Full text of E.15 Agricultural Finance Databook : Fourth Quarter 1999

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

•

*

»

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

E. 15 (125)

n

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE
DATABOOK

Fourth Quarter 1999
Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources

Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks
Selected statistics from the quarterly reports of condition of commercial
banks
Reserve bank surveys of farm credit conditions and farm land values

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



Page

3
22
qq

General Information
The Agricultural Finance Databook is a compilation of various data on current developments in agricultural finance. Large portions of the data
come from regular surveys conducted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or Federal Reserve Banks. Other portions of
the data come from the quarterly call report data of commercial banks or from the reports of other financial institutions involved in agricultural
lending. When the current issue went to press, data from the survey of terms of bank lending were available for the fourth quarter of 1999; the
other data generally were available through the third quarter of 1999.

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 James Hull or
Nicholas Walraven at the address shown on the cover.

The Databook is furnished on a complimentary basis to college and university teachers, libraries of educational institutions, government
departments and agencies, and public libraries. Others should enclose the annual subscription fee of $5.00.

New subscriptions to the Databook (Statistical Release E.15) may be entered by sending a mailing address (including zip code) to:
Publications Services, Mail Stop 138
Federal Reserve Board
Washington, D.C. 20551
Notice of change of address also should be sent to Publications Services. A copy of the back cover showing the old address should be included.




SECTION I: AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS
Estimates from the quarterly survey of non-real-estate farm loans

Summary charts

Page
5

Tables:
I.A
IB
I.C
ID
IE
IF
I.G
I.H
I.I

Number
Average size
Amount
Average maturity
Average effective interest rate
Percentage of loans with a floating interest rate
Distribution of farm loans by effective interest rate...
Detailed survey results
Regional disaggregation of survey results

7
8
9

10

11
12
13
14
21

SOURCES OF DATA:
These data on the farm loans of $1000 or more made by commercial banks are derived from quarterly sample surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve
System during the first full week of the second month of each quarter. Data obtained from the sample are expanded into national estimates for all
commercial banks, which are shown in the following tables.
Before August 1989, the farm loan survey was part of a broader survey of the terms of lending by a sample of 348 commercial banks. A subset of 250
banks was asked for information regarding agricultural lending, and about 150 typically reported at least one farm loan.
Since August of 1989, the data have been drawn from a redesigned sample of 250 banks that is no longer part of the broader survey. In the redesigned
sample, banks are stratified according to their volume of farm Tending; previously, they had been stratified according to the volume of business loans.
However, the sample data always have been expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks, and these estimates necessarily exhibit variability
due to sampling error. The estimates are sensitive to the occasional appearance of very large loans in the sample. In addition, the breakdown of national
estimates into those for large banks and small banks may have been affected somewhat by the new sampling procedures that were implemented in August
1989; apparent shifts in the data as of that date should be treated with caution.
Beginning with the May 1997 survey, data on the assessment by the lender of the risk associated with each loan, the next date that the rate of interest could
be adjusted, whether the loan was callable by the bank, and whether the borrower could prepay the loan without penalty began to be collected. Over time,
the data on the lender's perception of the riskiness of farm loans should help provide a better picture of the effect of fluctuations in the creditworthiness of
farm borrowers as either farm financial conditions or the broader economic environment changes. The new data on loan repricing dates, callability of the
loan, and the existence of prepayment penalties should help to refine estimates of the duration of farm loans made by commercial banks.
Tables I.H.I through 1.H.6 contain most of the new data, while the other tables in section I attempt to show estimates that are comparable to those that have
been presented for a number of years. However, for several quarters while the new survey was being designed, banks that left the survey panel were not
replaced immediately, because new replacement banks would soon have been forced to revise their newly-instituted reporting procedures when the new
survey form went into effect. As a result, the size of the survey panel dwindled through early 1997, and with the May 1997 survey, an unusually-large
number of new reporters (about 25) were added. While this does not affect the validity of the May survey information, it likely introduced sampling error,
especially when the May survey results are compared with those of previous quarters.
The format and the information contained in the tables are likely to change over time as more of the new survey information is acquired.



3

SECTION I: (CONTINUED)
More detailed results from each quarterly survey previously were published in Statistical Release E.2A, "Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers".
Beginning in February, 1992, the more detailed results are included at the end of this section of the Databook, and the E2.A has been discontinued.
Starting with the August 1986 survey, farm loans secured by real estate are included in the data shown in the table of detailed results, whereas such loans
are excluded from the tabulations in Tables I. A through I.G and the summary
charts.
Beginning in November 1991, several survey statistics are estimated for each of ten farm production regions as defined by the USDA. These statistics,
which are presented in table I I, should be treated with some caution. Although an effort was made to choose a good regional mix of banks for the panel,
the panel never has been stratified by region. Consequently, the survey results are less precise for each region than for the totals for the nation.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
In the November 1999 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks was a touch below the estimated level of one year earlier,
continuing the gradual downward trend in the number of loans that has been evident since roughly 1994. The average amount of loans in the survey also
was a bit lower than typical seasonal patterns would suggest, leaving the estimated amount of farm non-real-estate loans considerably below the
third-quarter reading in 1998. This decline relative to one year earlier is much the same as was evident in the second-quarter survey, and the estiamted
amount of farm non-real estate loans in the third quarter was the lowest since the survey was redesigned in the late 1980s.
In the August survey, the average maturity of farm non-real-estate loans remained above year-earlier readings, as the bulge in maturities that was noted in
the second quarter persisted through the summer. This lengthening of maturities was particularly evident for loans for purposes other than livestock,
machinery, or operating expenses. The average effective rate of interest on non-real-estate farm loans rose 20 basis points to 9 percent in the August
survey, bringing rates back into line with those reported in the August 1998
survey. The percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats was about 70 percent in August, largely reversing a trend towards
fixed-rate arrangements in the survey data that began around 1995. While the terms of loans that are reported in each survey are fairly volatile, the August
readings more or less parallel those from the May survey, suggesting that some substantial shifts in the terms of lending to farmers may be underway.
Consistent with the earlier estimates for maturity of the loans, the weighted average maturity (line 3 of Tables I.H.I through I.H.6) remained quite high in
the August survey, and the weighted average repricing interval (line 4 of the tables) remained fairly high as well. The weighted average risk rating
declined for all farm loans except those for more than $250,000, suggesting that banks lending to farmers may have become more optimistic about
repayment prospects in recent months. The percentage of the volume of loans that were to purchase or improve farm real estate (line 23) surged, especially
for larger loans, and the proportion of large farm loans that were secured (lines 25 and 26) rose sharply. The proportion of loans that were callable by the
bank declined in the August survey.
When broken out by the riskiness of the loan (Tables I.H.4 through I.H.6), more than half of the estimated volume of loans was rated either "moderate" or
"low". Loans rated as "acceptable" risk carried the lowest rate of interest among loans that were rated, although the variability of rates across all risk
categories (line 7) was very high.
By farm production region, weighted average rates of interest rose roughly 1/2 percentage point in the Northeast and Pacific regions-changes in rates were
up or down from 10 to 30 basis points in the other areas.




in

Chart 1

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers
Millions, Annual rate
Number of non-real-estate farm loans

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5

— Four quarter moving average

2.0
1.5

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Thousands of dollars

1.0

50
45

Average size of non-real-estate farm loans

40
35
30
- Four quarter moving

25
20
15

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

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 1999




30

Chart 2

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers
Months
Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans

- Four quarter moving average

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

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

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Percent
Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate

- Four quarter moving average

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999




100

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.A
NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

1 .42
1 .67
1 .70
1 .66
1 .67
1 .65
1 .55
1 .45
1 .33
1 .32
1 .20
1 .09

0.43
0.52
0.49
0.51
0.54
0.56
0.51
0.57
0.48
0.50
0.45
0.44

0.28
0.31
0.35
0.32
0.37
0.37
0.35
0.36
0.31
0.34
0.33
0.32

0.07
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.11

0 .23
0 .36
0 .44
0,.50
0,.51
0..55
0,.54
0,.66
0,.53
0,.46
0,.39
0,,40

1 .99
2 .23
2 .20
2 .10
2 .18
2 .15
1,.98
1 .83
1,.69
1..82
1,,71
1.,56

1

OTHER

BY SIZE
OF BANK

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

2 .21
2 .60
2 .63
2 .60
2 .69
2 .70
2 .53
2 .49
2 .22
2 .27
2 .10
1 .96

0.29
0.30
0.32
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.28
0.26
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.14

0 11
0 20
0 24
0 23
0,,25
0,,27
0.,23
0,,19
0.,17
0.,20
0.,18
0.,16

1 .45
1 .73
1 .69
1 .64
1 .67
1 .62
1 .56
1 .48
1 .38
1 .40
1 .39
1 .32

0.14
0.16
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.16

0.21
0.20
0.19
0.21
0.24
0.27
0.27
0.39
0.36
0.33
0.22
0.18

NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1998 Ql. . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

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

0.19
0.12
0.10
0.17

0.20
0. 22
0. 16
0. 14

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

0.18
0.22
0.15
0.14

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

0,,38
0.,47
0.,38
0.,33

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

1999 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1,.93
2,.37
2, ,05
1..49

0.20
0.12
0.07
0.15

0. 18
0. 18
0. 13
0. 15

1 .17
1 .77
1 ,47
0,.88

0.17
0.17
0.19
0.13

0.20
0.14
0.19
0.17

0 .96
1 .41
1 .25
0 .74

0.45
0.51
0.44
0.36

0.36
0.34
0.29
0.29

0.15
0.10
0.08
0.10

0. 39
0.,45
0. 44
0. 33

1.,54
1.,93
1. 61
1. 16




7

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I. B
AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

320,.4
272,.1
487,,7
539..9
468,.2
490,.3
480,.7
451,,3
545,,9
385.,3
357..0
322..1

