The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
E.15 (125) AGRICULTURAL FINANCE DATABOOK Second Quarter 1994 Guide to internal tables of contents and notes o n sources Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks P&g£. 3 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 Michele Ricci ^ 28 2 General Information The Agricultural Finance Databook is a compilation of various data on current developments in agricultural finance. Large portions of the data come from regular surveys conducted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or Federal Reserve Banks. Other portions of the data come from the quarterly call report data of commercial banks or from the reports of other financial institutions involved in agricultural lending. When the current issue went to press, data from the survey of terms of bank lending were available for the second quarter o 1994; the other data generally were available 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 questions may be addressed to Nicholas Wa1raven or Michele Ricci 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 SECTION Ii AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS Estimates from the quarterly survey of nonreal estate farm lQans Page Summary charts Tables: 10 A LB I. C I.D I.E I.F i!g I.H I,I Number , . c . e , Average size ...... Amount . . . . c , . . . Average maturity . Average effective interest Percentage of loans with a Distribution of farm loans Detailed survey results. Regional disaggregation of * rate...... floating interest rate by effective interest rate survey results g g ^ ^ ,, SOURCES OF DATA: are shown in the following tables. about 15 0 typically reported at least one farm loan. 216 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled 6324. should be t r e a t e d w i t h caution. 3 SECTION I: (CONTINUED) More detailed results from each quarterly survey previously were published in Statistical Release E.2A, "Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers". Beginning in February, 1992, the more detailed results are included at the end of this section of the Databook. and the E2.A has been discontinued. Starting with the August 1986 survey, farm loans secured by real estate are included in the data shown in the table of detailed results, whereas such loans are excluded from the tabulations in Tables I.A through I.G and the summary charts. Beginning in November 1991, several survey statistics are estimated for each of ten farm production regions as defined by the USDA. These statistics, which are presented in table I.I, should be treated with some caution. Although an effort was made to choose a good regional mix of banks for the panel, the panel has 1 ver been stratified by region = Consequently, the survey results are less precise for each region than fo he totals for the nation. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: The estimated number of nonreal estate farm loans made by banks jumped in the second quarter to the highest level since 1989, owing mainly to a surge in the number of loans for operating expenses other than those associated with livestock. The average size of loans in the first full week of May was about $29,000, a bit below the average that has prevailed for the past couple of years. The total estimated volume of loans closed during the first week of May was about in line with the average seen in recent years, as the uptick in the