
4

|
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

33 8
34 1
42 7
69 7
61 0
68. 2
79. 7
60.. 3
49 , 7
59.. 0
42 ,
.3
41 , 5

26 3
40 6
29 5
22 7
25 2
26 , 9
23 , 1
27 .
,6
26 . 7
24 .
,2
26 .0
24 .
,3

14 6
16 7
14 1
15 7
15 6
14 .7
15 .2
16.. 3
18.. 5
26.. 0
16., 8
18.,2

16. 1
13 .9
12 .1
11 .9
15 .1
15. 9
13 .9
17 .5
15. 6
17. 2
17 .8
28., 1

44 .6
34. 7
32. 2
94. 3
129. 3
108. 7
112. 0
123 .6
93 .6
95. 2
97. 2
127.,9

1
1
1
1
|
1
1
j
1
j
1
j

•6
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3 7
.
3.7
3 .7
3 , 7
,
3 ,7
.
3,.8
3,.7

3

14 .7
14 .8
14 .7
14 .8
14 .9
14 .8
14 .9
14 .6
14 .7
15. 0
14 .9
14,,8

46. 5
45. 2
45. 9
46. 1
46 .6
45. 9
46. 1
47 .0
44 .9
45. 2
45. 8
45.,4

320. 4
320. 4
272. 1
487 .7
539 .9
468. 2
490 .3
480 .7
451 .3
545. 9
385., 3
357 .0

AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
|

119 . 1 16 .9

1996 Q4...

|

.2
36.

|

31 . 3

23 . 5

15.. 8

19 .0
,

118 , 1

1

3. 9

15 .5

45 . 5

467 .7

1997 Q1 . . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4...

|
|
|
|

38• 7
24• 3
28• 3
36• 1

1
|
|
i

50 .
27 .
51 .
39 .

28 .
22 .
23 .
29 .

1
2
0
6

24 .
13 .
15 .
16 .

3
6
5
1

18 .5
17 . 6
17 .0
17 . 8

82 . 1
73 .2
106 .6
160 . 5

1
j
1
1

3

.7
3 .7
3 . 7
3 . 9

14 .7
14 .9
14 .4
15 .4

48 .0
45 .6
45 . 1
44 .2

371 .9
357 . 7
419 . 3
398 . 5

95 .0
67 . 9
91 .7
120 . 5

22 .
13 .
12 .
16 .

1998 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4...

I
|
|
|

37 .9
28• o
25• 6
40.4

|
j
|
|

37 .7
43 .4
30 .4
50 .7

29 .
21 .
17 .
29 .

6
0
9
3

23 . 3
17 .2
14 .4
18 . 9

39 .6
24 . 5
20 . 9
26 . 9

130 .7
107 .4
115 . 8
161 .7

|
j
|
|

3.8
3 .7
3. 5
3.9

15 .1
14 .4
14 .6
15 . 3

45 .8
46 . 6
44 .0
44 .6

320 .2
335 .7
366 .8
424 .7

100 . 3
80 . 3
85 .7
120 .7

24 .2
16 . 0
12 .5
21 .0




7
6
9
5

4
9
9
5

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I C

AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE

(BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

ALL
LOANS

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

BY SIZE
OF BANK

BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($ 1,000s)

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

10
to
24

1
to
9

OTHER

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

1
1

•1
15.9
19
•6
44.2
5 3 .7
•
49 .4
58 .8
55 . 1
55 .3
61 .2
4 1 .9
3 7 .0

32. 5
32 .3
32 .0
30. 5
29.. 1
34.. 3
33 . 8
30 ,
.6
28 .8
26 . 1
29 . 6
31 . 1

44., 0

.7
26 .

46., 8
,7
39..6
46 .4

38..2
.7
29 .
22 .9
27 .5

37 .7
37 .7
32 .5
40 .0

41
32
21
28

ANNUAL A M O U N T OF LOANS M A D E

1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

13 .2
10.0
12 . 9
22.0
21.4
23.6
28.7
16 . 8
12 .7
10.6

85.7
84 . 1

68.0

4
6
0
5
8
7
2
6.4
5.2
4.0
5.3
4.4

,5
22 .
.3
24 .
24 . 3
.6
26 ,
. 5
25 ,
24 .6
24 .7
25 .4
27 .3
35 .9
23 . 6
25 .2

2.,3
1.,9
,0
2,
,3
2.
.5
2.
2 .9
,
2 .5
.
3 .2
2 .7
2 .4
2 .7
4 .9

8. 3
.4
7.
6,,4
18.,3
.6
27 ,
26 .0
30 . 6
33 .9
36 .1
34 .5
31 . 9
27 .5

1

1
1
1
|
|
|

5. 7
5. 2
6. 1
6., 1
6., 1
6.,2
6 . 1
'
5 .8
5 .4
5 .0
5 .0
4 .5

6..8
6..4
7 .7
,
7 .3
,
7 .6
,
8 .0
8 .3
7 .4
8 .3
7 .1
7 .4
6 .7

12 .6
12 .9
.4
14 .
15..9
15.. 1
. 8
16 ,
17 ,
. 1
16 .5
16 .0
13 .9
15 . 8
14 .9

24. 5
23. 7
23 .4
.3
45 .
54..0
52 . 8
.0
61 .
56 .0
54 .4
61 .3
43 . 3
41 . 9

1
|
1
|
1
j
|
|
|
|

17

A M O U N T OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND M O N T H OF QUARTER, A N N U A L RATE

1

4.. 7

6 .4

11. 6

48 .1

|

, 5
.
,0
,
.
.9
.0
.

1
|

4 ,4
.
6.. 1
5,.0
4..4

7
8
6
7

17 . 8
16..9
13 .
.9
14 .5

55 .5
33 .0
36.,8
47 .
.9

|
1
|
|

.6
.6
.5
.3

1

. 1
5 .4
4 .8
3 .6

7 .0
.
8 .4
6 .0
5 .5

50
39
32
46

|
|
|
|

1996 Q4.

70.77

8.0

3 .9

17 .2

2 .1

39 .6

1997 Q1.
Q2.
03.
Q4.

84.92
64 . 44
62.49
73.83

10 . 1
4. 6
8.0
9. 2

6,
.7
5.0
3,
.3
6..3

27
23
23
19

.
.4
. 3
,
. 8
.7
,

3. 2
, 4
2.
.4
2.
2 .7
.

37
29
24
36

1998 Ql.
Q2.
03.
Q4..

78.80
70.30
54.29
68.73

7. 1
5.3
3.1
8.8

5.9
4 .6
2 .9
4 .1

30
29
21
19

.0
.5
.6
.7

7.. 1
5 .4
3 .2.
3 .8

28
25
23
32




|

|
|

4

.
, 3
.
, 5
,8
.
.0
,

17
17
11
13

.6
.4
.5
.2

,
. 1
.2
.0
.4

34

9

.2
.6
.8
.7

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.D
AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE (MONTHS)

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

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

12 .1
10. 9
11., 8
6., 4
5,, 3
9,.4
9,.4
9,.4
10,.0
9,.2
7 .4
,
6,.8

7 .5
.1
7,
7 ,4
.
7 .4
,
7.
,7
8,. 3
8,.5
8,. 6
9,.0
8,.6
8,.8
8,.8

8. 1
9. 2
8. 3
9.,2
8..3
9 ,7
,
10.,0
11,,6
10,.8
10,.5
11,,6
11,,3

25
to
99

100
and
over

9 .3
10. 2
9., 3
11, 9
10.,6
11,, 1
11,, 1
13 ,5
.
12 , 1
12 , 1
12 .4
,
12 .5
,

8. 3
7 .7
7 .1
4 .9
5. 8
7 .2
7 .4
7 .2
8,,2
7 .3
8,,8
8, 7

LARGE

OTHER

|
j
|
|
j
j
|
j
|
|
|
|

5. 9
8., 1
7 .8
4 .7
.
5.,2
6., 4
6,.4
5,.8
7.
,3
6,.4
7, 6
6,. 8

9 .3
8. 8
8. 2
10. 2
9 .6
10. 1
10. 4
12 . 6
11.,4
12 .3
12 ,
.8
13 .2

ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY

1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 ,
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

1
1
|
1
1
1

1

8 4
8 7
8 1
7 5
7 .. 3
8., 9
.
9 .2
10..3
.
9 .9
8 .5
.
9 .9
,
9 .8

1
|
I
1
|

|

•5
6.4
6.8
6.0
6.7
6. 1
7 .3
7 .6
8. 7
7 .8
9. 1
8.
0

5

7 7
4 7
7 4
8 8
8 5
9, 5
9.
,6
9,. 8
9, 9
11 . 3
11 .0
,
10,. 3

7 6
8. 5
7 2
7 5
7 2
8. 6
8. 3
8. 6
8. 5
7 .6
10. 7
9. 9

22 .8
19 .8
18. 7
21. 9
24 .6
20. 1
30. 4
36. 6
26 ., 5
29 .4
30., 6
27 ..5

MATURITY' OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
7. 1

9,.4

11 . 1

7 •6
,

|

6. 4

11 ,
. 1

5
8
8
3

9 .5
9. 5
8 .4
7 .5

11,.8
12 . 6
10 . 7
11 .0

13 .4
14 . 1
10 .9
10 .6

11,• 3
9• 1
7 .8
6 •6

|
I
j
1

9. 1
6. 6
7. 6
6 .8

14 .2
,
15,. 5
10,, 8
9. 6

2
6
6
2

9. 1
9 .8
8 .3
7. 6

13 . 1
11 .3
11 . 5
8 .9

13 .2
13 .8
11 .0
11 .4

9. 5
8 •8
9• o
7 •5

|
1
|
1

7 .4
6. 8
7 .2
5 .9

13 .4
14 . 5
13 . 2
11 . 7

1996 Q4 . . .

1

8 .4

1

6.4

10,. 9

9. 2

28,, 5

7 .0

1997 Ql. . .
02...
03...
Q4...

I

11 .7
11 .0
8.8
7 .9

1

14i. 6
7 .2
5. 3
7 .4

10 .0
13 . 5
9 .4
11 . 1

12 .2
13 .6
9. 5
6. 7

34 ,
. 1
32 ,
.1
23 ,
.2
31 . 8

8.
6.
7.
6.