70.0
53.7
100.7
107.0
97.0
106.0
101.3
84.0
115.0
92.0
95.0
76.2

16..3
14..4
13..9
13.,9
15.,8
15..8
15.,4
15..7
15,,4
16..3
18.,1
19.,3

ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

21,.8
19,.9
28.,4
31..9
31.,2
34..3
33.,9
33., 8
39.,2
31..4
32..4
30..9

34..1
42.,7
69..7
61..0
68.,2
79.,7
60..3
49.,7
59.,0
42,,3
41.,5
35,.6

40.6
29.5
22.7
25.2
26.9
23.1
27.6
26.7
24.2
26.0
24.3
26.4

16..7
14..1
15..7
15..6
14..7
15..2
16..3
18.,5
26,,0
16..8
18..2
21.,4

13.9
12.1
11.9
15.1
15.9
13.9
17.5
15.6
17.2
17.8
28.1
31.8

34 .7
32 .2
94 .3
129 .3
108 .7
112 .0
123,.6
93,.6
95.,2
97..2
127,.9
101,.1

3,.7
3,.6
3,.6
3,.6
3,.7
3,.7
3,.7
3,.7
3,.7
3,.8
3,.7
3,.8

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

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

AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
03...
Q4. . .

|
|
j

37..9
28..0
25.,6
40..4

1999 Ql...
02...
03...
04.. .

|
1
|
1

46..6
26.-1
21.•4
31. 5




|
|
1
|
|

37.7
43.4
30.4
50.7

29.,6
21,.0
17,,9
29..3

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

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

130,.7
107,A
115,,8
161,,7

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,,1
366,.8
424,.7

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

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

32.7
30.2
30.1
46.5

26.,9
21..2
25.,1
33.,1

25,.6
20,.5
17,.0
24,.9

21,.9
52,,4
26,,6
25.,9

219,.2
66,,3
44,,0
54,.5

3,.7
3,.8
3,.7
4,.1

15.5
14.5
14.6
14.9

47..9
46..4
45..9
46,.7

412,.6
314,.6
261,.3
242,.1

137,.6
63,,4
47,.5
58..7

23,.4
17,.4
14,.3
23,.8

•

e.

•

s

#

e

#

#

• ,

.•

e

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 SIZE OF
LOAN ($ 1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

23 .7
23 .4
45 .3
54 .0
52 .8
61,.0
56,.0
54,.4
61,.3
43,.3
41..9
34,.9

15 .9
19 .6
44,.2
53,.7
49,.4
58,.8
55,.1
55,.3
61.,2
41..9
37..0
30..6

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

ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999,

48 .2
51 .6
74 .7
82 .8
83 .7
92 .6
85,.7
84,.1
87,.3
71,,4
68,.0
60,.6

10.0
12.9
22.0
21.4
23.6
28.7
16.8
12.7
10.6
8.0
6.1
4.9

4 6
6 0
5 5
5 8
6. 7
6. 2
6. 4
5. 2
4. 0
5. 3
4. 4
4. 2

24.3
24.3
26.6
25.5
24.6
24.7
25.4
27.3
35.9
23.6
25.2
28.4

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

7 .4
6,.4
18,.3
27..6
26..0
30,.6
33..9
36.1
34.,5
31. 9
27. 5
18,,0

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

6.4
7.7
7.3
7.6
8.0
8.3
7.4
8.3
7.1
7.4
6.7
6.6

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

AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
03...
04...

78..80
70,.30
54..29
68..73

7.1
5.3
3.1
8.8

5. 9
4. 6
2. 9
4. 1

30.0
29.5
21.6
19.7

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

28. 6
25. 6
23. 5
32. 3

4.,1
5. 4
4. 8
3. 6

7.0
8.4
6.0
5.5

17..6
17,,4
11,.5
13..2

50..1
39,.2
32,.0
46..4

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

41..2
32..6
21,.8
28..7

1999 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
04...

89..86
61..85
43..91
46.,96

6.7
3.5
2.2
7.1

4. 8
3. 8
3. 2
5. 0

30.1
36.4
25.0
22.0

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

44. 6
9. 5
8. 4
9. 4

3, 6
5. 4
4. 6
3, 0

7.0
7.4
6.4
5.3

17..4
16..0
13. 2
13.,7

61..9
33..0
19..7
24..9

53.,9
28.,3
20. 8
19.,3

36..0
33..5
23..1
27..7




9

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.D
AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE (MONTHS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

9.2
8.3
9.2
8.3
9.7
10.0
11.6
10.8
10.5
11.6
11.3
11.2

10.2
9.3
11.9
10.6
11.1
11.1
13.5
12.1
12.1
12.4
12.5
12.4

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

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

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

ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

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

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

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

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

19.8
18.7
21.9
24.6
20.1
30.4
36.6
26.5
29.4
30.6
27.5
20.1

10.9
11.8
6.4
5.3
9.4
9.4
9.4
10.0
9.2
7.4
6.8
10.5

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

7 .7
7 .1
4,.9
5,.8
7,.2
7,.4
7.,2
8,,2
7..3
8..8
8..7
11..4

MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
Ql.. .
02...
03...
04...

1|
|
|
|
1

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




io..6
10.
.4
9 .6
"
8..3

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

12 .1
7 .5
13 .1
8,.6

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

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

8.2
6.6
7.6
5.2

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,.0
7,,5

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

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

9.,2
14.,4
12.,0
11. 5

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

12,.8
12,.0
7,.3
10,.9

11..2
14. 2
9..3
8..7

28.,0
13.,9
22.,3
24.,1

6.1
18.8
17.1
16.9

10..1
9..9
9..4
9.,7

11.9
11.3
10.4
11.1

10..9
14..7
11..1
12.,9

8..4
15..7
13..8
11..1

7.,0
9..9
12..3
10.,8

12,.6
18,.0
11,.8
11,.9

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.E
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

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

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

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

ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

11.2
12.5
11.4
9.8
7.8
7.5
7.8
9.5
8.4
9.2
9.0
ND

10.9
12.3
11.5
10.2
8.2
8.0
8.3
10.1
8.8
9.6
9.4
9.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
Ql. . .
02...
Q3. . .
04.. .

9 .1
9 .2
9 .0
8..5

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

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

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

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

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

10,.2
10,,1
10,,1
9..9

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

9 .8
9 .8
9 ,1
9,.3

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

8.2
8.5
8.5
7.9

9,.9
9,,9
9.,9
9..4

Ql...
02.. .
03...
04.. .

8..2
8.,8
9.,0
9. 2

9..1
9..0
9.,0
9.,3

9,,1
9,,1
9.,1
9. 2

9.,2
9,,1
9,.2
9, 4

9.,2
8.,2
9,,0
9, 4

7,,2
7. 9
8. 5
8. 6

9.,7
9.,5
9.,7
9.,9

9.,4
9..4
9.,6
9..7

9.,2
9..2
9.,4
9,.4

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

7.4
8.1
8.4
8.7

9..4
9.,3
9.,6
9,,5




ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.F
PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

12

OTHER

BY SIZE
OF BANK

to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

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

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

60.8
58.5
66.0
64.0
61.2
64.5
70.4
73.6
69.1
68.0
62.7
60.2

67,,0
69,.1
67,,5
67,.8
78,.6
83,,9
80,.2
76,,7
62,.2
67,.0
51,.1
63,,1

79,.1
83,.6
69,.4
70,.0
82,.9
86,.9
83,.7
79,,9
65,.4
71,,4
57,.1
70,.8

52,.6
47,> 2
59,.3
56,.1
55,,5
58,.9
59,.7
62,,3
57,.9
57,.9
51,,3
50,,5

1

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

61,.4
61,.0
65,.2
65,.1
71,.7
76,.7
75,.1
73,.8
63,.1
65,.8
54,.4
60,,7

65,.3
71,.4
76,.8
81,.5
78,.5
84,.6
82,.9
83,,9
58,.1
66,.4
55,.0
45,.6

39,,5
40,.0
61,,6
69,.3
63,.5
70,.0
74,.3
75,.9
71,,2
73,,2
59,.4
66,,0

63 .8
59 .7
68 .3
68,.8
66,.3
70,.3
72 .3
73,.0
67,,3
67,,8
68 .5
68,.6

54,.9
32,,9
40,.0
40,.6
47,.8
48,.2
51,.6
53,,1
32,.9
49,,9
46,.7
58,.2

63.2
73.6
51.2
50.3
75.3
78.1
75.7
72.2
61.4
64.3
42.0
52.0

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER
1998 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

56.6
54.6
54.7
51.6

59.4
76.2
51.6
39.9

56.6
60.1
54.2
66.2

70,

1999 Ql.
02.
03.
04.

46.4
73.7
70.2
62.3

50.2
66.6
44.6
31.2

65.2
72.5
69.1
59.9




68,

58.1
48.2
28.3
38.9

41.2
34.9
47.4
44.4

60.5
58.0
55.7
56.4

56.7
50.5
57.7
55.9

67.0
61.9
59.3
60.8

52.6
51.7
52.4
48.1

53.9
57.6
61.9
55.8

59.1
51.1
44.1
45.7

63,
72,
71,
65.4

33.9
75.5
48.8
54.1

33.2
79.2
86.3
82.6

47.0
57.6
50.2
54.2

50.4
58.8
51.4
58.0

55.0
66.2
62.3
57.9

43.5
83.3
86.4
66.5

43.4
91.5
94.3
91.8

50.8
58.6
48.6
41.7

68.

67,

e

#

#

e

Table I.G

Effective
interest
rate
(percent)
All Loans
Under 5 percent

e

#

#

»

•

,

.

•

•

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS.1
BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE
Memo:
Percentage
Distribution of
Number of Loans,

November
1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Aug 99

Nov 99

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

-

-

-

12

8

-

-

-

-

7

8

3

*

*

*

-

-

-

-

1

*

*

*

5

9

3

*

*

8

6

23

9

1

7

11

27

34

31

30

7

25

5.0 to 5.9

-

-

-

6.0 to 6.9

-

-

2

20

26

15

10

19

7.0 to 7.9

-

-

16

16

16

27

12

8.0 to 8.9 . . . . . ,

-

-

10

22

20

23

9.0 to 9 . 9 . . . . .