number of loans roughly offset the dip in the average size of each loan. In the May 1994 survey, the average effective rate of interest on nonreal estate farm loans rose 50 basis points to 7.8 percent, the highest level since mid 1992. Estimated average rates increased for all types and for all sizes of loans, although the sharpest increases were for larger loans. In the May survey, the percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats dipped to about 70 percent, perhaps as some farmers attempted to lock in lower rates for the growing season. The overall weighted average rate of interest including real estate loans rose 43 basis points in the May survey. The average rate of interest charged for farm loans rose across all farm regions. The magnitude of the increases ranged from about 100 basis points in the Northeast, Appalachian, and Southeast regions to 10 basis points in the Cornbelt, Chart 1 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Millions, Annual Rate 5.0 Number of nonreal estate farm loans 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 - Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Thousands of dollars Average size of nonreal estate farm loans - Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Billions of Dollars, Annual Rate Amount of nonreal estate farm loans 110 100 - Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Chart 2 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Months Average maturity of nonreal estate farm loans 14 12 — Four quarter moving 1978 l ... I ... 1 1979 1980 1981 10 1982 lii.iiiiii.il 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 i ... i ... i 1992 1993 1994 1992 1993 1994 Average effective interest rate on nonreal estate farm loans 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Percent Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate — Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 100 E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF BANK N O N R E A L E S T A T E L O A N S T O F A R M E R S T A B L E I.A NUMBER OF L O A N S M A D E (MILLIONS) ~ ~ BY ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK " BY SIZE OF L O A N ($1 ,000s) PURPOSE OF L O A N OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER 1 to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ,22 0. ,20 0. ,18 0. ,18 0. .20 0. .20 0. .23 0. .36 o. 0 .44 . 0 .50 . 0 ,51 , .55 0. 3. .08 3. .21 3. .26 ,78 2. ,34 2. , 2 . 18 .99 1. ,23 2. ,20 2. 2 . 10 .17 2. 2 .15 . A N N U A L NUMBER OF LOANS M A D E 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 , 1988 , 1989 , 1990 1991 , 1992, 1993 , 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 3 30 3 41 3 44 2 96 2 55 2 ,38 . 2 ,21 . 2 . 60 2 .63 , 2 . 60 , 2 ,68 , 2 .70 , 1 1 I 1 i 1 I I I 1 1 1 0 .33 0 .37 0 .34 0 .34 o .30 0 .39 0 .29 0 .30 0 .32 0 .35 0 .35 0 .36 0. 26 0. 32 0 .29 0. 23 0 .17 0 .13 0 .11 0 .20 0 .24 0. 23 0 .25 0. 27 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 06 00 06 77 66 ,54 , ,45 . ,73 . .69 . .64 . .67 , .62 . 0 .30 0 .39 0. 35 0. ,36 0..17 0..14 0 . 14 , 0 . 1.6 , 0. 19 , 0. ,1.7 0. .18 .18 0. 0. 35 0. 32 0. 35 0, 27 0 .24 0. 19 0..21 0..20 0. 19 . 0,.21 0 : 24 . ,27 0. 2< .14 .32 2. .42 2. .06 2 , 1 .71 , 1 .57 , 1 .42 , 1 .67 , 1 .70 . 1. 66 1 .67 , 1 .65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .67 .60 .53 .51 .46 .46 .43 .52 .49 .51 .54 .56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .40 . . .38 . ,40 ,30 . . .29 . .27 . .28 « .31 .35 . ,32 . , ,36 . 