View original document

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

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE
DATABOOK
Second Quarter 1990
Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources

Farm debt outstanding, major lending institutions
Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks

Page

3
6

Selected statistics from the quarterly reports of condition of commercial
banks
Reserve bank surveys of farm credit conditions and farm land values

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




15
25

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. At the end of June, when this publication went to press, data from the survey of terms of bank
lending were available for the second quarter of 1990; the other data generally were available only through
the first quarter.

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 substantive questions may be addressed to Nicholas Walraven
or John Rosine 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.
the old address should be included.




A copy of the back cover showing

•

•

e

SECTION I:

•

#

•

e

e

e

#

e

FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING (including farm households)

TABLES:
Debt held by institutional lenders
I.A

Quarterly estimates

Page
4

SOURCES OF DATA:
The sources of the data in this section are: quarterly reports of condition, all insured commercial banks;
the quarterly information statements of the Farm Credit System; "Gross Flow of Mortgage Loans in the United
States," American Council of Life Insurance; and "Report 616," Farmers Home Administration, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. The farm debt series on a USDA basis is from the Economic Research Service. The data are not
seasonally adjusted.
The quarterly data shown here for commercial banks, life insurance companies, and the Farmers Home
Administration are virtually the same as those reported annually in the USDA accounts that include the debt of
farm households (as well as the debt of farm businesses) . By contrast, the numbers shown here for the Farm
Credit System differ somewhat from those shown in the USDA accounts, owing to adjustments by the USDA to allow
for loans that are not for agricultural purposes.

Recent developments:
The volume of outstanding farm loans held by the major institutional lenders continued to trend
gradually lower in the first quarter of 1990; in total, these loans were down 2 percent from the level of a
year earlier, similar to the year-to-year rate of decline that was evident in the second half of 1989. In
the first quarter, a seasonal paydown of nonreal estate debt trimmed the loans outstanding at commercial
banks by $1-1/2 billion, and declines in the volume of outstandings also were reported by the Farm Credit
System and the Farmers Home Administration. Relative to a year earlier, the reduction in outstanding loans
was concentrated in the loans held by the Farmers Home Administration, which has been resolving loan problems
that had accumulated through the 1980s.
[Note: At the end of June, when this issue of the Databook went to press, a first-quarter figure on the loans
held by life insurance companies was not available; it has been assumed in these estimates that the December
1989 figure carried over into March of 1990.]




3

TABLE I.A
FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING:

DATA REPORTED BY THE MAJOR FARM LENDING INSTITUTIONS
(END OF QUARTER)

REAL ESTATE DEBT
TOTAL

I.A1

TOTAL

INSURED
COMMERCIAL
BANKS

FARM
CREDIT
SYSTEM

LIFE
INSURANCE
COMPANIES

4

NONREAL ESTATE DEBT
FARMERS
HOME
ADMINISTRATION

TOTAL

INSURED
COMMERCIAL
BANKS

FARM
CREDIT
SYSTEM

FARMERS
HOME
ADMINISTRATION

AMOUNT, END OF QUARTER, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

•

126.9
128 . 1
126.8
123 .8

1988 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
04.

37.5
36.0
35.1
34.3

10.4
10.4
10.1
9.9

10.3
10.2
10.1
10.1

55.6
57.7
57.4
55 .1

28.8
30.4
30.6
29.0

10.4
10 . 6
10.5
9.9

16.4
16.6
16.3
16.1

67.9
67.7
67.8
66.9

14.7
15.2
15.3
15.4

33.6
33.0
33.0
32.2

9.7
9.6
9.6
9.7

10.0
9.9
9.8
9.6

53.4
56.4
56.4
53.8

28.1
30.3
30.8
29.8

9.5
10.1
9.8
9.3

15.9
16.0
15.8
14.7

65 . 8
65.7
65 . 6
65.1

15.8
16.3
16.5
16.6

31.1
30.6
30.5
30.2

9.4
9.3
9.3
9.5

9.6
9.4
9.3
8.7

52.3
55.3
56.2
53.2

28.4
30.7
31.5
30.8

9.3
10.0
10.2
10.0

14.6
14.6
14.4
12.4

116.0

1987 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

13.1
13.8
14.1
14.5

118.1
121.0
121.7
118 .3

I.A2

71.3
70.4
69.4
68 .8

121.4
124.1
124.2
120 . 6

1990 Ql...

64.8

16.8

29.9

9.5

8.6

51.2

29.3

9.7

12.1

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SPECIFIED DEBT, END OF QUARTER
100.0
100.0
100.0
100 . 0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

18.4
19.6
20.3
21. 0

52.5
51.2
50.6
49.9

14.6
14.7
14.5
14.4

14.4
14.5
14.5
14.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

51.8
52.7
53.4
52.7

18.8
18.5
18.3
18.0

29.5
28.8
28.3
29.2

21.7
22.4
22.6
23.1

49.4
48.8
48.7
48.1

14.2
14.1
14.1
14.5

14.7
14.7
14.5
14.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

52.6
53.6
54.6
55.4

17.7
17.9
17.4
17.2

29.7
28.4
28.0
27.3

1989 Ql.
Q2.
03.
04.

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

24.0
24.8
25.2
25.6

47.2
46.6
46.5
46.4

14.3
14.2
14.1
14.7

14.5
14.4
14.2
13.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

54.3
55.5
56.1
57.9

17.8
18.1
18.2
18.8

27.9
26.4
25.7
23.3

1990 Ql.

100.0

25.8

46.1

14.7

13.3

100.0

57.3

19.0

23.7




MEMO:
FARM DEBT
HELD BY MAJOR
FARM LENDING
INSTITUTIONS,
USDA BASIS

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

SECTION II:

AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS

TABLES:
Estimates from the quarterly survey of nonreal estate farm loans
II.A
II.B
II.C
II.D
II.E
II.F
II.G

Amount
Number
Average size
Average maturity
Average effective interest rate.
Percentage of loans with a floating interest rate....
Distribution of farm loans by effective interest rate

Page
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

SOURCES OF DATA:
These data on the farm loans 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
y
tables.
Before August 1989, the farm loan survey was part of a broader survey of the terms of lending by a sample of
340 commercial banks. A subset of 250 banks was asked for information regarding agricultural lending, and
about 150 typically reported at least one farm loan.
Beginning in August of 1989, the data are being drawn from a new, redesigned sample of 250 banks that is no
longer part of the broader survey. In choosing the new sample, banks are stratified according to their volume
of farm lending; previously, they had been stratified according to the volume of total loans. As before,
however, the sample data are being expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks. In the August
1989 survey, about 200 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled about
4500, more than twice the number typically reported in the previous quarterly surveys.
The new panel of farm banks also was chosen so that the regional mix of sample banks corresponds roughly to
the geographic distribution of outstanding farm loans; over time, as more experience is gained with the new
sample, it may become possible to examine regional differences in the terms of agricultural lending.
In both the previous survey and the new one, the national estimates exhibit variability due to sampling error.
This variability is particularly evident in data on average maturity, which are greatly affected by the




TABLE I.B

FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING : DATA REPORTED BY THE MAJOR FARM LENDING INSTITUTIONS
REAL ESTATE DEBT
TOTAL

I.B1

TOTAL

FARMERS
HOME
ADMINISTRATION

|
1
|
1

-6.1
3 .9
-0,
.5
-4 .1

.7
-7.
5 .7
0,
.7
-5 .2

-9.9
2.2
-1.2
-5.6

-0, 4
1 .6
-2 .2
-1 .1

|
|
|
|

-1,
.2

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

-2 .3
-1 .5
-0.
.0
-2 .6

-2.
.4
-0.
.8
0.
.1
0.
.8

-1.
.1
-0.
.4
.0
-1.
.5
-2.

|
|
|

-2.9
5.6
-0.
.1
-4.6

-3 .2
7 .6
.7
1,
-3 .1

-4.5
6.8
-3.1
-5.7

-1 .4
1 .1
-1 .5
-6 .9

|
|
|
|

.7
2.

.7
-2.

-0. 4
-1.
.2
-1.2
-6. 8

I
|
1
|

-2 .8
5.8
1 .6
-5.3

-4 .7
8 .2
2 .5
-2 .2

0.3
7.5
2.6
-2.1

-0 .0
-1 .0
-14 .4

|
|
|

***

-0.
.8

-0.
.9
-0.
.6
3.
.0

-0 .7

1.
.2
0.
.9

-3.
.5
-1 .4
-0.
.5

|

-1 .5
-0.2
-0.
.2
-0,
.7

|

***

1

.4
-o.

0.
.7

-1.
.1

0.
.0

-0. 9

1

-3 .7

-4 .7

-3.2

-1 8

|

***

***
***
***
-14 .1

***
***
-2 .1

|
|
|

***
***
***
-6.3

.
.
.
.

|
|
1
|

-2.0
2.3
o .0
.9
-2.

|
1
1
|

|

1

|

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

1990 Ql...

1

-1 .9

|
|

.3
-o,

o .1
-1,
.4

3,
.0

|

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

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM SAME QUARTER OF PREVIOUS YEAR

1987 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

I
I
|

***
***
— 6,
.5

|
;
|

***
***
-6.2

***
***
***
13 .9

-12 .6

1988 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
|
|
1

-4 .3
-3,
.1
-2.
.1
-2 .6

|
|
|
|

-4.7
-3.8
-2.3
-2.8

12 .1
9 .6
8 .6
6 .7

1989 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4 . . .

|
|
1
|

.7
-2.
,6
-2.
.0
-2.
,9
-1.