1998 Ql...
Q2...
03...
04...

1

10 .
10 .
9.
8 .

1

•1
7 .8
7 .2
8
-3

12 .
7.
13 .
8.

9. 9
10 .4
9 .9
8 .9

23 . 9
33 . 1
21 .7
31 . 5

8.
6.
7.
5.

|
i

1




6
4
6
3

j

1

8

1
5
1
6

1
I

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 PURPOSE OF LOAN
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

ALL
LOANS

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

BY SIZE
OF BANK

BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1, 000s)

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

9
.2
10.2
12 .1
10. 9
9
.0
6., 8
6,, 7
7 ,, 2
9 ,, 0
7 ., 8
8 .7
8.. 3

11. 3
11 .6
12 .7
12 .3
11 .3
9 .4
8. 7
8 .8
10 .4
10 . 0
10. 0
9 .8

ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE

1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996,
1997
1998

|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
1
|

10 6
11 2
12 5
11 4
9.8
8
7 .
7.
5
8
7.
9 . 5
•
8.,4
9. 2
,0
9.

1
1
I
1
1
1
1

1
1

10 7
10 9
12 3
11 5
10.2
8
•2
8 .0
8. 3
10., 1
8. 8
9
,6
9., 4

10 2
11 9
12 4
12 0
11 .0
8 .6
8,
.1
8 ,0
,
10 ,
.2
9 ,5
.
9.,8
9,.7

10. 8
11 2
12 6
11 7
10. 4
8 .8
8 .1
8. 4
10. 0
8., 6
9. 9
9. 6

11. 5
11 .7
12 .8
12 .3
11. 3
9 .3
8. 7
8 .6
10. 3
9. 7
9. 8
9. 3

9. 5
10. 7
12 .3
10.,7
8. 6
6., 3
6,,2
7 .0
,
8,• 8
8 .0
8 .5
8 .0

|
|
|
|
|
|
j
|
|
j
j
|

11 .6
11 .7
12. 8
12 .5
11. 5
9. 7
9 .0
9. 1
10 .6
10. 2
10. 2
10. 1

11. 3
11. 6
12 .7
12 .4
11. 2
9 .3
8. 7
8. 8
10. 5
10. 1
10. 0
9. 9

11 .1
11. 4
12 .7
12 .1
10. 7
8 .8
8. 3
8 .6
10. 3
9. 8
9.,9
9. 7

9. 9
10. 8
12 .2
10. 9
9. 2
7 .1
6. 9
7 .3
9 .0
.8
7,
8..8
8.,4

1
|
j
j
1
1
j
j
j
j
1
j

RATE
AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL
.0

1996 04.. .

1

8. 7

1

9 .5

9 .6

9 .8

9 ., 3

8 .0

|

10,. 1

10,. 1

9,.7

8 .2

1

8

1997 Q1 . . .
02.. .
03.. .
Q4.. .

1
1
1
1

9. 1
9. 3
9. 4
9 .2

1

9 .2
9. 7
9 .7
9.7

9 .6
10 .0
10 .0
9 .6

9. 8
10 .0
10 .0
9 .9

9 .7
9 .9
9 .8
9 .9

8 .5
8 .5
8. 5
8 .5

|
|
|
j

10 . 1
10 .2
10 . 2
10 .2

9 .8
10 . 1
10 . 1
10 .0

9 .7
10 .0
10 .0
9. 8

8 .8
8. 6
8. 9
8 .7

1
j
j
j

8

1998 oi...
02.. .
03.. .
04.. .

1
1
1
1

9

. 1
.2
9. 0
8 .5

1

9. 3
9. 5
9 .7
9 .0

8• o
8. 3
8. 3
7 .7

|
j
j
|

10 .
10 .
10 .
9.

2
1
1
9

10 . 0
9. 9
10 . 1
9 .7

9. 8
9. 8
9 .7
9. 3

8. 6
8. 6
8 .4
8. 1

1
j
j

8.
8.
8.
7 .




|

9

1

9. 6
9. 6
9 .7
9 . 1

9. 9
9. 9
9 .7
9 .0

9 .8
9 .7
9. 6
9. 3

1

.6
8. 6
8. 9
8. 6
2
5
5
9

9. 9
9.
10 .
10 .
10 .

8
1
1
1

9.
9.
9.
9.

9
9
9
4

12

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 PURPOSE OF LOAN

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

ALL
LOANS

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

BY SIZE
OF BANK

BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE

1

1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

|

51.,6
65.,3
71.,4
76 .
,8
81.,5
.5
78 ,
.6
84 ,
.9
82 ,
83 .9
58 ,
. 1
66 .4
55 . 0

59., 5
61., 4
61.,0
65., 2
65,. 1
71,.7
76 .7
. 1
75 ,
73 ,
. 8
63 . 1
65 . 8
54 .4

69 .6
,5
39 .
40.,0
61.,6
69.,3
.5
63 .
70 , 0
,3
74 .
75 ,
.9
71 ,
.2
73 . 2
59 .4

,1
62 .
.8
63 .
,7
59 .
68..3
68,, 8
66 ,
.3
70 ,
.3
. 3
72 ,
73 ,
.0
67 .
.3
67 .8
68 . 5

,5
55 .
54.,9
,9
32 ,
40,.0
40,.6
.8
47 ,
.2
48 .
51..6
. 1
53 ,
32 .9
49 .9
46 .7

62.. 1
63 .2
73.,6
51.,2
50..3
75.,3
78 ,
. 1
75,.7
72 ,
.2
61,.4
64 .3
42 .0

|

1
j
|
|

48., 5
49..3
50..4
,6
53 .
52..0
5 7 .3
60,.1
.6
58 ,
61,.7
60 .6
60 . 1
57 .6

45 .6
51. 5
49. 6
59. 2
59.,0
59.,1
61,.0
59,.8
63 ,
.9
61,.5
58,.0
.8
54 .

54. 4
60.. 8
58.. 5
66.,0
64.,0
61.,2
.5
64 ,
70 ,
.4
.6
73 ,
69,. 1
68 .0
62 .7

68. 5
67 .0
69., 1
67 ,
,5
.8
67 ,
78,.6
83 . 9
80,.2
76 .7
62 .2
67 .0
51 . 1

|
|
j
|
j
j
j
j
j
j
1
1

77 .6
79 ,. 1
83 .
,6
69.,4
70.,0
82 .9
.
86,.9
83 .7
,
79 . 9
65..4
71 .4
57 . 1

49 .
,9
,6
52 ,
47 ,
.2
59,.3
56,, 1
55 ,
.5
58 ,
.9
.7
59 ,
62 . 3
57 .9
57 .9
51 . 3

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER
57..0

75 .
,1

,0
71 ,

31. 2

64.,4

1

58. 3

56 .2

,7
66 .

66 .1

1

7

1 ., 1

,3
54 .

71 .2
,
75 .
,6
57 .2
,
58 .5

,6
72 ,
.6
64 ,
72 ,
.2
55,.4

75 , 0
67 .
, 1
69.,9
78,.0

.3
67 ,
61,.9
69 .7
73 .4

52 .
.0
45., 1
46.,9
54..5

.7
74 ,
.4
92 ,
39,.8
48,.0

|
|
j
j

59., 8
60., 1
59.,2
61..6

56 , 3
56,.3
.3
62 ,
57,.7

69,.2
.7
67 ,
62,.4
72 ,
.2

,7
74 .
87 .
.4
54.,0
54.,2

|
j
j
1

81,.3
89,. 9
60..3
5 7 .2

58 .
,9
58 .
,8
51.,9
60,.6

56 .6
54,.6
54 .7
,
51 .6

.4
59 ,
76,.2
51 .6
39 .9

56
60
54
66

70
68
67
68

58,.1
48,.2
28 .3
38 .9

41,.2
34,.9
47 .4
44 .4

|
j
j
|

60,.5
58,.0
55,.7
56,.4

56
50
57
55

67
61
59
60

.6
52 ,
51,.7
.4
52 ,
48 . 1

|
j
|
|

53 .9
,
57,. 6
61 .9
55 . 8

59,.1
51,. 1
44 . 1
45 .7

Q4 . . .

|

64 ,8
,

1997 Q1. . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4...

I
j
j
|

1998 Ql . . .
Q2...
Q3 . . .
Q4...

|
j
j
j




|
1

, 6
,
. 1
.2
,
,
.2

.2
.1
. 1
.0

.7
.
.5
.7
. 9

.0
.9
.3
.8

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS. 1
BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE
Effective
interest
rate
(percent)
All Loans
Under 5 percent

Memo:
Percentage
Distribution of
Number of Loans,

November
1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Aug 97

Nov 98

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

12

8

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

1

*

*

7

8

3

*

*

*

2

20

26

15

10

19

5

9

I

1

-

16

16

16

27

12

8

6

23

1

6

-

10

22

20

23

11

27

34

31

17

29

1

3

17

16

18

20

30

25

31

22

39

36

25

10

36

18

7

3

6

25

16

16

12

28

21

41

29

24

22

1

2

6

9

4

6

2

11

5

2

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

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

5

10.0 to 10.9 . . .
11.0 to 11.9 . ..
12.0 to 12.9 . . .

20

41

30

10

-

-

—

1

1

1

*

13.0 to 13.9 .. .