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .09 .11 .09 .09 .08 . .08 . ,07 . ,09 . ,09 . ,10 . .11 . ,12 LOANS M A D E D U R I N G FIRST FULL W E E K OF S E C O N D M O N T H OF Q U A R T E R , A N N U A L R A T E N U M B E R OF ] 0 .61 0 .51 0 .53 1992 0 2 . . . Q3... Q4... 1 1 1 2 .88 2 .76 2 . 64 1 1 1 0 .28 0 .32 0 .43 0. 27 0 .17 0. 30 1 .95 1 .78 1 .52 0, 15 , 0, .20 0, .19 0, .23 0, .29 0, .20 1 .80 1 .82 1 .57 1993 01. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 I 1 2 .74 2 .90 2 .68 2 .49 I I 1 I 0 .39 0 .34 0 .28 0 .43 0..27 0.,28 0.,20 0.,32 1 .62 1 .86 1. 7 0 1 .31 0 .23 0 . 19 0 .16 0 . 14 .23 0. 0. .22 0 .34 0 . 30 .55 0. 1 .62 0. ,58 1 .89 ,57 1. 68 0 . ,53 0. 1 .40 1994 o i . . . 02 . . . 1 1 2 .44 3 .18 1 I 0 .28 0 .30 0. ,33 0. ,25 1 .40 2 .06 0 .21 0 .25 0 .22 0 .32 1 .44 1 .97 .50 0. 0 ,65 . 0 .37 0 .34 0 .40 0 , 10 0,.09 0 ,13 , 1 1 1 0 .53 0 .58 o .48 2 .35 2 . 17 2 . 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .14 , .10 .11 .14 1 1 1 1 o .48 o .53 0 .63 o .58 2 .26 2 .37 2 .05 1 .91 0 . 12 0 . 15 1 1 o .48 0. 66 1 .96 2 .52 .42 .32 .33 .41 0 .38 0 .42 7 8 E S T I M A T E S FROM THE Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF BANK N O N R E A L ESTATE L O A N S TO F A R M E R S T A B L E I.B A V E R A G E SIZE OF L O A N S M A D E (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) ' " BY SIZE OF L O A N ($1,000s) BY P U R P O S E OF L O A N ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 BY SIZE OF B A N K 25 to 99 100 and over 46. 1 46 .3 43 .8 45. 5 44. 9 46. 5 45. 2 45. 9 46.. 1 46., 6 45,,9 46., 1 326 294 291 255 280 320 320 272 488 540 468 490 LARGE OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 I 97 92 88 82 62 85 70 53 .8 ,0 . . 1 , ,0 . .0 . . .5 , ,0 , ,7 100, .7 107 , ,0 97 , ,0 106,.0 14 .4 15 . .2 ,8 13 . 13 . .4 15 , .3 .9 14 , .3 16 , 14 , .4 .9 13 , 13 , 9 . 15..8 .8 15 , 1 1 1 83 .0 72 .1 44,.6 440 432 503 120 . 1 13 .8 12 . 6 19 .0 45..5 44 . 8 46 .8 47 .3 441 577 476 488 1 1 1 1 111 112 83 119 48 .5 46 .0 445 378 1 1 102 .8 A N N U A L A V E R A G E S I Z E OF LOANS M A D E 1982 1983 1984 1985. 1986 . 1987 , 1988. 1989 . 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 0 19 7 17 7 17 .6 , .0 19. .8 20, 21 .8 . .9 19. .4 28, 31 .9 , 31 .2 . 34 .3 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 32 31 25 35 33 34 42 69 61 68 79 .5 .5 .8 7 .0 .8 . 1 .7 .7 .0 . 3 .7 17 18 21 22 25 26 40 29 22 25 26 23 .5 .2 .9 .5 .8 .3 .6 .5 .7 .2 .9 .1 13 6 15 5 12 9 12 8 .0 14 . , 14 . 6 16 . ,7 , 14 . 1 15.,7 15., 6 .14 ,7 . 15 , ,2 ,6 17 . 15.,6 ,5 12 . 12 . ,4 .6 13 . 16 . 1 , .9 13 . .1 12 , .9 11 . 15,.1 ,0 16 , .9 13 , 38 37 34 42 32 44 34 32 94 129 108 112 . ,9 . ,1 .8 , .1 . > , 9 .6 , , .7 .2 .3 . .7 .8 .0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 3 .7 3 .6 3 .7 3 .5 3 .5 3. 6 3 .7 3. 6 3 .6 3 .6 3 ,7 3 .7 14 .6 14 .8 .7 14 . ,4 14 . ,9 14 . ,7 14 . , 14 . 8 14.,7 .8 14 . .9 14 . . 14 , 8 . 14 , 9 DF QUARTER,, A N N U A L R A T E A V E R A G E SIZE OF L O A N S M A D E D U R I N G F I R S T FULL W E E K OF S E C O N D M O N T H ( Q2... Q3... 04... 1993 1994 1992 1 1 1 26 .6 25 .2 37 .3 1 1 1 63 . 1 70 . 5 70 . 1 Q1. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 35 31 30 41 .1 .0 .3 .5 1 1 1 1 77 73 88 80 Q1. . . 02... 1 34 .9 28 .9 1 1 72 . 5 57 . 0 1 .4 .9 . 3 . 8 23 .4 20 .4 36 .0 12 12 17 .8 , . 