1

3

17

16

18

20

30

25

31

22

36

30

38

10.0 to 10.9...

10

36

18

7

3

6

25

16

16

12

17

39

22

11.0 to 11.9 . . .

29

24

22

1

2

6

9

4

6

2

5

17

6

12.0 to 12.9 . . .

41

30

10

-

1

1

1

*

1

5

1

13.0 to 13.9 . . .

17

5

4

-

1

*

*

*

*

1

*

14.0 to 14.9 . . .

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 2 1 . 9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

—

22.0 to 22.9 . . .

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

23.0 to 2 3 . 9 . . .

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

24.0 to 24.9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

25.0 and over..

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1. Percentage distribution of the estimated total dollar amount of non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks during
the week covered by the survey, which is the first full business week of the month specified.
Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve survey of terms of bank lending to farmers. Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
* Indicates less than .5 percent.



14
TABLE I.H.I
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 1-5, 1999
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

ALL BANKS
1
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
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

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




051,926
31,823
14.73
7.02
2.83

63,260
15,627
9.95
5.31
2.67

112,099
7,487
11.91
6.48
2.77

126,997
3,743
13.59
7.86
2.57

174,266
2,659
20.01
11.25
2.81

236,799
1,661
16. 29
8. 84
2. 78

338,506
645
13.20
3.77
2.99

9.17
0.07

9.88
0.08

9.68
0.12

9.46
0.19

9.45
0.07

8. 93
0. 16

8.77
0.10

9.92
8.53

10.47
9.21

10.25
9.11

10.24
8.57

10.20
8.65

9,,58
8,,30

9.43
8.03

9.37
9.17
9.39
9.20
8.42
8.69

9.88
9.94
9.94
9.95
9.88
9.32

9.28
9.74
9.81
9.54
9.78
9.26

9.45
9.62
9.62
9.45
8.32
8.85

9.43
9.32
9.49
9.64
8.52
9.53

9,,38
8,,26
9,.09
9,,15
8,.12
8 .57

9.20
9.01
9.05
8.40
8.51
8.38

62.85
65.84
18.75
2.91

55.51
64.36
26.07
0.20

58.53
65.02
26.94
0.19

50.02
48.15
25.32
0.48

60.89
61.02
22.78
0.88

56 .02
62 .30
15 .65
0 .63

76.26
77.99
12.30
7.87

14.17
9.36
44.03
8.17
4.58
19.69

6.85
9.10
62.73
10.43
1.78
9.10

9.00
7.98
60.96
10.39
2.21
9.46

20.30
11.60
47.31
7.11
1.56
12.13

19.82
12.47
37.19
9.71
2.80
18.01

16 .93
6 .72
45 .74
8 .43
9 .52
12 .67

10.12
9.28
36.01
6.42
4.49
33.67

14.45
78.91

8.51
80.16

8.66
83.93

9.95
82.10

15.24
79.33

12 .81
83 .07

19.90
72.69

TABLE I.H.2
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 1-5, 1999
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

598,545
12, 146
13 .38
3 .96
3 .06

20,372
5,:193
8 .52
2 .79
3 .14

42,465
2 / 799
10 .42
3 .58
3 .17

52,628
1,!528
11 .48
3 .71
3 .07

82,420
l,:221
11 .06
4 .15
3 .12

131,566
927
16 .03
6 .27
3 .03

269,094
478
14 .00
2 .99
3 .04

8 .88
0 .07

9 .67
0 .10

9 .48
0 .05

9 .30
0 .13

9 .13
0 .14

8 .88
0 .10

8 .58
0 .16

9 .65
8 .16

10 .24
9 .11

10 .15
8 .87

9 .92
8 .57

9 .92
8 .57

9 .50
8 .30

9 .11
8 .01

9 .37
8 .81
9 .10
8 .81
8 .68

9 .51
9 .47
9 .82
9 .84
9 .47

9 .53
9 .38
9 .63
9 .18
9 .13

9 .31
9 .34
9 .36
9 .49
9 .15

9 .42
9 .02
9 .11
9 .68
8 .94

9 .39
8 .88
8 .90
8 .91
8 .76

9 .27
8 .42
8 .92
8 .40
8 .51

81 .27
87 .70
18 .30

75 .98
84 .91
30 .72

72 .04
82 .34
32 .21

80 .50
84 .07
24 .72

77 .86
86 .10
26 .57

80 .82
90 .36
16 .42

84 .54
88 .67
12 .29

9 .63
10 .03
39 .68
7 .22
4 .73
19 .69

7 .17
6 .53
61 .07
5 .08
1 .51
9 .10

9 .48
7 .76
52 .73
7 .90
2 .08
9 .46

16 .77
12 .79
47.27
4 .86
1 .87
12 .13

14 .47
13 .76
35 .16
5 .50
3 .83
18 .01

12 .90
9 .46
41 .33
7 .58
5 .92
12 .67

5 .35
9 .25
35 .10
8 .08
5 .65
33 .67

16 .49
76 .33

17 .75
74 .82

11 .57
83 .52

10 .20
83 .91

14 .80
80 .42

15 .81
78 . 66

19 .25
71 .43

LARGE FARM LENDERS 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
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
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

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




15

16
TABLE I.H.3
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 1-5, 1999
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)

15
$250 and over 1 6

LI sizes

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

453,382
19,676
16 .44
10,.97
2 .44

42,889
10,434
10.60
6.49
2.41

69,634
4,688
12.78
8.20
2.49

74,368
2,215
15.05
10.77
2.08

91,846
1,438
27.61
17.39
2.45

105,233
734
16. 61
11. 97
2. 41

69,411
167
10.19
6.73
2.79

9 .54
0 .16

9.98
0.10

9.80
0.19

9.57
0.32

9.74
0.22

9. 00
0. 29

9.53
0.07

10 .20
9 .00

10.52
9.25

10.65
9.24

10.38
8.57

10.42
9.00

9. 58
8. 30

9.50
9.14

9 .37
9 .73
9 .69
9 .60
8 .05
9 .60

10.06
10.09
9.99
9.97
10.04
9.41

9.12
9.96
9.91
9.69
10.14
9.15

9.52
9.86
9.80
9.43
7.50
8.62

9.44
9.65
9.80
9.62
7.76
10.91

9. 37
6. 00
9. 29
9. 40
7. 79
9. 18

9.14
11.25
9.50
9.42
10.00
9.36

38 .54
36 .98
19 .35
0 .03

45.79
54.61
23.86
0.29

50.29
54.46
23.73

28.46
22.73
25.74

45.65
38.51
19.38

25. 01
27. 23
14. 68

44.18
36.59
12.36

20 .18
8 .48
49 .77
9 .42
4 .38
19 .69

6.70
10.32
63.52
12.98
1.91
9.10

8.71
8.11
65.98
11.91
2.28
9.46

22.79
10.75
47.34
8.70
1.34
12.13

24.63
11.31
39.02
13.48
1.87
18.01

21. 97
3. 28
51. 25
9. 48
14. 02
12. 67

28.62
9.40
39.56
10.96
44.07
33.67

11 .75
82 .32

4.12
82.70

6.88
84.18

9.77
80.82

15.63
78.35

9. 05
88. 59

22.42
77.58

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

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




-

-

-

-

TABLE I.H.4
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 1-5, 1999
Loans to farmers

Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

ALL BANKS
1
2
3
4
5

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

(thousands)
1

maturity (months)
repricing interval (months)2
risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4
Standard error 5
7
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




1,051,926
31,823
14,.73
7,.02
2,.83

96, 672
4,i053
16 .92
7 .13
1 .00

199,189
5,1835
17 .79
12 .62
2 .00

386, 791
10,!951
14 .99
4 .62
3 .00

129,i254
3,1532
12 .10
2 .43
4 .00

55,!929
l,:330
7 .13
1 .73
5 .00

71,522
l,i064
14 .10
12 .92

112,571
5,057
13.44
9.83

9 .17
0,.07

8 .82
0 .16

9 .14
0 .12

9 .01
0 .12

9 .10
0 .15

9 .47
0 .22

9 .05
0 .44

10.06
0.32

9,.92
8,.53

9 .60
8 .25

9 .75
8 .57

9 .58
8 .30

9 .49
8 .57

10 .20
8 .84

10 .00
8 .09

10.79
9.20

9,.37
9,.17
9,.39
9,.20
8,.42
8,.69

8 .86
7 .62
9 .26
8 .61
8 .08
8 .14

9 .28
9 .69
9 .27
9 .85
8 .12
8 .43

9 .47
8 .86
9 .24
8 .89
8 .64
8 .49

8 .87
8 .31
9 .18
9 .89
8 .67
9 .04

9 .23
8 .67
9 .57
10 .57
11 .19
9 .43

9 .78
9 .68
9 .64
8 .57
9 .47
7 .58

10.14
9.77
10.01
10.64
8.67
10.82

62.85
65.84
18.75
2.91

54,.38
54,.14
16,.46
20,.78

50,.31
64..85
15,.11
0..60

72,.36
71,.46
20.03
2,.41

92 .47
74 .73
13 .41

91,.18
83,.83
7,.98

21,.99
76,.87
0,.76

37.53
32.22
45.69

14.17
9.36
44.03
8.17
4.58
19.69

24..16
7,.71
46,.95
5,.37
6,.92
8,.89

24..48
13..51
34..74
4..27
7..02
15..98

9..51
6,.73
45,.43
11,.94
6,.16
20..23

5 .37
7 .49
38 .28
8 .30
0,.64
39,.93

16,.62
4,.21
58,.78
1,.68
0,.50
18..71

5,.69
7,.77
51,.44
11,.78
3,.61
22 .93

17.70
18.21
47.68
5.26
10.50
8.86

14.45
78.91

11,.98
82,.75

17..58
73..07

15..74
78..68

18,.47
78,.67

19..51
68..09

0,.15
95,.08

8.52
82.13

17
TABLE I.H.5
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 1-5, 1999
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