7

17

5

4

-

-

1

*

*

*

-

14.0 to 14.9 . . .

2

2

1

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 20.9 .. .

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

21.0 to 21.9 .. .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

22.0 to 22.9 .. .

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

23.0 to 23.9 .. .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

24.0 to 24.9 .. .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

25.0 and over. .

—

"

I. 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.
* Indicates less than .5 percent.




TABLE I.H.I
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 2-6, 1998
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

436,420
35.098
13 .06
7 .01
2 .96

74,111
18,988
7. 58
4. 19
2 .58

111,124
7,296
10. 84
6. 22
2. 54

143,138
4,181
12 .79
6.,58
2 ,49
.

145,4115
2,151
24.,02
8., 50
2., 62

241,710
1, 654
26. 88
19. 71
2. 73

8 .54
0. 24

9. 84
0. 09

9. 66
0. 06

9.,38
0., 11

9.,08
0.. 09

8.,68
0., 16

7.91
0.34

9 .36
7 ,76
.

10 .45
9,
. 30

10. 28
9. 01

10,.03
8 . 84

9,, 75
8,. 33

9., 32
8,
. 17

8.30
7.09

9., 14
9.,06
9., 33
9 ,00
,
8,,27
7 ,79
,

9 ,84
,
10,,41
9,,83
10 , 17
,
9 ,31
9 .33
,

9. 46
9.,79
9.,75
9., 57
9..40
9.,39

9 . 51
9 .41
9 .41
9 .20
9 .48
9 .17

9 . 58
9 .26
9 . 14
8 . 84
8 . 37
8 . 83

8,. 84
8,.72
9 .01
8 . 66
7 .71
,
8 .68

8.76
8.15
9 . 13
7 . 73
8.45
7 . 54

49 .
.05
82 . 11
13 . 89
1 .00

54 .71
,
67 .89
29 .69
0 .57

54,.45
68 .48
28 .41
0 . 45

54 . 75
55 .99
24 .98
0 .81

59 . 96
67 . 31
20 .03
0 . 33

53 .87
71 .39
18 .31
0 .72

42 . 69
97.44
5.09
1. 39

11.. 96
5 . 60
27 .75
5 .08
5 .88
43 . 74

7 . 14
6 .78
67 .45
8 .09
2 .55
7 .98

9 .05
10 .29
56 . 60
9 .91
3 .66
10 .50

25 . 65
9 .09
37 . 55
12 .29
3 . 18
12 .24

18 . 77
5 .99
40 . 70
7 . 39
9 . 19
17 .97

11 .29
12 .46
32 .83
8 .97
13 . 52
20 . 93

9.04
1. 68
12 . 96
0.82
3 . 86
71 . 63

8 . 30
59 . 38

5 .90
83 .76

5 .78
84 .68

5 .89
86 . 96

18 .09
70 . 63

16 .77
71 . 48

4 . 60
41.18

ALL BANKS
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




720,922
829
7.27
3.03
3.27

TABLE I.H.2
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 2-6, 1998
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
LI sizes

$1--9

$10 -24

$25- 49

$50- 99

$100-24!

$250 and over

44,594
2,941
10 .08
3 .13
3 .02

60,099
1,772
10. 06
2 .52
2 .96

74,524
1,129
10. 02
2 ,04
.
2,
. 96

126,878
868
12 . 00
5.12
3.08

625,855
619
5.45
1. 30
3 . 60

LARGE FARM LENDERS 7
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)
Weighted average repricing interval (months)1
Weighted average risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
Feeder livestock
9
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18

957,672 25,723
6,751
14.080
7 .20
.
7 . 18
2 .05
.
.03
2
3 .41
2 . 92
8 . 17
0 .21

9 .67
0 . 12

8 .80
7 .43

10 .26
9 . 18

9 .51
0 . 12
10 .20
8 .84

9.,27
0., 11

9., 11
0.. 12

8.72
0.11

7.69
0.32

9 . 87
8,. 68

9 . 67
8 . 57

9.20
8.30

8.30
7.09

9.01
8.45
8.82
9.18
8.19
8.57

8.40
8.15
8.33
7.73
9 . 59
7 . 54

8 .85
8 .59
9 .02
8 . 99
9 . 19
7 .72

9 .73
9 .58
9 .77
9 .92
8 .35
9 . 12

9 .39
9 .31
9 .67
9 . 64
9 . 19
9 .18

9 .28
8 .88
9 .42
9 .36
9 .45
8 .99

9 .24
8 .93
9 .24
9 .32
9 .47
8 .85

56.,51
92., 69
11.,87
1..39

77 , 59
86,, 97
30 .29
0,,49

. 57
73 ,
84 .29
,
29 .49
1.
, 12

78.,20
79. 28
28.,72
0.,78

81..43
85,,45
. 10
21 ,
0.. 64

.
79 ,
85..
18..
1,,

16
92
13
38

44 .
97 .
5 .87
1 .60

6.,28
4 .43
.
22 . 35
2 ., 72
1 .23
.
43 .74

5,. 10
5.
, 44
71 ,
.45
4 . 75
1 . 86
7 . 98

8 .11
8.
, 22
57 . 11
6 . 34
2 .31
10 .50

17 .33
,
4.
, 99
49 , 10
5 . 27
2,. 20
12 .24

9 , 51
9,.81
44 . 88
6 . 85
1 .75
17 .97

8 . 42
. 79
11 ,
37 .91
6 .. 15
1 . 88
20 .93

4 .32
1 .93
9 .45
0,
0,
71 ,

2.
, 85
50 .89

3 .33
85 . 61

5 . 22
81 .70

4 . 84
83 .31

9 . 12
74 .03

3 .07
78 . 19

1,
35

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




15

16

SURVEY I QF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 2-6, 1998
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

66,529
4,355
11,. 32
8 .26
,
2 .21
,

83,040
2,409
14 .70
.
9 .45
2 . 13

70,891
1,023
38., 53
15., 28
2 . 23

114,832
787
42 . 50
35.08
2 . 34

95,067
209
19.24
14 . 36
1 .31

OTHER BANKS'
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans
Number of loans
Weighted average
Weighted average
Weighted average

(thousands)
maturity (months)
repricing interval
risk rating 3

(months)

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




48,388
478,748
12,237
21.019
7 .77
24 . 63
5. 31
16 . 85
2 .39
2 .03
.

9 .05
,
.11

8.64
0.25

9.35
0.90

10 .00
8 .25

9.35
7.76

10.50
9.01

9 .61
9 .57
9 .40
9 . 16
9 . 49
9 . 65

9 .70
11 .00
9 .02
8 .41
8 . 25
8 .79

8.73
8.99
9 .31
8 . 36
7 . 68
9.31

41. 64
57. 88
27 . 68
1,.04

37.,77
39.. 13
22,,28

37 .
, 38
48.,24
18,.91

25. 92
55.. 34
18.,52

28.86
100.00

8 .22
7 .49
,
65 .33
9 .87
2 .92
7 .98

9,, 68
11,.67
56..25
12 .30
.
4 .57
,
10 . 50

31,, 68
12 ,05
,
29 . 18
17 .
, 38
3 .88
,
12 .24

28 . 50
1,.96
36 .31
7 .97
17 .00
17 .97

,47
14 ,
13 ,
. 19
27 .22
12 .08
26 . 37
20 .93

40.11

7 .27
82 .78

6 . 15
86 .67

6 . 65
89 .60

27 . 52
67 .06

31 .91
64 .08

23 .81
76.19

9,
. 94
0 , . 13

9 .75
0 . 12

9 .46
0 .13

10.. 51
9 ,35
,

10 . 37
9 .20

10 .22
9 .01

9 .29
9 .59
9 .70
9 . 01
8 . 13
9 . 36

9 .87
10 .73
9 .86
10 . 24
9 . 63
9 . 53

9 .50
10 .01
9 .80
9 . 54
9 . 47
9 . 83

34 . 12
60..94
17 .
,92
0..21

.55
42 ,
57..75
29,.38
0..62

,33
23 ,
7 .92
,
38 . 55
9 . 80
15 . 17
43 .74
19 . 20
76 . 38

9 .27
0 . 18
10 .21
8 .43

0.

9.01
10.50
8 . 19

36.08
23.81
71 . 63

TABLE I H 4
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 2-6, 1998
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

136,420
35.098
13. 06
7 .01
2 .96

144,433
4.378
15. 04
8. 95
1. 00

8. 54
0.,24
9..36
7 .76
,

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

221,839
9,310
26. 50
17 .29
2 .00

424,379
10,581
8. 01
3. 47
3 .00

395,096
3,416
4 .65
1. 37
4 .00

9 .29
0. 23

9 .02
0.,23

8. 48
0. 29

7 .89
0. 33

10., 32
9.. 00

9.. 69
8., 19

9..50
7 ,09
.