6 , .2 24 .3 12 .9 14 .1 104 .0 63 .8 143 .5 1 1 1 3 .6 3 .5 4 ,0 14 .7 14 .7 14 .9 16 18 24 31 18 13 12 16 .8 .9 .5 .3 15 12 14 12 .2 .8 .7 .3 120 .2 138 .6 82 .3 119 .9 1 I I 1 3 .7 3 .9 3 .5 3 .8 15 14 14 14 21 .5 19 .0 106 ,5 97 .5 I 1 3 .6 3 .9 14 .7 14 .4 .4 .8 .9 .2 27 .3 27 .9 19 .9 15 .7 . 3 .8 .9 .7 45,. 6 45 .0 .7 .6 ,7 .6 77 .6 19 12 13 17 .0 .8 .8 ,8 1.8 .1 16 .1 E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF BANK N O N R E A L ESTATE LOANS TO F A R M E R S T A B L E I.C A M O U N T OF LOANS M A D E (BILLIONS OF D O L L A R S ) BY SIZE OF L O A N ($1,000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 21 .7 18 . 6 15 .8 14 .9 12 .6 17 . 1 , .9 15, 19 . 6 44 .2 53 .1 , . 49, 4 . 58, 8 .3 .7 .0 .3 .9 .5 .3 .0 .5 29 .1 34 .3 33 . 8 A N N U A L A M O U N T OF L O A N S M A D E 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1 1 1 1 1 1987 1988 1 1 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 1 1 1 1 66 .0 67 .3 60 .8 52 .1 48 .5 49 . 6 48 .2 51 .6 74 .7 82 .8 83 .7 92 .6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 13 . 6 12 . 1 10 .7 8 6 10 4 13 .2 10 .0 12 .9 22 .0 21 .4 23 . 6 28 .7 4. 5 5. 9 6. 5 5 .2 4. 5 3. 4 4. 6 6 .0 5. 5 5 .8 6. 6 6 .2 28 .1 31 .1 26 .5 22 .6 23 .2 22 .5 24 .3 24 .3 26 . 6 25 .5 24 . 6 24 .7 5. 4 6. 1 4. 4 4. 4 2. 4 2. 3 1 .9 2 .0 2 .3 . 2 .5 . 2 .9 2. 5 , 13 . 4 11 . 9 12 .2 11 .3 8 .0 8 .3 7.4 6 .4 18 . 3 27 .6 26 .0 30 .6 7 .9 8 .4 8 .9 7 .2 6 .0 5 .7 5 .2 6 .1 6. 1 6 .1 6 .2 6 .1 9 .8 9 .0 7 .8 7 .4 6 .9 6 .8 6 .4 7 .7 7 .3 7.6 8 .0 8 .3 , 18.,2 17 . .5 17 . 6 . ,5 13 . 13 .2 . 12 . 6 12 .9 14 .4 15. 9 15. 1 16. 7 17 ,1 30 .0 32 .4 26 ,5 24 ,0 22 . 3 24 .5 23 ,7 23 .4 45 . 3 54 .0 52 . 8 61,,0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 48 45 37 35 32 32 32 30 A M O U N T OF L O A N S M A D E DURING FIRST FULL W E E K OF S E C O N D M O N T H OF QUARTER,, A N N U A L R A T E 1992 Q2... 03... 04... 1 1 1 76, .4 69, .4 98 .6 . 1993 01. . . 02.., 03... 04... 1 1 .0 96, ,8 89, 1 1 1 ,3 81, ,5 103 . 1 .5 24. 1 1 85. 3 92.0 1 1 1994 01... 02... 1 I 1 1 1 17 . 6 .8 22, 30. 1 , .0 30. ,5 25. 6 .4 3. 6 10 .7 25 ,0 . .3 22 . 26, .2 3. 6 , 2. ,5 ,7 2. 23 . .9 18 , .2 28 .9 , 6 .4 , 6 .4 . 6 .2 , , 9 .0 7 .4 , 8 .0 , 16 .7 15. 1 17 .9 44,,3 40..4 ,5. 66, 1 1 .0 44, , 42. 1 1 57. .4 32 , .4 27 , .4 . 41 , 2 30,.5 .6 27 , 30 .8 , 28 .2 , 35 . .6 5 7 5 5 8 8 8 7 19.2 5 14 . ,3 59, 62 , ,4 1 15. 2 19. 6 51,,7 70.,7 1 1 53. ,2 59, ,4 53. 1 , ,5 69. . 42 , 8 30, .4 .2 28. .0 34 , 23 . ,7 30 ,7 . 5. ,2 7 . ,7 18. 3 ,3 54, 19. 2 55,.7 1 1 , 49, . 51. 35 . 4 40 . .5 34. 1 4. .4 5, .3 ,9 4. 10,. 1 ,3 21 , 21,,3 3. ,5 2. ,4 2. 4 1. 7 20.2 17 .2 9, ,1 7. ,1 27 . ,7 ,3 32 . 4. 5 4. 7 .8 25, , .9 .3 , .8 . . ,4 .5 , ,6 , . .5 . .8 7 . ,4 9 . .3 1 9 5 9 10 E S T I M A T E S FROM THE QUARTERLY T A B L E I.D S A M P L E SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL E S T A T E L O A N S TO A V E R A G E M A T U R I T Y OF BY ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK PURPOSE OF OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARMERS LOANS MADE (MONTHS) BY S I Z E OF LOAN ($1,000s) LOAN FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY S I Z E OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 .5 8 .9 7 .7 8 .0 8 .0 8 .4 8 .7 8 .1 7 .5 7 .3 8 .9 9 .2 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 5 5 5 0 6 1 5 .8 5 .5 6 .4 6 .8 6 .0 6 .7 6 .1 7 .3 M A T U R I T Y OF 1992 0 2 . . . 03... 04... 