View original document

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

E.15 (125)

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE
DATABOOK
Fourth Quarter 2000
Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources

Pa

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 James Hull



33

2
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 2000; the
other data generally were available through the third quarter of 2000.

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 lending; 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. 1 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.



4
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 2000 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks was a touch above the estimated level of one year earlier;
nevertheless, the number of these loans remained near the lowest seen during the last decade. The average size of the loans in the November survey also
was towards the low end of the range seen in the 1990s, which, together with the small number of loans, left the volume of non-real estate loans near the
lows seen in the latter 1980s. Relative to one year earlier, the declines in the volume of loans outstanding seemed to be spread among loans for operating
expenses, loans for farm machinery and equipment, and loans for livestock.
In the November survey, the average maturity of farm non-real-estate loans edged down again, continuing the gradual contraction of maturities that has been
evident for most of 2000. The average effective rate of interest on non-real-estate farm loans was 10 percent in the November survey, a decline of 20 basis
points from the August reading, and the first decrease since rates on farm loans began to rise in early 1999. The percentage of loans that were made with a
rate of interest that floats was 66.5 percent in November, roughly in line with the average for the past year.
The weighted average risk rating (line 5 of Tables I.H.I through I.H.6) edged down in the November survey. The weighted average repricing interval (line 4
of the tables) fell below 5 months in November. The percentage of the volume of loans that were to purchase or improve farm real estate (line 23) almost
doubled to 4 71 percent, the proportion of the volume of loans that were to finance the production of feeder livestock remained fairly high at about 11
percent. The proportion of farm loans that were secured (the sum of lines 25 and 26) remained near 95 percent, although the type of collateral shifted a bit
towards farm real estate.
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".
By farm production region, changes in weighted average rates of interest were mixed. The largest increase, 30 basis points, came in the Southern Plains. In
contrast, reported rates in the Lake States fell a full percentage point.




0£

OOOZ

6661 8661

L661

9661 5661

*661

£661 3661 1661 0661 6861 8861 Z.86I 9861 5861 f86l £861 3861 1861 0861 6Z.6I 8 . 1
Z6

O
f
09

09
0L

3B3 B 3 I 0 I J J Bl Jl J
3 JA UAU 3 J Ib tO

08

06

001
Oil
on
on

01

sireo[ uirej 3BS-BJU U jo junouiv
1 1 9I 9- O
3)bj [Bniray 'sj^nop jo suoifna

OO 6661 8661 Z.661 9661 5661 fr66l £661 3661 1661 0661 6861 8861 1861 9861 5861 f86I £861 3861 1861 0861 6L61 U61
OZ

91

01

3B3 E 3 I O I J J ^i jnOJ 3 JA UA U 3 J rb

9Z

0£

5£
O
t

Sireoi Uirej 3ES -e JU U J 3 I 3B3 V
} ) 3[3 - O O ZS 8 JA

9*

09

01

Si^uop jo spiresnoqx

OOOZ

6661 8661 Z.661 9661 5661 f66I £661 3661 1661 0661 6861 8861 6861 9861 5861fr86l£861 3861 1861 0861 6Z.6I 8661

51
3E3 E 8 T O I jsuEnb jnoj —
8 JA UA U

0'Z

9'Z

0'£

9'i

OP

9'P

S B [ UIJ 3iBiS3-[i?3J-aoa jo asquin^
UO L
B
09

3B [Enuuy 'suoiinw
1J




SJ9UUBJ oj Suipusq %ueg jo suusj, jo X3Ajn§ sqj uicuj sjjnssy
IVi
RQ

0
01

0003 6661 8661 6661 9661 £661 *661 £661 3661 1661 0661 6861 8861 6861 9861 £861 *861 £861 3861 1861 0861 6661 8661

03
SIA U J3yimb J l j -ll O I
TO

0£
O
S
09
06
08
06

atej J 33U 8ui)boij v qi|M sireo[ uirej jo 3m g
SJJ !
- q

OOt

0003 6661 8661 6661 9661 £661 *661 £661 3661 1661 0661 6861 8861 6861 9861 £861 *861 £861 3861 1861 0861 6661 8661
9
8

01
31

91

S T [ U rj 9B S -B JU U U 3& J 33U 3 U 3 J sSPJSAy
U O Le ) 1 3[ 3 - 0 O ) I SJ1 I A 3 J 3

81
03

0003 6661 8661 6661 9661 £661 *661 £661 3661 1661 0661 6861 8861 6861 9861 £861 *861 £861 3861 1861 0861 6661 8661

9
8

01
31

91

3&3 E Suiaoui J3irenb jnoj -8 IA
SUVO\

UIJ S S -R JU U jo X r B I 3T 3 V
L m 3( 3 - O
E
UU U S UA
l

sioM
qu p




sjauuBj

oj Suipusq jjucg jo suuax jo
rURlQ

XaAjng

aqj uiojj sijnsay

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

1
OTHER

to
9

BY SIZE
OF BANK

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

0..52
0..49
0..51
0..54
0..56
0..51
0..57
0..48
0..50
0,.45

0.
.31
0.
.35
0.
.32
0.
.37
0.
.37
0.
.35
0.
.36
0.
.31
0.
.34

0..09
0..09
0..10
0..11
0..12
0..12
0..12
0..11
0..11
0.
.12
0.
.11
0.
.10

LARGE

OTHER

.36
o.
.44
o.
.50
o.
.51
o.
.55
o.
.54
o.
.66
o.
.53
o.
.46
o.
.39
o.
.40
o.
.57
o.

2 .23
2..20
2..10
2..18
2,.15
1.
.98
.83
1.
.69
1.
1,
.82
.71
1.
.56
1,
.34
1,

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

|
1

1
1
|
|

.60
2.
.63
2.
.60
2.
.69
2.
.70
2,
.53
2.
.49
2.
.22
2.
.27
2.
.10
2.
1.96
.
1.91
.

.30
0.
.32
0.
.35
0.
.35
0.
.36
0.
.28
0.
.26
0.
.
0. 18
.19
0.
.15
0.
.
0. 14
0.
.11

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

.73
1.
.69
1.
.64
1.
.67
1.
.62
1.
.56
1.
.48
1.
1,
.38
.40
1.
.39
1.
.32
1.
.30
1.

0..16
0..19
0..17
0..18
0..18
0..18
0. 17
.
0..14
0.
.15
0.
.17
0.
.16
0.
.13

0.
.20
0.
.19
.21
0.
.24
0.
0.
.27
0..27
.39
0.
.36
0.
0.
.33
0.
.22
0.
.18
0.
.19

1
1
1

|

1
1
1
1
1

|
1

|

.67
1'
1 .70
1 .66
.67
1,
.65
1'

1 .55
1 .45
.33
1'
1 .32
.20
1.
1 .09
.09
1.

0.
.44
0..44

0.
.33
0.
.32
0.
.28

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

NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE

1998 Q1
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

1999 Q1
02
03
04

1.93
2.37
2.05
1.49

0.20

0.18

0.12

0.18
0.13
0.15

1.17
1.77
1.47
0.88

17
17
19
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

2000 Q1
02
03
04

1.91
2.27
1.86
1.59

0.09

0.16
0.19
15
19

1.36
1.56
1.29
0.96

13
18

0.16
0.22
0.20
0.19

1.07
1.28
1.10
0.90

0.43
0.54
0.43
0.35

0.27

0.14
0.11
0.08
0.08

0.72
0.53
0.52
0.51




0.07
0.15

0.12

0.09
0.14

12

0.11

0.33

0.26
0.26

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

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

320,.4
272,.1
487,.7
539.
.9
468.
.2
490.
.3
480.
.7
451.
.3
545.
.9
385.
.3
357.
.0
322.
.1
258.
.4

70.
.0
53,
.7
100.
.7
107,.0
97,
.0
106,.0
101,.3
84,
.0
115.
.0
92,
.0
95.
.0
76,
.2
44,
.1

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

ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE

1988.
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.
1998.
1999.
2000.

.8
21.
.9
19.
28 .4
.9
31 .
.2
31.
.3
34.
33.
.9
33 .
.8
39.
.2
.4
31.
32 .4
.
.9
30,
26 .3

34.
.1
.7
42 .
.7
69,
.0
61.
68,
.2
.7
79,
.3
60.
.7
49,
.0
59.
42 .3
.5
41.
.6
35.
.3
43 .

.6
40.
.5
29,
.7
22,
25.
.2
.9
26,
23.
.1
.6
27,
.7
26,
.2
24.
.0
26.
.3
24,
.4
26,
.0
26,

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

.9
13.
12.
.1
.9
11.
.1
15.
.9
15.
.9
13.
17.
.5
.6
15.
17,
.2
.8
17.
.1
28,
.8
31.
.3
29,

34,
.7
32.
.2
94,
.3
129.
.3
108.
.7
.0
112.
123.
.6
.6
93 .
95.
.2
97.
.2
127.
.9
101.
.1
.5
48.

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

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

45.
.2
45.
.9
46.
.1
46.
.6
45.
.9
46.
.1
47.
.0
44.
.9
45.
.2
45.
.8
45.
.4
46.
.8
45.
.3

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

1998 Q1
02
Q3
Q4

37.9
28.0
25.6
40.4

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

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

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

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

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

3 .8
.
.7
3.
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

1999 Q1
Q2
Q3
04

46.6

.7
32.
30.
.2
.1
30.
.
46. 5

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

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

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

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

2000 Q1
02
03
04

31
25

38 .5
40 .3
56 .9
40 .2

.9
29,
.3
23.
23 .8
27 .0

27 .6
20 .1
18 .1
18 .6

.0
48,
.3
23.
.6
25.
.6
20.

43.
.5
58 .5
36 .2
54 .8

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

15,
.1
14,
.8
14,
.8
15 .1

47,
.7
45,
.6
43 .6
44 .2

256.
.3
255 .6
273 .0
252 .2

42 .0
51 .8
40 .0
43 .3

24,
.4
17,
.4
16,
.2
17,
.7




26.1
21 .