1
1
1
1

.0
-3,
.0
-3.
-3.
.3
.6
-2.

1990 Ql...

1

-I- 8

1

-1.
,5

#

FARM
CREDIT
SYSTEM

-0.
.8
-0.
.8
-1.
.2
.0
0.

1989 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

#

INSURED
COMMERCIAL
BANKS

-5 .0
-0,
.7
.6
-2.
.8
-1.

1988 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.




TOTAL

-4 .7
-3 .9
-2 .4
-2 .2

1
1
|
|

1.82

FARMERS
HOME
ADMINISTRATION

3,
.5
5,
.2
2 .1
2 .4

-4.3
1.0
-1 .0
-2.4

|

LIFE
INSURANCE
COMPANIES

-2 .8
-1 .3
-1.4
-0.9

|
|
1
|

|

FARM
CREDIT
SYSTEM

MEMO:
FARM DEBT
HELD BY MAJOR
FARM LENDING
INSTITUTIONS,
USDA BASIS

PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS QUARTER

1987 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
.
.
.
.

INSURED
COMMERCIAL
BANKS

NONREAL ESTATE DEBT

e

***
***

1

-7 .0

***
***
***
-6 .9

-10 .4
-8 .2
-5.
.9
- 6.
.3

-7 .4
-7 .4
-4 .8
-2 .3

-3 .0
-2 .6
-2 .3
-4 .7

|
|
I
1

-3.8
-2.2
.8
-1.
.4
-2,

-2 .3
-0,
.5
0.
.4
2. .6

-9 .1
-4 .9
.7
— 6,
-6,
.8

-3 .1
-3 .6
-2 .9
-8 .6

|
|
|
|

***
***
***
-2.8

7.
.5
7. 6
7. 6
8. 0

-7.
.5
-7. 3
-7. 8
— 6.0

-2 .6
-2.
.8
-3.
.4
-1.
.2

-4 .1
-4 .9
-5,
.1
-9.
.3

1
1
|
1

.2
-2.
-2 .0
-0.
,4
.1
-1.

.0
1.
.5
1.
2. 4
.3
3.

.0
-2.
.5
-1.
4. 4
8.3

-8.
.0
-9.0
-8. 6
-15. 9

|
|
|
|

•**
***
***
***

5. 9

e

-9 .9

***
***
***
-2 .7

-3. 6

.5
1.

-9.8

1

-2.1

3. 4

4.5

-16.9

|

***

***

#

e

*

#

"#

#

•

#

#

•

#

*

#

#

#

*

#

#

«

#

*

#

SECTION II: (CONTINUED)

occasional appearance of loans with a maturity of about 20 years. In addition, the breakdown of national
estimates into those for large banks and small banks may be affected somewhat by the new sampling procedures
that were implemented in August 1989/ apparent shifts in the data as of that date therefore should be treated
with caution.
More detailed results from each quarterly survey are published in Table 5 of Statistical Release E.2, "Survey
of Terms of Bank Lending," for which a mailing list is maintained by Publications Services, Mail Stop 138,
Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C., 20551. Starting with the August 1986 survey, farm loans secured by
real estate are included in the data shown in Statistical Release E.2, whereas such loans are excluded from
the tabulations presented here.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
In the second week of May 1990, the average effective rate of interest on commercial banks' nonreal estate
loans to farmers (Table II.E) was 11.8 percent, the same as in the February survey, and down roughly a full
percentage point from the level reported in the May 1989 survey. The decline in rates over the last year has
been apparent for all types of farm loans and at both large banks and small banks.
Other results from the quarterly surveys are presented in Tables II.A through II.D and in Table II.F. The May
1990 survey showed a small dip in the amount of nonreal estate farm loans made by commercial banks (table
II.E). Although the quarterly data tend to be quite volatile, this amount was near the upper end of the range
of recent quarters. The range of interest rates on loans that were in the survey tightened in May (table
II.G).




7

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.A
AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)




8
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

BY SIZE
OF BANK

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

8.4
8.7
8.5
8.3
7.9
8.4
8.9
7.2
6.0
5.7
5.2
6.1

8.9
8.5
9.7
9.5
9.8
9.0
7.8
7.4
6.9
6.8
6.4
7.7

13.6
17.3
18.1
18.0
18.2
17.5
17.6
13.5
13.2
12.6
12.9
14.4

15.7
18.2
23.8
25.3
30.0
32.4
26.5
24.0
22.3
24.5
23.7
23.4

LARGE

ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE

46.5
52.7
60.0
61. 1
66.0
67.3
60 . 8
52 . 1
48 . 5
49.6
48.2
51. 6

13.4
16.8
16.1
12.7
13.6
12.1
10.7
8.6
10.4
13.2
10.0
12.9

3.9
4.9
4.6
4.3
4.5
5.9
6.5
5.2
4.5
3.4
4.6
6.0

16.9
18.7
24.1
27 .3
28.1
31.1
26.5
22.6
23.2
22.5
24.3
24.3

4.2
4.2
4.8
4.7
5.4
6.1
4.4
4.4
2.4
2.3
1.9
2.0

7.6
8.0
10.1
11.4
13.4
11.9
12.2
11.3
8.0
8.3
7.4
6.4

1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I

1
1
1
I
1
|
1
I
I
1
1
I

12 .3
11 .1
11 .9
12 .8
21 .7
18 .6
15 .8
14 .9
12 .6
17 .1
15 .9
19 .6

34.2
41.6
48.1
48.3
44.3
48.7
45.0
37.3
35.9
32.5
32.3
32.0

AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
50.7
53.6
38 . 1

12.1
7.2
10.7

3.3
4.7
5.4

25.2
32.1
14.7

2.1
1.9
1.1

8,
.0
7,
.7
6.
.1

I
I
I

6.7
5.4
3.7

6.9
7.7
4.9

12.9
13.3
10.8

24 .1
27 .2
18 .7

I
I
I

18 .4
15 .9
14 .1
.

32.3
37.7
24.0

41.2
62.7
47.7
54.8

11.7
11 .8
11.4
16.8

3.1
5.2
5.7
10.0

19.1
35 .8
22.3
20.0

1.8
1.8
2.5
1.7

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

I
I
I
I

4.8
7.4
6.7
5.6

5.6
9.3
8.0
7.6

10.0
15.6
14.8
17.2

20 .7
30 .4
18 .2
24 .4

I
I
I
I

17 .0
,
18 .8
,
18 .4
,
24 .2
.

24.2
43.9
29.4
30.6

62.1
59.9

18 .4
15.9

7.3
3.5

24.6
23.9

3.3
2.2

8.
.5
14 .
.4

I
I

5.3
6.8

6.5
8.1

16.9
13.6

33 .3
31 .4

I
I

29.
.4
33 .
.2

32.6
26.7

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.B
NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS)

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

BY SIZE
OF BANK

BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

2.36
2.37
2.23
2.23
2.14
2.32
2.42
2.06
1.71
1.57
1.42
1.67

0.60
0.59
0.66
0.65
0.67
0.60
0.53
0.51
0.46
0.46
0.43
0.52

0. 33
0. 37
0. 41
0. 41
0. 40
0. 38
0. 40
0. 30
0. 29
0. 27
0. 28
0. 31

0.06
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.09

LARGE

OTHER

.
o. 19
,
o. 18
.18
o.
.17
0.
.22
o.
.20
o.
.
o. 18
.18
o.
.20
0.
.20
o.
.23
o.
.36
o.

3.15
3.24
3.22
3.21
3.08
3.21
3.26
2.78
2.34
2.18
1.99
2.23

0.24
0.26
0.18

2.42

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE

3.35
3.42
3.40
3 .39
3.30
3 .41
3.44
2.96
2.55
2 .38
2 .21
2.60

1978 .
1979.
1980 .
1981.
1982.
1983.
1984 .
1985 .
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989.

0.60
0.52
0.50
0.39
0.33
0.37
0.34
0.34
0.30
0.39
0.29
0.30

0.32
0.31
0.29
0.26
0.26
0.32
0.29
0.23
0.17
0.13
0.11
0.20

1.60
1.75
1.76
2.01
2.06
2.00
2.06
1.77
1.66
1.54
1.45
1.73

0.43
0.43
0.45
0.38
0.30
0.39
0.35
0.36
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.16

0 .39
0 .41
0 .39
0 .34
0 .35
0 .32
0 .35
0 .27
0 .24
0 .19
0 .21
0 .20

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

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

1988 Q2.
03.
04.

2.66

1989 Ql.

2.01

03.
04.

2.78
2.47

1990 Ql.

2.37
2.81

02.

02.