1 1 1 9 .5 8 .8 7 .7 1 1 1 7 .2 5 .1 6 .3 1993 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... ! 1 1 1 9 .9 . 10 .1 9 .8 7 .4 1 1 1 1 6 6 9 7 1994 Ql. . . 02... 1 1 10 .1 . 13 .0 , 1 1 6 .9 8 .4 .8 .5 .2 .0 7 0 8 1 6 6 7 8 6 .3 7 .7 4 .7 7 .4 8 .8 . 8 .5 9 .5 9. 6 . 7 10 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 8 8 .1 .4 .8 .3 .6 .6 .5 .2 .5 .2 .6 .3 LOANS MADE DURING 8 .4 6 1.0 . 12 .6 13 . 4 21 .0 22 .8 19 .8 18 .7 21 .9 24 .6 20 .1 30. 4 FIRST FULL WEEK 5, 4 . 7 . 8 8. 1 , . 8. 8 8 .8 , 1.2 . 1 . 10 9 1 1, 8 : 6, 4 . 5, 3 9. 4 9. 4 , OF 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 .0 ,o ' .0 .7 ,8 , 5 .1 , 4 , 4 . 7 >5 7 , 0 8, . . 1 7-, ,5 7, 7 8, 0 ' 8 , 1 9 > 2 , 8, 3 9. 2 , 8 > 3 9, 7 . 1 0, 0 , S E C O N D M O N T H OF Q U A R T E R ; 6. 6 , 8. 1 .7 .7 9".1 9 ,8 9 .3 10 . 2 9. 3 1 1> 9 10 , 6 1 1. 1 1 1. 1 6 , 4 : 10,. 0 8 , 0 7 . 9 7 . 1 8, 3 7 >7 7 . 1 , 4. 9 , 5. 8 . 7. 2 , 7. 4 , 1 ! 1 I 1 1 | 1 i i 1 1 6 6 7 6 5 5 8 7 4 5 6 6 , 0 , . 1 . ,0 . 9 , , 5 . .9 , . 1 , . 8 .7 , . 2 . .4 ; ,4 6 9 7 8 8 9 8 8 10 9 10 10 , .7 , .9 . .9 , . 4 .8 , , .3 . .8 , .2 , .2 . 6 , 1 . . .4 ANNUAL RATE 9 .9 .5 12 . 9 .9 , 9 .2 7 .0 7 .8 18 .8 19 .7 19 .5 8 . 2 , 14 . 3 4. 4 8. 6 7. 5 7, 1 10,, 3 9, 3 8 ,7 - 11 .8 10 . 2 10,. 6 7 . 5 7 .7 . 6. 0 , 1 I 1 7 , 0 6 ,8 . .5 4. 10 .6 9 .8 9 .1 , 11 8 8 9 8 8 8 7 32 34 24 29 .5 .0 .5 .0 8 . 0 1.5 , 6 . 11, 0 , , 3. 8 8 9 7 8 . 6 .7 .3 .0 1 0, 8 , . 10 , 0 10,. 6 8, 8 11 .9 12 , 6 9.8 10 , 3 . 7 7 9 5 , . 5 , . 9 .7 . . 1 I 1 I 1 5. .9 5,.9 9 .7 . 4 .7 , 10 11 9 9 32 .0 45 .7 6. 6 10.. 8 8= 6 9 .5 .7 12 , 13 . 3 13 . 9 14 . 2 6. 6 10 , .7 1 1 4., 5 7 , .0 .8 12 , 15 . .0 , .4 .8 . , .2 .9 . 3 .3 , 9 .5 , .9 .7 .1 .2 8 .9 10 .5 .8 , , .4 .9 , .3 , ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS Iu FARMERS AVERAGE EFFECTIVE BY FEEDER LIVESTOCK ALL LOANS OTHER LIVESTOCK ANNUAL AVERAGE 1982. 1983. 1984. 1985. 1986. 1987, 1988. 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 15.9 13.6 13.7 12.5 11.1 10 . 7 10.9 12.3 16.7 13.5 14.1 12.3 11.5 10.6 11 . 2 12.5 11.4 9 . 8 7 . 8 7 . 5 11.5 10.2 8 .2 8 .0 ^GE R A T E O N 7. 6 7 .5 7 .5 7 .3 1994 oi... 02... | | 7 .3 7 .8 OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENI 1 to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over ,0 17 . ,2 14 . 14 , 6 13 , 7 12 . 4 11 , 6 11 .7 12 . 8 12 .5 1 1. 5 9. 7 9 ,0 16 .8 . 14 . 1 , 14 . 3 13 . 2 . , 12 . 0 11 . 3 11 . 6 .7 12 . 12 . 4 11 > 2 9. 3 8 .7 ,0 17 . .0 14 . ,3 14 . 13 . ,2 11 ,8 1 1. 1 11 , 4 12 ,7 12 . 1 10 .7 8. 8 8. 3 16..4 ,0 13 , 13,,7 12 , 1 10 . 8 9 . 9 10 . 8 12 , 2 10 . 9 9. 2 7. 1 6. 9 OTHER SIZE BANK LARGE OTHER 16. 1 12 .1 13 .1 11 .2 . 9, 6 9. 2 10 . 2 12 . 1 . 10, 9 . 9, 0 6. 8 , , 6. 7 ,0 17 . ,1 14 . .4 14 , .4 13 , . 12 , 1 .3 11 , 11 . 6 12 .7 12 .3 11 .3 9 .4 8 .7 9.7 INTEREST RATE 16 3 13 8 14 3 7 9 2 9 4 0 0 1 LOANS MADE DURING 16.,9 , 13 . 5 .2 14 . . 13 . 0 11 . 5 . 10 , 8 . 11 , 2 12 . 6 11. 7 10 . 4 8. 8 8. 1 . 17 . 1 , 14 . 3 14 . 6 13 . .2 12 . 11 , 5 11 .7 12 . 8 12 11 9 . 3 8 FULL WEEK FIRST OF 9 8 0 1 2 5 10 7 12 3 10 7 8 6 3 2 16 12 14 12 11 Q 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 i OF SECON D MONTH QUARTER ' ANNUAL 1 1 I 1 1 i I I I 1 1 I RATE 9 .7 , 8 .4 . 8 .0 , 9.. 1 . 8, 6 8 . 4 , 9 .5 9 . 8 .7 6 ,8 6 ,4 5 .5 1 1 1 9 ,9 . 9 .5 . 9 . 4 , 9 . 6 9 ,0 . 9,. 0 9 . 1 , 8 . 6 , 8 .5 . 7 . 5 7 . 1 6 .7 . 7 .2 6 .8 6. 3 1 | . 9 . 1 8. 0 8. 1 8 8 7 7 8,. 8. 