31

22
25.9

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
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

ALL
LOANS

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

ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

I
1
1
1
1
1
1
|
|
1
|

51 6
74 7
82 8
83 7
92 6
85 7
84 1
87.
.3
71.
.4
.0
68.
.6
60.
.2
50.

|
1
1
1
1
|
|
|
|
j
|

12.9
22.0
21.4
23.6
28.7
16.8
12.7
10.6
8.0
6.1
4.9
4.8

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

24 3
26 6
25 5
24 6
24 7
25 4
27 3
35.
,9
,6
23.
25.
,2
.4
28.
,6
27.

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

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

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

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

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

23.
.4
45.
.3
54.
.0
52.
.8
61.
.0
56,
.0
54,
.4
61.
.3
43.
.3
41,
.9
34.
.9
26.
.8

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

19.
.6
44.
.2
53.
.7
.4
49,
58.
.8
55,
.1
55,
.3
61,
.2
.9
41.
37.
.0
30,
.6
25.
.1

32.
.0
30.
.5
.1
29.
34.
.3
33.
.8
30.
.6
28.
,8
26.
.1
29.
.6
31.
,1
30.
.1
25.
.0

AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
.
78, 80
.30
70.
.29
54.
68.
.73

|
|
|
1

7.1
5.3
3.1
8.8

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

30.
.0
.5
29.
.6
21.
.7
19.

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

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

4.
.1
5.
.4
.8
4.
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

1
j
j
|

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

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

|

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

|
j
j
j

6.7
3.5
2.2
7.1

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

30.
.1
36.
.4
25.
.0
.0
22.

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

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

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

7,
.0
7.
.4
6,
.4
5,
.3

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

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

|
|
j
|

53.9
28,
.3
20.
.8
19.3

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

|
|
|
1

.42
59,
.44
57,
.60
42.
.24
41.

|

3.6
4.8
5.1
5.8

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

37.
.6
.5
31.
23.
.4
17.
.8

6.
.3
.1
4.
.0
3.
.3
2.

7.
.1
,7
12.
.4
7.
10.
.2

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

6,
.6
7.
.9
6,
.3
5,
.3

.7
12.
15.
.1
11.
.3
11.
.4

36.
.0
29.
.3
21,
.2
20.
.8

|
|
j
|

30.4
27.2
20 .9
22.0

.0
29.
30.
.2
.7
21.
19,
.3

1998 Q1 . . .
Q2 . . .
Q3...
Q4.. .

I
|

1999 Q1 . . .
Q2...
Q3 . • •
Q4.. .

|
|

2000 Q1 . . .
Q2 .
Q3 . . .
Q4.. .

|




|
|

9

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

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

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

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

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

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

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

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

ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY

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

1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.
1998.
1999.
2000.

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

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

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

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

11.
.8
6.
.4
5.
.3
9.
.4
9.
.4
9.
.4
10.
.0
9.
.2
7.
.4
.8
6,
10.
.5
13.
.2

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

.4
7.
.4
.7
7.
.3
8.
8,
.5
8 .6
9 .0
8.6
8.8
8.8
9.8
9.7

7

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

MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE

1998 Q1
02

10.6
10.4
9.6
8.3

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

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

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

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

8.
.2
6.
.6
7.
.6
.2
5.

1
1
1
1

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

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

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

9.
.5
8.
.8
9.
.0
7.
.5

|
1
I
1

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

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

1999 Q1

Q2

9.2
14.4

03
04

11.5

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

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

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

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

6.
.1
.8
18.
17.
.1
16.
.9

|
1
1
1

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

.9
11.
.3
11.
.4
10.
11.
.1

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

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

1
1
j
j

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

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

2000 Q1
02

11.2
11.6

.0
9.
.7
9.
.7
6,
7.
.2

10.
.4
9.
.3
.8
14.
.7
9.

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

.4
17,
.3
22,
.7
30,
.8
25,

14.
.1
.4
13.
10.
.2
14.
.5

1
|
|
|

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

.0
12,
.9
11,
.2
11,
.5
10.

10,
.9
.7
11.
10 .2
.5
11,

11.
.4
11,
.6
11,
.9
10,
.5

1
j
j
j

.2
8.
11.
.2
10,
.3
10,
.9

14,
.3
11,
.9
11,
.8
10.
.4

03
04

03
04

12.0

11.1

10.6




ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.E
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1, 000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE

1

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

1

1
1

12 5
11 4
9 8
7 8
7 5
7 8
9.
.5
.4
8.
.2
9.
.0
9.
.7
8.
.7
9.

1
|
|
|
|
j
j
j
|
j

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.
.7
12.
.1
10.
.7
8.
.8
8.
.3
8.
.6
10.
.3
9.
.8
9.
.9
9.
.7
9.
.3
10.
.1

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

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

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

12.
.7
12.
.3
11.
.3
9.
.4
.7
8.
8.
.8
10.
.4
10.
.0
.0
10.
9.
.8
9.
.4
10.
.2

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

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

|

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

.
.
.

1

2000 Ql..
Q2..
Q3..
Q4..

.
.
.
.

1

1

1

|




j

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

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

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

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

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

|
j
j
j

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

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

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

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

1
1
1
1

.2
8.
.5
8.
.5
8.
.9
7.

9.
.9
9.
.9
9.
.9
9.
.4

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

|
|
j
j

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

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

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

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

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

|
j
j
j

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

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

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

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

1
1
1
1

.4
7.
.1
8.
.4
8.
.7
8.

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

,2
9.
.7
9.
.2
10.
.0
10.

|

.2
9.
9.
.6
10.
.4
10.
.0

9.
.3
.9
9.
10.
.2
10.
.3

.5
9.
9.
.9
10.
.3
10.
.3

8.
.0
10.
.1
10.
.1
10.
.3

9.
.2
.2
9.
.6
9.
.4
9.

|
j
j
j

9.
.8
10.
.3
10.
.7
10.
.6

9.
.7
10.
.1
10.
.7
10.
.5

9.
.5
10.
.0
10,
.4
10.
.3

9.
.0
9.
.4
9.
.8
.1
9.

1
1
1
1

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

9.
.8
10.
.1
10.
.6
10.
.5

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

|
|

|
j

11

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.F
PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

ALL
LOANS

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

12

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

BY SIZE
OF BANK

10
to
24

25
to
99

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

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

69. 1
67. 5
67. 8
78. 6
83. 9
80. 2
76. 7
62 .2
67. 0
51.. 1
63 . 1
,
74., 5

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

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

83.6
69.4
70. 0
82. 9
86. 9
83. 7
79.9
65. 4
71.4
57.
,1
70.
,8
82.
.5

47. 2
59. 3
56. 1
55. 5
58. 9
59. 7
62. 3
57.,9
57..9
51. 3
50.,5
51..4

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE

1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997 .
1998.
1999.
2000.

61. 0
65 2
65. 1
71 7
76 7
75 1
73 8
63 1
.
65 . 8
.
54 . 4
60..7
.9
66 .

1
j

j
j
j
j

j

71 4
76 .8
81. 5
78 5
84 6
82 9
83 9
58 1
.4
66 .
.0
55 .
45.. 6
57 .
.3

40. 0
61 6
69 3
63 5
70 0
74 3
75 9
71 2
73 .2
59.,4
66..0
.7
60 .

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

32 .9
40. 0
40. 6
47 .8
48. 2
51. 6
.
53 . 1
32 .9
49. 9
46.,7
58. 2
62 .
.2

73 .6
51. 2
50. 3
75. 3
78.,1
75.,7
72 .2
61.,4
64.,3
.0
42 .
52..0
76..7

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

50.4
53 .6
52 .0
57. 3
60. 1
58. 6
61. 7
60. 6
60. 1
.
57 .
6
52 .
6
53 .4

A V E R A G E P E R C E N T A G E D U R I N G F I R S T F U L L W E E K O F S E C O N D M O N T H OF Q U A R T E R

1997 Q4.

58,.5

|

.4
55 .

78..0

73..4

54..5

48..0

|

61.
.6

57..7

72 .
.2

54..2

1

.2
57.

60..6

1998 Ql.
Q2.

56
54
54
51

.6
,
.6
,
.7
,
.6

|
|

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

56,.6
.1
60 .
54 .2
6 6 .2
,

70,.2
68 .1
67 ,
.1
68 .0

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

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

|
j
|
|

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

1
1
j
j

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

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

46
73
70
62

.4
.7
.2
.3

|
|
j

50
66
44
31

.2
.6
.6
.2

65
72
69
59

.2
.5
.1
.9

63
72
71
65

.6
.6
.5
.4

33
75
48
54

.9
,
.5
.8
.1

33
79
86
82

.2
.2
.3
.6

1
j
1

47,
.0
.6
50,
.2
54 .2

50
58
51
58

.4
.8
.4
.0

55..0
66,.2
62 .3
57 .9

43 .
.5
83 .3
86,.4
66 .5

1
j
j
|

.4
43.
91,
.5
94 .3
91 .8

50,.8
58 .6
4 8 .6
4 1 .7

63
68
71
66

.0
. 3
.0
.5

|
j
j
j

46 .4
51 .0
60 .0
6 6 .8

69
57
59
56

.2
.8
.5
.2

59
69
78
62

.4
.7
.9
.8

80
57
38
51

.6
.6
.6
.0

70
78
72
81

.8
.4
.9
.6

1
j
j
1

51 .8
53 .0
57 .3
51 .6

52
54
57
53

.4
.7
.9
.2

53
61
67
65

69
78
79
73

|
j

65 .2
88 .4
89 .9
91 .9

60
50
52
37

Q3.
Q4.

1999 Ql.
Q2.
Q3 .

Q4.
2000 Ql.
Q2.