38,264
999
10.67
5.14

LARGE FARM LENDERS 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)
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




4

598,545
12,146
13.,38
3.,96
3.,06

33,231
720
7. 50
2. 53
1.00

95,085
1,538
11. 37
5. 38
2. 00

265,905
5,403
16. 94
4. 62
3. 00

92,859
2,219
13. 21
1. 98
4. 00

50,858
1,032
5.13
0. 61
5. 00

22,343
236
11. 08
7. 00

8.,88
0.,07

9. 13
0, 17

8. 90
0, 23

8.,73
0. 22

8.89
0. 10

9. 46
0. 28

7.,86
0.,39

9.54
0.27

9.,65
8,,16

9.,60
8,,74

9.,69
8.,22

9.,38
8,,03

9. 38
8. 56

10. 20
8. 75

8.,57
7.,36

10.01
9.20

9,.37
8,,81
9,.10
8 .81
8 ,68
8 .50

9.,00
9.,66
9,,28
7,.79
7,.92
8,.62

9.,51
9.,19
9.,10
10..04
8,.72
8,.20

9.,41
8.,39
8,,90
8..72
8,.66
8,.48

9. 41
8. 14
9. 00
9. 07
8. 67
8. 90

9. 27
8. 67
9. 58
10. 42
11. 19
9. 41

9.,65
9..17
8,.35
8,.62
9,.47
7,.56

9.96
9.44
9.56
9.27
7.79
9.72

81 .27
87 .70
18 .30
5 .09

79,.03
79.11
11 .55
60 .46

70,.32
93 .77
22 .34
1 .25

83,.14
90.05
15 .30
3 .45

95. 11
92. 69
11. 63

94. 20
84.,85
2.,47

63 .07
99 .56
2 .42

57.30
48.56
81.38

9 .63
10 .03
39 .68
7 .22
4.73
19 .69

31 .12
3 .29
57 .08
2 .13
0 .41
8 .89

18 .51
10 .40
31 .40
1 .80
7 .73
15 .98

6 .39
7 .72
36 .22
13 .37
7 .42
20.23

2. 97
9. 89
43.,06
4.,56
0.,90
39.,93

15.,54
4.,62
60.,04
0.,67
0.,55
18.,71

0 .50
7 .56
17 .78
2 .99
3 .87
22 .93

4.97
40.02
46.71
5.45
7.12
8.86

16 .49
76 .33

5 .00
90 .91

27 .84
63 .46

20 .26
73 .52

8.,95
87.,86

16.,23
70.,12

0 .48
91 .27

8.01
86.67

-

-

-

-

-

-

18
TABLE I.H.6
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 1-5, 1999
Loans to farmers

Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

OTHER BANKS 7
1
2
3
4
5

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

(thousands)
1

maturity (months)
repricing interval (months)2
risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4
Standard error 5
7
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




453,382
19,676
16 .44
10 .97
2 .44

63,441
3,333
21 .86
9 .54
1 .00

104,:104
4,:298
23 .53
19 .11
2 .00

120, 885
5,1548
10 .75
4 .61
3 .00

36,:395
l,:313
9 .46
3 .54
4 .00

5,1070
298
26 .23
12 .86
5 .00

49, 179
828
14 .97
14 .63

74,307
4,058
14.86
12.24

9 .54
0 .16

8 .66
0 .27

9.36
0 .19

9 .62
0 .17

9 .63
0 .36

9 .50
0 .20

9 .59
0 .38

10.34
0.40

10 .20
9 .00

9 .31
8 .25

9 .92
8 .87

10 .14
9 .07

10 .51
9 .36

9 .75
8 .91

10 .00
9 .50

11.50
9.68

9 .37
9 .73
9 .69
9 .60
8 .05
9 .60

8 .76
7 .27
9 .25
8 .73
8 .08
7 .99

9 .15

8 .52
11 .41
9 .95
10 .43
9 .82
9 .36

8 .96
9 .45
10 .65
7 .25
9 .75

9 .79
9 .91
9 .79
8 .57
9 .28
10 .29

10.16

9 .39
9 .81
7 .47
10 .53

9 .53
10 .59
9 .66
9 .48
8 .57
9 .15

38 .54
36 .98
19 .35
0 .03

41 .47
41 .06
19 .03
0 .20

32 .04
38 .43
8 .51

48 .66
30 .56
30 .42

85 .73
28 .91
17 .96

60 .92
73 .59
63 .21

3 .33
66 .56
41 .26

27.35
23.80
9.43

20 .18
8 .48
49 .77
9 .42
4 .38
19 .69

20 .52
10 .02
41 .64
7 .07
10 .33
8 .89

29 .92
16 .36
37 .79
6 .52
6 .37
15 .98

16 .36
4 .55
65 .71
8 .81
3 .39
20 .23

11 .49
1 .38
26 .06
17 .83
7 .09
39.93

27 .45
76 .28
46 .14
11 .80
665 .17
18 .71

8 .06
10 .53
66 .73
17 .13
26 .07
22.93

24.25
11.13
48.18
7.07
34.50
8.86

11,.75
82,.32

15,.64
78,.47

8 .21
81 .85

5 .78
90 .02

42 .76
55 .22

52 .31
47 .69

19 .49
96 .81

20.28
79.79

-

-

10.24
10.81
8.67
11.19

-

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)
LS

CB

USDA Farm Production Region
NP
AP
SE
DL

2.2

12.0

25.6

17.2

9.1

4.6

4.8

8.5

5.9

9.8

Sample Coverage,
Aug. 1999 survey (%)

18.8

3.4

10.1

12.9

20.5

7.9

5.2

5.8

22.3

47.1

Avg. Loan Size,
Aug. 1999 survey ($1000)
Survey date:
Nov.
1992
Feb.
1993
May
1993
Aug.
1993
Nov.
1993
Feb.
1994
May
1994
Aug.
1994
Nov.
1994
Feb.
1995
May
1995
Aug.
1995
Nov.
1995
Feb.
1996

72.0

19.6

30.1

29.7

41.5

21.5

24.3

33.0

50.9

83.1

7.9
7.8
8.1
8.2
8.3
7.7
8.7
9.1
10.2
11.7
9.0
9.6
10.8
8.8
(32)

Weighted Average Interest Rate During Sample Week
9.2
8.3
7.9
5.5
7.3
8.4
9.0
8.0
8.0
5.6
8.3
7.8
8.7
8.1
7.9
5.2
8.4
7.8
7.5
8.2
8.0
5.7
7.3
7.0
8.1
7.4
7.8
5.3
6.3
8.2
8.6
7.9
7.5
5.2
7.3
7.7
9.0
8.0
8.1
6.1
8.2
7.8
8.6
8.3
8.6
6.5
8.6
7.6
9.7
8.9
8.5
7.1
8.5
8.8
10.7
10.0
9.9
8.6
7.2
10.4
10.4
9.3
9.4
8.5
10.2
10.7
10.3
9.3
9.8
8.1
9.6
10.4
10.3
8.3
9.6
7.9
10.1
10.3
9.9
8.0
9.4
7.3
9.4
10.9
(.25)
(1.10)
(.22)
(.99)
031)
022)

o

NE

<N

Proportion of farm loans
outstanding, Jun. 1999

SP

MN

PA

8.2
7.8
8.3
7.7
7.8
7.6
8.4
8.6
9.0
10.4
10.1
10.1
9.8
9.9
(.24)

7.6
7.5
7.7
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.6
8.0
9.4
9.3
9.4
9.3
8.9
085)

6.9
6.5
6.8
7.2
6.7
6.9
7.2
7.5
8.5
9.4
9.3
9.5
8.9
8.1
(.65)

May

1996

10.3
(.25)

10.2
(.13)

7.3
093)

9.0
(38)

8.1
(JO

9.6
(.68)

10.4
036)

9.8
(.25)

8.7
078)

8.3
065)

Aug.

1996

8.3
(.87)

9.9
(.18)

8.9
(.49)

9.4
(.25)

7.6
(.82)

9.4
059)

10.0
037)

9.4
018)

8.9
058)

8.1
056)

Nov.

1996

10.1
(.21)

9.9
(.14)

9.3
(.11)

9.0
055)

7.5
08%

9.3
057)

9.9
040)

9.1
(.25)

9.0
075)

8.6
048)

Feb.

1997

8.8
(.11)

9.5
(.26)

9.5
(12)

9.3
(.22)

8.0
051)

9.9
032)

9.5
035)

9.5
(.24)

10.1
027)

8.7
035)

May

1997

9.4
(.43)

10.1
(.17)

9.2
(.22)

9.5
(.27)

8.3
062)

9.9
066)

10.2
029)

9.7
(.23)

10.0
029)

8.7
051)

Aug.

1997

9.3
(.47)

9.8
(.18)

9.6
(.14)

9.9
(.08)

8.5
(.26)

10.1
(.24)

9.9
012)

9.7
027)

10.5
023)

8.7
(.34)

Nov.

1997

9.2
(.41)

9.5
(.17)

9.3
(.10)

9.8
(.08)

7.5
(.60)

9.8
Oil)

9.4
(.05)

9.4
038)

10.1
057)

8.8
031)

Feb.

1998

9.3
(.51)

9.0
(.27)

9.4
(.17)

9.8
(.09)

7.3
(.77)

10.0
(.48)

10.3
013)

9.8
(.30)

9.6
043)

8.5
019)

May

1998

9.2
(.49)

9.4
(.24)

9.2
(.15)

9.7
010)

7.6
(.54)

10.2
012)

10.3
(.34)

9.6
030)

9.8
(-42)

8.4
039)

Aug.

1998

10.2
(.19)

9.5
(21)

9.5
(.12)

9.5
017)

8.8
017)

9.5
(.29)

9.7
(.29)

9.5
(.28)

9.6
(.47)

8.5
(33)

Nov.