8. 7. 8 8 9 8 .8 .6 .0 .4 1 2 4 6 I 1 1 1 9 9 9 8 8. 8 8. 8 8. 6 8. 5 8 8 8 8 7 .0 , 6 .9 , 7 . 0 , .8 6. , 6. 6 6 ,7 < . 7 ,0 . 6, 7 I 1 7 .7 8.1 7 .3 8 .1 6 »1 6 ,6 ! i 8. 8 8. 9 8, 4 8. 7 8. 1 8 .5 6 .7 7 .2 6. 6 7. 0 | 1 1 8. 3 , 8. 0 8. 0 , Xi -J 1 I I | LOAN BY OF S I Z E OF ($l,000s) .9 .2 .9 .7 3 1 2 8 7. 9 8. 5 8 .2 8 .6 ,2 . ,0 ,0 . 9 . 4 . 4 . 1 .2 11 9. 4 8 .9 < 1993 oi... 02... 03... 04... BY LOAN <0 8. 3 .8 7. 7. 4 , LOANS MADE 00 ( 30 I 1 I RATE ON 30 1992 Q2... 03... 04... PURPOSE OF INTEREST 1 00 I.E 1 00 TABLE 8.3 8 .7 12 ESTIMATES T A B L E I.F FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL PERCENTAGE OF BY FEEDER LIVESTOCK ANNUAL 39 43 38 1 4 5 . 2 1 . 1 1 . 9 1 . 3 I 1 5 3 . 4 I 1 5 9 . 5 | 1 6 1 . 4 | 51.6 65.3 1 6 1 . 0 | 7 1 . 4 ! ! 65 . 2 65 . 1 | 76 . 8 81 . 5 78.5 84 . 6 I 1 7 1 . 7 | I 7 6 . 7 I AVERAGE 1992 1993 1994 47 . 8 47 . 8 41 . 2 61.4 un 1 1 1 o 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Q2... Q3... Q4... Q1 . . . Q2... Q3... Q4. . . Ql. . . Q2 . . . 1 7 1 . 9 , I 1 69, 7 . I I 7 3 , . 5 I 1 7 1 . 2 , 1 81 .6 , I I 1 7 9 .. 1 I I 7 5 .• 6 I 1 7 7 . 2 1 1 7 1 . 7 1 LOANS MADE WITH A PURPOSE OF OTHER LIVESTOCK PERCENTAGE OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARMERS FLOATING INTEREST RATE SIZE OF ($1,000s) BY LOAN LOAN FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 Co 9 OTHER 10 t:o 24 25 Lo 99 BY S I Z E OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER OF L O A N S M A D E 43 . 0 48 . 1 41 .7 1 5 . 5 3 1 1 7 . 6 2 4 . 3 4 3 30.2 28.7 32.3 44.9 00 ALL LOANS ESTATE LOANS TO 1 9 . 6 44.3 39.5 47.3 50.6 62,1 63.2 73,6 51,2 50.3 7 5,3 78.1 . 0 5 7 , 2 6 2 . 6 3 69 . 6 39.5 40 .0 61.6 69.3 63 .5 7 0.0 59 68 68 3 0 . 9 5 5 . 5 , 8 5 4 . 9 . 7 3 2 . 9 . 3 4 0 . 0 1 > 8 4 0 6 6 , 3 4 7 . S 7 0 . 3 48 . 2 PERCENTAGE DURING 84 . 2 78.7 77 . 0 53 .5 78.4 75.8 7 0 . . 0 85.9 87.2 89. 6 77.9 56.7 64.3 77 .8 74.9 70., 6 6 4 .. 8 74 .2 12. 7 89.1 78.3 78.1 74.4 76 .6 6 6 . 9 7 3 4 0 . 4 FIRST FULL WEEK 6 7 ,. 0 .9 68 , . 9 OF 5 6 SECOND MONTH ,. 9 39 .7 , 5 1 ..0 .,0 60 .4 , 4 7 3 3 .. 5 5 3 . 9 ! 1 75.2 62.0 74.3 . 24, 3 25,. 6 I 2 3 . 8 3 1 . 3 1 2 7 , 6 3 1 , 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 4 40 ,6 48 ,5 49 ,3 50 .4 . 53 ,6 52, 0 57 ,3 60. 1 1 OF 2 5 , 6 2 9 . 7 5 3 . 4 I 6 5 . 6 2 6 . 3 29 . 3 4 . 9 5 5 , 9 ! 11 . 7 29 . 9 , 1 2 7 , 6 7, 1 3 2 . 6 4 7 , 0 4 1 1 . 8 4 5 , 6 5 1 , 5 4 9 . 6 59 . 2 59 . 0 5 9 . 1 , 6 1 . , 0 29 . 0 42 . V 48 . 2 54 , 4 60 58 . 5 64 . 0 61 . 2 64 , 5 52 , 7 56 63 , 7 6 8 , 5 67 0 69 , 1 67. 5 6 7, 8 78> 6 83 - 9 6 1 ., 3 65 . 4 . 62 . 4 I 7 1 1 7 1 7 1 . 9 i . 6 79 . 1 83 . 6 1 6 9 1 1 70 82 . 9 86 , 9 80 , 9 .. 9 80., 4 1 1 1 84,, 4 78., 0 81., 5 . 2 1 1 1 1 ! 1 7 7 , 4 4 9 , 9 5 2 , 6 4 7 , 2 59 . 3 56 . 1 5 5 , 5 . 58 , 9 . QUARTER . 6 I 5 9 1 58. 8 1 5 4 61.3 95.6 78.0 76,3 1 1 69.6 70.0 . 8 55., 9 65.. 4 55 ,7 . 1 . 7 59. 5 62. 7 6 0, 9 60. 3 60. 0 5 7 . 6 66 . 6 1 1 56. 6 59 .6 59 .3 56 .8 1 5 7 7 3 6 0 . 8 7 7 , 6 5 . 1 9 1 , 4 69 .2 64 ,0 8 7 . 5 80 ,9 ! 81. 5 92. 0 88. 6 8 5 . 5 , 9 68 , 7 83 . 1 7 7 ,0 1 1 8 1 7 2 85. 8 . 8 54 .9 . 5 7 .. 0 62 , .4 58 .6 , 6 1 ..1 6 1 . 2 5 5 . 4 65 .3 5 8 . 9 Table I.G PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS M A D E BY BANKS, 1 BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST R A T E Effective interest rate (percent) All loans.. Under 5 Percent 5.0 to 5.9. 