Q3.
Q4.




|

|

57

.0
.8
.8
.7

.7
.0
.2
. 1

|

.7
.2
.9
.6

Table I.G

Effective
interest
rate
(percent)
A l l Loans

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

November
1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Aug 00

Nov 00

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Under 5 percent

-

-

12

8

-

-

-

-

5.0 to 5.9

-

-

7

8

3

*

*

*

1

*

6.0 to 6.9

-

2

20

26

15

10

19

5

9

7.0 to 7.9

-

16

16

16

27

12

8

6

8.0 to 8.9

-

10

22

20

23

11

27

9.0 to 9.9

3

17

16

18

20

30

36

18

7

3

6

22

1

2

10.0 to 10.9 . . .
11.0 to 11.9 . . .
12 0 to 12.9.. .

24
30

13.0 to 13.9. . .

5

14.0 to 14.9 . . .

1

10

-

-

*

-

*

*

*

*

3

*

*

*

23

9

3

1

1

34

31

30

15

6

8

25

31

22

36

30

28

29

25

16

16

12

17

34

34

35

6

9

4

6

2

5

13

22

21

-

1

1

1

*

1

4

7

6

1

*

*

*

*

*

1

*

*

*

*

*

-

-

*

*

*

*

*

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

*

-

*

*

*

-

-

-

15.0 to 1 5 . 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 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 6-10, 2000
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

137,081
4,1030
16 .30
7 .11
2 .80

415
123,'
1 /B60
<
16 .54
5 .25
3 .03

$100-249

$250 and over

199, 123
1,-440
13 .40
5 .23
2 .94

270,183
466
15.21
2.89
2.79

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)
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
Other
26
15
16
17
18

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




922,761 79,545 113,-414
378
7,!
508
34,682 19,:
9 . 11
11 .49
.
14. 16
4 .91
6 .33
4.
,94
2 .71
,85
2 .80
2.
,
9. 99
0..09

10 .59
0 .09

10 .47
0 .07

10 .37
0 .04

10 .07
0 .09

10 .09
0 . 14

,
10. 58
.38
9.

11 .24
9 .95

11 .07
9 .92

10 .90
9 .87

10 .57
9 .38

10 .78
9 .38

10.01
8.77

.96
9.
10. 24
,
,31
10.
,32
10.
9.
.35
,43
9.

10 .29
10 .91
10 . 61
10 .71
9 .36
10 .54

10 .14
10 .60
10 .53
10 .47
10 .21
10 .37

10 .52
10 .32
10 .54
10 .23
9 .67
10 .21

10 . 16
10 .15
10 .23
9 .97
9 .29
9 .90

10 . 19
10 . 10
10 .20
10 . 58
9 . 92
9 .77

9.14
9.34
9.97
10.27
8.31
8.97

.68
66.
.95
74.
.
16. 19
.55
2.

53 .75
65 .81
20 . 14
1 .32

54 .53
68 .15
20 .64
1 .35

60 .28
59 .69
19 .00
1 .35

71 .21
75 . 64
23 .31
3 .49

72 .93
77 . 81
18 .57
0 .74

72.18
85.83
6.73
4.92

.07
13 .
.
11. 01
.
41. 67
.08
5,
.71
4.
.45
24,

7 .49
10 .20
63 .09
8 .62
1 .97
8 .62

9 .96
13 .68
55 .00
7 .07
3 .54
10 .76

14 .20
15 .83
41 .15
9 .07
5 .92
13 .84

15 .96
10 .97
40 .62
7 . 65
6 .04
18 .77

15 .88
17 .42
40 .63
1 .58
5 .44
19 .05

12.07
2.98
31.28
2.59
4.26
46.82

.35
14,
79 .98

9 .82
82 .97

9 .62
84 .02

17 .23
80 .51

15 .47
78 .48

17 .03
76 .32

13.72
80.50

9.32
0.18

TABLE I.H.2
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 6-10, 2000
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
Ll sizes

$1 -9

$10 -24

$25 -49

$50 -99

$100- 249

$250 and over

642, 554
18, 624
13 .29
3 .00
3 .09

38, 593
9, 697
8 .11
2 .36
3 .02

60,1580
4,i026
10 . 14
3 .13
3 . 13

68, 336
1, 996
13 .29
3 .33
3 .12

94, 809
1, 434
11 .86
3 .82
3 .13

157, 043
1, 097
11 .99
4 .35
3 .05

223,193
374
16.69
1.65
3.09

10 .53
0 . 12

10 . 55
0 . 13

10 .39
0 .07

10 .06
0 .19

9 .97
0 .10

9.24
0.17

10 .47
9 . 11

11 .30
9 .92

11 .26
9 .92

11 .02
9 .84

10 .55
9 .38

10 .47
9 .38

9.92
8.70

9 .83
9 . 90
10 .22
10 .37
10 . 12

10 .72
10 .53
10 .55
10 .21
9 .74

10 .42
10 . 54
10 . 65
10 . 58
10 .40

10 .72
10 .09
10 .42
10 .81
9 .27

10 .40
9 .99
10 .05
10 .05
9 .83

9 .92
9 .82
10 .07
10 .58
10 .95

9.14
9.34
9.89
10.27
9.37

82 .47
89 .28
16 . 55

76 .42
90 .86
25 . 10

76 .69
88 .09
25 .76

83 .73
86 .70
21 .20

78 .89
85 .26
16 .71

80 .84
86 .67
20 .73

87.37
93.67
8.15

12 . 84
9 .62
38 . 16
3 .82
2 . 56
24 .45

5 .86
6 .04
68 .27
3 .04
2 .19
8 .62

10 .15
8 .40
58 .73
4 .88
1 .85
10 .76

11 .02
9 .21
48 .57
5 .71
1 .60
13 .84

14 .77
10 .05
42 .17
6 .70
3 .78
18 .77

12 .70
19 .44
41 .38
2 .00
3 .74
19 .05

14.61
3.60
20.20
3.14
1.77
46.82

14 . 13
78 . 56

15 .41
78 . 69

14 .56
76 .70

13 .90
81 .58

14 .16
77 .96

15 .02
76 .56

13.22
79.79

LARGE FARM LENDERS'
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
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

9 .86
0 . 18

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




15

16
TABLE I.H.3
^
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 6-10, 2000
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
LI sizes

SI--9

$10- 24

$25--49

$50--99

$100-249

$250 and over

52,835
3,482
12. 97
9. 88
2. 36

68,745
2,034
19 .15
10 .74
2 .38

28,606
426
31 .75
9 .90
2 .56

42,079
343
18 .56
8 .47
2 .35

46,990
91
8.61
8.60
1.49

OTHER BANKS'
1
2
3
4
5

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

(thousands)
maturity (months)1
repricing interval (months)2
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




280,207 40,952
16,058
9,682
10 .03
16 .08
7 .28
9 .29
2 .36
2 . 19
10 .30
0 . 11

10 . 65
0 .09

10. 37
0. 06

10 .36
0 .09

10 .13
0 .35

10 .55
0 .44

9.69
0.77

10 .82
9 .91

11 .16
10 .00

10. 96
9. 92

10 .78
9 .88

10 .65
9 .00

11 .63
10 .00

10.12
10.01

10 . 24
10 .76
10 .47
10 .26
8 .88
10 . 18

10 .03
11 .06
10 . 66
10 .82
8 .92
10 .47

9. 81
10. 63
10. 36
10. 41
10. 14
10. 77

10 .39
10 .41
10 .70
9 .96
9 .73
9 .92

9 .56
10 .54
10 .97
9 .80
8 .80
9 .70

10 .67
12 .19
10 .75

10.06

30 .48
42 . 11
15 .36
0 .22

32 .38
42 .21
15 .46
0 .13

29. 13
45. 28
14. 78
1. 04

36 .97
32 .84
16 .82

45 .72
43 .72
45 .20

43 .40
44 .77
10 .50

13 .62
14 .19
49 .73
7 .98
9 .65
24 .45

9 .03
14 . 11
58 .21
13 .87
1 .77
8 .62

9. 74
19. 73
50. 71
9. 58
5. 48
10. 76

17 .35
22 .40
33 .77
12 .41
10 .21
13 .84

19 .90
14 .02
35 .47
10 .82
13 .54
18 .77

27 .77
9 .85
37 .84
11 .82
19 .05

16.09
46.82

14 .85
83 .23

4 .54
87 .01

3.
,95
,42
92.

20 .55
79 .45

19 .80
80 .20

24 .54
75 .46

16.09
83.91

-

-

-

8 .72
10 . 14

-

-

-

-

7.76
-

48.63
-

-

83.91
-

TABLE I.E.4
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 6-10, 2000
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

349,491
13,521
16.
.19
3.
.79
3.
.00

156, 768
4, 188
11 .32
3 .04
4 .00

30,:
250
i,:
297
6 .36
0 .98
5 .00

48,068
1,131
16.19
9.40

69,633
4,223
15.90
8.30

9 .82
0 .21

10.
.11
0.
.08

9 .99
0 .24

10 .49
0 .23

9.30
0.26

10.65
0.25

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
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

922,761
34,<582
14 . 16
4 .94
2 .85

68,780
3,1800
8 .69
6 .04
1 .00

199/ 772
6,!
522
14 .91
6 .64
2 . 00

9 .99
0 .09

9 .49
0 .45

10 . 58
9 .38

10 .12
9 . 00

10 .27
9 .24

10.
.78
9.
.50

10 .47
9 .38

11 .02
9 .92

9.92
8.70

11.50
9.91

9 .96
10 .24
10 .31
10 .32
9 .35
9 .43

10 .15
9 .50
10 .08
9 .47
8 .13
5 .86

9 .23
10 .05
10 .21
10 . 12
10 . 14
8 .46

10.
,12
10.
,42
10.
,34
10.
.30
10.
,05
9. 66
,

9 .89
9 .80
10 .28
10 .37
9 .56
9 .74

10 .45
9 .79
10 .79
11 .57
11 .68
10 .06

10.56
10.66
9.63
10.50
9.23
8.90

10.78
10.71
10.97
10.87
9.11
10.83

6 6.68
74 .95
16 . 19
2 . 55

28 .46
40 .01
4 .90
0 .08

51 . 52
78 .80
15 .82
0 .24

74.
,43
73.
.73
21.
,20
4.
,35

90 .80
98 .24
5 .74
4 .36

91 .22
90 .34
2 .11
1 .35

64.77
79.55
3 .05
1.15

45.42
42.31
42.03

13 . 07
11 .01
41 . 67
5 .08
4 .71
24 .45

10 .11
3 .54
61 .09
3 .78
15 .52
5 .96

16 .27
13 .92
48 .35
5 .60
4 .63
11 .23

14. 59
11. 38
36.
,55
6.
,04
,87
2.
28.
,58

6 .20
10 .52
42 .58
1 .88
2 .25
36 .57

17 .24
1 .75
47 .16
1 .48
0 .07
32 .29

5.67
4.66
21.19
3.93
3.37
61.18

18.00
17.64
38.74
9.65
12.06
3.91

14 .35
79 .98

17 . 51
78 .63

12 .08
76 .46

16. 54
,
78.
,09

10 .68
87 .65

18 .13
80 .29

13.22
80.49

14.09
83.09

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




17

18
TABLE I.H.5
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 6-10, 2000
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

LARGE FARM LENDERS'
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
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




642,554
18,624
,29
13.
,
3. 00
.
3. 09

19,923
1,020
.02
11.
.43
4.
.00
1.