1.64

0.26
0.28
0.33
0.24

0.09

0.28

0.22

0.44

0.19
0.29
0.23
0.26

0.23
0.25
0.12

1.49
1.02

1.31
2.25
1.95

0.17
0.24
0.20

1.33
2.06
1.84
1.47

0.20
0.19

1.48
1.86

1.38
1.90

0.25

0.21

0.29
0.31
0.22

0.08

0.38
0.64
0.55

0.23
0.32
0.32
0.39

0.07
0.11
0.07
0.09

0.21
0.48
0.45

2.02

0.42
0.56

0.36
0.31

0. 10
0.08

0.40
0.52

1. 97
2.29

0.48

1.87
1.60
1.00

0.33

0.06
0.06

1.46
1.80

2.80
2.30

9

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.C
AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

10
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

BY SIZE
OF BANK

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

3 .6
3 .7
3 .8
3 .7
3 .7
3 .6
3.7
3 .5
3 .5
3 .6
3 .7
3 .6

14 .9
14 .4
14 .7
14 .7
14 .6
14 .8
14 .7
14 .4
14 .9
14 .7
14 .8
14 .7

41.4
46.7
43.9
43.5
46.1
46.3
43.8
45.5
44.9
46.5
45.2
45.9

246
220
239
255
326
294
291
255
280
320
320
272

LARGE

OTHER

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

63.4
61.5
66.3
73.0
97.8
92.0
88.1
82.0
62.0
85.5
70.0
53.7

10.
.9
12.
.8
14 .
.9
15.
.0
14.
.4
15.
.2
13.
.8
13.
.4
15.
.3
14 ,
.9
16.
.3
14 ,
.4

ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE

1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989

|
|
I
|
I
|
1
|
|
|
|
|

.9
13.
.4
15,
.7
17.
.0
18.
.0
20.
.7
19.
.7
17.
17.
.6
.0
19.
.8
20.
.8
21.
.
19. 9

22 .3
32 .4
32 .3
32 .6
41 .5
32 .5
31 .8
25 .7
35 .0
33 .8
34 .1
42 .7

12.4
15.9
15.8
16.6
17.5
18.2
21.9
22.5
25.8
26.3
40.6
29.5

10 .6
10 .7
13 .7
13 .6
13 .6
15 .5
12 .9
12 .8
14 .0
14 .6
16 .7
14 .1

9.
.8
9.
.8
10.
.7
.3
12.
.
17. 6
15. 6
.
.5
12.
12.
.4
13. 6
.
16.
.1
13.
.9
12.
.1

19.
.6
19.
.4
25.
.8
33..8
38..9
37..1
34 .
.8
42.
.1
32..9
44 .
.6
34..7
32..2

1
1
I
I
1
I
|
I
I
I
I
I

AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
19. 1
22. 6
2

46.
.6
25.
.8
32 .6

26.2
44.1
59.3

13.5
20.1
14.6

12.2
14.4
12.3

34.8
30.6
50.0

I
I
I

3.7
3.7
3.6

14 .5
15 .1
14 .5

•*r

42.3
48.7

301
454
288

|
I
I

75,
.3
.2
61,
.0
80,

13.4
17.9
16.4

1989 Ql.

5
1
2
2

49.
.1
42 ,
.7
44 ,
.2
38 .
.3

25.5
24.4
30.0
34.5

14.5
15.9
11.4
14.3

11.0
12.3
13.6
11.0

32.0
34.0
29.2
33.4

I
I
I
I

3.6
3.6
3.6
3.8

15 .1
.6
14 ,
14 ,
.5
14 ,
.8

43.4
48.5
46.5
44.5

296
275
252
266

I
|
I
I

.9
80,
57,
.8
.5
38,
54 .0
,

13.5
15.7
12.7
15.2

2
3

61 .
.2
.0
62 .

32.0
13.8

17.7
12.6

13.0
10.5

42.0
77.5

I
I

3.6
3.6

15.
.3
14 .
.3

47.5
44.3

324
409

I
1

.8
73.
.6
63 .

16.6
11.7

02.
03.
04.
1990 Ql.

02.




00

1988 Q2.
03.
04.

#

#

#

#

*

#

#

#

#

#

#

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.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

BY SIZE
OF BANK

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

7.9
7.7
6.8
6.2
6.0
7.0
7.0
6.7
6.8
7.5
7.1
7.4

8.6
8.3
7.0
6.4
7.0
8.1
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.1
9.2
8.3

9.2
7.8
7.1
6.0
6.6
8.1
7.7
9.1
9.8
9.3
10.2
9.3

7.6
5.5
7.6
5.8
6.4
10.0
8.0
7.9
7.1
8.3
7.7
7.1

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

8.7
7.6
7.3
6.2
6.7
9.9
7.9
8.4
8.8
9.3
8.8
8.2

OTHER

ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY

1978.
1979.
1980
1981.
1982 .
1983 .
1984 .
1985 .
1986.
1987.
1988 .
1989.

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

8 3
7. 1
7 2
.0
6.
.5
6.
.
8. 9
.7
7.
.0
8.
.0
8.
.4
8.
.7
8.
8. 1
.

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

5 .9
5 .9
6 .2
.5
5,
5 .1
5 .5
5 .0
6.1
.8
5.
5 .5
6 .4
6 .8

6.4
6.8
7.1
6.5
7.0
8.1
6.6
7.8
6.3
7.7
4.7
7.4

6 .8
6 .0
6 .6
5 .6
7 .1
10 .4
7 .8
7 .3
7 .6
7 .6
8 .5
7 .2

18.1
14.2
13.5
11.1
8.4
10.6
12.6
13.4
21.0
22.8
19.8
18.7

10.5
8.7
6.7
5.2
5.4
7.8
8.1
8.8
8.8
12.1
10.9
11.8

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|

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

1988 Q2...
Q3...
Q4. . .

I
1
!

.
8. 4
.0
7.
7.
.2

1
1
I

6 .0
7 .2
6 .2

6.3
3.7
3.9

8 .0
6 .4
7 .0

22.6
8.8
32.4

8.6
11.2
7.4

|
|
|

7.8
6.1
6.1

12.4
6.4
8.0

10.0
7.3
9.5

5.7
7.2
5.5

6 .5
7 .0
5 .1

9.0
7.0
8.0

1989 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
1
1
1

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

7
9
9
5

|
|
1
|

7.4
6.2
6 .5
7.0

6. 6
6.8
8.3
7.4

8 .7
7 .3
6 .1
6 .8

21.4
18.5
17.8
17.4

15.7
11.2
13.3
8.1

|
|
|
|

8.4
8.0
6.5
6.8

10.4
8.8
7.7
6.8

12.3
9.5
8.1
8.5

7.0
6.3
8.5
7.1

6 .8
8 .8
8 .3
7 .2

10.7
7.7
7.7
7.6

1990 Ql...
Q2...

|
1

.
10. 8
io .0

1
|

6 .3
6.2

8.5
10 . 6

11 .6
9 .7

23.7
19.2

11.9
11.8

|
|

8.3
8.7

10.2
10 .7

16.3
12.6

7.6
8.3

6 .8
8 .2

13.0
11.3




11

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.E
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE




12
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

BY SIZE
OF BANK

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

9.4
11.1
14.7
18.0
17.0
14 .2
14 .6
13.7
12.4
11.6
11.7
12.8

9.4
11.4
14.7
18.2
16.8
14.1
14 .3
13.2
12.0
11.3
11.6
12.7

9.5
11.5
14.9
18.2
17.0
14.0
14.3
13.2
11.8
11.1
11.4
12.7

9.9
12.8
15.9
18.9
16.4
13.0
13.7
12.1
10.8
9.9
10.8
12.2

LARGE

ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE

9.6
11.9
15.2
18 . 5
16.7
13.5
14.1
12.8
11.5
10.6
11.2
12.5

9 .7
12 .
.1
15.
.6
.
18 , 6
15 .
.9
13.
.6
13 .
.7
.5
12 .
11.
.1
10 .
.7
10..9
.3
12 .

9.8
11.7
14.6
18.4
16.3
13.8
14.3
12.7
11.9
10.2
11.9
12.4

9.5
11.8
15.3
18.4
16.9
13.5
14 .2
13 .0
11 .5
10 .8
11 .2
12.6

9.6
11.2
14.4
17.9
17.1
14.3
14.6
13.7
12.2
11.5
11.7
12.8

9.7
12.1
15.3
18.6
16.9
12.8
14.0
12.1
11.2
9.5
10.7
12.3

1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1

10.2
13.6
16.2
19.8
16.1
12.1
13.1
11.2
9.6
9.2
10.2
12.1

9.4
11.4
15.0
18.1
17.0
14 .1
14 .4
13.4
12.1
11.3
11. 6
12.7

9.7
10.7
11.1

11.8
11.8

12.1

12.1
12.8

12.4
13.0

I
|
I
|
I
|
|
(
|
|
1
I

AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
10.7
11.5
11.6

10.5
11.2
11.6

10,

12.
11.

12.2

12.2
12.8
12. 6
12.2

11.4
11.6

12.2

12.2
12.9
12.0

11.8
11.8

11.7

10 .9
11 .5
11 .6

11.

10.2

11.
12.

11.0
11.3

12.
12.

