View original document

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



Office Correspondence

Federal Reserve and other IJ.S. Government
From_________ E. M elichar_______________

Date ..ociobgr....12, 1979_
Subject: C la rific a tio n of BusinessJJeek
___________ ar t ic le Tendi ng----

You may have seen the a r t ic le , "A rush for loans down on the farm," on
pages 140-141 of the October 15 issue of Business Meek. I f so, you may have
been puzzled by lead paragraph's statement that " -related bank lending
has soared by nearly 30% since Ja n u a r y ,..." and by the chart labelled "to tal
non-real estate ag ricu ltu ral loans." The Washington o ffice of Business Week
has provided the following c la r ific a t io n of these items: (1) the statement
in the text should not have referred to "farm-related bank lending," but
rather to "to ta l non-real estate ag ricu ltu ral loans;" (2) the ris e of 30%
should not have been stated as an actual increase "since January," but rather
as a Business Week projection of the to tal increase for 1979; and (3) the
dashed lin e in the chart was intended to illu s t r a te this projected increase
of 30% in the series during 1979.
With th is c la r ific a t io n in hand, the following additional comments are
(1) The series charted is not "t o t a l" non-real estate agricultural
loans, but rather that owed to reporting lending in s titu tio n s , thus excluding
debt owed to CCC and to "in d ivid u als and others" ( Balance Sheet, 1979, Table 7,
column 5). Data plotted for each year are actu ally as of January 1; thus the
so lid lin e should have continued beyond the value of $42.7 b illio n plotted for
January 1, 1978 to also show a value of $49.6 b illio n as of January 1, 1979.
The dashed projection lin e for 1979 experience should have begun at that point
and continued to January 1, 1980.
(2) Rather than risin g by 30% during 1979, the increase in th is series
w ill be well under 20%, p a rtic u la rly since the rise in loans outstanding
at banks (which comprise over one-half of the series to ta l) appears lik e ly
to f a ll in the neighborhood of only 10%. I t is inconceivable that anybody
or any model would be projecting an increase of 30%.
The above c la r ific a tio n s and comments appear to provide a basis fo r
conjecturing that the errors in the text and the chart may be related in the
sense that the January 1, 1979 value of $49.6 b illio n may have been overlooked
in the text as i t was in the chart. Thus i f the w rite r had been provided with
an estimate of about $55.5 b illio n fo r January 1, 1980, which he mistakenly
took for (and did chart as) "1979," he would have calculated a rise of 30%
since "1978" (which, however, was r e a lly January 1, 1978). This r is e , however,
would have a ctu a lly covered a two-year span encompassing an increase of
16% in 1978 and a projected increase of only 12% for 1979.
The remainder of the a r t ic le correlates well with Federal Reserve
surveys and analyses indicating strong farm loan demand in the face of a
tig h t liq u id it y position at most rural banks. Mid-year data indicate that
the net resu lt of these c o n flictin g forces has been a r e la tiv e ly slow
increase in outstanding farm loan? in the banking system—which is the
exact opposite of the Business Week statement and chart discussed above.