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 o 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.. May 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 100 100 100 100 100 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 12 26 36 21 2 - 5 7 11 24 31 13 7 1 - 1 6 12 11 33 22 13 2 - 1 11 21 23 22 19 3 1 10 20 27 23 15 3 - - - - - - - 5 8 39 34 8 4 1 - - - - - 11 13 18 23 17 10 7 1 1 11 30 17 9 22 8 2 1 8 33 39 14 5 - 100 100 100 1992 1993 100 - 4 14 22 18 16 20 5 1 1994 100 4 4 23 21 22 20 4 2 * - - * - - Memo: Percentage Distribution of N u m b e r of Loans, Feb 94 Mav 94 100 * 1 14 25 33 17 5 3 1 100 * 1 8 23 37 23 6 2 * - - - - * " - - - - - - ' - - - - - - ' 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - " " " - - - - - - 1. Percentage distribution of the estimated total dollar amount of nonreal estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks during the w e e k covered b y the survey, which is the first full business week of the m o n t h specified. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve survey of terms of b a n k lending to f a r m e r s . Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. * indicates less than ,5 percent. SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 2-6,1994 Loans to farmers all sizes ALL Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months) 1 4 5 6 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 Standard error 3 Interquartile range 4 By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Size class of loans (thousands) $10-24 $25-49 $50-99 $100-249 $250 and over BANKS 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 $1-9 1,915,034 64,138 17.8 6.75 - 7.77 0.16 9.00 152,692 38,937 9.6 8.33 - 8.90 0.04 9.43 189,430 13,056 14.4 8.71 0.07 9.39 8.05 198,752 5,745 15.2 7.75 - 8.54 0.11 9.37 216,580 3,166 30.6 334,724 2,353 30.0 822,856 882 7.5 8.40 0.06 9.14 8.20 0.10 9.00 6.82 0.26 7.52 7.64- 7.27 - 6.05 - 8.11 8.14 8.46 8.62 8.27 6.48 8.86 9.13 8.90 9.21 8.65 8.31 8.64 9.34 8.74 8.50 9.24 8.11 8.36 8.69 8.61 8.73 8.90 7.91 8.16 9.02 8.61 8.48 8.17 7.97 7.90 8.39 8.31 8.59 8.13 7.86 6.25 6.06 71.6 74.8 59.6 59.5 55.6 54.5 63.9 60.9 68.3 64.3 78.3 69.2 77.4 90.7 17.6 7.1 35.3 5.1 4.2 30.7 7.8 7.4 68.9 7.8 1.7 6.4 10.4 8.3 55.6 10.7 4.6 10.4 14.0 13.8 46.2 9.5 5.5 11.0 18.7 5.4 44.6 7.3 7.5 16.5 14.3 5.4 49.6 7.0 11.2 12.5 23.1 6.3 13.4 0.9 0.6 55.7 1,113,336 16,341 10.1 31,297 7,912 8.8 50,394 3,434 10.1 67,184 1,978 13.0 96,117 1,421 18.4 133,862 938 14.4 734,482 659 7.0 7.14 0.23 8.00 8.51 0.14 9.00 8.16 8.10 0.10 8.85 8.03 0.12 7.00 - 8.75 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 8.01 7.00 7.77 8.12 LARGE FARM LENDERS5 21 22 23 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months) 1 24 25 26 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 Standard error 3 Interquartile range 4 By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months) 1 44 45 46 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 Standard error 3 Interquartile range 4 By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 55 56 57 58 59 60 7.36 7.04 7.00 - 7.98 0.15 8.53 6.03 - 6.65 0.22 7.25 8.36 8.95 8.61 8.97 9.70 7.90 8.18 8.32 8.23 8.95 8.58 7.74 7.61 7.97 8.21 9.25 9.38 7.63 7.65 8.29 8.27 7.88 8.67 7.74 7.68 8.03 8.22 8.42 8.34 7.57 8.11 6.75 7.45 8.12 6.25 5.99 82.9 90.6 90.9 83.9 90.1 82.6 91.7 83.7 91.7 86.6 96.7 83.8 77.6 93.8 19.5 4.9 22.6 1.9 3.0 48.3 9.7 2.9 62.5 3.0 3.4 18.5 13.6 3.7 50.8 4.2 4.2 