12.
13.
12.
12.

12.1
12.8
12.2

12.
12 .

12.2
12.4

12.4
12.9

11.5
11.8
12.1

11.6

11.0
11.6

11.9

12.0

10.1
11.3
11.1

12.5
13.1
13.0
12.7

12.3
12.9
12.9
12.5

12.6
13.2

12.7

12.3

12.0
11.8

11.6

12.5

11.

12.6

11.

12.5

12.4
12.3

12.2
12.1

11.3
11.4

11 .2
11.4

12.3
12.3

12.1

11.4

12.6

12.0

11.3

12.8

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.F
PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

BY SIZE
OF BANK

BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

1.6
3.1
6.9
15.5
24.3
25.6
23.8
27.6
40.6
48.5
49.3
50.4

3.1
6.2
12.1
17.7
25.6
29.1
31.3
31.5
41.8
45.6
51.5
49.6

7.8
9.7
12.9
21.7
29.7
34 .9
29.0
42.0
48.2
54.4
60.8
58.5

41.9
34.7
37.2
42.9
53.4
55.9
52.7
56.6
63.7
68.5
67.0
69.1

62.

1.1

66.
74 .
80.
65.
77.
71.
77.
71.
77,
79
83

3.4
8.4
15.5
26.3
29.9
27.6
32.6
47.0
49.9
52.6
47.2

51.5
47.0
53.2

61.4
49.1
60.5

64.6
76.9
69.1

76.1

52.3
54.5
55.9

LARGE

OTHER

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE

18.9
16.5
19.8
33.3
47.8
47.8
41.2
61.4
60.5
51.6
65.3
71.4

17.3
16.7
21.5
29.0
39.2
43.
38.
45.
53.
59.

1978.
1979.
1980.
1981.
1982.
1983.
1984.
1985.
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989.

61.

61.0

19.7
17.1
17.7
21.6
30.2
28.7
32.3
44.9
34.8
69.6
39.5
40.0

14.4
15.8
21.0
31.5
43.0
48.1
41.7
43.0
57.2
62.1
63.8
59.7

2.1
7.3
11.2
14.9
15.5
17.6
24.3
19.6
30.9
55.5
54.9
32.9

28.4
23.8
32.7
28.5
31.4
44.3
39.5
47.3
50.6
62.1
63.2
73.6

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER

63.3
62.3
78.4

58.7
36.5

61.8

46.7
64.4
17.4

68.1

66.8

56.7
42.6
51.3

82.9

30.0

40.
26.
30.
35.

75
66
78
77

45.8
56.3
51.9
44.5

52.4
45.9
58.2
42.9

69.4
50.6
63.9
54.6

78.3
52.7
75.6
76.8

88.6

41.7
47.1

85.3
84.2

50.2
55.7

57.8
63.2

69.6
65.2

78.8
85.7

85.0

1988 Q2.
03.
Q4 .

60.9
62.2
62.9

61.8

1989 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
04.

68.8

1990 Ql.

02.




64.8

66.0

18.2

61.8

69.5
68.5

46.2
51.0

67,
49.
69.
59.

71.
74 ,

78.3
77.5

47.5
50.4

73.0
73.0

51.6
65.7

58.7
64.5

80.6
74.8

80.3
87.1
80.1

88.0

55.0
39.3
52.3
47.4
59.5
58.0

13

Table II.G

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS M A D E BY BANKS, 1
BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE

Effective
1
May
interest
1
rate
I 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
1987 1988 1989 199(
(percent)
1
1
All loans.
Under 6.0..
6.0 to 6.9.
7.0 to 7.9.
8.0 to 8.9.
9.0 to 9.9.
10.0 to 10,.9.
11.0 to 11..9.
12.0 to 12,.9.
13.0 to 13.9.
14.0 to 14.9. .
15.0 to 15.9.,
16.0 to 16.9.,
17.0 to 17.9..
18.0 to 18.9..
19.0 to 19.9..
20.0 to 20.9..
21.0 to 21.9..
22.0 to 22.9..
23.0 to 23.9..
24.0 to 24.9..
25.0 and over.

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

-

7
6
43
40
3
1

-

-

35
48
11
6

"
"

—
—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1
4
9
7
11
35
18
9
3
1
1
—

-

-

100

-

100

-

100

-

100

-

-

—

-

4
14
32
22
12
10
5
1

100

-

-

-

1
1
1
10
22
19
21
10
10
4
2
1

2
12
45
29
9
1

-

-

-

1
6
7
28
31
15
10

1
12
26
36
21
2

5
7
11
24
31
13
7
1

1

-

1
11
21
23
22
19
3

1
10
20
27
23
15
3

—

-

1
6
12
11
33
22
13
2

-

-

-

-

-

5
8
39
34
8
4
1

1
8
33
39
14
5

-

-

1

1

-

—

-

-

—

_
_

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_
_

i
,
-cmiuuui or nonreai 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 because of rounding.
rarmers,




SECTION III:

SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

TABLES:

Page

Commercial banks:
III.A
III .B

Estimated delinquent nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
Estimated net charge-offs of nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial banks

17
18

Agricultural banks:
III .C
III .D
III.E
III .F
III.G
III .H

Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans
Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of net charge-offs to total loans
Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total capital
Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity
Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks
Failures of agricultural banks

19
20
21
22
23
24

SOURCES OF DATA:
The data in tables III.A through III.G are prepared using data from the quarterly reports of condition and
income for commercial banks. The observations for the first quarter of 1990 are preliminary. Delinquencies
and charge-offs of nonreal estate farm loans for the nation as a whole (table III.A and table III.B) are
estimated from reports of banks that hold more than 90 percent of total nonreal estate farm loans. Banks that
do not report delinquencies of agricultural loans are assumed to have the same delinquency rates as those that
report.
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 III.C through table III.H 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 preliminary estimate of this average was 15.63 percent in
March of 1990.
Failures of banks (table III.H) are obtained from news releases of the Federal Deposit Insurance Coiooration,
with agricultural banks defined, as above, by the amount of farm loans relative to total loans that uhe> hold.




SECTION III: (continued)

Recent Developments:
The amount of problem farm nonreal estate loans was slightly smaller in March of 1990 than it was a year
earlier, reflecting, primarily, a decline in nonaccrual loans (table III.A), The decline in the level of
nonaccrual loans appears to have flattened out last year, and it may be that the current levels are roughly in
line with normal business operations. Total net charge-offs (table III.B) were slightly negative for the
nation in Ql, as net recoveries in California, Iowa, and Nebraska more than offset net charge-offs in
Illinois, Texas, and Washington. Most other states had small positive net chargeoffs.
According to a variety of indicators, the financial performance of agricultural banks improved
further during the first quarter. Only about one in ten agricultural banks had nonperforming loans that
amounted to more than 5 percent of total loans (table III.C)z and the proportion of banks that had large
amounts of net charge-offs fell as well (table III.D). Data through the first quarter suggest that
agricultural banks are earning returns at about the same rate as in the first quarter of the past several
years (table III.F). The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks (table III.G) remains at a
relatively low level, indicating that agricultural banks, on average, have had ample funds to lend to farmers
Fewer agricultural banks have failed thus far in 1990 than in the first half of any year since 1983 (table




e

#

#

#

#

e

#

#

#

TABLE III.A
ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS

MARCH 31

AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

NONPERFORMING

NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990

PAST DUE
JO TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
9 0 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 8 9
DAYS
ACCRUING

o .6

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

MEMO :
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE

1
1. 3
1. 4
,
0 .8
,
0 .5
,
0.5
0.6
,

2 .1
2 .5
,
3,
.3
2.
1 .5
.
.0
1,
0 .8
,

0 .7
.7
0,
0.
.8
0 .5
,
0,
.3
0,
0. 2
•

1 4
.8
1.
.5
2.
.7
1,
.2
1.
.8
0,
.
0. 6

NANA
NA
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4

1
I
1
|
1
1
1

.0
8,
.1
10.
.0
14.
10. 4
.
.
7. 1
.5
5.
.8
4.

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

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

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

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

NA
NA
NA
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.3

|
|
|
|
|
|
I

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

.0
1 .8
.
1 .4
.

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

.
1. 7
.
1. 6
.
1. 5
1 . .2

0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5

I
|
1
!

,4
10.
8. 1
.
.7
6.
6. 5
.

.7
.3
1.
1 .0
.
.7
1 ,

7 .7
,
6 .7
.
.
5 .7
4 .8
.

.
1. 6
1 .3
.
0.9
0 .7
.

6. 1
.
5. 4
.
.
4. 8
4. 2
•

1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7

I
I
I
|

1
1
2.

1987 01 .
Q2.
03.
04.

3 1
3, 8
.
4.7
.
3. 0
.0
.
1. 6
1. 4
.

3.
2.5
2.1
1. 9
.

1
I
1
1
1
1
1

0 ,

2
, 1
,0
, 9

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

1
1
|
1

.1
7.
,5
5.
.
4. 9
.
4. 5

.0
.0
0 , .9
1 .2
.