1998

9.4
(01)

9.2
(28)

8.7
(.20)

9.0
012)

8.3
038)

9.4
031)

9.7
(.20)

9.2
032)

9.1
059)

8.0
(.38)

Feb.

1999

8.4
(.40)

8.9
(.20)

8.9
(.15)

9.1
012)

8.2
020)

9.0
023)

9.6
013)

9.1
(.52)

9.0
041)

7.5
051)

May

1999

9.6
(.19)

9.1
(13)

8.8
(.15)

9.0
008)

8.0
016)

9.0
(33)

9.8
(.35)

9.0
(.43)

8.7
(.40)

8.0
022)

Aug.

1999

10.2
(.29)

8.9
(.56)

8.7
(.14)

9.3
018)

8.2
(.22)

8.9
(37)

10.0
055)

8.8
065)

9.0
019)

8.5
023)

Nov.

1999

9.1
(67)

9.2
(.67)

8.8
(29)

9.4
015)

8.3
031)

8.8
(.50)

9.8
(.37)

9.0
037)

9.5
016)

8.8
(.28)

* NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is
Southeast, DL is Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific.
Standard errors are in parentheses below the more recent estimates. Standard errors are calculated from
100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.



SECTION II: SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLES:

Page

Commercial banks:
II.A
ILB
II.C
II.D
II.E

Estimated volume of farm loans at insured commercial banks
Estimated delinquent non-real-estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
Estimated net charge-offs of non-real-estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
Estimated delinquent real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
Estimated net charge-offs of real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks

24
25
26
27
28

Agricultural banks:
II P Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans
II.G Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity
II.H Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks
II I Failures of agricultural banks

29
30
31
32

SOURCES OF DATA:
The data in tables H.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 ILB and table n.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 charge-offs of "agricultural loans." In constructing the
data presented in the tables, banks that are not required to report these data are assumed to have the same delinquency rates as those that do report. In
1991, banks began to report delinquencies of loans that are secured by farm real estate. These data, which are shown in tables E D and H 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 ILB to its counterpart in table II.D to obtain
total agricultural delinquencies. A similar caveat applies to the data concerning charge-offs in tables n.C and H 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 16.2 percent in September of 1999.
Information on failed banks (table ELI) 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)
Revisions to Previous Estimates
During the preparation of the current edition of the Databook, two programming errors were discovered that affect some of the data presented in this
section. First, the volume of delinquencies and charge-offs of loans secured by farm real estate had not been included in the totals presented in Table II.D
and Table HE. As a result, the numbers reported in the current publication are greater than those previously published. Second, a small number of
noncommercial banking institutions had been included in the calculation of the farm loan ratio beginning in 1995. Because these institutions had very few
agricultural loans, including them pulled down the average farm loan ratio, and as a result, a small number of banks that had a farm loan ratio between the
old threshold and the new were incorrectly included with agricultural banks in the calculations presented in tables H F through HI.
Recent Developments:
Loans outstanding: During the third quarter of 1999, growth in the total volume of farm loans fell to the lowest level in more than a decade. The volume
of non-real-estate farm loans, fell more than 4 percent from the previous year, while the volume of farm real estate loans was 8.6 percent greater
than one year earlier. Some of the increase of real estate loans relative to other farm loans likely reflects more stringent collateral requirements by
lenders.
Problem loans: Through the end of the third quarter of 1999, the rate of delinquency on either farm non-real-estate loans or loans secured by farm real
estate was about the same as one year earlier. To some degree, the improvement in the volume of delinquencies reflects an increase in chargeoffs
as banks dealt with an upturn in problem loans that began to surface towards the end of 1998. Also reflecting this improvement in banks balance
sheets, the proportion of agricultural banks that reported a level of nonperforming loans that was less than 2 percent of total loans was above the
proportion below this threshold one year earlier.
Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks in through the third quarter of 1999 slipped slightly relative to
Q3 of 1998, as the chargeoffs noted above cut a bit into earnings. The capital ratio for agricultural banks edged down relative to one year earlier,
though it remained roughly in line with the average over the past 3 or 4 years. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks increased from
the previous year, and remains remarkably high by historical standards.
Failures of agricultural banks: Despite the hints of financial stress at some agricultural banks, only one failed in 1999, and one agricultural bank failed in
1998. Given the strong capital positions and low levels of problem loans of most agricultural banks, 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
further as well.




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
TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONRBAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONRBAL
ESTATE
LOANS

1990 04...

50.1

17.2

32.9

-0.8

-0.6

-0.9

1991 Ql...
Q2...
03...
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

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

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

1994 Ql...
Q2...
03...
Q4...

56.8
61.1
63.0
61.3

21.2
21.9
22.4
22.6

1995 Ql...
02...
Q3...
04...

59.9
63.5
65.3
63.7

1996 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

TOTAL
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

5.7

3.5

6.9

-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

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

-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

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

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

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...
02...
Q3...
04...

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...
02...
03...
04...

70.1
75.0
76.3
74.7

27.6
28.5
28.9
29.3

42.4
46.5
47.4
45.5

-1.7
7.1
1.7
-2.0

1.8
3.2
1.3
1.3

-3.9
9.6
1.9
-4.0

9.8
8.6
7.2
4.8

9.0
8.8
7.2
7.8

10.4
8.5
7.3
3.0

1999 Ql...
02...
03...

72.7
75.8
76.8

29.7
30.8
31.4

42.9
45.1
45.5

-2.8
4.4
1.3

1.7
3.5
1.9

-5.6
5.0
0.9

3.7
1.1
0.7

7.6
8.0
8.6

1.1
-3.1
-4.1




•

•

#

e

#

|

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

#

#

#

|

"

24

TABLE II.B
ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION

NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONPERFORMING

NONACCRUAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

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

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

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

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

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

2 .3
2 .4

0 .8
1,.2

1 .5
1,.3

0,.4
0,.3

1 .0
1 .0

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

December 31 of year indicated1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

1,,0
1..1
1..0
0,.8
0..8
0,.8
1.,0
0..9
1.,0

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

0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

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

03...
04.. .

1
1

1 .0
1..0

0 .3
0,.5

0.6
0.5

0 .2
0 .1

0. 4
0,.4

01.. .
02...
03...
Q4. . .

I
1
I
1

I-.3
1-.0
o ,9
o.,9

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

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5

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,.0
0,.7
0,,9

1 .5
1,.4
1,,3
1..1

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

1 .0
0 .9
0,.9
0,.9

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

1. 3
1. 1
1. 0
1. 0

0..8
0..5
0,,4
0.,5

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5

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

0. 4
0. 4
0. 4
0. 4

3,.2
2,,4
2,.1
2.,2

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

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

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

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

01.. .
02...
03...

1, 6
1. 3
1. 0

0, 9
0. 5
0. 4

0.7
0.7
0.6

0.,2
0. 2
0. 2

0. 4
0. 5
0. 5

3.,7
2.,8
2,,2

2. 1
1. 2
0. 8

1. 5
1. 6
1. 4

0. 5
0. 5
0. 4

1,,0
1.,1
1. 0

1
1

Data are estimates of the national totals for farm non-real-estate loans. After 1984, estimates are based on reports from
banks that hold more than 90 percent of such loans. Earlier, only large banks that held about one-fourth of such loans
reported nonaccrual and renegotiated farm loans; for other banks,estimates of delinquent farm loans are based on a study of
delinquent total loans at these banks.




TABLE II.C

ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUAL
TOTAL
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

82
54
69
51
95
93
87
**

Q1

Q2

Q3

04

ANNUAL
TOTAL

14
7
10
-2
16
6
4
18

20
16
11
14
27
19
15
37

29
5
15
13
24
19
24
35

18
26
33
25
30
50
45

0.24
0.15
0.19
0.13
0.24
0.23
0.20

**

**

Q1

Q2

03

04

0,.04
0.,02
0,.03
-0,.00
0,.04
0,.01
0,.01
0 .04

0.06
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.09

0..08
0,,01
0,,04
0.,03
0.,06
0..05
0,.05
0..08

0..05
0,.07
0..08
0..06
0,,07
0.,11
0,.09
* *

* 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.




25

26
TABLE II.D
DELINQUENT FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING
FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONPERFORMING

NONACCRUAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

2, .1

2.,4
2,.6
2,,3
2..5
2,.3

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

1,.3
1..6
1..7
1..4
1,,6
1,.5

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

0.,8
0,.9
1,.0
0,,8
0,.9
0..8

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

-December 31 of year indicated1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

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

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

0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.,2
0.,2
0..2
0..2
0.,2
0,.3
-End of quarter-

1996 02.
03.
04.

0.7
0.6
0.7

0.3
0.2
0.3

0.5
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.2
0.2

3.0
2.6
2.8

1.1
0.9
1.1

1.9
1.7
1.7

0.9
0.7
0.7

1.0
1.0
1.0

1997 Ql.
02.
03.
04.

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3

0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2

3.2
2.8
2.3
2.6

1.4
1.0
0.8
1.1

1.8
1.8
1.4
1.5

0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6

1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9

03.
04.

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3

1.6
1.0
0.9
1.2

1.9
1.6
1.6
1.7

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8

1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0

1999 Ql.
02.
03.

0.5
0.3
0.2

0.6
0.5
0.5

0.3
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3

1.6
1.0
0.8

2.0
1.7
1.5

0.9
0.8
0.7

1.0
0.9
0.8

1998 Ql.

02.