8. 30
7 .43

10.47
6.69

9..03
9.. 63
9.. 56
9.. 37
8 . 17
8.
, 89

9 . 24
9 .01
9 .36
8 . 65
8 .02
9 . 55

8., 86
9 .13
.
9.,37
9.. 35
8,. 32
7 . 65

9.,71
9.,51
9,
. 50
9.,79
8,, 81
7 .64
,

9 . 84
11.97
8.63
8 .43
9.65
9 . 10

9.41
10.04

49 .05
82 .11
13 .89
1 .00

47 . 35
79 . 95
12 . 59
0 .48

41 .31
70 .73
20 . 98
0 .06

50 .79
82 .72
18 .42
0 .55

41 . 53
94 . 87
3 .44
1 .45

92.59
90.12
8.83
0.36

74 . 92
86.94
88.45
11.85

57.74
64.66

11 .96
5 .60
27 .75
5 .08
5 .88
43 .74

36 .06
1 .29
47 .29
8 .29
1 . 93
5 . 13

17 . 16
9 . 05
37 . 81
8 . 62
18 .20
9 . 16

11 .11
4 .41
29 .72
5 .93
3 . 34
45 .50

1 . 11
0 . 98
10 . 38
0 .53
0 .40
86 . 60

9.74
0.40
59.99
5.20
0. 11
24 . 56

90
49
24.77
84
49
60.51

15. 18
20.36
27 . 50
5.42
14.31
17 .23

8 .30
59 .38

3 .34
88 . 54

22 .29
72 .72

5 .97
56 .51

1 .47
36 . 55

0.33
82.15

9.28
84.05

17 . 36
66.14

ALL BANKS
1 Amount of loans (thousands)
2 Number of loans
1
3 Weighted average maturity (months)
(months)2
4 Weighted average repricing interval
5 Weighted average risk rating 3
6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18

9.
, 14
9,,06
9 .33
9 .00
8 .27
7 .79

35,691
846
7.91
0.31
5.00
8 . 87
0.45

45,041
1,082

12.27
3.02

169,940
5,485
27 . 52
16 . 50

8. 18

0.51

8 . 94
0 . 15

9.01
6.79

9.75
8.24

8.80

8.04
9 .81
7 . 75

9.51
8.93
9 . 14
8.61

8.57
8.53

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




17

18
TABLE I.H.5
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 2-6, 1998
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

326,055
5,270
7. 60
2 .91
3. 00

382,766
2,492
4. 38
1. 10
4 .00

33,759
616
8 . 11
0,. 18
5,.00
8 .89
0 . 48

Not Rated

Not Reported

LARGE FARM LENDERS
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




57,201
2,293
8 .87
2 .36
2 .00

38,061
428
12 .93
1 . 81

92,470
2,002
10.88
1.11

957,672
14,080
7 . 18
2 .03
3 .41

27,360
979
17..81
9 .39
1 .00

8 . 17
0 .21

9 .06
0 .28

8 .89
0 . 16

8. 20
0. 33

7. 80
0. 30

8 . 80
7 .43

9 . 87
8 . 50

9 .31
8 . 34

9,
. 11
7 .09

8. 30
7 .43

8 . 85
8 .59
9 .02
8 . 99
9 . 19
7 .72

8 .92
10 . 17
9 . 18
9 . 37
8 .02
8 . 92

8 .97
8 .74
8 . 86
9 .36
9 .49
8 .83

8..52
8.,43
9,, 14
9,, 16
9.,48
7,,62

9.,71
8.,79
9., 19
9., 60
8.,81
,
7 .63

56 . 51
92 . 69
11 .87
1 . 39

75 . 30
82 . 87
26 .20
0 .47

74 . 63
86 .44
23 . 15
4 .05

52 ,27
,
89 .43
15,,80
1,.76

42,.21
97 .24
,
1..83
0..03

95 .33
92 .28
8 .93
14 .92

87 . 15
98 .97
83 . 35

6 .28
4 .43
22 . 35
2 .72
1 .23
43 .74

20 .23
3 . 56
37 . 17
8 .91
4 .78
5 . 13

18 . 61
2 .87
59 .62
2 .06
0 .97
9 . 16

8,.03
3.
, 94
.45
23 .
5,.10
2 . 15
45 . 50

1,. 12
0,. 50
8 .52
0,.47
0 .41
86 . 60

8 .75
0 .42
61 . 98
4 .47
0 . 12
24 . 56

27 .70
1 .07
20 .95
5 . 56
1 . 09
60 . 51

26 .49
34.40
0.39
0.93
17 .23

2 . 85
50 . 89

4 . 97
78 . 69

6 . 59
81 . 97

4.
, 16
48 .68

0,.92
35,.40

0 . 34
81 . 13

9 .08
84 .09

1 . 63
70.60

7 .89
0 .60

8.76
0.26

10 .47
6 .69

8 . 60
6 .42

9 . 34
8 . 24

9 . 83
11 .97
8 . 67
8 .35
9 .65
9 . 13

9 .00
8 .60
6 .76
8 . 35
7 .74

-

-

8.88
8.56
8.99
9.89
9 .51
8 . 59
87.14
89.71
-

TABLE I.H.6
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 2-6, 1998
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Moderate

Acceptable

164,638
7,017
32.62
22.47

12,329
924

2 .00

98,324
5,311
9.36
5.35
3.00

06
26

9.43
0.16

10.63
0.28

8 . 59
1.60

75
36

Minimal

Low

117,073
3,399
14.39
8.84

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

6,981
654
9.11
8.78

77,470
3,483
46.28
33.83

OTHER BANKS 7
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18

478,748
21,019
24.63
16.85
2.03

1.00

12.86

9.68
4.00

1,932
230
4.50
2.70
5.00

9.27
0.18

9 . 35
0.29

10. 21
8. 43

10,, 50
9 .01
.

10 . 00
8., 19

10. 19
8. 88

11. 14
10. 21

9 .27
8. 68

10. 25
9. 14

9. 29
9. 59
9.,70
9., 01
8., 13
9..36

9.,04
9 .04
,
9.
, 63
9,, 37
8,.29
8,.55

9..34

9. 60
10. 23
10.,70
10. 96

9. 88

9..70
8., 60
8,,00
10,. 14

9.,29
10.,68
9.,73
9.,72
7., 19
8..54

9. 41
10. 63
9. 31
9. 96
10. 67
10. 78

34., 12
60.,94
17.,92
0.,21

40,.82
79,. 27
9,.40
0,. 59

29 .74
65,. 27
20 . 22
0,. 18

45.,88
60..47
27 ,
. 12

20.,46
21., 18
53 .43
.

23,.33
7.. 92
38 . 55
9 .80
15 . 17
43 .74

39 .76
.
0 . 76
49 . 66
8 . 14
1 .26
5 . 13

16,. 65
11,. 19
30 . 24
10 .90
24 . 19
9 . 16

19 . 20
76 . 38

2 . 96
90 . 84

27 .74
69 .51

-

10.,82

-

6,, 99
8..78
-

8,, 68

9 . 14
0.24
10. 00
8. 30
9.,94
9,
. 85
9., 46
8., 55
8., 54
8.,24

,78
44 ,
52 .36
,
7 , 03

8.,24
21., 36
116.,23

22 .
, 64
34 .76
,

21,.31
5..96
50,. 50
8,. 67
7 .29
.
45 .50

27 . 04
0..99
36 . 92
15,.77
25 . 32
68,,03
17 . 87
2,. 35
5..71 1,214 .21
24 . 56
86,.60

12 .27
,
.77
144 ,
45 , 63
20..29

19.. 68
19 . 28
11 . 42

60 .51

17 .23

11 .98
82 .46

18 .48
72 .24

37 .43
100 . 00

401 .00
83 . 86

60 . 82

-

-

-

-

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




19

NOTES TO TABLE I.H
The Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers collects data on gross loan extensions made during the
first full business week in the mid-month of each quarter by a sample of 250 banks of all sizes. The
sample data are blown up to estimate the lending terms at all insured agricultural banks during that week.
The estimated terms of bank lending are not intended for use in collecting the terms of loans extended
over the entire quarter or those residing in the portfolios of banks. Loans of less than $1,000 are excluded
from the survey.
1. Average maturities are weighted by loan size and exclude loans with no stated maturity.
2. The repricing interval measures the period from the date the loan is made until it first may be
repriced. For floating-rate loans that are subject to repricing at any time-such as many prime-based
loans-the repricing interval is zero. For floating rate loans that have a scheduled repricing interval,
the interval measures the number of days between the date the loan is made and the date on which it is
next scheduled to reprice. For loans having rates that remain fixed until the loan matures (fixed-rate
loans), the interval measures the number of days between the date the loan is made and the date on
which it matures. Loans that reprice daily are assumed to reprice on the business day after they are
made.
3. A complete description of these risk rating categories is available from the Banking and Money
Market Statistics Section, mail stop 81, the Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC 20551. The
category "Moderate Risk" includes the average loan, under average economic conditions, at the
typical lender. The weighted-average risk ratings are calculated by assigning a value of "1" to
minimal risk loans; "2" to low risk loans; "3" to moderate risk loans; "4" to acceptable risk loans; and
"5" to special mention and classified loans. These values are weighted by loan amount and exclude
loans with no risk rating. Some of the loans are not rated for risk.
4. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other terms of
the loans and weighted by loan size.
5. 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.
6. The interquartile range shows the interest rate range that encompasses the middle 50 percent of the
total dollar amount of loans made.
7. Among banks reporting loans to farmers, most "large banks" (survey strata 1 and 2) had over $25
million in farm loans, most "other banks" (survey strata 3 to 5) had farm loans below $25 million.




Table I.I
Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, (selected quarters)
by USDA Farm Production Region
USDA Region
A£
SI

L2

£B

N£

2. 2

12 2

25 7

17 .8

8. 8

4. 4

5. 1

8. 8

6. 1

9.,1

Sample Coverage,
Sept. 1998 survey (%)

13 8

3. 7

11 0

13 .3

21. 5

8. 8

2. 7

6.,6

24. 1

71., 9

Avg. Loan Size,
Sept. 1998 survev (31000)
Survev date:

15 7

27 7

25. 5

23 .1

54. 7

24. 0

12. 9

40.,4

56. 8

Proportion of farm loans
outstanding, Sept. 1998

NE

HL

MN

PA

147 .5
.