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

.0
1.
0 .7
.
0 .6
.
0 .
.5

4.
.2
.7
3.
3. 4
.
.
2. 9

1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6

|
|
1
1

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4

I
1
1
1

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

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

3 .5
.
.
3 .2
.7
.3
2,

0 .6
.
0 ..6
0 .
.5
0 .5
.

2.9
2.6
.2

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4

1
1
1
1

0.4

I

,
4. 8

2.1
,

.7
2.

0

1.3

1

.7
1. 5
1. 4
.

1988 01.
02.
03.
04.

0

.5
.
.3
.3
.4

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

0 ..5
0.4
0 .3
,
0 . 4

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

0 .

U .

< J „.8

1 .

1989 01.
02 .
03.
04 .

1

1, 6
.
1. 4
.
1 . ,2
1 . . 1

1990 01-

i

1. 4
.

1
1

0

h

1

0 .3
.

1 .

0 .

1 .

0 .

1 .

0 .1
-

0 .

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

0 .

0 .

.8
.8
,7
,6

0 .

0 .

. 6

0 .
0 .

1 .

1 .

'

.7
.

1 .

. 0

rhe national totals tor f arm nonreal estate loans.
After 1984, estimates are based on reports f rom banks that hold more than 90
Data are estimate
Earlier, only large banks that held about one-fourth of such loans reported nonaocrual and renegotiated farm loans; for other banks,
percent of such 1
f delinquent: farm loans are based on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks.
estimates




18

TABLE III.B

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

1985.
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989.
1990.

1300
1195
503
128
91

CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

Q1

02

Q3

200
235
173
28
10
-5

320
360
133
39
26

255
230
57
24
15

525
370
140
37
40

ANNUAL
TOTAL

Q4

* *

|
|
|
|
|
|

3.28
3.38
1.61
0.44
0.29
* *

Q1

02

03

04

0.
.51
0. 66
.
0.
.55
0.
.10
0.
.03
-0.
.02

0.84
1.07
0.46
0.14
0.09

0.64
0.67
0.19
0.10
0.05

1.34
1.10
0.46
0.12
0.13

*Data are estimates of the national charge-offs oT farm nonreal 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 198 4 Report of Income.
**No data.




#

#

*

TABLE III.C

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RELATIVE NONPERFORMING LOANS*
NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION, MARCH 31

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

198 4
198 5
198 6
198 7
198 8
198 9
199 0

I
I
I
|
|
|
|

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

46.9
38.4
31.6
35.9
49.1
57.6
61.9

33.1
33.7
32.0
32.7
30.8
29.3
26.8

15.5
19.9
24.2
21.4
15.7
10.6
9.2

3.3
5.2
7.5
6.8
3.2
1.9
1.5

0.7
1.9
3.0
2.3
0.9
0.4
0.5

0.5
1.0
1.8
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.2

1987 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
1
I
1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

35.9
39.6
43.0
50.3

32.7
33.5
33.0
30.6

21.4
19.3
17.0
14.4

6.8
5.1
4.9
3.3

2.3
1.7
1.3
0.9

1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3

1988 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

49.1
51.7
54.0
59.0

30.8
31.9
31.3
28.9

15.7
13.1
12.0
9.7

3.2
2.4
2.1
1.9

0.9
0.6
0.4
0.4

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

1989 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

57.6
60.1
61.7
65.8

29.3
29.3
27.6
25.1

10.6
8.3
8.5
7.6

1.9
1.5
1.6
1.2

0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

1990 01...

1

100.0

61.9

26.8

9.2

1.5

0.5

0.2

* 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 III.




19

TABLE III.D

DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RELATIVE NET CHARGE-OFFS*

DISTRIBUTION BY YEARLY NET CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS

TOTAL
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

UNDER
0.10

0.10
TO
0.49

0.50
TO
0.99

1.00
TO
2.49

2.50
TO
4.99

5.00
AND
OVER

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

25.2
18.5
10.6
9.7
19.4
31.8
36.0

28.2
23.6
14.5
13.4
20.6
25.7
28.1

20.5
20.0
18.0
15.5
18.5
17.2
16.5

18.6
23.9
30.2
30.7
25.4
17.3
14.1

5.5
9.2
16.1
18.0
11.0
5.8
3.9

2.1
4.8
10.5
12.6
5.1
2.2
1.4

;
|
|
|
|
|
|

DISTRIBUTION BY YEAR-TO-DATE CHARGEOFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS
1988 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
I
|
|

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

71.2
55.2
46.0
31.8

18.9
23.6
25.3
25.7

5.4
10.7
13.3
17.2

3.5
7.8
10.7
17.3

0.7
2.1
3.6
5.8

0.3
0.7
1.3
2.2

J
1
|
|

1989 oi...
02...
03...
04...

I
1
j
|

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

75.6
59.9
50.6
36.0

17.3
24.7
26.0
28.1

3.7
8.0
12.0
16.5

2.9
5.6
8.7
14.1

0.4
1.5
2.1
3.9

v 2
0•
0.4
0.7
1.4

1
I
|
|

1990 01...

1

100.0

77.2

16.3

3.8

2.2

0.4

0.1

|




TABLE III.E
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RATIO OF NONPERFORMING LOANS TO TOTAL CAPITAL*
NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CAPITAL
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION, MARCH 31
25
TO
49

50
TO
74

75
TO
99

100
TO
124

125
TO
149

150
TO
174

175
TO
199

200
AND
OVER***

1.6
2.4
3.4
2.4
1.3
0.7
0.6

0.6
1.2
1.7
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.3

0.6
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
**

0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.1
0.2
0.1

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3

ALL BANKS

UNDER
25

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

76.5
68.7
64.7
71.3
81.2
87.0
89.0

16.1
19.4
20.5
17.3
12.3
8.5
8.1

4.4
6.4
7.2
5.9
3.3
2.2
1.6

1988 Ql.
02.
03.
04.

100.
100.
100.
100,

81.2
84.4
85.4
87.5

12.3
10.5
10.0
8.4

3.3

1989 Ql,
02.
03.
04.

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

87.0
88.6
89.2
90.1

1990 Ql.

100.0

89.0

198 4
198 5
198 6
198 7
198 8
198 9
199 0

|
|
|
|
|
|
|

2.8

1.3

1.0
1.0

0.7

0.2
0.5
0.4

0.7

1.6

0.4

0.2
0.1

0.6

0.1

1.1

8.1

1.6

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.2

0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.1
0.1

0.1

* Total primary and secondary capital items that are available at the end of the period specified.
are defined in the introduction to section III.
** Less than 0.05 percent.
*** Includes banks with negative capital.




0.1

0.1

0.2

Agricultural banks

21

22
TABLE III.F

DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RATE OF RETURN TO EQUITY*
AVERAGE RATE
OF RETURN
TO EQUITY

NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE
OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT BANK
(PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION)

ALL BANKS
1978.
1979.
1980.
1981.
1982 .
1983.
1984.
1985.
1986.
1987 .
1988.
1989.

1988 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4. .
1989 Ql..

NEGATIVE

0
TO
4

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

1
1
1
2
4
7
13
18
19
13
9
5

3
2
2
3
5
7
9
11
14
13
9
7

5
TO
9

10
TO
14

15
TO
19

20
TO
24

14
8
9
12
15
18
23
22
27
31
30
29

46
36
33
33
33
36
36
33
28
31
36
38

28
38
35
32
28
24
15
13
9
9
12
14

6
12
14
13
11
7
3
3
2
2
3
4

**

**

**

**

**

**

* *

1990 Ql...

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

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

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

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

0.
.1
0.
.3
,5
0.
,7
0.

0.
.2
0.
.5
0.
.5
.
0. 7

.0
10.
10.
.1
10.
.3
9.
.9

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

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

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

0. 1
.
0.
,3
0.
.4
0.
,1

10.
.2
10.
.4
10,
.4
10,
.1

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

**

1

0,
.2

0.
.1

0. 1
.

10,
.2

9,
.0

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

0.
.2
0.
,2
0.
,3
0.
.4
0.
.7
0. 9
.
1.
.2
2.
.1
.3
2.
.3
1.
0.
.7
0.
.6

2
5
7
9

0.
.3
0.
.5
.8
0.
0.
.9

0.
.2
0.
.4
0.
.6
0.
.7

3
6
9
11

**

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

3
5
8
10

**

13
14
14
13
12
12
12
11
8
8
9
10

3
6
8
10

0.
.3
0. 6
.
0.
.9
.0
1.

3

3

0.
.3

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)**
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

14
15
16
15
14
11
8
6
5
8
10
11

1
3
5
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
3

* *

* *

NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

25
AND
OVER

02..

Q3. .
Q4. .

RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

•Quarterly rates of return and charge-offs are year-to-date measures, not at an annual rate; therefore, the estimates are not comparable to data for the entire
year. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section III.
Total primary and secondary capital (items that are available at the end of the period specified) as a percentage of total assets.




