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. . . *** *** *** *** *** * ** *** *** * ** *** ***
@FedFRASER