Weighted Average :Interest Rate; During Samnle Week

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)

May

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)

May

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
(..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)

,1
8.
(,.86)

9.,6
(.,68)

10,.4
(..36)

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)

Feb.. 1997

8 .8
(.11)

9,.5
(..26)

9,.5
(•.12)

9 .3
(..22)

8 .0
(..51)

9.,9
(..32)

9 .5
(.35)

9 .5
(.24)

10,.1
(..27)

8 .7
(.35)

May

1997

9 .4
(.43)

10 .1
(.17)

9 .2
(.22)

9 .5
(..27)

8 .3
(.62)

9..9
(..66)

10 .2
(.29)

9 .7
(.23)

10,.0
(..29)

8 .7
(.51)

Aug.. 1997

9 .3
(.47)

9 .8
(.18)

9 .6
(.14)

9 .9
(.08)

8 .5
(.26)

10..1
(..24)

9 .9
(.12)

9 .7
(.27)

10 .5
(..23)

8 .7
(.34)

Nov.. 1997

9 .2
(.41)

9 .5
(.17)

9 .3
(.10)

9 .8
(.08)

7 .5
(.60)

9,.8
(•.11)

9 .4
(.05)

9 .4
(.38)

10 . 1
(.57)

8 .8
(.31)

Feb . 1998

9 .3
(.51)

9 .0
(.27)

9 .4
(.17)

9 .8
(.09)

7 .3
(.77)

10..0
(..48)

10 .3
(.13)

9 .8
(.30)

9 .6
(.43)

8 .5
(.19)

1998

9 .2
(.49)

9 .4
(.24)

9 .2
(.15)

9 .7
(.10)

7 .6
(.54)

10..2
(..12)

10 .3
(.34)

9 .6
(.30)

9 .8
(.42)

8 .4
(.39)

Aug . 1998

10 .2
(.19)

9 .5
(.21)

9 .5
(.12)

9 .5
(.17)

8 .8
(.17)

9,.5
(..29)

9 .7
(.29)

9 .5
(.28)

9 .6
(.47)

8 .5
(.33)

May

May

9 .7
9. 1
8 .0
9,.4
9 .2
8 .3
8 .7
9 .0
9 .2
9 .4
(.01)
(• 31) (,20) (,32) (,59) (,39)
(.39)
(,12)
(• 20)
(,29)
* * * 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.
Nov . 1998

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.


22
SECTION II:

SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

TABLES:

£a&e

Commercial

II.A
II.B
II.C
II.D
II.E

banks:

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

24
25
26
27
28

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

29
30
31
32

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.
In 1991, 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 15.8 percent in September of 1998,
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: During the third quarter of 1998, the volume of farm loans, both those secured by farm
real estate and other farm loans, continued to increase, but at a lower rate than was seen in the second
quarter. At the end of September 1998, the yearly change in total farm loans was 7.2 percent, a rate of
increase near the top of the range seen over the last decade. However, the moderation in the growth in the
volume of farm loans seems likely to continue given the readings from the November STBL, which were
discussed inthe previous section.
Problem loans:
Compared with one year earlier, the dollar volume of delinquent farm non-real - estate loans in
September 1998 was a bit higher, continuing the slight pickup that first became apparent in the spring of
1998. Net charge-offs of farm non-real - estate loans through the third quarter were running at about the
same pace as seen the past couple of years. Fewer than 1 in 5 agricultural banks reported a level of
nonperforming loans that was more than 2 percent of total loans.
Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks for the first
three quarters of 1998 was 0.9 percent, a shade below the reading for the comparable period of 1997 but in
line with observations since 1992. The capital ratio for agricultural banks rose to 11.3 percent at the
close of the third quarter, leaving agricultural banks a substantial cushion to weather any problems that
might arise in the farm sector. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks surged to 72.5 percent
at the end of September 1998. Agricultural banks in all districts have seen these ratios move up
substantially in recent years, with all districts except Dallas now showing a ratio of 70 percent or
more.
Failures of agricultural banks: One agricultural bank failed in 1998. 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. However, if recent financial problems in the farm sector persist, stress
among agricultural banks likely would rise as well.




23

24

TABLE II.A

FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER
PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS QUARTER

LOAN VOLUME,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

1990 Ql. . .
02...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

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
1.1
-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

1991 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...

49.5
52.6
53.9
53.0

17.5
18.1
18.3
18.4

32.0
34.5
35.6
34.6

-1.3
6.2
2.5
-1.6

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
8.1
7.1
5.1

1992 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

..
..
..
..

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
6.2
1.9
-2.9

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
8.1
8.6
7.8

3.1
3.2
1.9
0.2

1993 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

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

0.5
3.1
1.2
0.1

-5.3
7.8
4.9
-0.8

1.7
1.6
3.2
5.8

5.6
5.4
4.7
5.0

-0.5
-0.6
2.4
6.2

1994 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

.
.
.
.

56.8
61.1
63.0
61.3

21.2
21.9
22.4
22.6

35.5
39.2
40.6
38.7

-1.5
7.6
3.1
-2.7

1.8
3.2
2.2
0.7

-3.4
10.2
3.6
-4.6

7.6
9.1
8.7
6.2

6.4
6.4
7.5
8.2

8.3
10.7
9.3
5.2

1995 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

59.9
63.5
65.3
63.7

22.9
23.6
23.8
23.9

36.9
40.0
41.5
39.8

—2.3
6.1
2.9
-2.5

1.6
2.7
1.1
0.4

-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

1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

.
.
.
.

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

0.5
2.7
1.1
0.3

-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
1.8

1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

63.8
69.0
71.1
71.3

25.4
26.2
27.0
27.1

38.4
42.8
44.2
44.2

-2.6
8.2
3.0
0.3

1.4
3.3
2.9
0.7

-5.1
11.5
3.1
0.0

3.4
5.1
6.8
8.9

5.5
6.2
8.1
8.5

2.0
4.4
6.0
9.1

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

70.1
75.0
76.3

27.6
28.5
28.9

42.4
46.5
47.4

-1.7
7.1
1.7

1.8
3.2
1.3

-3.9
9.6
1.9

9.8
8.6
7.2

9.0
8.8
7.2

10.4
8.5
7.3




.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

#

#

|
|

j

|

#

•

•

#

•

'

TABLE II.B

ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS

AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

NONPERFORMING

NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

3.,7
3.,1
3.,2
2.,8
2..2
2,.0
2..1
2,.4
2,.0

1,.3
1..3
1,.3
1,.0
0..8
0,.9
0 .9
1 .2
0 .9

2..3
1.,9
1,.9
1,.8
1,.4
1 .1
1 .1
1 .3
1 .1

0.,5
0..3
0,.3
0..3
0..2
0,.2
0,.3
0,.3
0 .2

1,.9
1.,6
1..6
1..5
1..2
0,.9
0,.9
1 .0
0 .9

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

December 31 of year indicated
1..1
1..0
1.,1
1..0
0..8
0..8
0..8
1..0
0..9

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

0..4
0..4
0..4
0,.3
0,.3
0,.3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .4

0..7
0,.6
0,.7
0,.6
0,.5
0,.4
0 .4
0 .5
0 .5

0.,1
0. 1
0.,1
0.,1
0.,1
0,.1
0..1
0,.1
0..1

0..6
0..5
0..5
0..5
0..4
0,.3
0,.3
0 .4
0 .4
End of quarter

1995 Q3.
Q4.

0.8
0.8

0.3
0.4

0.5
0.4

0.1
0.1

0.4
0.3

1.9
2.1

0.7
0.9

1.2
1.1

0.3
0.3

0.9
0.9

1996 Ql.
02.

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

3.4
2.8
2.3
2.4

1.8

0.1

0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4

1.6
1.6
1.5
1.3

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3

1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0

1.3

0.7
0.4
0.3
0.4

0.6

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

3.3
2.4
2.0
2.0

1.7

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.1

0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2

1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9

0.2
0.2

0.4
0.4
0.4

1.8
1.1
0.8

1.3
1.3
1.3

0.4
0.5
0.4

0.9
0.8
0.9

03.
04.

1997 Ql.
Q2.
03.
04.
1998 Ql.
Q2.
03.

0.8
0.5
0.4

0.6

0.2

0.2

1.2

0.8
1.2

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.



25

26

TABLE II.C

199 1
1992
1993
199 4
199 5
199 6
199 7
199 8

ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*

|
|
I
|
|
|
|
I

TOTAL

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

105
82
54
69
51
95
93
**

12
14
7
10
-2
16
6
4

25
20
16
11
14
27
19
15

36
29
5
15
13
24
19
24

32
18
26
33
25
30
50
**

TOTAL

|
j
j
j
|
j
j
j

0.32
0.24
0.15
0.19
0.13
0.24
0.23
**

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
-0.00
0.04
0.01
0.01

0.08
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.04

0.10
0.08
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.05

0.09
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.11
**

* 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.




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 indicated0. 4
0. 4
0.,3
0. 5
0. 4
0. 4

1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.

0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2

0. 3
0. 2
0. 2
0, 2
0,,2
0.,2

1. 0
0. 7
0. 6

0. 3
0. 2
0. 2
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2

0. 8
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0. 5

0. 8
0. 7
0. 7

1
1

0. 2
0. 2

I
|

0. 0
0. 1
0. 1
0.,1

0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1

1

1. 0

1. 1
0. 8
1. 0
0. 8
0. 7

2. 1
1. 8
1.,5
2.,1
1.,5
1. 3

0. 1
0. 0

1. 3

. q u a ! L.CI

1995 Q2.
Q3.
04.

0.,4
0..3
0.,4

0.,1
0. 1
0.,2

0..2
0..2
0..2

0.,1
0.,1
0.,1

0. 1
0. 1
0. 1

1
1
1

1.,5
1.,4
1,,5

0.,6
0..5
0.,7

0..9
0.,9
0.,8

0. 3
0.,3
0.,2

0., 6
0..6
0.,6

1996 Ql.
02.
03.
04.

0..5
0..4
0.,4
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

0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1

1
1
1
1

2,.1
1,.7
1..5
1,.5

1.,0
0,,7
0..5
0..7

1.,0
1,.0
1,.0
0,.8

0,.4
0,,4
0..4
0,.3

0..6
0,.6
0..6
0,.6

1997 Ql.

0,.3
0..2
0,.1
0,.2

0
0
0
0

.2
.2
.2
.2

0..1
0,.1
0,.1
0,.1

0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1

1
1

03.
04.