TABLE III.G
AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*

AVERAGE
MINNE-

NUMBER
OF
BANKS

NUMBER

LOANS

OF

TO

BANKS

DEPOSITS

APOLIS

ST. LOUIS

CLEVELAND
NUMBER

LOANS

OF

TO

BANKS

DEPOSITS

|

226

NUMBER

LOANS

OF

TO

BANKS

DEPOSITS

0. 570

|

1258

NUMBER

LOANS

OF

TO

0.578

|

586

OF

|

NUMBER

LOANS
TO

BANKS

DEPOSITS

0.551

CITY

NUMBER

TO

BANKS

DEPOSITS

LOANS

KANSAS

887

OF

198 5

4953

0.592

|

130

0.600

198 6

4830

0. 555

|

130

0. 579

|

195

0. 590

|

1236

0.524

|

573

0. 527

198 7

4644

0. 515

|

117

0.594

|

167

0. 573

|

1192

0.4 90

|

556

0.509

|

845

0. 520

|

870

0.637

|

0. 587

198 8

4478

0.526

|

103

0.623

|

155

0. 599

|

1152

0.504

|

520

0.527

|

803

0. 521

198 9

4317

0.537

|

92

0.648

|

149

0. 600

|

1100

0.535

|

773

0. 548

|

773

4177

0.536

|

81

0.648

|

151

0.592

|

1037

0.541

|

487

0. 549

|

756

0.557

4478

0.
.526
0. 541
.

|

103

0 .623
.

|

155

0.
.599

1152

0.
.504

|

520

0. 527
.

|

803

101

0, 651
.

162

0.
.607

1147

|

533

0. 54 6
.

|

801

|

533

0. 546
.

|

500

0.
.54 9

|

0. 540

199 0

1988 Ql. . .
02...

4474

03. . .

4474

04...

4344

1989 oi...

4317

02...

4321

0. 541
.
0. 538
.

|

97

0 .660
.

|

162

.607
0.

1147

0.
.526
0.
.526

|

96

0.
.637

|

144

0.
.585

1111

0.
.529

0.
.537
0 . 557

1
|

92

0.
.648

|

149

0.
.600

1100

0. 535
.

94

0.
.665

|

161

0.
.604

1085

0.
.555

|

|

|
|

|
|

1394
|

|
|
|

1358
1300
1271
1229

RATIO

FRANCISCO
LOANS

NUMBER

TO

BANKS

DEPOSITS

FARM LOAN

SAN

OF

DEPOSITS

0.590

|

351
|

0. 487

|

0. 503

|

0. 508

|

NUMBER

TO

BANKS

0. 545

LOANS

357
372
381
396

DEPOSITS

0.582

0.518

398

0. 468

0. 521
.

1271

0. 503
.

|

381

0.
.518

1257

0. 503
,

|

380

0. 519
.

801

0.
,552
0. 552
.

1257

380

0.
.532

1239

0. 503
.
0. 512
.

|

778

|

392

0. 519
.
0.
.506

0. 548
,

|

773

0. 540
.

1229

396

778

0. 575
,

1223

0. 508
,
0. 514
,

|

|

|

391

|
|

0.479

|

0. 569
.

58
|

0. 538

0.497

773

|

0.
.479
0.
.495

|
|

|
|

LOANS
TO

BANKS

0. 573

1191

499

OF

DEPOSITS

0.712
59

56
59
62
54

|

16.65

0.694

|

0.659
0.643

15.68

|

0.624
0.622

15.93

)

15.51

|

15.47

|

15.63

59

0.
.643

|

15. 51
.

61

|

16.
.04

61

0.
.669
0.
.669

|

62

0. 637
.

|

15.
.72

|

62

|

62

0.
.624
0 , 682
.

|
|

.47
15.
.
16. 00

|

|

|

16.
.12

03...

4321

0 . 557

|

94

0. 665
.

161

.604
0.

1085

0.
.555

|

499

0. 569
,

|

778

0. 575
,

1223

0. 514
,

|

391

62

0. 682
.

4181

0 , 544
.

I

84

0.
.641

1

138

0 .588
.

1055

0.
.548

|

477

0 , 558
.

|

758

0. 552

1196

0. 511
,

|

393

0.
.495
0.
.481

|

04...

|

57

0.
.637

|

16.
.17
.
15. 87

1990 01...

4177

0. 536
.

|

81

0.
.648

|

151

0 ,592
.

1037

,541
0.

|

487

0. 549

756

0.
,557

1191

0. 497

398

0.
.468

|

54

0.
.622

|

.63
15.

|

|

*The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total deposits.




|

|
i

|

Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section 111.

23




TABLE III.H
F A I L U R E S OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS*
M A R C H 31

NUMBER OF FAILURES

Q1

1982
1983,
1984 ,
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990

Q2**

Q3

Q4

ANNUAL
TOTAL

2
1
3
12
14
22
11
5
3

3
1
7
21
14
19
6
7
4

3
2
10
17
21
12
12
5

3
3
12
18
16
16
7
5

11
7
32
68
65
69
36
22

* *

* *

* *

*Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial
banks and mutual savings banks also are excluded.
Agricultural
banks are defined in t h e introduction to section III.
**Failures for the second quarter of 1990 are not final.

SECTION IV:

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS AND FARM LAND VALUES

TABLES:
IV.A
IV.B
IV.C
IV.D
IV.E

Page
Nonreal estate lending experience
Expected change in non-real-estate loan volume and repayment conditions
Average loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availabilitv
Interest rates
Trends in real estate values and loan volume
'

23
30
32
^
36

SOURCES OF DATA:
Data are from quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks conducted at the end of
each quarter by five Federal Reserve Banks. Each of these banks issues a more detailed quarterly report on
its survey results, available from its Research Department at the address given below. The five surveys
differ in subject matter covered (as is evident in the tables), wording of basically similar questions, and
ype 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. Important
differences in the type of banks surveyed are noted 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 and has included roughly 900 banks in recent quarters.
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198
The sample chosen originally in 1976 consisted of 188 banks selected from among banks at which farm loans
constituted 50 percent or more of total loans, with appropriate representation of all farm areas
In recent
quarters, the sample has included about 150 banks.




25

Section IV: (continued)

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. Currently the sample includes 325 banks and in recent quarters the rate of responses has averaged
roughly 50 percent.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Station K, Dallas, Texas 75222
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. About 300 banks have been responding to the survey in
recent quarters.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23261
The sample selected in 1975 consisted of 43 banks of all sizes.
loans were sampled more heavily.

Banks with the larger amounts of farm

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
The Reserve Banks' surveys of agricultural credit conditions in the first quarter of 1990 generally showed
little change from the trends evident in previous quarters. The demand for farm loans at commercial banks
(Tables IV.A and IV.B) is increasing in most of the agricultural regions covered by the surveys, and further
gains in loan demand generally were anticipated in the second quarter, largely for the financing of farm
machinery and farm operations.
Banks continue to have ample funds available for farm lending. Loan-to-deposit ratios in the first quarter
were little changed from those of a year earlier in most districts, and in all districts, a large share of the
bankers surveyed continue to characterize the ratios as being lower than desired. Similarly, the proportion
of respondents who said that fund availability is either greater than a year ago or greater than normal
remains quite high. Few banks say that they have reduced or refused a farm loan because of a shortage of
loanable funds.




Section IV: (continued)

lthough loan repayment rates (Table IV.A) have slowed a bit in some regions over the past year, they have
improved in other regions, and the overall picture remains one in which repayment problems are relatively
limited. Similarly the demand for loan renewals and extensions has moved up a little in some regions, but
still is quite low by historical standards.

Land prices, on average, still appear to be trending up according to the Reserve Bank surveys, although there
are marked regional differences. In the Chicago and Kansas City districts, the very rapid increases of
previous years have given way to a more moderate rate of increase recently. A moderate year-to-year uptrend
° is evident i n the Minneapolis district, while large year-to-year gains are being maintained in the
Richmond district. In the Dallas district, the price trend looks relatively flat, on balance. These patterns
generally are consistent with those reported in the USDA's latest annual survey of land prices, the main
® f e p ' l o t l being that the US DA figures show a stronger price trend in the states of the Minneapolis District
(The DSDA data cover the period from February 1, 1989, to January 1, 1990; this period differs from any of the
periods covered in Table IV.E.)
*




27

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

LOWER
IV.A1

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

FUND AVAILABILITY

DEMAND FOR LOANS

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1988 Ql. .
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4. .

|
|
1
1

26
21
18
15

46
45
45
43

28
34
37
42

|
I
|
1

5
7
9
5

53
60
66
67

42
34
24
28

1
|
|
|

2
11
22
29

52
64
68
54

46
25
10
17

1
1
1
|

43
25
14
14

53
64
63
57

4
11
23
28

1
1
1
|

o
o
o
1

73
74
77
78

27
25
22
22

1989 Ql. .
Q2 . .
Q3 . .
Q4. .

1
1
|
|

11
11
13
17

39
41
50
48

50
49
37
35

I
|
|
|

11
15
13
6

63
63
65
64

26
22
22
30

|
|
1
|

27
18
12
11

62
72
70
54

11
10
18
34

|
|
|
|

11
11
15
28

61
68
70
59

28
21
15
12

|
|
|
|

0
1
0
1

73
79
81
83

26
20
18
16

1990 Ql...

1

15

45

40

|

6

63

31

1

io

59

31

1

29

61

11

1

1

81

18

IV.A2

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

1988 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
|
|
|

31
22
22
22

48
61
60
52

21
17
18
26

|
|
|
|

10
7
9
5

50
57
59
60

40
36
32
36

|
|
|
|

7
5
5
4

58
64
63
60

36
30
32
36

|
|
|
|

29
29
26
27

64
67
66
67

7
4
7
6

I
|
|
|

1
0
1
1

57
66
69
75

42
34
29
25

1989 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

|
|
|
|

17
15
11
11

56
56
53
53

27
28
36
36

|
|
|
|

4
10
10
9

63
63
64
63

33
27
26
28

|
|
1
1

3
9
14
21

67
71
70
63

29
20
16
16

|
1
|
!

