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