0.7

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




3.6
2.7
2.3

TABLE II.E

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

1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

44
24
10
12
7
16
6
* *

CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

Q1

Q2

03

Q4

ANNUAL
TOTAL

7
2
1
-0
0
-1
-1
-0

11
-1
1
3
1
-0
3
3

16
12
3
6
2
3
-0
5

10
11
6
4
4
14
5

0.23
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.02

* *

* *

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

0.,038
0,,010
0.,003
-0,,001
0,,000
-0,,003
-0,,004
-0,,001

0,,058
-0,,004
0.,003
0.,011
0,,003

0.079
0.056
0.013
0.027
0.009
0.010

0.049
0.054
0.026
0.016
0.017
0.054
0.016

-0.,001
0,,009
0,,011

-0.000

0.015

* *

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




27

TABLE II.F
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY THE SHARE OF THEIR LOANS THAT ARE NONPERFORMING*

28

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 indicated1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

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

69 .6
70 .8
76,.2
80,.6
85..5
83,.4
81, 9
84,.5
81,.7

22 .7
22 .3
18,.9
15..9
12..3
14,.0
15,.4
12,.9
15,.1

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

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

0,.6
0..2
0,,3
0,.2
0.,1
0..3

0..2

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

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

- Percentage distribution, end of quarter
1996 Q4.

100.0

81.9

15.4

2.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

1997 Ql.
02.
03.
04.

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

79.1
80.5
81.8
84.5

16.7
15.8
15,

3.7
3.2
2.7
2.5

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

1998 Ql.
02.
03.
04.

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

80.6
80.8

2.8
2.9

81,

16.3
15.9
16.2
15.1

0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

1999 Ql.
02.
03.

100.0
100.0
100.0

77,
78,
80.4

17.8
16.9
15.9

0.5
0.6
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0

80,

12,

* Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccrual status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured loans
in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to
section II.




TABLE II.O

SELECTED MEASURES OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS*

AVERAGE RATE
OF RETURN
TO EQUITY

NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE
OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT
AGRICULTURAL BANKS

ALL BANKS NEGATIVE

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996,
1997.
1998,

4.9
4.1
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.4
2.1
1.6
2.0

0
TO
4

5
TO
9

7.5
7.7
5.0
5.7
5.9
5.7
5.6
5.9
8.7

33.4
32.2
25.5
27.8
31.4
37.1
33.4
34.5
35.6

10
TO
14

15
TO
19

37.6 12.9
39.2 13.4
41.1 19.8
40.6 18.5
40.1 16.9
39.6 13.4
41.6 14.2
39.7 14.2
35.5 13.4

25
20
TO AND
24 OVER

2.6 1.1
2.5 0.9
5.1 1.7
4.6 1.3
3.3 0.9
2.3 0.6
2.6 0.5
3.1 1.1
3.5 1.3

AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)

NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS

RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

10.8
10.9
12.6
12.4
11.8
11.2
11.4
11.4
11.3

8.5
8.9
11.5
12.4
12.5
12.1
12.3
12.3
11.7

1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2

0.7
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.7
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

9.9
10.1
10.4
10.8
10.7
11.2
10.9
11.0
10.9

9.0
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.9
10.4
10.4
10.5
10.5

11.4

12.3

1.2

1.2

0.2

0.3

10.9

10.4

3.0
6.0
9.0
11.4

3.2
6.4
9.6
12.3

0.3
0.6
1.0
1.2

0.3
0.6
1.0
1.2

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3

11.0
11.2
11.3
11.0

10.5
10.6
10.7
10.5

3.0
6.1
8.9
11.3

3.3
6.4
9.1
11.7

0.3
0.6
1.0
1.2

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2

0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3

11.2
11.2
11.4
10.9

10.5
10.7
10.8
10.5

2.9
6.0
9.1

3.0
6.1
8.9

0.3
0.6
0.9

0.3
0.6
0.9

0.0
0.1
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.2

11.0
10.8
10.8

10.5
10.4
10.4

QUARTERLY

1996 Q4...
1997 01...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

**

WW
**
**

1998 Ql...
Q2...
03...
Q4...
1999 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...

|

|
1

**

WW
WW
WW

1
1
1

**

* Agricultural and other banks are defined In the Introduction to section II; small banks have less than 500 million dollars in assets.
Total primary and secondary capital (items that are available at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets.
Quarterly data in the lower panel are cumulative through the end of the quarter indicated and, for periods of less than a year, are not comparable to
the annual data in the upper panel.




30

TABLE II.H
AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*
DECEMBER 31

U.S.

OF
BANKS

CLEVELAND

TO
OF
DEPOSITS BANKS

ATLANTA

TO
OF
DEPOSITS BANKS

CHICAGO

MINNEAPOLIS

ST. LOUIS

KANSAS
CITY

DALLAS

SAN
FRANCISCO

MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO

LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS

1993..,.
1994 ....
1995. . , .
1996
1997
1998

3723
3530
3352
3239
3101
2968

0.582
0.626
0.639
0.656
0.685
0.683

67
56
53
49
45
40

0.660
0.707
0.720
0.771
0.747
0.763

130
124
118
113
113
99

0.618
0.644
0.657
0.684
0.704
0.709

912
857
816
795
759
733

0..600
0..642
0.,652
0..680
0..719
0. 711

432
398
375
363
346
321

0.590
0.627
0.651
0.663
0.698
0.693

669
656
619
609
574
558

0 .615
0,.675
0..682
0..699
0,.725
0, 715

1063
1012
959
928
890
868

0 ,566
0 ,618
0 .634
0,,643
0 .680
0,.681

378
360
344
313
312
289

0.442
0.476
0.489
0.491
0.523
0.529

58
52
53
52
49
48

0,.733
0..784
0..740
0. 735
0..661
0..660

17 .04
17 .10
16 .83
16,.45
16,.44
16,.34

1996 Q4...

3239

0.656

49

0.771

113

0.684

795

0.680

363

0.663

609

0.699

928

0.643

313

0.491

52

0.735

16.45

1997 01.,
Q2. .
03..
04. .

3219
3202
3161
3101

0.659
0.690
0.702
0.685

45
50
51
45

0.775
0.802
0.801
0.747

115
129
128
113

0.699
0.727
0.735
0.704

782
772
771
759

0.684
0.710
0.729
0.719

357
359
355
346

0.664
0.699
0.717
0.698

603
591
583
574

0.699
0.739
0.749
0.725

922
910
898
890

0.643
0.677
0.688
0.680

326
321
308
312

0.498
0.535
0.543
0.523

51
49
49
49

0.723
0.705
0.674
0.661

16.04
16.63
16.70
16.44

1998 Ql..
02. .
03. .
04. .

3058
3065
3036
2968

0.686
0.717
0.724
0.683

45
46
46
40

0.761
0.769
0.786
0.763

109
110
109
99

0.713
0.736
0.751
0.709

740
737
733
733

0.724
0.746
0.750
0.711

328
341
341
321

0.691
0.725
0.734
0.693

570
570
569
558

0.727
0.769
0.768
0.715

886
889
880
868

0.683
0.713
0.721
0.681

314
306
294
289

0.511
0.540
0.549
0.529

50
49
49
48

0.662
0.709
0.704
0.660

16.32
16.81
16.78
16.34

1999 01..
02. .
03. .

2957
2936
2918

0.689
0.716
0.735

42
43
44

0.793
0.824
0.844

100
101
106

0.719
0.733
0.746

720
719
716

0.719
0.743
0.765

317
314
319

0.688
0.730
0.745

550
552
547

0.723
0.762
0.775

868
856
846

0.684
0.700
0.721

297
287
275

0.532
0.542
0.567

48
51
51

0.692
0.733
0.737

16.04
16.26
16.23

* 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

1988. . . .,.
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994. . . ,
1995
1996
1997....
1998
1999

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

11
5
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

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

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

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

ANNUAL
TOTAL
36
22
17
8
7
5
0
0
2
1
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.

32
SECTION HI: F E D E R A L RESERVE B A N K QUARTERLY S U R V E Y S OF F A R M CREDIT CONDITIONS A N D F A R M L A N D VALUES
TABLES;
III.A Nonreal estate lending experience
III.B Expected change in non-real-estate loan volume and repayment conditions
III.C Average loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availability
III.D Interest rates
HI E Trends in real estate values and loan volume

Page
35
37
39
41
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 City. Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198
The original sample chosen in 1976 had 181 banks selected from banks at which farm loans constituted 50 percent or more of total loans, with appropriate
representation of all farm areas. The sample was redrawn and significantly expanded in 1987; roughly 300 banks responded to the latest survey.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480
Before 1987, the sample provided a cross-section of banks of all sizes that were engaged in farm lending. Members of the Upper Midwest Agricultural
Credit Council formed the core of the survey panel. Beginning in 1987, the sample was redrawn to include only banks at which farm loans represented 25
percent or more of total loans. As outlined above, the Minneapolis survey was changed considerably beginning in the first quarter of 1994. In recent
surveys, about 130 banks responded.



Section HI; (continued)
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. P.O. Box 655906, Dallas, Texas 75265-5906
The sample is stratified regionally and includes banks at which farm loans are relatively important or which hold a major portion of bank loans in their
region. The sample was enlarged in the first quarter of 1985 and was redrawn in the second quarter of 1989. The results for the most recent quarter were
based on the responses from about 200 respondents.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Richmond, Virginia 23261
The number of agricultural banks in this district is much smaller than those of the other districts. When the survey was initiated in 1975, the sample
consisted of 43 banks of all sizes; banks with larger amounts of farm loans were sampled more heavily. More recently, the sample has consisted of about
30 banks, roughly three-fourths of which typically respond to the quarterly surveys.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
Bankers responding to the surveys indicated that the demand for farm loans through the third quarter was about in line with that seen for the past few years
However, bankers in all districts, except Dallas, that report, noted that rates of loan repayment through the fall of 1999 remained considerably lower than
those reported one year earlier. This general weakness in loan repayments is a slight contrast to the fairly typical level of loan delinquencies that was
shown in section II of the Databook, although it is consistent with the small uptick in the volume of farm loans that were charged off that was noted in that
section. All districts noted elevated incidence of renewals and extensions of loans, and bankers in the Chicago, Kansas City, and Dallas districts reported
higher collateral requirements than had been the norm in recent years, suggesting some continuing concerns about repayment prospects.
Scanning through reported expectations for the third quarter, loans for farm machinery are anticipated to remain quite weak in all districts that report these
data, likely reflecting cautious equipment spending by farmers in the face of weak farm returns. In addition, bankers in the Chicago district anticipate
loans for general operating expenses to be stronger than usual. Banks in the Kansas City, Dallas, and Minneapolis districts, which had in the last few
surveys been reporting a pickup in referrals to nonbank agencies, noted such referrals this past fall about in line with those seen one year earlier.
Rates of interest reported in these Reserve bank surveys generally moved up in the third quarter of 1999, with the exception of the Kansas City district,
where on balance, rates were about flat. As discussed in section I of the Databook, estimated rates increased some more in the fourth quarter of 1999,
suggesting that coming Reserve bank surveys should show a tendency to increase as well.
Relative to one year earlier, nominal prices of nonirrigated farmland in the third quarter were up in the Chicago, Dallas, and Minneapolis districts.
However, prices fell sharply in the Richmond district and were about flat for all types of farm land in the Kansas City district. In addition prices for
irrigated land and ranch land were slipped in the Dallas district.