25
13
11
11

71
78
78
65

4
9
11
24

|
1
1
1

1
o
o
1

72
75
80
82

27
25
20
16

13

55

32

66

27

14

67

19

13

72

15

80

19

1990 Ql.
IV.A3

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

1988 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
|
|
|

30
27
21
21

44
50
46
49

26
23
32
30

1
1
1
1

8
6
12
8

48
55
55
50

44
39
33
42

1
|
I
|

13
10
13
11

56
62
61
60

31
28
26
30

|
|
|
|

32
30
27
31

52
55
58
56

16
15
15
13

1
1
1
1

o
o
o
o

44
43
46
51

56
57
54
49

1989 Ql...
02.. .
03...
04.. .

1
|
|
|

25
28
20
20

47
47
52
54

27
26
28
26

1
1
|
|

5
8
10
5

51
55
57
61

44
37
33
33

|
|
|
|

10
15
15
23

68
68
71
61

22
17
14
16

|
I
|
I

27
18
17
16

64
66
65
61

9
16
18
23

1
1
1
1

o
o
o
o

54
56
61
57

46
44
39
43

16

54

30

60

33

22

68

10

13

65

22

59

41

1990 Ql.




FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE IV.A
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH NORMAL CONDITIONS
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
DEMAND FOR LOANS
LOWER
IV.A4

SAME

FUND AVAILABILITY

HIGHER

LOWER

20
16
12
18

66
66
67
69

14
18
21
12

1989 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

14
4
6
5

64
70
75
85

22
26
20
10

78

18

I
IV.A5

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1988 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

1990 Ql.

SAME

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

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

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

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

1
1
I
I

5
5
29
19

68
81
61
65

28
14
10
16

I
1
1
I

19
10
8
13

70
83
81
77

12
8
11
10

|
|
j
j

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

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

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

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

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

I
I
1
I

13
17
16
22

75
82
80
70

12
1
5
8

I
1
1
1

16
20
12
9

71
71
81
80

13
9
7
11

|
|
|
|

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

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

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

***

***
***

*•**

1

25

70

5

1

12

68

20

I

***

***

***

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

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

I
1
I
I

19
18
18
21

73
71
64
68

8
11
18
11

1
I
I
1

12
4
o
4

65
75
77
82

23
21
23
14

1
1
|
i

4
o
5
4

89
93
82
71

8
7
14
25

|
|
I
1

8
11
18
21

92
89
77
75

0
0

5
4

4
0
5
0

64
62
68
75

32
39
27
25

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

I
1
I
1

21
14
19
19

66
69
67
69

14
17
15
12

1
I
I
I

14
10
12
4

72
76
65
64

14
14
23
32

|
1
1
1

3
o
4
4

83
89
82
77

14
11
15
19

I
1
1
!

28
14
19
15

69
82
78
81

3
4
4
4

0
0
4
4

69
71
85
84

31
29
12
12

01...

1

21

68

11

1

11

68

21

1

11

79

11

1

18

79

4

74

22




29

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

FEEDER CATTLE

DAIRY

LOWER SAME HIGHER

LOWER SAME HIGHER

LOWER SAME HIGHER

IV.B1

CROP STORAGE

OPERATING
LOWER SAME HIGHER

LOWER SAME HIGHER

FARM MACHINERY
LOWER SAME HIGHER

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, 10, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

1988 Ql. .
02. .
Q3. .
Q4. .

|
|
|
!

19
28
18
8

52
48
48
45

29
24
34
47

I
|
|
1

28
46
30
16

58
46
56
70

14
8
14
13

|
|
|
|

18
30
18
14

76
64
76
77

6
6
6
9

|
|
|
|

27
51
42
33

68
41
43
57

4
8
15
10

|
|
|
|

21
20
13
5

50
47
42
31

30
33
44
64

|
|
|
I

11
52
37
17

36
39
45
50

53
9
18
33

1989 Ql. •
Q2. .
03..
04. .

1
|
1
|

9
10
16
12

40
53
57
51

51
37
27
37

I
I
|
1

25
22
21
13

62
69
67
70

13
9
12
17

|
|
|
|

15
13
14
11

78
80
78
77

7
7
8
11

|
|
|
|

33
28
19
25

59
65
62
63

8
6
20
11

|
|
|
|

6
9
20
13

28
46
57
45

66
45
24
43

1
|
1
1

14
15
9
8

49
58
45
38

37
27
46
54

1990 Ql. .

1

12

50

38

I

20

60

20

|

13

77

11

|

23

71

6

1

13

46

41

I

6

41

53

IV.B2

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

1988 Ql. .
02..
03. .
04. .

I
|
I
|

23
20
20
15

57
62
61
66

20
18
19
20

I
I
I
I

28
26
24
23

53
58
54
57

19
16
22
20

|
|
|
|

22
22
21
16

71
72
72
79

7
7
6
5

|
|
|
|

20
31
18
15

74
60
71
76

6
9
11
9

|
|
|
|

15
16
20
14

58
56
50
52

27
28
30
33

|
|
I
|

27
25
28
19

49
52
51
58

24
23
22
23

1989 01. .
02. .
03. .
04..

|
1
|
|

22
24
18
15

55
52
66
59

23
24
16
25

I
1
|
|

29
31
23
23

53
55
59
65

17
14
18
12

|
|
1
|

16
18
20
12

80
76
75
82

4
5
5
6

|
|
|
|

19
24
21
17

76
71
70
76

5
5
9
7

|
|
|
|

16
16
15
12

54
54
63
54

31
30
22
34

|
|
|
1

19
25
22
24

61
58
64
63

20
17
14
13

1990 Ql. .

1

17

59

25

1

22

62

16

|

19

76

5

1

17

80

3

1

11

58

31

I

20

62

17

IV.B3

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

1988 Ql. .
02. .
03. .
04. .

|
|
I
|

12
22
15
10

85
74
70
80

4
4
15
10

1
1
1
|

13
15
6
9

83
81
89
87

4
4
6
4

|
|
|
|

36
30
21
32

64
67
68
68

0
4
11
0

1
1
|
|

30
30
25
24

65
59
60
68

4
11
15
8

1
|
|
|

12
11
10
11

76
75
67
71

12
14
24
18

|
|
|
|

20
21
18
14

56
64
55
68

24
14
27
18

1989 Ql. .
02. .
03. .
04. .

!
1
1
|

8
17
24
12

77
62
64
64

15
21
12
24

|
I
!
|

21
12
17
9

79
85
83
87

0
4
0
4

|
|
|
|

26
24
44
21

74
76
57
79

0
0
0
0

|
|
|
|

23
24
20
17

77
76
64
83

0
0
16
0

|
|
|
|

10
3
11
8

69
72
70
65

21
24
19
27

|
1
1
1

10
10
26
15

66
69
63
62

24
21
11
23

1990 Ql. .

1

23

65

12

I

20

80

o

1

28

72

0

I

24

72

4

1

15

67

19

1

19

67

15




e

•

#

e

#

#

#

•

•

#

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE IV.B (CONTINUED)
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM LOANS DURING NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED WITH NORMAL DEMAND
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER
IV.B4
1987 Ql. .
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4. .

INTERMEDIATE -TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

SAME

DEBT EXTENSION
OR REFINANCING

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

.
.
.
.

|
|
|
I

19
23
23
19

65
72
71
70

16
5
6
10

I
I
I
I

21
25
20
17

63
71
72
74

16
3
8
9

4
13
14
18

71
78
80
73

25
9
6
9

|
|
1
|

1988 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

|
1
1
1

13
11
13
11

74
65
69
56

13
24
18
32

I
I
1
1

14
21
24
12

75
65
69
80

12
14
7
8

15
12
7
7

80
61
68
82

6
26
25
11

|
1
|
;

1989 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

1
1
1
1

6
3
7
3

64
82
81
82

30
16
13
16

|
I
|
I

5
11
10
7

80
82
80
78

14
7
10
16

10
11
7
2

82
83
81
88

9
6
12
10

|
|
|
|

1990 Ql...

1

o

80

19

1

4

86

10

5

81

13

|




1

31

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

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
AT
LOWER
DESIRED
THAN
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

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

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

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

1988 03...
04...

1
1

54
53

1
1

67
72

25
20

8
8

1
1

***
***

|
|

1989 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

54
56
57
56

|
|
1
1

68
66
62
65

22
22
28
26

11
12
10
9

1
1
1
I

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

|
|
|
j

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

1990 01...

