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