117,1807
747
2,"
11 .45
4 .23
2 .00

274,366
8,591
15 .64
2 .41
3 .00

151,939
3,<571
11 .31
2 .93
4 .00

29, 137
1,<059
6 .35
0 .80
5 .00

36,349
554
15.95
5.91

13,033
983
15.73
2.02

,86
9.
0. 18
,

.10
9.
.75
0.

9 .51
0 .33

10 .01
0 .14

9 .98
0 .24

10 .45
0 .16

9.03
0.17

10.71
0.51

,47
10.
,
9. 11

.12
10,
.97
8,

10 .19
8 .84

10 .75
9 .31

10 .47
9 .38

10 .75
9 .92

9.51
8.33

11.50
9.85

.83
9.
.90
9.
.22
10.
.37
10.
.
10. 12
.38
9.

.60
10,
.16
11.
9 .84
,
.45
9,
.75
9,
.78
5.

9 .20
9 .79
10 .00
10 .20
10 . 50
8 .39

10 .17
10 .00
10 .26
10 .39
10 . 19
9 .59

9 .89
9 .80
10 .27
10 .21
9 .56
9 .74

10 .46
9 .79
10 .76
11 .68
10 .06

11.02
10.17
9.34
10.02
8.15
8.85

9.54
10.47
10.85
11.18
11.05
10.67

,
82. 47
,28
89.
,
16. 55
,
3. 57

.36
66.
.08
96.
7.
.61
.39
2.

71.
.78
.77
83.
20.
.43
.89
12.

80.
,94
84.
,55
21.
.34
2.
,49

.07
92.
98.
,72
5.
.21
0.
.27

93.
,70
93.
.61
2.
,02

85.
.65
96.
,55
4.
,03

90
88
94

,84
12.
.
9. 62
.16
38.
.82
3.
.
2. 56
.45
24.

.15
9,
.62
1,
.69
63 ,
.86
2,
.43
2,
.96
5,

.76
23.
.82
15,
.13
33,
.14
4,
.70
4,
.23
11,

13. 12
.
.80
8.
38.
.03
.77
4.
2.
.35
.58
28.

6.
.39
10.
.86
41.
.09
1.
.61
2 .32
,
36.
.57

17.
,61
,82
1.
46.
.98
3.
.73
0.
.08
32.
.29

0.
.87
2.
.39
19.
.68
6.
.79
0.
.90
61,
.18

11
6
44

.13
14.
.56
78.

.10
4,
90 .65

15 .37
6 6 .47

17,
.24
76.
.39

10.
.82
87.
.46

17,
.82
80, 54
.

,
7 .10
84,
.70

2 ,72
89

-

-

-

0
3

TABLE I.H.6
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING NOVEMBER 6-10, 2000
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
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

2

280,207
16,058
16 . 08
9 .29
2 .19

48,858
2, 780
7 .73
6 .70
1 .00

81,965
3,'
775
19 .56
10 .11
2 .00

75, 124
4, 929
18 .15
8 .81
3 .00

4, 829
518
11 .76
6 .49
4 .00

1, 113
238
6 .54
5 .90
5 .00

11,719
578
16 .71
16 .70

10.
.30
0 , .11

9 .65
0 .30

10 .27
0 .14

10 .48
0 .22

10 .41
0 .45

11 .42
0 .40

10 .16
0 .11

10
0

10.
.82
.91
9.

10 .12
9 .00

10 .61
10 .00

10 .80
9 .99

11 .45
9 . 11

11 .73
11 .57

10 .90
9 .50

11
9

10.
.24
.76
10.
.47
10.
10.
.26
8.
,88
10.
.18

9 .99
9 .25
10 .19
9 .48
8 .06
11 .04

9 .43

10 .11

10 .35
10 .06
9 .62
10 .57

10 .00
11 .07
10 .68
10 .16
9 .78
10 .33

10 .31
11 .20

10 .50
10 .97
10 .29
11 .15
9 .50
9 .34

10
10
11
10
9
11

30.
,48
42. 11
.
15. 36
0 . 22

13 .01
17 .15
3 .79
0 .11

22 .40
71 .65
9 .19
0 .67

50 .64
34 .22
20 .69

51 .05
83 .25
22 .34

169 .72
26 .83
145 .09

31

13. 62
14. 19
49. 73
7. 98
9. 65
24. 45

10 .50
4 .32
60 .03
4 .15
20 .86
5 .96

5 .49
11 .19
70 .23
7 .69
4 .53
11 .23

19 .97
20 .80
31 .14
10 .69
4 .75
28 .58

1 .78
28 .47
89 . 66
10 .34
26 .76
36 .57

216 .53
1,031 .13
51 .96
40 .33
744 .39
32 .29

25 .86
6 .86

14. 85
83 .23

22 .98
73 .73

7 .37
,
90.
.81

14 .00
84 .32

6 . 45
93 .55

26 .21
73 .79

32 .21
67 .44

-

-

-

-

11 .49
11 . 57

-

-

-

-

-

26 .21
4 .48
4 .48
-

56,

3,1
15
9

-

-

94 .03
-

37
7 50

-

61 .18

3 91
16
81

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 primebased 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)
USDA Farm Production Region
CB
NP
AP
SE

NE

LS

2.4

11.8

25.3

16.9

11.0

5.1

4.6

8.7

6.0

8.1

Sample Coverage,
Nov. 2000 survey (%)

19.9

4.5

9.5

7.0

16.3

14.9

4.3

6.7

22.2

62.3

Avg. Loan Size,
Nov. 2000 survey
Survey date:
Feb.
May
Aug.
Nov.
Feb.
May
Aug.
Nov.
Feb.
May
Aug.
Nov.
Feb.
May
Aug.
Nov.
Feb.

34.5

19.6

15.0

19.4

49.5

108.2

26.3

369

29.8

52.0

1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997

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
10.3
8.3
10.1
8.8
(ID

Weighted Average Interest
9.0
8.0
8.0
8.7
8.1
7.9
7.5
8.2
8.0
8.1
7.8
7.4
7.9
8.6
7.5
9.0
8.0
8.1
8.6
8.3
8.6
9.7
8.9
8.5
10.7
10.0
9.9
10.4
9.4
9.3
10.3
9.3
9.8
10.3
8.3
9.6
9.9
9.4
8.0
10.2
7.3
9.0
9.9
8.9
9.4
9.9
9.3
9.0
9.5
9.3
9.5
(.26)
(12)
(.22)

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
9.8
9.4
9.1
9.5
(.24)

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
8.7
8.9
9.0
10.1
027)

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
8.3
8.1
8.6
8.7
035)

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
023)

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
023)

8.7
034)

Nov.

1997

Feb.

1998

9.2
(41)
9.3
(51)

9.5
(.17)
9.0
(27)

9.3
(10)
9.4
(.17)

9.8
(08)
9.8
(09)

7.5
(60)
7.3
(77)

9.8
Oil)
10.0
(48)

9.4
(05)
10.3
013)

9.4
(38)
9.8
030)

10.1
057)
9.6
(43)

8.8
031)
8.5
(19)

May

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
017)

9.5
(29)

9.7
(29)

9.5
(28)

9.6
(47)

8.5
033)

Nov.

1998

9.4
(01)

9.2
028)

8.7
(20)

9.0
(12)

8.3
038)

9.4
(31)

9.7
(20)

9.2
03%

9.1
(59)

8.0
038)

Feb.

1999

8.4
(.40)

8.9
(20)

8.9
(15)

9.1
(12)

8.2
(20)

9.0
(23)

9.6
013)

9.1
052)

9.0
(.41)

7.5
(51)

May

1999

9.6
(19)

9.1
(13)

8.8
(15)

9.0
(08)

8.0
(16)

9.0
033)

9.8
035)

9.0
(43)

8.7
(40)

8.0
(.22)

Aug.

1999

10.2
(29)

8.9
(56)

8.7
(.14)

9.3
(18)

8.2
(22)

8.9
(37)

10.0
(.55)

8.8
(65)

9.0
(19)

8.5
(23)

Nov.

1999

Feb.

2000

May

2000

Aug.

2000

Nov.