•

•

•

•

e

e

#

• ,

. •

#
34

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.A
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
DEMAND FOR LOANS
LOWER
III.A1
1997 Q3 •. •
Q4...

SAME

FUND AVAILABILITY

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

HIGHER

LOWER

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*

SAME

HIGHER

47
52

42
34

17
11

69
69

14
20

15
19

77
68

8
14

1998 Ql...
Q2 • • •
Q3...
04...

8
15
19
20

49
44
46
47

42
42
35
34

12
13
10
6

64
71
75
66

24
16
14
28

27
31
43
51

64
65
53
42

1999 Ql...
02...
03...

19
21
22

42
44
46

39
36
32

8
10
17

65
72
71

27
18
12

63
52
41

35
45
55

III.A2
1997 03...
04...

61
60

33
34

1998 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

5
7
14
13

69
63
59
66

1999 Ql...
02...
03...

15
14
18

66
66
60

III.A3
1997 03...
04...

6

67
72

12
13

25
30
26
20

12
16
16
9

68
69
69
73

20
20
22

9
10
22

68
73
66

HIGHER

LOWER

SAMEI HIGHER

io
14

77
72

13
14

9
4
3
7

8
3
3
7

64
64
56
45

2
3
4

4
3
3

39
44
53

1
1

|
1

0
1

92
90

8
9

29
33
41
48

1
1
1
0

89
86
80
75

11
14
19
25

57
53
44

0
0
0

69
70
74

31
30
26

7
13

75
76

18
12

20
15
15
18

15
25
44
47

76
72
55
51

22
17
12

46
31
29

I
1
1

|
|
1

1
0

91
92

8
8

15
9

79
79

7
12

9
3
2
2

6
4
2
3

79
74
60
56

15
22
38
41

53
66
68

1
3
3

3
3
3

52
67
69

45
30
28

14
15

71
64

15
21

|
1
|
1

0
* **

91
***

9
***

1
1

79
80

20
19

2
1
1

79
86
86

19
13
13

0
0

88
82

12
18

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX )
57
58

28
26

1998 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

14
24
28
17

62
49
50
54

1999 Ql.. .
02...
03...

27
22
29

49
63
52




|
I
|
1

21
16

15
1<?

|
1
1
1

SAME

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

6

I
1

LOWER

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

I*

I
1

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

|1
|1

3
3

80
74

17
24

16
21

67
60

17
19

24
27
22
30

3
4
5
2

76
70
71
77

21
26
24
22

16
29
52
52

71
64
45
42

13
8
3
7

14
9
3
3

69
64
51
44

16
26
46
52

2
0
1
0

86
82
73
69

13
18
26
31

25
15
19

5
2
5

72
74
80

22
24
15

48
25
27

48
63
62

4
12
11

4
8
10

43
61
64

52
31
27

0
0
1

66
74
73

34
26
27

|1
|1

|
|1

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

LOWER
Ill •A4

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

SAME

1
12

72
70

18
18

1

81
82

18
18

32
36
38
39

0
2
0
0

77
70
73
75

23
28
27
25

47
47
44

45
49
48

0
0
0

74
68
66

26
32
33

13

85
70

5
18

0
0

83
85

17
15

www

23
15

65
58

12
27

31
24

61
58

8
18

oi...

www

***

02...
03...
04...

***

www

***

***

***

***

www
www
www
www

13
15
27
12

59
66
56
63

28
19
17
24

35
44
52
45

54
52
42
46

11
4
6
8

4
3
5
2

64
61
57
59

***

***

***

www

***

***

www
www
www

8
11
14

71
64
71

21
25
15

56
52
59

34
41
39

10
7
2

6
3
7

io

01.. .
02...
03...
04...

01...
02...
03...




1
I
|1

11

o

***

1
11

SAME1 HIGHER

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

***

1997 03...
04.. .

LOWER

HIGHER

LOWER

***

III •A5

1999

SAME

***

1999 01.. .
02...
03...

1998

LOWER

HIGHER

***

1997 03...
04...
1998

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

FUND AVAILABILITY

DEMAND FOR LOANS

1

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV* )
1
1
I
1

7

88
78

5
5

28
23
25
32

10
16
21
35

88
77
71
55

3
6
7
10

8
6
7
10

80
74
75
55

13
19
18
35

3
0
0
0

85
81
71
71

13
19
29
29

28
30
23

24
4
26

76
93
71

0
4
3

7
4
3

72
89
71

21
7
26

0
0
0

68
81
77

32
19
23

76
60

22
35

20
13
7
13

0
6
0
3

73
71
75
65

0
0
11

3
4
11

69
67
66

73
70

12
18

8
13
29
19

73
73
64
68

41
19
26

59
81
63

11
1

18

2
5

15
13

|
1
|
1

|
1
|
1

36
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
TOTAL
LOWER SAME

|
I
|
1

HIGHER

9

61
54

28
37

1998 Ql...
Q2. . •
Q3...
Q4. . .

11
14
21
12

51
59
39
48

1999 Ql.. .
Q2...
Q3.. .

17
22
19

43
50
50

III.B2
1997 Q3 • • •
Q4...

12
8

38
26
40
40

33
38
38
31

61
59
52
65

39
28
31

27
29
22

65
65
60

1998 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
04...

16
30
32
26

63
51
48
49

1999 Ql...
02...
03...

29
24
23

50
61
60

|
1
|
1

1998 Ql.. .
Q2. . .
03...
Q4...
1999 oi...
02...
03...

|
1
|
1
|
1

LOWER SAME

CROP STORAGE
HIGHER

LOWER SAME

OPERATING

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

FARM MACHINERY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

24
24

69
69

7
7

6
3
10
4

22
24
20
14

67
68
71
76

8
6
18

20
19
15

70
73
75

15
14

62
69

24
17

20
19
20
25

25
34
37
34

68
58
56
53

21
16
17

21
20
24

64
64
58

18

|
1
|
1

io
12

59
62

31
26

11
8
9
10

13
12
12
32

64
64
33
59

10
9
10

35
36
22

9
5

59
49

32
46

23
24
55
9

7
7
9
9

43
51
39
34

58
51
57

7
13
21

11
11
13

13
18

67
68

21
14

I
1
|
1

|
1
|
1

12
11

52
53

36
36

50
42
52
57

17
33
68
55

56
56
27
36

27
11
5
9

33
43
46

56
46
41

63
65
62

31
30
33

6
5
5

I
!
|
1

|
1
|
1

12
11

66
57

22
32

16
17

63
67

21
16

17
24

81
72

2
4

7
8
7
13

17
20
19
15

71
79
78
78

7
0
3
6

17
10
21
17

78
76
58
68

6
15
21
14

15
23
24
23

64
53
46
49

21
23
30
28

21
32
41
40

59
58
54
50

20
10
5
10

14
16
17

15
17
23

79
71
76

5
6
1

15
15
24

76
68
61

9
17
14

23
19
20

50
56
56

26
25
24

43
26
34

49
61
58

8
13
8

20
17

60
79

20
3

20
8

61
66

20
26

29
18

54
66

17
16

1
I
1

|
I
I
1

|
|
1

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

1*
7

74
77

11
17

8
18
15
27

75
79
69
65

30
39
42

65
57
45




|
1
1

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

25

III.B3

|
I
|
1

65
69

68
62

1997 03...
04...

HIGHER

23
24

1*
14

I
|
1

LOWER SAME

DAIRY

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

III.B1
1997 Q3...
04...

FEEDER CATTLE

21
13

79
83

o
4

17
4
15
8

20
27
0
18

76
68
95
82

4
4
13

13
20
26

87
80
74

I
I
1

19
20

81
70

0
10

4
5
5
0

9
15
21
5

87
80
79
95

4
5
0
0

13
17
19
19

81
70
62
65

6
13
19
15

8
10
11
13

74
77
71
80

18
13
18
7

18
29
43
40

70
58
46
60

13
13
11
0

0
0
0

25
37
35

75
53
65

0
11
0

26
30
40

65
60
48

9
10
12

33
44
29

56
52
56

11
4
15

45
44
49

55
52
49

0
4
3

1
1

1
1

|
1
|
1

|
|
1

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B (CONTINUED)
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM LOANS DURING NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED WITH NORMAL DEMAND
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
FEEDER LIVESTOCK
LOWER SAME
III.B4

HIGHER

OTHER INTERMEDIATE
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

FARM REAL ESTATE
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

OTHER OPERATING
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

FARM MACHINERY
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

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

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

32
28
31

52
62
63

17
10
7

12
18
18

79
73
75

9
10
7

28
28
24

61
58
60

11
14
16

6
7
7

64
67
74

30
27
19

18
25
24

75
58
63

7
17
14

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

38
32
38
28

58
67
50
66

4
1
13
7

18
13
37
28

72
80
55
64

9
7
9
9

26
25
33
27

56
58
52
57

18
17
15
16

8
8
9
6

65
65
58
70

27
27
34
24

22
36
59
46

63
58
37
52

15
7
4
2

1999 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3...