0..5
0..4
0..3
0,.4

1,.9
1,.4
1,.3
1,.3

1,.0
0,.6
0,.5
0,.6

0,.9
0,.9
0,.8
0,.7

0,.4
0,.3
0,.3
0,.2

0,.5
0,.5
0,. 5
0,.5

1998 Ql.
02.
03.

0,.5
0,.4
0,.4

0,.3
0,.2
0..2

0 .2
0 .2
0 .2

0,.1
0,.1
0,.1

0. 1
0.,1
0.,1

1

1,.9
1,.4
1,.3

1,.1
0,.6
0,.5

0,.8
0 .8
0 .8

0,.3
0 .4
0 .3

0 .5
0 .5
0 .5

02.

1

1

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




27

TABLE II.E

NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUAL
TOTAL

1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

6
-1
3
1
4

Q1

Q2

03

0
-1
-0
-1
-1
-2

1
-1
-0
-1
-0
-1

2
0
2
1
1
0

CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

Q4

3
1
2
2
4
* *

* All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




ANNUAL
TOTAL

0.03
-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

0..002
-0,.004
-0,.001
-0..004
-0..004
-0,.006

0. 003
-0,.004
-0..001
-0..003
-0..001
-0,.002

0..008
0..002
0..006
0..003
0,.005
0..001

0..015
0,.003
0,.007
0,.009
0,.013
* *

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 indicated100. 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
100,,0
100..0
100,,0

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996,
1997,

65 8
69 6
70 8
76 2
80 6
85 5
83,.7
81,.8
84,.4

25.,1
22,,7
22..3
18.,9
15..9
12..3
13..8
15,.5
13..0

7 .6
6 .4
5 .8
3 .9
2 .8
1 .9
2 .1
2 .3
2 .4

1. 2
1. 0
0. 7
0. 8
0. 6
0.,2
0.,3
0.,2
0.,1

0. 2
0. 2
0. 3
0. 1
0. 1
0, 1
0.,1
0..1
0.,1

0. 1
0. 0
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 1
0.,1
0.,0

U l b L I -L.JJUL J-Uil t end of 4UUJ.

100..0

83 .7

13,.8

2 .1

0..3

0..1

0..1

1996 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
04...

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..1
0..1
0,.1
0,.1

0,.1

1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

100
100
100
100

.0
.0
.0
.0

79 .0
80 .6
81 .7
84 .4

16 .8
15 .8
15 .2
13 .0

3 .7
3 .2
2 .7
2 .4

0,.4

0 .4
0 .2
0 .1

0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1

0 .1
0 .0
0 .1
0 .0

100 .0
100 .0
100 .0

80 .6
81 .0
80 .3

16 .4
15 .7
16 .2

2 .8
2 .9
3 .0

0 .1
0 .3
0 .3

0 .1
0 .1
0 .1

0 .1
0 .0
0 .0

1995 Q4 . . .

1998 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .

||

1
1
1

0..2

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.




29

TABLE II.G

30

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
25
TO AND
24 OVER

RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS

NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS

AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

11..0
10..8
10..9
12.,6
12.,4
11..9
11..3
11..5
11,.6

10.0
8.5
8.9
11.5
12.4
12.4
11.6
11.6
11.8

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2

0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2

0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2

0,.7
0,.7
0,,8
0.,7
0..4
0..3
0..3
0..3
0..3

10..1
9..9
10.,1
10..4
10..8
10..7
11,.1
10,.9
11,.0

9,.0
9,,0
9,.2
9,.5
10..0
9..9
10..5
10..6
10,,7

•percentage distribution
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

|
|

j

|
|
|
|
|
|

100,.0
100,.0
100..0
100,.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
.0
100.

5.0
4.9
4.1
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.6

7.0
7.5
7.7
5.0
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.9

29,.0 38..0
33..4 37.,6
32,.2 39. 2
25..5 41.,1
27..8 40..6
31..3 40.,2
36,.8 39..9
33,.5 41.,5
34,.3 39..5

14..0
12..9
13..4
19.,8
18..5
17..1
13., 3
14..3
14..3

4.0
2.6
2.5
5.1
4.6
3.3
2.4
2.6
3.2

3..0
1.,1
0.,9
1..7
1..3
0.,9
0..6
0..5
1..2

I

j
j
|

j
QUARTERLY

•YEAR TO DATE
1995 Q4...

|

1996 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

|
|
|
|

**
**
**
**

*
*
*

1997 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

|

**

*

|
|

**

|

**
**
**

1998 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...

j

j

|

**

*

**

**

**

*

**

**

**

*

**

**

**

*

*
*
*

**
**

**
**
**

**
**
**

*
*
*

*
*

**
**
**

*
*

**
**

**
**

**
**

*

*

**

**

**
**

1

**

**
**

I
j

j
1
|

3

11.6

1.2

1.1

0.2

0.3

11.,1

10..5

3,.1

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

3,.0

3.,1
6.,1
9..3
11.,8

0..3
0..7
1..0
1,.2

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2

0.,1
0..1
0.,2
0..3

11..0
11..1
11..3
11.,0

10..6
10..7
10.,9
10,.7

3.0

3.,2
6..1
8..7

0,.3
0 .6
0 .9

0.3
0.6
0.9

0.0
0.1
0.1

0..1
0,.1
0,.2

11,.1
11,.1
11,.3

10 .7
10 .9
11,.0

6,.2
9,.2
ii,.5
5,.2
9,.0
11,.6
6,.1
8,.9

* Agricultural and other banks are defined in the int oduction to section II; small banks have less than 500 million dollars in assets,
Total primary and secondary capital (items that are av liable 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.




TABLE II.H

AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*

DECEMBER 31

CLEVELAND

ATLANTA

CHICAGO

ST. LOUIS

MINNEAPOLIS

KANSAS
CITY

DALLAS

SAN
FRANCISCO

MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO

LOANS NUMBER
LOANS
NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
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

1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

3854
3723
3550
3482
3347
3207

0. 555
0. 582
0. 625
0. 641
0.,658
0,,687

75
67
56
60
55
54

0. 643
0. 660
0. 707
0. 717
0.,775
0,,770

131
130
125
135
126
122

0. 607
0. 618
0. 646
0. 647
0. 682
0. 706

948
912
860
841
814
784

0. 574
0. 600
0. 643
0.,658
0.,681
0.,721

456
432
402
393
384
360

0. 563
0. 590
0. 629
0. 654
0. 666
0. 699

694
669
658
637
619
584

0. 579
0. 615
0. 674
0. 681
0. 698
0. 727

1092
1063
1014
981
944
904

0. 533
0. 566
0. 618
0. 634
0. 649
0. 679

384
378
366
359
331
325

0. 422
0. 442
0. 474
0.,499
0.,492
0.,528

61
58
53
55
55
53

0. 708
0. 733
0. 747
0. 741
0.,734
0.,660

16. 72
17. 04
16. 99
15.,79
15.,41
15.,40

1995 04...

3482

0,, 641

60

0 .717
.

135

0.,647

841

0 .658

393

0.,654

637

0,,681

981

0,,634

359

0 .499

55

0 .741

15 .79
,

1996 Q1 . . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

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

1997 Q1. . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4 . . .

3336
3323
3274
3207

0 .660
0 .696
0 .703
0 .687

52
55
54
54

0 .780
0 .809
0 .808
0 .770

128
144
139
122

0 .706
0 .714
0 .732
0 .706

806
799
795
784

0 .685
0 .712
0 .730
0 .721

382
383
384
360

0 . 662
0 .703
0 .722
0 .699

611
604
591
584

0 .701
0 .763
0 .749
0 .727

941
922
913
904

0 .644
0 .677
0 . 686
0 .679

339
338
325
325

0 .499
0 .536
0 .543
0 .528

54
54
52
53

0 .722
0 .704
0 .679
0 .660

15 .02
15 .57
15 . 64
15 .40

1998 Q1. . . 3176
Q2 . . . 3164
3127
03...

0 .689
0 .713
0 .725

53
50
52

0 .782
0 .792
0 .806

118
118
119

0 .719
0 .731
0 .742

762
757
752

0 .726
0 .746
0.757

355
360
358

0 .691
0 .726
0 .733

583
579
578

0 .731
0 .769
0 .769

906
904
892

0 .681
0 .699
0 .720

325
322
305

0 .527
0 .536
0 .549

53
53
54

0 .667
0 .701
0 .693

15 .28
15 .76
15 .75

* 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

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

ANNUAL
TOTAL

22
1987.,,.
11
1988
, . 5
1989
1990.... , . 3
2
1991....
1
1992
1
1993
0
1994
0
1995
0
1996
0
1997
0
1998

19
6
7
5
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
0

12
12
5
6
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
1

16
7
5
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
0

69
36
22
17
8
7
5
0
0
2
1
1

* 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

35
37
39
43

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 Citv. 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.