2000

9.1
(67)
9.4
(49)
10.7
(.5)
10.5
(96)
10.7
(75)

9.2
(67)
9.2
(11)
9.5
(16)
10.3
(23)
9.3
(25)

8.8
(.29)
9.2
(28)
9.7
(09)
10.0
(20)
9.9
(13)

9.4
(15)
9.6
(10)
9.7
(17)
10.3
(09)
10.1
(11)

8.3
(31)
8.4
(15)
9.1
(.17)
9.7
(35)
9.2
(12)

8.8
(50)
9.8
032)
9.1
(115)
9.2
(11)
9.4
(.97)

9.8
(37)
9.3
(06)
10.5
(2)
10.5
00 1)
9.2
(1.24)

9.0
(37)
10.0
(.49)
10.0
(28)
10.0
(31)
10.3
(33)

9.5
(16)
9.8
(21)
10.1
(22)
10.6
029)
10.3
(19)

8.8
(28)
8.4
(66)
9.5
(24)
9.7
(27)
9.8
(20)

Proportion of farm loans
outstanding, Aug. 2000

|

DL

SP

MN

PA

($1000)
Rate During Sample Week
5.6
8.3
7.8
7.8
5.2
8.4
5.7
7.3
7.0
5.3
6.3
8.2
5.2
7.3
7.7
6.1
7.8
8.2
6.5
8.6
7.6
7.1
8.5
8.8
8.6
7.2
10.4
8.5
10.2
10.7
8.1
9.6
10.4
7.9
10.1
10.3
7.3
9.4
10.9
8.1
9.6
10.4
7.6
9.4
10.0
7.5
9.3
9.9
8.0
9.9
9.5
051)
032)
035)

* 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

 banks) in each region.
fresamoling of


22
SECTION II: SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLES:

Page

Commercial banks:
II.A
II.B
II C
II.D
HE

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.F Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans
II.G Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity

29
30

II.H Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks

31

II.I Failures of agricultural banks

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 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 II.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 II.B to its counteipart in table II.D to obtain total
agricultural delinquencies. A similar caveat applies to the data concerning charge-offs in tables II.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 15.4 percent in September of 2000.
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: In the third quarter of 2000, the total volume of farm loans edged up 0.6 percent, following a much more substantial increase the
previous quarter. Compared with the same period of the previous year, the total volume of farm loans now stands 4.3 percent higher, with loans
secured by farm real estate accounting for a steadily growing share of the total. Earlier in the year, we had suggested that a rebound in farm lending
that was evident at that point in time might reflect a more sanguine view of farming prospects over the next few years. These new data offer little
support for such a hypothesis, and indeed, it seems that farmers on balance remain fairly cautious about taking on new debt.
Problem loans: Through the first three quarters of 2000, the incidence of problem non real estate loans declined relative to one year earlier, and by
September 30, the delinquency rate had fallen to the lowest reading in the past decade. Rates of delinquency of farm real estate loans also declined
a bit relative to one year earlier. Charge-offs of both types of farm loans remained elevated compared with most of the 1990s. Only a touch more
than 2 percent of agricultural banks reported a level of nonperforming loans that was greater than 5 percent of total loans, a level of difficulty on a
par with the lows last seen in 1994.
Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks was 1.2 percent at an annual rate through the first three quarters
of 2000, the same rate of profitability as has been seen for most of the past decade. The capital ratio for agricultural banks edged up a tenth, as
banks apparently continued to restore their capital cushion towards the levels that prevailed for several years prior to the declines that began in 1999.
The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks increased from the previous year, and remains considerably higher than historical norms.
Failures of agricultural banks: Despite the hints of financial stress at some agricultural banks, only one failed in 1999, and no agricultural bank failed in
2000. Given the growing capital cushions and low, declining levels of problem loans of most agricultural banks, the number of failures seems likely
to remain fairly small in coming quarters.




23

TABLE II.A




FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER
LOAN VOLUME,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS QUARTER

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

2.7
3.3
1.9
-0.2

-4.6
7.8
1.9
-4.4

4.9
4.9
4.2
2.9

0.5
3.1

-5.3
7.8
4.9
-0.8

1.7

-3.4

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

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

52.8
56.0
58.0
57.7

20.0

32.8
35.4
37.1
36.8

-3.2

20.6
20.8
20.9

3.5
-0.5

1.2
0.1

56.8

35.5
39.2
40.6
38.7

-1.5
7.6
3.1
-2.7

3.2
2.2
0.7

10.2

63.0
61.3

21.2
21.9
22.4
22.6

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

1.6

-4.6

2.9
-2.5

1.1

3.9
-4.1

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

3.1
3.4
1.9

4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6

2.0

0.3

-5.3
8.9
1.5
-2.8

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

-5.1
11.5
3.1
0.0

3.4
5.1

5.5

6.8
8.9

6.2
8.1

2.0

3.0
0.3

1.4
3.3
2.9
0.7

8.5

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

-3.9
9.6
1.9
-4.0

9.8

9.0

3.2
1.3
1.3

7.2
4.8

7.2
7.8

72.7
75.8
76.8
76.0

29.7
30.8
31.4
31.8

42.9
45.1
45.5
44.2

-2.8

1.7
3.5
1.9
1.5

-5.6
5.0
0.9
-2.8

3.7

7.6

71.5
79.7
80.1

31.4
33.7
33.9

40.1
45.9
46.2

-5.9
11.4

-1.4
7.5
0.5

-9.2
14.4

-1.6
5.0
4.3

61.1

TOTAL
LOANS

6.2

1.9
-2.9

6.0

6.1

8.2

4.4
1.3
-1.0

0.6

1.8

2.7

0.4

1.1

3.6
-4.6

8.2

0.6

8.2
8.1
8.6

3.1
3.2
1.9

3.2
5.8

5.6
5.4
4.7
5.0

-0.5
-0.6
2.4

7.6
9.1
8.7

6.4
6.4
7.5

8.2

8.3
10.7
9.3
5.2

5.4
4.0
3.7
3.9

7.5
6.3
5.9

8.0

3.9

1.6

6.2

2.8

8.6

1.1
0.7
1.7

7.8

8.8

0.2

6.2

2.0
2.3

2.8
2.7
0.3

1.8

4.4

6.0
9.1

10.4
8.5
7.3
3.0

1.1

8.0
8.6
8.8

-3.1
-4.1
-2.8

5.5
9.6

-6.5
1.9

8.1

1.6

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

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

December 31 of year indicated
.
1 -1

0 .. 4

0 .. 7

0 .. 1

0 .. 5

1

3 ,. 2

1 .. 3

1 . .9

0 .. 3

1 .. 6

1 9 9 2

1 .. 0

0 .. 3

0 .. 6

0 .. 1

0 .. 5

j

2 .8

1 .. 0

1 .. 8

0 .. 3

1 .. 5

1 9 9 3

0 .. 8

0 .. 3

0 ,. 5

0 .. 1

0 .. 4

1

2 .2

0 .. 8

1 .. 4

0 .. 2

1 ,. 2

1 9 9 4

0 .. 8

0 .. 3

0 .. 4

0 .. 1

0 .. 3

|

2 .0

0 .. 9

1 .. 1

0 .. 2

0 .. 9

0 .. 8

0 .. 4

0 .. 4

0 .. 1

0 .. 3

|

2 .. 1

0 .. 9

1 .. 1

0 .. 3

0 ,. 9

1 .. 0

0 .. 5

0 .. 5

0 .. 1

0 .. 4

1

2 .. 4

1 .. 2

1 .. 3

0 .. 3

1 .. 0

o .. 9

0 . 4

0 .. 5

0 .. 1

0 .. 4

1

2 .. 0

0 .. 9

1 .. 1

0 .. 2

0 .. 9

1 9 9 8

1 .. 0

0 .. 5

0 .. 5

0 .. 1

0 .. 4

1

2 .. 2

1 .. 0

1 .. 2

0 .. 3

0 .. 9

1 9 9 9

0 .. 9

0 .. 3

0 .. 6

0 .. 1

0 .. 5

j

2 ,. 1

0 .. 8

1 .. 3

0 .. 2

1 .. 1

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 5

1

1

1 9 9 6
1 9 9 7

1

End of quarter

0.9
0.9

0.3
0.4

0.6
0.5

0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4

2.0
2.0

0.7
0.9

1.3
1.1

0.3
0.2

0.9
0.9

1.3

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

1.6
1.3
1.0
0.9

0.9
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5

3.7
2.8
2.2
2.1

2.1
1.2
0.8
0.8

1.5
1.6
1.4
1.3

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2

1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1

1.2
1.0
0.9

0.6
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.5

3.0
2.2
1.9

1.5
0.9
0.7

1.5
1.3
1.2

0.4
0.3
0.2

1.1
1.0
1.0

1.1

1. 0

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.




26

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
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

1

1
|

Q1

Q2

Q3

54
69
51
95
93
87
126

7
10
-2
16
6
4
18
-35

16
11
14
27
19
15
37
64

5
15
13
24
19
24
35
34

26
33

ANNUAL
TOTAL

Q4
|

2 5

30
5 0

45
36

j

0 . 1 5

0.19
0.13
0.24
0.23
0.20
0.28

Q1

02

Q3

Q4

.02
0.
0.
.03
.00
-0.
0.
.04
.01
0.
.01
0.
0.
.04
-0.
.08

0.
.05
0.
.03
0.
.04
0.
.07
0.
.05
0.
.04
0.
.09
0.
.16

0.01
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.07

0.07
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.11
0.09
0.08
**

* 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

TOTAL

PAST DUE
3 0 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONPERFORMING

NONACCRUAL

TOTAL

PAST DUE
3 0
TO 8 9
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

December 31 of year indicated
1994
1995

|

0 . 5

0 . 2

0 . 3

0 . 1

0 . 2

|

2 . 4

1 . 0

1 . 4

0 . 5

0 . 9

|

0 . 6

0 . 2

0 . 3

0 . 1

0 . 2

|

2 . 4

1 . 0

1 . 4

0 . 5

0 . 9

1 9 9 6

|

0 . 7

0 . 3

0 . 4

0 . 2

0 . 2

|

2 . 8

1 . 1

1 . 7

0 . 7

1 . 0

1 9 9 7

|

0 . 7

0 . 3

0 . 4

0 . 2

0 . 2

|

2 . 6

1 . 1

1 . 5

0 . 6

0 . 9

1 9 9 8

|

0 . 8

0 . 3

0 . 5

0 . 2

0 . 3

j

2 . 9

1 . 2

1 . 7

0 . 8

1 . 0

1 9 9 9

|

0 . 6

0 . 2

0 . 4

0 . 2

0 . 2

j

2 . 0

0 . 8

1 . 3

0 . 5

0 . 7

2.8

1.0
0.8
1.1

1.8

0.8

1.0
0.8

End of quarter

1 9 9 7

Q 2 .
0 3 .
0 4 .