1

55

1

67

25

7

I

***

|

***
***

***

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

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

|
|

***
***

***
***

***
***

***

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

|
|
|
|

***

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

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

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

***

***
***

IV.C2

NONBANK AGENCIES

|

***

***

***

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

1988 Q3...
04...

|
1
|
1

50
49

1
1

77
79

9
10

14
10

1
I

5
3

59
67

1
1

76
72

26
20

70
72

5
7

|
|

66
66

25
17

69
75

6
8

1989 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
1
|
1
|
1
I

49
51
51
51

1
I
|
1

81
82
79
79

12
7
7
7

8
11
14
14

1
1
1
1

3
2
4
5

71
69
70
67

1
1
1
1

75
78
78
76

23
25
21
18

70
75
75
76

7
1
4
6

|
1
1
1

65
65
74
72

21
21
21
19

67
75
73
75

11
4
6
6

1990 Ql...

|
1

50

1

81

9

10

|

4

71

1

74

15

78

7

1

67

15

74

11

20
21

70
71

10
8

17
25

72
68

11
8

12
18
16
16

79
75
72
74

8
7
12
10

15
18
11
17

75
75
80
68

9
6
9
15

19

76

15

75

10

IV.C3

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

1988 Q3...
Q4. . .

52
49

1989 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...
04...

46
48
49
47

1990 Ql.

45




***

* **

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

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

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

NONBANK AGENCIES

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

NONE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

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

1988 03...
04...

1
|

53
51

1
1

58
57

39
39

3
4

I
1

3
3

***
***

|
j

34
33

8
6

57
61

1
o

|
I

30
34

9
5

60
57

1
3

1989 oi...
02...
03...
04...

I
1
1
1

50
53
55
55

1
1
1
1

56
54
43
43

41
45
52
48

3
1
5
9

1
1
1
I

6
3
3
3

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

|
|
j
j

34
35
34
34

10
5
5
4

55
59
59
60

1
0
2
3

1
|
|
1

34
31
32
29

8
6
6
3

56
61
57
63

2
2
5
5

1990 oi...

1

52

1

49

47

4

1

3

***

j

32

3

63

2

1

30

2

63

4

IV.C5

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

1988 Q3...
04...

1
1

79
78

1
1

5
11

67
61

29
29

|
|

0
4

59
67

1
1

91
78

0
0

10
22

0
0

1
I

70
60

0
0

30
40

0
0

1989 01...
02...
03...
04...

|
1
|
1
|
I
|
1

80
79
80
76

1
1
|
1

14
io
22
32

50
62
56
56

36
28
22
12

|
|
|
I

7
3
4
0

55
66
63
69

1
1
1
1

77
82
84
73

4
4
4
4

19
15
12
23

0
0
0
0

I
1
1
1

60
64
71
62

0
4
8
12

36
32
21
27

4
0
0
0

1990 Ql...

j
1

76

1

32

57

11

1

0

68

1

84

4

12

0

1

65

8

27

0




33

I

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

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
IV.D1

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

11.6
11.9

1989 Ql...

12.5
12.4
12.1
12.0

12.5
12.4
12.2
12.0

11.9

11.9

1990 Ql..
IV.D2

11.9
12.2

***
***

1989 Ql...

12.6
12.5
12.4
12.3

12.6
12.4
12.3
12.1

12.2

12.1

1990 Ql...




INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

LOWER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

11.1

11.8
12.1

03...
Q4. . .

11.7
11.5
11.3
11.1

***

TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT

1988 Q3...
04...

02...

SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

11.0
11.3

11.7
12.0

03...
04...

AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER
COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)

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

1988 Q3...
04...

02...

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

34

11.9
12.2
***
***

11.4
11.6

12.6
12.5
12.4
12.2

12.0
11.9
11.7
11.6

12.1

11.5

(CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

***
***
***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

FEDERALRESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURE CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS

MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS
(AVERAGE, PERCENT)

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
IV.D3

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATP.

AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER
COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
T/iihc

SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

SAME

SAME

HIGHER

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1988 Q3...
04...

11 .9
12 .2

1989 Ql...

***
***

03...
04...

***

***

***

***

1990 Ql...

***

IV.D4
1988 Q3.
04.

11 .6
11 .7

1
1

1
1

54
34

44
66

1
1

1
1

55
33

43
66

1
1

1
1

58
37

41
62

12 .8
12,
.7
12.
.5
12. 4

12 .9
12 .9
.5
12.
12.
,3

12.
.2
12.
.1
11. 9
11. 7

1
1
I
I

7
43
30
49

29
55
68
50

63
2
2
1

1
1
1
1

7
42
28
44

31
54
70
56

62
3
2
1

1
1
1
1

8
42
29
46

36
56
69
54

56
1
2
0

12. 3

***
***

02...

12 .1
12 .4

12. 3

11. 5

1

8

83

9

1

8

80

12

I

8

80

11

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
12.4
12.6

12.6
12.8

03.
04.

13.3
13.2
13.0
12.9

13.5
13.3
13.0
12.9

1990 Ql.

12.7

12.8

1989 QL.

02.

IV.D5
1988 Q3.
04.

***
***

13.6
13.3
13.1
12.9

13.2
12.9
12,7
12.7

12.9

***

12.4
12.5

12.6

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

|
|
|
j
|

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
11.5
12.1

11.4
12.0

1989 Ql..
02. .
03. .
04. .

12 .8
12 .6
11 .9
12.
.2

12 .7
12 .5
12 .3
12.
.1

1990 Ql..

12. 0

12.
,0




12.6
12.8

***
***

***

11.8
12.3

11.6
12.1

12 .9
12 . 6
12,
.4
12.
.2

12 .7
12 .5
12,
.3
11.
.8

12.
,1

,0
12.

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

|
j
|
|

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

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

***
***
***

|
|
|
j
|

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

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

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

|
1
i
1
j
|

j

***

***

***

|

***

***

***

j

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

35

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE IV.E
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
ALL
IV.El
1988 Q3...
04...

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

DRY- IRRI- RANCHLAND GATED LAND

ALL

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

DRY- IRRI- RANCHLAND GATED LAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, 10, MI*, HI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

1

3

***

***

***

|
1

12
12

***

***

***

|

2

71
69

20
29

1

22
14

56
60

21
25

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

1
1
1
1

3
1
2
1

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

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

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

|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1

10
9
8
6

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

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

***
***

|
|

***

j

|

4
3
1
2

73
77
67
70

24
20
32
29

1
1
1
1

15
17
11
11

56
63
65
60

30
19
24
29

Ql. . .

1

3

***

***

***

j

5

***

***

***

|

2

71

28

1

6

66

28

|
|

0
0

67
75

33
25

1
1

14
19

73
78

14
4

j

69
69
93
73

31
31
7
27

1
1
I
1

22
21
28
16

70
72
64
76

7
7
8
8

68

29

1

23

69

8

31
23

59
61

10
16

25
32
28
26

65
61
61
65

10
7
10
9

25

64

11

IV.E2

***

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

03..
Q4. .

1
1

2
3

***
***

***
***

***
***

1
1

7
5

***
***

***
***

***
***

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

1
1
1
1

6
-o
11
-4

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

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

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

1
1
1
1

16
11
21
13

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

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

***
***

|

0
0
0
0

Ql. . .

1

14

***

***

***

1

21

***

***

***

|

4

IV.E3
1988 Q3...
04...
1989 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...
04...
1990 Ql...




***

***

|
j

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

-0
-1

2
-3

-1
0
-0
-1

2
2
4
-1

-2

***

-4

***

2
1

-2

***

-2

-1
-0
-1

***
***

-3
-3

***

-2

-3

-7

***

***

***

-8

***

***

***

-9

***

***

***

-8

***

***

***

-7
-4

***

***

***

***

***

***

-5

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

ZRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCH LAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

™
1988

DRYLAND

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

***
***

2
3

2
3

1
2

1
1

***
***

9
10

9
11

12
11

|
|

***
***

1989 01..
02..
03...
04...

|
|
J
|

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

4
1
0
2

5
1
2
1

4
2
-0
5

1
I
|
1

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

11
10
8
8

14
11
11
9

10
10
8
11

|
|
j
|

1990 01...

|

***

2

1

-0

|

5

5

7

j

33

|
|

IV. E5

***
***

***
***

j
j

***
***

***
***

***
***

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

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

j
|
|
|

***
***
***

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

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

***

***

|

***

***

***

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

1988 03...
04...

j
|

***
***

-.4
-2

-7
5

-3
-5

|
|

1989 01...
02...
03...
04...

j
|
|
j

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

8
4
•4
•2

2
5
-8
8

10
2
-1
-5

|
I
1
I

1990 01...

j

***

7

1

8

1




5
6
***
***
***

1
4

3
2

|
|

***
***

***

***
***

|
j

18
13

77
70

5
18

7
6
6
5

5
4
3
6

5
3
5
5

|
I
|
1
|
1
1

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

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

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

|
|
|
|

10
9
4
12

74
85
75
75

15
6
21
13

4

5

3

1

***

***

j

3

84

13

37