33

34
Section III:

(continued)

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. P.O. Box 655906, Dallas, Texas 75 265-5 906
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 may have eased in the fall of 1998
a bit more than usual seasonal patterns would indicate. Bankers in most districts that report indicated that
rates of loan repayment had deterioriated substantially since the spring of 1998. As might be expected, given
the fall in loan repayments. there was a pronounced pickup in the incidence of renewals and extensions of
loans in all the districts that report. Finally, a substantial portion of banks in the survey reported higher
collateral requirements than had been the norm in recent years, suggesting some mounting concerns about
repayment prospects.
In general, bankers in all the districts seem not to anticipate much of a pickup in lending, and they seem to
be particularly pessimistic about loans for feeder livestock and farm machinery.
In all the Federal Reserve districts that report, the ratio of loans to deposits has been high by historical
standards for the past several years. Nevertheless, most bankers seem more or less comfortable with the
upward movement in the level of loans relative to deposits--few report either that the ratio is higher than
desired or that they have adjusted their loan growth by, for example, refusing a loan because of a lack of
funds or referring a farm loan to another lender.
Reported rates of interest on farm loans edged down in the third quarter of 1998, and the rates that are
reported in these surveys have fallen only about 10 to 20 basis points since early 1996.
Perhaps reflecting the general low prices and returns of most of 1998, the nominal prices of farmland declined
in all most of the districts that report. However, relative to one year earlier, prices still were up a bit
in all the districts except Richmond.


http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
•
•
Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis

•

#

#

•

e

s

'

'

e

*

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)

LOWER
III.A1

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

44
42
42
34

14
17
17
11

62
68
69
69

8
15
19

49
44
46

42
42
35

12
13
10

64
71
75

16
12

67
71

16
17

28
34
33
34

9
19
21
16

72
67
67
72

19
14
12
13

25
30
26

12
16
16

68
69
69

20
15
15

60
64

26
26

1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
04...

8
9
6
6

64
57
61
60

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...

5
7
14

69
63
59

7
10

0
1
0
1

92
89
92
90

8
10
8
9
11
14
19

8
3
3

64
64
56

29
33
41

|
1
1

1

89
86
80

j
|

0
1

84
87

16
13

|
1
|
1

8

1
!
1

1

1

|
|

|
|

|
1
|
1
|

11
14

67
70

23
16

16
13
15
9

74
78
79
79

10
9
7
12

0
1
1
0

88
89
91
92

12
10
8
8

1
!
1
1
I

6
4
2

79
74
60

15
22
38

0
50
1

91
0
79

9
50
20

1
I
|
1

*
io

48
51

44
40

1
0

65
73

34
27

16
16
17
19

14
16
14
15

59
66
71
64

27
17
15
21

0
1
0
0

74
79
88
82

26
20
12
18

13
8
3

14
9
3

69
64
51

16
26
46

2
0
1

86
82
73

13
18
26

22
15

65
66

13
20

10
10
7
13

69
76
75
76

21
14
18
12

15
25
44

76
72
55

9

3
2

44
31

47
53

9
17

29
13
16
21

56
71
67
60

16
29
52

71
64
45

1
|

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX )
8
7

75
74

16
19

28
29
28
26

4
4
3
3

76
69
80
74

21
27
17
24

24
27
22

3
4
5

76
70
71

21
26
24

24
21

44
50

32
28

1997 Ql...
Q2...
Q3. . .
04...

17
18
15
16

55
54
57
58

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...

14
24
28

62
49
50




|
1
|
1

TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

14
11

|
|
1

92
90

9
4
3

64
65
53

46
50
47
52

1996 Q3...
04...

1
o

17
18
13
14

27
31
43

10
8
11
14

III.A3

HIGHER

69
69
77
72

24
16
14

1997 Ql.

|
|

SAME

14
13
10
14

66
72
77
68

24
19

1996 Q3. . .
Q4...

LOWER

19
11
8
14

15
17
15
19

65
71

III.A2

HIGHER

21

24
14
14
20

11
9

03.

SAME

69
61

19
18

38
36

02.

LOWER

23
19

74
58

45
50

1998 Ql.

HIGHER

7
24

17
14

03.
04.

SAME

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

1996 Q3.
04.

02.

LOWER

HIGHER

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

FUND AVAILABILITY

DEMAND FOR LOANS

|
I
|
1

|
1
1

1
|
1

35

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.A (CONTINUED)
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH NORMAL CONDITIONS
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)

LOWER
III.A4

|
|
j

1996 Q3...
Q4...
1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

.
.
.
.

***

***
***

***

***
***
***

1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

***
***
***

.
.
.
.

9
11
15
13

77
77
73
70

15
11
12
18

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

8
13
29

73
73
64

20
13
7

.
.
.
.




SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

15
17

68
64

31
19

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

1
o

81
85

18
15

0
0
1
0

75
80
81
82

25
20
18
18

0

23
28
27

19
34

69
45

12
21

23
20
12
27

46
33
31
24

47
59
61
58

7
8
8
18

10
5
1
12

57
63
72
70

33
32
18
18

28
19
17

35
44
52

54
52
42

11
4
6

4
3
5

64
61
57

32
36
38

|
1
|
|
1

2

o

77
70
73

13
32

68
56

18
12

|
1
|
1

o
2

85
93

15
5

13
16
10
13

81
80
85
70

6
5
5
18

0
2
0
0

94
91
83
85

6
7
17
15

8
6
7

80
74
75

13
19
18

3
o
o

85
81
71

13
19
29

13

61
67

21
20

10
23
23
15

67
57
65
58

13
15
27

59
66
56

18

|
1
|
1

|
1
|
1

1
|
1

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV* )
12
14

1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

|
1'

***
***

77
76

|
1
|
1

|
1

***
***
***

12
io

1996 Q3...
Q4...

LOWER

HIGHER

NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI* )

.
.
.
.

III.AS

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

FUND AVAILABILITY

DEMAND FOR LOANS

3 6

|
1
|1

|
1
1
!
1

12
3

67
85

22
12

17
5

72
78

12
17

4
9
2
5

77
68
76
60

19
23
22
35

0
2
7
18

88
93
88
78

13
5
5
5

o
6
o

73
71
75

28
23
25

10
16
21

88
77
71

3
6
7

|
1
1

|
1
1
I
1

I
1
1
1

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE I

F A R M N ONREAL

ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)

LOWER SAME
III.B1

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

67
68
71

40
33
28
37

28
22
23
24

63
64
65
69

1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

11
14
21

51
59
39

38
26
40

33
38
38

61
59
52

1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .
1998 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...

|
|
|
1

1
1

45
25
36
36

|
j
|

17
33
68

56
56
27

27
11
5

33
30

|
|

25
22

55
63

20
15

|
|
|
|

16
12
16
17

63
63
63
67

21
26
21
16

21
32
41

59
58
54

20
10
5

23
24
55

7
7
9

43
51
39

50
42
52

24
20

63
76

13
5

18
16

49
55

7
5

28
23
24
17

23
19
17
24

71
76
81
72

6
5
2
4

19
9
13
18

74
74
67
68

7
17
21
14

17
15
12
11

54
59
66
57

29
25
22
32

7
8
7

17
20
19

71
79
78

7
0
3

17
10
21

78
76
58

6
15
21

15
23
24

64
53
46

21
23
30

sc,

VA, WV*)

21
19

71
75

8
6

13
18

72
67

15
14

10
8

66
70

24
22

|
1
|
1

14
7

66
65

20
28

1
I

10
K

1

29
18

65
75
54
66

25
20
17
16

18
29
43

70
58
46

13
13
11

18
20

26
22
18
25

15
14
15
14

57
63
62
69

20
19
20

25
34
37

68
58
56

16
15
14
14

58
62
68
62

16
30
32

63
51
48

|
|

I
1

74
73

51
56

23
27

|
|

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC,

1I
11

!
I
1

62
75

10
3

26
13
11
17

17
16
21
13

73
81
79
83

10
3
0
4

21
17
19
20

79
80
81
70

0
3
0
10

13
15
20
17

82
76
60
79

5
9
20
3

6
5
20
8

63
80
61
66

31
16
20
26

17
4
15

20
27
0

76
68
95

4
5
5

9
15
21

87
80
79

4
5
0

13
17
19

81
70
62

6
13
19

8
10
11

74
77
71

18
13
18

18
12

1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

16
8
14
7

58
80
74
77

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

8
18
15

75
79
69

|
j
1

|
1
11

I
|

29
23

71
81




47
53
52
53

|
|

20
22

31
24

58
54

11
7

1996 Q3. . .
Q4...

9
22
12
11

64
64
33

|
1
|
1

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)

19
18

1II.B3

51
46

50
41
32
46

13
12
12

22
24
20

52
55
61
54

I1
1

39
42

42
52
59
49

11
8
9

6
3
10

8
12
10
9

1
|

HIGHER

10
12

8
7
9
5

69
65
59
62

69
69
69
69

1997 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...

|
I
|
I

13
18
31
26

19
17
10
12

20
22
24
24

10
15

29
53

10
9
7
7

9
13
12
8

52
59

50
39

34
27

10
9

38
27

1996 Q3...
Q4...

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

21
8

50
58

72
69

28
40

III.B2

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

16
15

18
22

55
48

1|
1
|

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

17
12

1996 Q3• • •
04...

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

FARM MACHINERY

OPERATING

CROP STORAGE

DAIRY

FEEDER CATTLE

TOTAL

37

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)

LOWER SAME
III.B4
1996 Q3 • • •
Q4...




39
30
27
19

18
17
15

8
8
9

65
65
58

27
27
34

56
58
52

72
80
55

58
67
50

57
64
67
74

26
25
33

18
13
37

38
32
38

4
6
7
7

9
7
9

4
1
13

1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
03...

21
11
14
16

58
61
58
60

77
79
73
75

56
52
62
63

19
14

21
28
28
24

12
12
18
18

29
32
28
31

65
72

11
9
10
7

15
17
10
7

.
.
.
.

16
14

14
10

10
7

1
|
1

|
1
1

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

HIGHER

MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
56
60

73
74

8
15

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

30
30

17
19

41
58

.
.
.
.