0.7
0.6
0.7

0 1 .

0 . 9

02.

1 9 9 8

0 . 7

0 3 .

1 9 9 9

0 . 7

0 4 .

0.8

0 1 .

1.1

02.
0 3 .
0 4 .

2000 Ql.

02.
0 3 .

0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.8
0.7
0.6

0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2

1.0
0.9
0.7

0.4
0.3
0.2

0 . 5
0 . 4
0 . 4

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

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.2
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3

2 . 3

2.6

2.6

1.6
1.0

2 . 5
2 . 9

3 . 5

1 . 4
1 . 5

0.6
0.6

1 . 9

0 . 9

0.8

1.0
0.8

0 . 9

1.6
1.6

0 . 7

0 . 9

1.2

1 . 7

0.8

1.0

2.0

0 . 9

1.0

1 . 7

0.8

0 . 9

1 . 5

0 . 7

0.8

1 . 3

0 . 5

0 . 7

0.6

0 . 3

3 . 6

0 . 5

0 . 3

2 . 7

0 . 3

2 . 3

0.2

2.0

1.6
1.0
0.8
0.8

3 . 2

1 . 3

0 . 9

2 . 7

0.2

0 . 9

1.0

0 . 7

2.1

0 . 7

0.6

1.0
1.0
0.8

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




27

28

T A B L E II.E

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

ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUAL
TOTAL
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.
1998.
1999.
2000.

Q1

Q2

Q 3

2 4

2

4

7

1 1

|

0 . 1 2

1 0

1

1

3

6

j

0 . 0 5

3

6

4

|

0 . 0 5

1

2

4

|

0 . 0 3

3

1 4

j

0 . 0 6

5

j

0 . 0 2

7

|

0 . 0 5

1 2
7
1 6
6
1 5

-0
0
- 1

-0

-0

- 1

3

-0

3

5

1 3

8

- 1 2

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




ANNUAL
TOTAL

Q4

Q1
0. 0 1 0
0. 0 0 3
.
-0. 0 0 1
.
0. 0 0 0
.
-0. 0 0 3
.
-0. 0 0 4
.
-0, 0 0 1
.
-0, 0 3 7

Q 2

0. 0 1 8
.
0. 0 0 3
.
0.
.011
0 .. 0 0 3

-0, 0 0 1
.
0. 0 0 9
.
.011
0.
.
0. 0 3 8

03

04

0. 0 3 5
.
0. 0 1 3
.

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

0 .. 0 2 7

0. 0 0 9
.
0. 0 1 0
.
— 0. . 0 0
0
0. 0 1 5
,
0. 0 2 2
.

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 indicated
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.
100. 0

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

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

.3
22 ,
.8
18.
15.
.8
12 .3
.
.0
14.
15.
.4
12 .
.9
15. 1
.
12 .
.6

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

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

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

Percentage distribution, end of quarter
1997 Q4...

|

.0
100.

84.
.5

12 .
.9

.
2 .5

0.1

0 .1
.

0.
.0

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

|
|
|
|

.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.

.6
80.
.8
80.
80.
.3
.1
81.

.3
16 ,
15.
.9
16.
.2
15.
.1

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

0 .1
0.3
0.3
0.3

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

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

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

|
|
|
|

.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.

77 .2
.
78.
.7
.4
80.
.8
84.

17 .8
.
16.
.9
15.
.9
12 .
.6

4,
.5
3 .8
.
3 .4
.
2 .4
.

0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3

0.
.0
0.
.0
0.
.0
0.
.0

0.
.0
0.
.0
0.
.0
0.
.0

2000 Ql...
Q2...
03...

|
|

.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.

.8
81.
.2
82.
.0
83 .

.8
14.
15.
.1
14.
.9

2,
.9
2.
.4
1.
.7

0.5
0.3
0.4

0.
.0
0.
.0
0.
.0

0.
.0
0,
.0
0.
.0

* 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

30
TABLE II.G

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

0
TO
4

5
TO
9

15
TO
19

20
TO
24

.3
13.
.6
19.
18.
.4
.9
16.
.4
13.
.2
14.
.2
14.
.4
13.
.2
14.

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

0.
.9
.6
1.
•3
1.
.9
0.
.6
0.
.
0. 5
.1
1.
1 •3
1 .9

NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS

AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

25
AND
OVER

10
TO
14

RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

10.
.9
.5
12.
12.
.3
.8
11.
.2
11.
11.
.4
.4
11.
.3
11.
.8
11.

.8
8.
11.
.3
.3
12.
.5
12.
12.
.1
.3
12.
12.
.3
11.
.7
.9
11.

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

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

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

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

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

9.
.2
.5
9.
9.
.9
.9
9.
10.
.4
10.
.4
10.
.5
10.
.5
10.
.3

11. 4

12.
,3

1. 2

1.2

0. 2

0. 3

11.
.0

10. 5

3. 0
6.
.1
8.
,9
11.
.3

3.
,3
6.
.4
9.
.1
.7
11.

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
,8
10.
.5
10.

.9
2.
.0
6.
9.
.1
.8
11.

.0
3.
6 .1
8 .9
.9
11.

0.
.3
.6
0.
.9
0.
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
.8
10.
10 .8
10 .5

10.
.5
10.
.4
10.
.4
10.
.3

.2
3.
6 .5
9 .3

3 .1
6 .1
8 .9

0 .3
0 .6
0 .9

0.3
0.6
0.9

0.
.0
0 .1
0 .1

0.
.1
0.
.1
0 .2

10 .5
10 .6
10 .7

10 .2
10 .3
10 .4

-percentage distribution1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.
1998.
1999.

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

4. 3
2. 0
,6
1.
.5
1.
.4
1.
2.
.1
.6
1.
2 .0
2 .9

,6
7.
.3
5.
.9
5.
.9
5.
.7
5.
5 .6
.9
5.
8 .7
.9
7.

.2
32.
.3
25.
.8
27.
.4
31.
.1
37.
.4
33.
.5
34.
.6
35.
.8
34.

.2
39.
41.
.1
.4
40.
.1
40.
.6
39.
.6
41.
.7
39.
.5
35.
.3
33.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I
|
QUARTERLY

1997 Q4..1998 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4. .
1999 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4. .
2000 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .

are not comparable to
the annual data in the upper panel.




ABLE II .H

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

U.S.

CLEVELAND

ATLANTA

CHICAGO

MINNEAPOLIS

ST. LOUIS

KANSAS
CITY

DALLAS

SAN
FRANCISCO

MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO

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

994
995
996
997
998
999

3530
3352
3239
3101
2968
2866

0 .626
0.
.639
0 .656
0 . 685
0.
.683
.718
0,

56
53
49
45
40
41

0 .707
0 .720
0 .771
0 .747
.
0 .763
,
0 . 849
.

124
118
113
113
99
93

0 .644
0 .657
0 .684
.704
0.
.709
0.
0 .738

857
816
795
759
733
715

0 .642
0 .652
0 .680
0 .719
.711
0.
0 .750

398
375
363
346
321
300

0.
.627
0.
.651
0.
.663
0.
.698
0.
.693
0.
.718

656
619
609
574
558
538

0.
.675
0 .682
0 .699
0 .725
0.
.715
0.
.738

1012
959
928
890
868
838

0.
.618
0.
.634
0.
.643
0. 680
.
0.
.681
0.
.715

360
344
313
312
289
277

0 .476
0.
.489
0.
.491
0.
.523
0.
.529
0.
.564

52
53
52
49
48
48

.784
0.
0.
.740
0.
.735
0.
.661
0.
.660
0.
.724

17 . 10
16,
.83
16.
.45
16 . 44
16 .34
,
15.
.67

997 04...

3101

.
0. 685

45

0 .747
.

113

.
0. 704

759

.719
0.

346

0.
.698

574

0.
.725

890

0.
.680

312

0.
.523

49

.661
0.

16.
.44

740
737
733
733

.724
0.
.746
0.
.750
0.
.711
0.

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

.683
0.
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

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

3058
3065
3036
2968

.686
0.
.
0. 717
.
0. 724
0.
.683

45
46
46
40

0 .761
0 . 769
0 .786
.
0 .763
.

109
110
109
99

0 .713
.
.736
0.
0.
.751
0 .709
.

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

2957
2872
2918
2866

0.
.689
.
0. 718
.735
0.
.718
0.

42
41
44
41

.
0. 793
.
0. 849
.
0. 844
0 .849
.

100
93
106
93

.719
0.
.738
0.
0. 746
0. 738

720
716
716
715

0.
.719
.750
0.
.765
0.
.750
0.

317
302
319
300

0.
.688
0. 719
0. 745
0. 718

550
539
547
538

0. 723
.738
0.
0.
.775
0.
.738

868
838
846
838

0. 684
,715
0.
0. 721
,715
0.

297
279
275
277

0.
.532
0.
.566
0.
.567
0.
.564

48
48
51
48

0.
.692
0.
.724
.737
0.
0.
.724

16.
.04
16.
.26
16.
.23
15.
.67

000 oi...
02...
03...

2842
2834
2790

0. 726
.
0. 764
0. 766

41
43
42

0 . 865
886
0.
880
0.

97
96
93

,
0. 748
0 .784
.
.797
0.

705
707
698

.757
0.
.790
0.
0. 796

288
306
306

0. 714
0. 757
0. 768

536
529
523

0.
.757
.799
0.
0.
.791

831
814
796

0. 719
0. 755
0. 761

278
268
261

0.
.571
0. 614
0.
.613

50
54
54

0.
.743
0.
.778
0.
.764

15.
.28
15.
.36
15.
.36

* T h e loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total deposits.
hat 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
1989
1990
1991
1992 . . . .
1993 ...
1994
1995 . . .
1996 , . .
1997 . . .
1998. . . .
1999,...
2000

Q2

Q3

04

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

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

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

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

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

* Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial
banks and mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural
banks are defined in the introduction to section II.