20
26
39

76
64
58

3
9
3

25
36
44

67
51
50

8
13
6

32
32
40

55
49
48

13
19
12

4
11
15

68
57
56

28
32
29

51
61
65

46
33
33

3
5
2




38
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
Q3 • • •
Q4...

1
|
1

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO

ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

70
71

|
1
|

43
44

34
36

23
21

|
|
I
|

www
www

www
www

|
I
|
I

www
www

www
www

www
www

www
www
www
www
www
www

69
73
72
70

43
43
39
50

39
34
38
34

18
22
22
16

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

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

70
72
73

58
49
42

27
35
33

14
15
25

www
www
www

www
www

www
www
www

www

www
www
www

Q3...
Q4...

I
1
I
1

66
66

I
1
I

55
51

8
7

33
31

|
|

1
1

72
69

|
1
|
1

82
78

66
68
68
67

54
54
53
56

8
8
8
11

27
31
32
27

1
2
3
2

70
66
63
65

78
78
79
79

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

66
66
67

61
59
56

7
8
10

26
26
29

2
1
3

66
69
67

79
80
80

54
50

***

***

***

***

1998 Ql...

***

***

***

***

Q3. . .
Q4...

49
53
53
51

1999 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

51
51
53

***




www
www

www
www

www
www

www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www

www

75
73

6
9

87
83

7
8

8

82

10

6
6

80
80

13
14

4
8
7

81
79
84

15
13
9

www

6
7

87
88

7

89

7
7

88
89

5
5

70
73
74
72

5
7
6

91
88
90

4
5
4

67
66
71

www
www

21
12

72
80

6
8

www
www

17
8
6
8

69
81
81
74

14
11
13
18

8
7
9

72
75
78

20
18
13

www

7
6
4

www

|
1
|

www

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

1997 Q3•.•
Q4...

02...

|
I
|
I

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

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

III.C3

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME

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

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

III.C2

NONBANK AGENCIES

**#

WW*

***

www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

***

www
www

www
www

14
9

78
84

8
7

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

18

8
9
12

75
85
86
79

8
6
4
8

www

www
www
www

8
8
12

81
84
78

11
8
10

www

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.C (CONTINUED)
AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
AVERAGE
LOAN-TODEPOSIT
RATIO,
END OF
QUARTER
PERCENT
III.C4

LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

12
13

***

***

29

7
12
10
9

24
16
26

10
4
5

***

72
72

***

***

***

***

***

***

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

73
74
74
71

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

56

15

1999 Ql...
Q2. • .
Q3. . «

69
70
70

68
73
63

9
11
11

1997 Q3...
Q4...

||
|1

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

NONBANK AGENCIES

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

NONE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

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

1997 Q3. . .
Q4 • • «

III.C5

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS

***

***

***
***
***

***
***

35+
35

59
61

32+
36

58
52

10
12

34
29
27
7

62
66
67
85

28
27
24
7

58
62
64
81

14
11
12
11

3
6
7

91
88
85

3
4
7

68
78
80

28
18
13

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
72
73

I|
1
|

45
41

53
51

3
8

|
1
|
1

2
o

80
73

|1
|1

85
87

0
0

15
13

o
o

|
I
1

78
74

0
0

23
15

0
10

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

72
73
72
73

46
48
62
63

41
48
35
30

14
3
4
7

0
0
0
0

78
81
70
71

92
93
96
93

0
0
0
0

8
7
4
7

0
0
0
0

83
100
85
83

3
0
0
0

8
0
11
13

6
0
4
3

1999 Ql...
Q2...
Q3. . .

74
73
74

62
54
46

28
42
46

10
4
9

0
0
0

64
74
66

78
88
88

4
8
3

15
4
9

4
0
0

74
84
76

4
8
3

19
8
12

4
0
9

•Beginning in 1994, Minneapolis omitted the response "none" for the number of referrals to either correspondent banks or nonbank
agencies. The column that has been added combines responses that formerly would have been reported as either "none" or "low".




39

e

e

e

e

e

e

e '

•

e




40
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.D
INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS
MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS
(AVERAGE, PERCENT)

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D1
1997 Q3...
04...

|
1
j
|

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*Z IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
9.7
9.6

9.7
9.6

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

9.5
9.5
9.4
9.1

9.5
9.5
9.4
9.1

1999 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...

9.0
9.1
9.3

9.0
9.1
9.3

III.D2

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

***
***

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

***
***
***

8.8
8.7
8.4
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.4

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

1997 Q3...
Q4...

9.9
9.8

10.1
9.9

9.9
9.3

9.4
9.3

1998 Ql...
Q2...
03...
Q4...

9.8
9.8
9.7
9.4

9.9
9.9
9.8
9.6

9.8
9.8
9.7
9.4

9.2
9.2
9.1

1999 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...

9.4
9.8
9.6

9.5
9.9
9.8

9.3
9.5
9.6

8.7
8.9
9.0

8.8




FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.D (CONTINUED)
INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS
MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS
(AVERAGE, PERCENT)

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D3

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

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

***
***

9.8
10.0

9.7
10.0

9.3
9.4

1998 Ql • • •
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

*w*

***
***
***

9.9
9.9
9.8
9.6

9.8
9.8
9.7
9.5

9.4
9.7
9.6
8.8

1999 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...

***
***
***

9.5
9.5
9.5

9.4
9.4
9.4

8.6
8.7
8.7

1997 Q3...
Q4...

|
|1

III.D4

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

1997 Q3.
Q4..

10.5
10.5

10.6
10.6

10.4
10.4

9.7
9.7

1998 Ql.,

10.5
10.4
10.3
9.9

10.5
10.5
10.4
10.1

10.4
10.2
10.2
9.9

9.7
9.6
9.6
9.3

9.9

10.0
10.0
10.2

9.8
9.8

9.2
9.3
9.5

02..
Q3.
Q4..

1999 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .

10.0
10.2
III.D5

10.1

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

1997 Q3.
Q4.

10.0
9.8

9.8
9.7

9.9
9.6

9.5
9.2

1998 Ql..
Q3 • •
Q4..

9.9
9.8
9.5
9.3

9.7
9.6
9.2
9.0

9.4
9.3
9.1
8.9

9.2
9.2
9.0
8.7

1999 Ql.
Q2. .
Q3.

9.2
9.4
9.4

9.0
9.3
9.5

8.9
8.9
9.3

8.6
8.6

02.

9.1

41

42
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.E
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
ALL
III.El

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

***

www
www

***

1998 Ql.
Q2 •
03.
04.

2
0
-1
0

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

1999 Ql.
Q2.
Q3 •

0
1
0

www
www
www

www
www
www

1997 Q3.
Q4.
Ql...
02...
03...
04...
1999 Ql.
Q2.
03.
III.E3

RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

***

7

***

***

***

***

10

***

***

www

***

WW*
www
WW*
WW*

***

***

www
www

10
8
4
1

***

***

***

***

***

***

***
www
***

0
0
2

www
www
www

***

***

www
www

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

***
***

www

2
2

60
62

38
36

12
11

62
62

26
27

10
17
51
43

76
67
40
50

15
16
9
8

17
25
45
31

57
61
47
53

26
14
8
16

41
45
33

50
47
61

9
8
7

30
36
34

54
54
54

17
9
12

80
88

15
8

13
18

79
77

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
12
5

***
www

www
***

-1
3
-10
6

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

2
5
-24

***

***

***

***

***

***
WW*

13
41

www
www

www
www

www
www
www
www
www
www

3
10
7
13

74
81
89
81

23
10
4
6

16
20
29
34

70
67
61
66

14
13
11
0

www
www
www

3
4
14

83
78
66

14
19
20

36
31
32

64
65
62

0
4
6

www
www
www
www

19
20
-4
-3

www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www

1
2
•13

www
www
www

www
www
www

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

1997 Q3.
04.

www
www

0
1

-3
4

www
www

1998 Ql.,
Q2.
03.
04.,

www

-1

-1

-0

www
www

www
www
www
www

0
-0

2
3
6

1999 Ql..
02..
03.,

www
www
www

www
www
www

1
-0
1

-0




RANCHLAND

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

1997 Q3.
Q4.

III.E2

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

EXPECTED TREND IN FARM
REAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

2
5

7
6
9

-2

-5

0

-3
-3

-1
4

1

2
2

5
5

1
1

www
www

www
www

www
www

10
15

77
69

13
16

1

2
7
16
21

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

12
23
27
26

73
67
66
60

15
10
7
13

4

17
8

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

28
20
26

61
63
66

10
17
8

-3

-2

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

ALL
i n .E4

* * *
* * * 2

1998 Ql.
02.
03.
04.

* * * 2
***
0

1999 Ql.
02.
Q3.

4t ft h

..
i n •E5

1997 03.
04.
1998 01.
02.
03.
04.

..

1999 Ql.
02. •
03. •

#
•

I
l
1

1
l
1
i
I




RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

www
www

www
www

www
www

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

1997 Q3.
Q4.

..

IRRIGATED

DRYLAND

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER

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

1

1

3
0

www
www

4
5

6
5

9
7

3
0

3
3

o

www
www
www
www

6
6
4
1

7
5
3
1

1

www
www
www

-1
-1
-0

-1
-1
-0

1

—I

—I

***

-l

-1

***
***
***

0
0
0

0
1

-

1

*"2

-

0
0

www
www

www
www

www
www

7
9
5
5

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

1
-2
1

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www

www
www
www

www
www

www
www

www
www

28
24

58
60

14
16

I
|
I
1

|
|
I

NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVs DISTRICT (MI* , MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
WW*
www

www
www

www
www

www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

|
1
j
1

www
www

4
3

3
3

2
3

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

7
5
3
3

6
3
2
-0

7
5
5
2

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

26
25
33
27

56
58
52
57

18
17
15
16

www
www
www

www
www
www

3
4
6

-1
2
1

1
4
2

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

32
32
40

55
49
48

13
19
12

I
I
j
1

|
|
|
1