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI

51
28

1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

1|
|

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

FARM MACHINERY

OTHER OPERATING

FARM REAL ESTATE

OTHER INTERMEDIATE

FEEDER LIVESTOCK

|
1
|
1

|
1
|

|
1
|
1
|
1

24
26

54
57

22
17

22
18
25
24

68
75
58
63

10
7
17
14

22
36
59

63
58
37

15
7
4

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.C
AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
AVERAGE
LOAN-TODEPOSIT
RATIO,
END OF
QUARTER
PERCENT
III.CI

REFUSED OR
REDUCED A
FARM LOAN
BECAUSE OF
A SHORTAGE
OF LOANABLE
FUNDS

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

NONBANK AGENCIES

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

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

50
48

33
35

17
17

68
70
70
71

51
47
43
44

32
32
34
36

17
21
23
21

69
73
72

43
43
39

39
34
38

18
22
22

1996 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

68
68

1997 Ql. ..
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

|

|
|

***
***

***

***

J

|

***
***

***
***

***

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***

|
|

***

***
* **
***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***
** *

***

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***

Ill . C2 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO* , NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

1996 Q3. . .
Q4...

|
1

1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3...

|

1
1

III . C3
1996 Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

.
.
.
.

1
1

1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

|
1




83
86

5

82
82
82
78

11
8
6
7

86
87
87
88

4
5
7
6

78
78
79

7
0
7

89
0
88

4
100
5

1
I
|
1

8
12

82
78

9
10

|
|

1
2
1
1

13
12
14
9

83
85
78
84

4
3
8
7

0
4
1

18
8
9

75
85
86

8
6
4

30
34
33
31

1
2
1
1

89
89
72
69

27
30
31

1
2
3

70
66
61

9
10

32
30

62
65
66
66

78
72
55
51

8
9
8
7

66
68
68

54
53
51

8
8
8

|1
|1

|1
|
1

|
!
1
|

4

70
71

12
10

78
83

10
8

69
73
75
73

8
9
6
9

83
82
87
83

9
9
7
8

8
100
6

82
0
80

10
0
13

10
10

75
75

16
14

12
12
21
12

74
81
72
80

14
7
6
8

17
8
6

69
81
81

14
11
13

70

73

74

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX)
52
49
49
52
54
50

.
.
.
.

12
10

84
89

72
74

|
!
1
I

83
82

3
2

64
63

49
53
53

|
|

***
***
***
***
***

1
1

2
2

|

***

j

***

***
***

***
***
***

39

40
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

AT
LOWER
DESIRED
THAN
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

73
69

www

***

***

www

1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

.
.
.
.

73
74
72
72

***

***

1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

73
74
74
III.C5

1996 Q3...
Q4...

|
1
1

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

NONBANK AGENCIES

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NOBIE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME

NONE

NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

1996 Q3. . .
Q4...
.
.
.
.

REFUSED OR
REDUCED A
FARM LOAN
BECAUSE OF
A SHORTAGE
OF LOANABLE
FUNDS

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS

***
***

7
7

www
www

|
|
1

33+
38

64
56

3

6

!
|

32 +
40

59
54

9
6

WW*
www

10
11
12
13

35
31
35
35

63
60
59
61

2
9
6
4

30
32
32
36

52
55
58
52

18
13
10
12

www
www

7
12
10

34
29
27

62
66
67

4
5
6

28
27
24

58
62
64

14
11
12

www
***

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
73
71

1
|
1
|

31
39

56
50

13
11

|
1
1

o
o

75
82

|
|
1

88
91

2
0

11
7

o
2

|
I
|

80
79

4
0

14
21

2
0

1997 Ql.. .
<22...
Q3...
Q4. ..

72
74
72
73

36
39
45
41

50
49
53
51

14
12
3
8

0
2
2
0

77
82
80
73

85
91
85
87

5
0
0
0

10
9
15
13

0
0
0
0

83
86
78
74

3
0
0
0

10
14
23
15

5
0
0
10

1998 Ql...
Q2.. .
Q3...

72
73
72

46
48
62

41
48
35

14
3
4

0
0
0

78
81
70

92
93
96

0
0
0

8
7
4

0
0
0

83
100
85

3
0
0

8
0
11

6
0
4

•fBeginning 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".




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
III.D1

9.7
9.6

1997 Ql.

03.
04.

9.6
9.7
9.7
9.6

1998 Ql.
02.
03.

9.5
9.5
9.4
III.D2

SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE

9.7
9.6

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

***

***

***

***

***

8.8
8.8

***

***

***

* * *

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***
***

***

***

***

***

8.7

***

8.4
8.5
8.3

9.5
9.5
9.4

***
***

8.8

***

***

***

***

* * *

***

TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

10.0
10.1
10.1
9.9

***

9.8
9.8
9.7

9.9
9.9
9.8

***




LOWER

SAME

***

***

9.9
9.9
9.9
9.8

03.

LOWER

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS

***

***

1997 Ql.

Q2.

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

***

*•*

10.0
10.0

1998 Ql.

SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

8.8
8.7

***

***

9.9
9.8

03.
04.

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

***

1996 Q3.
04.

02.

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

1996 Q3.
Q4.

02.

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

* **
***
***

***

***

I

9.9
9.9

9.4
9.3

9.9
9.9
9.9
9.3

9.4
9.5
9.4
9.3

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

9.8
9.8
9.7

9.2
9.2
9.1

I

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

* **

* * *

***

***

***

***

* * *

***

***

***

***

41

***

42

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.D (CONTINUED)
INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS
AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER
COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)

MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS
(AVERAGE, PERCENT)

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D3

SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*,

1996 Q3. .
Q4.

***

1997 Ql..
Q2.
Q3.
Q4..

***

1998 Ql.
Q2. .
Q3.

* **

* **

* **

* **

III.D4

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
10.0

***
***

***
***
***

9.9
9.9
9.8

10.0
10.0

9.4
9.4

10.0
10.1
9.7
10.0

9.3
9.6
9.3
9.4

9.8
9.8
9.7

9.4
9.7
9.6

10.5
10.5

10.6
10.6

10.
10,

10.0

1997 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4. .

10.5
10.6
10.5
10.5

10.6
10.7
10.6
10.6

10.4
10.5
10.4
10.4

10.1
10.0

1998 Ql.
Q2. .
Q3. .

10.5
10.4
10.3

10.5
10.5
10.4

10.4
10.2
10.2

9.7
9.6
9.6

9.8
10.0

9.8
9.8

1997 Ql..
02.,
Q3. .
Q4..

9.9
9.8
10,
9,

9.9
9.8
9.8
9.7




LOWER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

MT, ND, SD, WI*)
***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***
* **
***

***

* **

***

***

***

***

***

***

* **

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***
***
***

***
***
***

9.9

9.7
9.7

***

***

***

***

***

***

***A

***

***

***

* * *

***

* **

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

1996 Q3.
Q4. .

1998 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)

1996 Q3..
Q4. .

III.D5

SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

9.7
9.6
9.2

* * *
* * *
* * *

9.7
10.0

9.4
9.5

9.9
9.8
9.9
9.6

9.5
9.6
9.5
9.2

9.4
9.3
9.1

9.2
9.2
9.0

* * *

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

* * *

***

***

***

***

* * *

***

***

***

***

***

* * *

***

* * *

***

. * * *

***

* * *

* * *

***

* * *

* * *

* * *

***

* * *

* * *

* * *

***

* * *

•

#.

e

e

e

e

*

#

•

,

•

•

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.E
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
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

***
***

***
***

1997 Ql. . .
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .
Q4...

2
1
2
2

***

***

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

2
0
-1

|

III.E2
|
|

1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

16
3
12
5

***

***
***
***

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

-1
3
-10

1996 Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

.
.
.
.

|
|

j
|
|




IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

|
|

***
* **

12
10

|
|

9
16

58
59

33
25

9
8
7
10
***
***
***

10
8
4

|
|
|

1
6

35
61

64
33

2
8
2
2

64
64
60
62

34
27
38
36

11
20
12
11

61
63
62
62

29
17
26
27

10
17
51

76
67
40

15
16
9

17
25
45

57
61
47

26
14
8

io
5

80
90

10
5

j
|

11
-13

***
***

|1
|1

3
o

82
83

15
17

***
***

4
4
13
41

***
***
***
***

|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1

2
5
5
5

81
77
80
88

17
18
15
8

11
9
13
18

80
80
79
77

9
11
8
5

***
***
***

19
20
-4

***
***

3
10
7

74
81
89

23
10
4

16
20
29

70
67
61

14
13
11

24

17

62
69

14
14

***
***

1|
|
1

I1
|
1

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
***
***

.
.
.
.

1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

DRYLAND

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
***
***

III.E3

***
***

***
***
***

***
***

1
1

ALL

***
***
***

3
"IS

1996 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

RANCHLAND

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

3
1

1996 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER

***
***
***

2
1

-1
1

-0
4

1
-1
-0
2

3
0
0
1

-2
2
-3
4

-1
1
-1

-1
2
-0

-1
7
5

|
|

|

***

***
***

-0
1

-3
-2

-13
2

***
***

3
3
1
2

3
3
5
5

1
4
1
1

***
***
***

***
***
***
***

15
12
10
15

65
72
77
69

19
17
13
16

-0
2
1

1
2
2

2
7
15

***
***
***

***
***
***

12
23
27

73
67
66

15
10
7

J

***

***

I
1

43

44

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 FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
ALL
III.E4

1996 Q3..
<24..
1997 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4.

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
DOWN

STABLE

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

***

* **

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

* **

***

***

***

***

***

1998 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .
III.E5

UP

EXPECTED DEMAND FOR
FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED WITH NORMAL
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

1996 Q3...
Q4...

***

***

***

* **

***

***

***

***

***

1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...
Q4. . .

***

***

* **

***

***

***

***

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .




***

***
***
***

***
* **

***

***

* **

***

***