SECTION HI: FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS AND FARM LAND 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.
HI 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.



33

34
Section III: (continued)
Federal Reserve Rank 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.

RF.CF.NT DEVELOPMENTS:
Bankers responding to the surveys indicated that the demand for farm loans in the third quarter may have softened a bit in all the districts that report except
Dallas. While respondents seemed to note some continued difficulty in generating funds, the situation appeared to improve since midyear. Survey
respondents generally seemed to note that rates of loan repayment through the late summer of 2000 were as good or better than in the previous year. The
incidence of renewals and extensions of loans, which appeared to tick up earlier in 2000, was below year-earlier levels in the third-quarter data. The
proportion of bankers that reported higher collateral requirements was below year-earlier levels in all districts except Richmond, suggesting a bit of an
easing of concerns about repayment prospects that had been evident in earlier surveys.
Scanning through reported expectations for the fourth quarter of 2000, for most types of loans, few bankers reported diffusion indexes that seemed to
indicated concerns about low loan volumes in the near future. Perhaps reflecting the substantial growth of loans relative to deposits that was noted in
section II, bankers seemed to have begun expressing concerns that their ratio of loans to deposits was higher than desired. In addition, in both the
Minneapolis and Richmond districts, there was a slight uptick in the proportion of banks that reported refusing a loan because of a shortage of funds.
However, despite these possible strains on liquidity in some areas, none of the districts noted a significant bulge in referrals to other sources of funds.
Rates of interest that were reported in these Reserve Bank surveys were little changed in the third quarter, despite the increase in farm loan rates that was
picked up in the third quarter Survey of Terms of Lending to Farmers (reported in section I of the Databook).
Relative to one year earlier, increases in the nominal price of farmland ranged from 1 or 2 percent in the Richmond and Dallas districts to an 11 percent
jump in nonirrigated farmland in the Minneapolis district. The price of "good farmland" was 6 percent higher than one year earlier in the Chicago district,
which spans a large part of the Corn belt.




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

LOWER

HIGHER

19
20

46
47

35
34

1
1

|
|
1

|

19
21
22
22

42
44
46
50

39
36
32
28

1
1
1
1

|
|
1

14
23
19

52
45
56

34
32
25

|
1
|

1998 Q3. . .
04...

1

1999 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
04...
2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

HIGHER

LOWER

75
66

14
28

1
1

43
51

53
42

3
7

1
j

io
17
12

65
72
71
71

27
18
12
17

1
1
1
1

63
52
41
39

35
45
55
51

2
3
4
10

1
j
j
j

20
35
28

66
54
61

14
11
10

1
1
1

33
31
26

57
66
70

10
3
3

1
1
j

io
6

8

1998 Q3. . .
Q4...

|
1

14
13

59
66

26
20

1
1

16
9

69
73

15
18

1
1

44
47

55
51

2
2

1
j

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

|
|
|
1

15
14
18
17

66
66
60
67

20
20
22
17

I

9
10
22
16

68
73
66
69

22
17
12
15

1
1
1
1

46
31
29
24

53
66
68
66

1
3
3
10

2000 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .

|
|
1

12
11
16

69
66
64

19
23
20

|

20
30
25

65
62
65

15
8
10

1
1
1

16
19
20

75
75
76

j

1

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

56
45

41
48

|
1

1
o

80
75

19
25

3
3
7

39
44
53
54

57
53
44
39

1
j
1
1

0
0
o
0

69
70
74
75

31
30
26
25

8
5
4

57
60
69

34
35
27

1
1
1

0
o
o

78
79
80

22
21
20

3
7
4

3

60
56

38
41

1
I

1
1

79
80

20
19

1
1
1
1

3
3
3
8

52
67
69
70

45
30
28
22

1
j
j
j

2
1
1
1

79
86
86
84

19
13
13
15

8
6
4

1
j
j

9
6
4

75
80
79

16
14
17

|
j
j

0
1
1

87
84
86

13
15
13

2

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX )
71
77

24
22

1
1

52
52

45
42

3
7

|
j

3
3

51
44

46
52

|
1

1
o

73
69

26
31

2
5
4

72
74
80
75

22
24
15
21

1
1
1
1

48
25
27
24

48
63
62
52

4
12
11
24

1
I
j
|

4
8
10
22

43
61
64
52

52
31
27
26

|
1
I
j

0
o
1
0

66
74
73
75

34
26
27
25

7
14
16

73
72
71

20
14
14

1
1
1

15
12
21

67
71
66

18
17
13

1
j
1

19
13
13

64
73
65

18
13
22

1
I
j

1
2
1

75
79
81

24
19
17

1998 Q3. . .
Q4...

|
1

28
17

50
54

22
30

1
1

1999 Ql...
Q2
Q3
Q4. . .

|
|
|
1

27
22
29
27

49
63
52
55

25
15
19
18

1
j
j
j

5

2000 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .

|
j

20
18
24

59
63
51

21
19
25

1

1

HIGHER

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

III . A2

III .A3

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

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

Ill . A1

|

SAME

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

FUND AVAILABILITY

DEMAND FOR LOANS




j

5
2

35

36
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

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

FUND AVAILABILITY

DEMAND FOR LOANS

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

III.A4

1

27

1

12

56
63

17
24

1
|

52
45

42
46

6
8

|
|

5
2

57
59

38
39

1
1

o
o

73
75

27
25

1

8
11
14
10

71
64
71
67

21
25
15
23

1

56
52
59
26

34
41
39
62

10
7
2
12

|
1
1
1

6
3
7

47
47
44
70

45
49
48
22

1
1
1
1

0
o
0
o

74
68
66
80

26
32
33
20

8
27
39

69
61
56

23
13
5

24
18
20

46
62
72

30
19
8

1
1
1

5

63
67
69

20
19
25

1
1
1

0
1
0

82
76
82

18
23
17

|
1
|
III.A5

|
1
|

8

17
14

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

29
19

64
68

7
13

1
1

o
3

75
65

25
32

1
|

21
35

71
55

7
10

7
10

75
55

18
35

1
1

o
o

71
71

29
29

41
19
26
25

59
81
63
61

0
0
11
14

1

3
4
11

1
1
j
1

76
93
71
67

0
4
3
3

7
4
3
8

72
89
71
58

21
7
26
33

1

19

28
30
23
11

24

1

69
67
66
69

o
0
0
0

68
81
77
69

32
19
23
31

30
22
34

57
68
60

14
11
6

1

16
19

27
22
6

3
5
11

57
78
80

30
22
9

1

1

70
73
83

14

9

8
11
11

|
|

1

76
69
80

o
0
o

73
78
74

27
22
26




4

26
31

0

11

1

1

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)
FEEDER CATTLE

TOTAL
LOWER SAME
Ill . Bl

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

DAIRY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

CROP STORAGE
HIGHER

LOWER SAME

OPERATING

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

FARM MACHINERY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

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

1998 Q3. . .
04...

I
1

21
12

39
48

40
40

|
|

38
31

52
65

10
4

|
|

20
14

71
76

9
10

|
|

12
32

33
59

55
9

|
|

9
9

39
34

52
57

1
j

68
55

27
36

5
9

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

I
|
|
1

17
22
19
15

43
50
50
55

39
28
31
31

|
|
|
|

27
29
22
18

65
65
60
58

8
6
18
24

|
|
|
|

20
19
15
21

70
73
75
68

10
9
10
11

I
|
|
|

35
36
22
29

58
51
57
62

7
13
21
8

|
|
j
j

11
11
13
8

33
43
46
46

56
46
41
46

1

63
65
62
53

31
30
33
39

6
5
5
9

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

|
|
1

14
24
16

55
54
60

31
23
24

|
|
|

19
26
23

60
63
66

21
11
11

|
|
|

20
27
26

69
64
66

11
9
8

|
|
|

25
21
17

58
49
57

17
30
26

|
j
|

8
11
11

47
52
54

45
37
35

j

46
46
43

46
47
49

8
7
8

III .82

j
1

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

1998 Q3. . .
Q4...

|
1

32
26

48
49

20
25

|
j

37
34

56
53

7
13

|
j

19
15

78
78

3
6

|
j

21
17

58
68

21
14

|
j

24
23

46
49

30
28

|
j

41
40

54
50

5
10

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

|
|
|
1

29
24
23
25

50
61
60
58

21
16
17
17

|
|

64
64
58
56

14
16
17
21

|
|
j
|

15
17
23
13

79
71
76
82

5
6
1
5

|
j
j
j

15
15
24
15

76
68
61
72

9
17
14
13

|
j
j
j

23
19
20
19

50
56
56
63

26
25
24
17

|
|

j

21
20
24
24

43
26
34
30

49
61
58
60

8
13
8
10

2000 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3...

|
|
1

23
18
26

57
60
58

20
22
16

1
j
j

26
25
32

53
56
53

22
19
15

|
|
j

17
21
18

79
77
80

4
2
2

|
j
j

16
19
16

81
71
74

3
11
10

|
j
j

23
18
17

53
58
60

24
25
22

j

26
26
32

59
57
58

16
17
10

III .83

j
|

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

1998 Q3...
04...

|
1

15
27

69
65

15
8

|
j

0
18

95
82

5
0

|
j

21
5

79
95

0
0

|
j

19
19

62
65

19
15

|
|

11
13

71
80

18
7

|
j

43
40

46
60

11
0

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

|
|
|
1

30
39
42
23

65
57
45
61

4
4
13
16

I
1
|
j

13
20
26
22

87
80
74
74

0
0
0
4

|
|
|
|

25
37
35
42

75
53
65
58

0
11
0
0

|
j
j
j

26
30
40
34

65
60
48
66

9
10
12
0

|
|
j
|

33
44
29
23

56
52
56
57

11
4
15
20

|
j
j
|

45
44
49
40

55
52
49
57

0
4
3
3

2000 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3...

|
j

34
24
40

53
68
57

13
9
3

|
j
j

25
13
35

58
88
65

17
0
0

|
|
|

38
30
29

62
70
71

0
0
0

|
j
j

31
19
11

69
67
59

0
15
30

|
j
j

17
19
26

61
76
65

22
5
9

|
j
j

50
43
38

42
51
53

8
5
9

1




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

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

OTHER OPERATING

FARM REAL ESTATE

OTHER INTERMEDIATE

FEEDER LIVESTOCK

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

FARM MACHINERY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

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

1997 Q4. . .

1

31

63

7

I

18

75

7

1

24

60

16

1

7

74

19

1

24

63

14

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

1

58
67
50
66

4
1
13
7

|
|
|
|

18
13
37
28

72
80
55
64

9
7
9
9

|
j
j
j

26
25
33
27

56
58
52
57

18
17
15
16

1
j

8

|
|

38
32
38
28

1
j

9

6

65
65
58
70

27
27
34
24

|
j
1
1

22
36
59

63
58
37
52

15
7
4
2

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

1
j
|

20
26
39

1

18

76
64
58
72

3
9
3
10

|
|
|
|

25
36
44
30

67
51
50
65

8
13
6
5

|
|
j
j

32
32
40
33

55
49
48
57

13
19
12
11

1
j
1
j

4
11
15
12

68
57
56
67

28
32
29
22

1
1
j
j

51
61
65
56

46
33
33
41

3
5
2
3

2000 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .

1
1
|

18

61
73
71

21
16
15

|
|
|

27
22
27

68
68
65

5
9
8

1
j
|

44
52
53

14
13
12

1
j

5

1

6

82
62
68

13
31
26

1
1
j

42
42
39

56
49
54

1
9
7




11
14

42

35
35

8

7

46

w

r

r

*

#

v

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)

III.CI

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

1998 Q4...

|

70

|

50

34

16

|

***

***

|

***

***

***

***

|

***

***

***

***

1999 Q1
Q2...
q3...
Q4

|
|
I
I

70
72
73
73

|
|
|
|

58
49
42
47

27
35
33
32

14
15
25
21

|
j
j
j

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

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

|
j
j
j

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

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

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

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

|
|
|
|

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

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

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

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

2000 Ql...
q2
Q3

|
I
I

73
75
77

|
|
I

44
34
35

35
36
32

21
29
33

|
j
j

***
***
***

***
***
***

|
j
j

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

|
j
|

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

III.C2

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

04...

I

67

I

56

11

27

|

2

65

|

79

7

89

5

|

72

6

80

14

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

I
I
I
I

66
66
68
68

|
|
|
I

61
63
59
57

7
9
10
9

26
27
32
32

|
|
|
|

2
1
3
4

66
74
72
69

|
|
j
I

79
80
80
81

5
7
6
5

91
88
90
90

4
5
4
5

|
|
I
I

67
66
71
76

4
8
7
9

81
79
84
83

15
13
9
8

2000 Ql...

I
I
I

67
70
71

I
I
I

63
46
50

6
7
8

29
38
35

|
|
I

1
3
3

73
67
65

|
I
|

82
81
82

9
9
6

86
85
88

6
6
5

|
I
|

77
75
77

9
9
7

82
85
85

9
6
8

***

I

***

12

79

8

|

***

8

74

18

1998

04...

02...
03. .

III.C3

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

1

1998 Q4...

|

51

|

***

***

***

I

1999 Ql...
Q2...
Q3;;;
Q 4 X !

I
I
i
|

51
51
53
52

|
|
1
|

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

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

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

I
|
i
j

0
1
1
1

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

|
|
1
j

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

8
8
12
6

81
84
?8
79

11
8
10
15

|
j
j
j

**
***
***
***

8
7
9
7

72
75
77

20
18
13
16

2000 Ql...
Q2
03

I
I
I

51
55
57

|
I
I

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

I
|
|

1
1
0

"*
***
***

I
I
j

***
***
***

15
10
15

81
84
78

5
5
6

|
j

***
***
***

15
9
13

80
82
76

5
9
11




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

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

71

1

56

15

29

|

9

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

|
j
|
|

69
70
70
71

1

68
73
63
64

24
16
26
26

|
j
|
|

10
4
5
3

1

1

9
11
11
10

2000 Ql...
Q2 . . .
03...

|

70
73
77

1

70
62
45

5
8
11

25
30
44

|
j
|

7

1

1
5
10

III.C5

NONE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

j

***
***
***

85

7

|

***

7

81

11

3
6
7
10

91
88
85
82

6
6
8
8

1

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

3
4
7
9

68
78
80
84

28
18
13
7

10
10
4

|

|

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

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

1998 04...

|

NONBANK AGENCIES

87
81
87

4
8
9

1

***

9
10
2

82
80
87

10
9
11

13

3

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

1998 Q4. . .

73

1

63

30

7

1

0

71

|
1

93

0

7

0

m
00

0

1999 Ql...

74
73
74
75

1

62
54
46
38

28
42
46
44

10
4
9
18

|
j
|
|

0
0
0
0

64
74
66
63

|
1
|
|
|

78
88
88
88

4
8
3
3

15
4
9
6

4
0
0
3

1
1
1
j

74
84
76
77

4
8
3
3

19
8
12
13

4
0
9
6

42
39
38

44
47
44

14
14
18

|
|
j

0
3
3

68
66
60

94
77
88

0
6
0

6
13
12

0
3
0

|
1
1

80
69
67

0
3
0

9
16
30

11
13
3

Q2...

Q3...
04...

2000 Ql...

02...
03...

74
75
75




j
1
j




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

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

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

1

9.1

9.1

***

8.1

.
.
.
.

1
1
1
1

9.0
9.1
9.3
9.4

9.0
9.1
9.3
9.4

* **

8.1
8.2
8.4
8.6

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

1
I
1

9.7
10.1
10.1

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

.
.
.
.

III.D2

***

9.8
10.4
10.2

8.9
9.2
9.4

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

1998 Q4...

1

9.4

9.6

9.4

8.8

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

1
1
1
1

9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7

9.5
9.7
9.8
9.9

9.3
9.5
9.6
9.7

8.7
8.9
9.1
9.2

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

1

10.0
10.4
10.4

10.2
10.5
10.5

10.0
10.3
10.3

9.5
9.7
9.7

|
1

41




42
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*)

1998 Q3...
Q4...

9.8
9.6

9.7
9.5

9.6
8.8

oi...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

9.5
9.5
9.5
9.7

9.4
9.4
9.4
9.7

8.6
8.7
8.7
9.0

2000 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...

9.9
10.1
10.5

9.9
10.2
10.4

9.2
9.4
9.7

1999

III.D4

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

1998 Q3...
04...

|
|

10.3
9.9

10.4
10.1

10.2
9.9

9.6
9.3

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

|
|
|
|

9.9
10.0
10.2
10.4

10.0
10.0
10.2
10.5

9.8
9.8
10.1
10.1

9.2
9.3
9.5
9.6

2000 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...

|
|
|

10.6
11.0
10.9

10.6
10.8
11.0

10.5
10.7
10.8

9.9
10.2
10.1

III.D5

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

1998 Q3...
Q4...

|
|

9.5
9.3

9.2
9.0

9.1
8.9

9.0
8.7

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

|
1
|
|

9.2
9.4
9.4
9.6

9.0
9.3
9.5
9.6

8.9
8.9
9.3
9.5

8.6
8.6
9.1
9.2

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

|
1
|

10.0
10.4
10.6

10.2
10.6
10.6

10.0
10.4
10.4

9.6
10.1
9.9

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

ALL
III.El

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

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

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1998 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
1

-1
o

1
j

4

1

***
***

***
***

***
***

I
j

51
43

40
50

9
8

|
j

45
31

47
53

8
16

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

1

1
j
j
j

o
0
2
1

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

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

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

1

1
1

o
1
0
2

41
45
33
22

50
47
61
71

9
8
7
8

|
j
1
j

30
36
34
28

54
54
54
59

17
9
12
13

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

1
|
1

2

1
1
j

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

13
11
8

75
78
80

12
11
12

|
j
j

26
27
22

61
67
66

14
6
12

7
13

89
81

4
6

|
j

29
34

61
66

11
0

3
4
14
9

83
78
66
74

14
19
20
17

|
1
j
j

36
31
32
33

64
65
62
58

0
4
6
9

0
0
0

84
75
76

16
25
24

|
j
|

29
24
34

60
68
53

11
8
13

1
1

4
5

6

|
j
1

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

III.E2

1998 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
|

-10
6

***
***

***
***

***
***

1
j

~4
-3

***
***

***
***

***
***

1

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

1

2
5
-24
7

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

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

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

|
j
|
1

1
2
-13
-12

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

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

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

|

-3
-0
"I

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

|
j
j

-17
-21
2

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

I
j
j

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

j
1
1
1
III.E3

j
1

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

1998 Q3..
Q4. .

16
21

27
26

66
60

7
13

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

17
8

0
-0

28
20
26
27

61
63
66
62

10
17
8
11

2000 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .

-1
-1
1

20
19
30

62
62
60

17
19
11




-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

ALL
III.E4

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

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

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1998 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

-1
-1

-1
-1

-2
0

|
|

4
1

3
1

5
5

|
|

**
**

** *
***

***
***

I
j

***
***

***
***

***
***

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

0
0
-0
1

0
1
-1
1

-0
0
1
3

|
|
|
|

-1
-1
-0
1

-1
-1
-0
2

1
-2
1
4

|
|
|
|

**
**
**
**

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

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

1
j
j
j

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

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

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

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...

1
-1
2

2
-0
1

3
-1
2

|
j
|

2
1
3

3
2
3

7
6
7

|
|
j

**
**
**

***
***
***

***
***
***

1
j
j

***
***
***

***
***
***

***
***
***

III.E5




NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
3
3

5
2

33
27

52
57

15
16

3
4
6
5

1
4
2
2

32
32
40
33

55
49
48
57

13
19
12
11

4
11
11

4
5
10

42
35
35

44
52
53

14
13
12