23.4 3.8 42.0 4.6 8.3 25.3 16.2 18.3 4.3 42.1 3.5 5.5 26.2 20.7 41.5 3.0 10.7 21.8 20.5 5.7 11.1 1.0 0.7 61.0 801,698 47,797 21.3 121,395 31,025 9.7 139,036 9,622 15.0 131,568 3,767 15.7 120,463 1,745 35.0 200,862 1,416 33.9 88,374 223 8.7 8.65 0.09 9.36 8.99 0.05 9.51 8.91 0.10 9.54 8.76 0.17 8.12 - 9.46 8.70 0.16 8.12 - 9.20 8.35 0.14 7.75 - 9.11 2.2 BANKS5 41 42 43 53 54 7.78 - 8.00 7.08 8.01 8.43 8.32 6.26 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other OTHER 47 48 49 50 51 52 6.06 - 0.08 8.75 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 8.04 - 8.50 8.33 - 7.52 - 8.22 0.41 9.46 8.30 8.85 8.73 8.67 8.23 8.80 9.03 9.15 8.97 9.23 7.90 8.89 8.89 9.48 8.90 8.45 9.46 8.66 8.84 8.77 8.79 8.63 8.40 8.87 8.56 9.40 8.85 8.65 7.93 8.53 8.20 8.46 8.36 8.62 8.00 8.53 9.46 — 55.8 52.8 51.6 53.2 43.1 44.3 49.7 49.2 49.7 46.6 66.1 59.4 76.0 64.8 15.1 10.2 52.9 9.5 5.9 6.3 7.3 8.5 70.6 9.0 1.2 3.3 9.2 9.9 57.3 13.0 4.8 5.7 12.9 18.9 48.3 12.0 4.1 3.7 18.9 6.4 46.6 10.2 9.1 8.7 10.0 7.6 55.0 9.6 11.4 6.3 44.5 11.3 32.7 7.62 8.04 8.66 11.5 NOTES TO TABLE I.H The Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers collects data on gross loan extensions made during the first full business week in the mid-month of each quarter by a sample of 250 banks of all sizes. The sample data are blown up to estimate the lending terms at all insured agricultural banks during that week. The estimated terms of bank ending are not intended for use in collecting the terms of loans extended over the entire quarter or residing in the portfolios of those banks. Loans of less than $1,000 are excluded from the survey. Beginning with the August 1986 survey, loans secured by farm real estate are included in the survey, and one purpose of a loan may be "purchase or improve farm real estate . In previous surveys, the purpose of such loans are reported as "other". 1. Average maturities are weighted by loan size and exclude demand loans. 2. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. 3. The chances are about two out of three that the average rate shown would differ by less than this amount from the average rate that would be found by a complete survey of lending at all banks. 4. The interquartile range shows the interest rate range that encompasses the middle 50 percent of the total dollar amount of loans made. 5. Among banks reporting loans to farmers, most "large banks" (survey strata 1 and 2) had over $20 million in farm loans, most "other banks " (survey strata 3 to 5) had farm loans below $20 million. Survey NE Proportion of farm loans outstanding, M a y 19 94 survey 3 . 2 Sample Coverage, M a y 19 94 s u r v e y (%) Avg. Loan Size, May 1994 survey ($1000) Survey 17.1 162.0 of T e r m s T a b l e I.I o f B a n k L e n d i n g to F a r m e r s , ( s e l e c t e d by USDA Farm P r o d u c t i o n R e g i o n USDA AF Region SE quarters) LS CB NP 10-4 25.5 17.1 6.0 5.0 5.7 9.4 7.1 10.6 4-9 7.3 13.8 10.3 10.0 5.5 7.8 23.6 71.2 i8.9 17.6. 28.5 183.2 60.0 48.4 3 0.1 59.4 91.3 SP DL MN PA date: Weighted Averqpp. I n t e r e s t Rate During .Samplp. WPPV Nov . 1991 9 .8 ( .23) 10 . 6 ( .27) 10 .2 ( .38) 9 .3 ( .71) 7.1 (1 .03) 9 .4 ( .18) 9. 2 ( .33) 10 .0 ( .52) Feb . 1992 8 .4 ( .15) 10 . 2 ( .16} 9 .3 ( .21) 8 .8 (.44) 6 .3 (1 .06) 8 .0 ( .33) 8. 2 ( .67) 8 .7 ( .57) 8. 2 ( .45) 6 .8 ( .21) May 1992 8.6 ( .20) 9. 8 . ( .19) 9. 1 ( . 13) 8-4 ( .55) 6, 3 (1 .29) 8 .0 ( .35) 8 .3 ( .53) 9 .0 ( .81) 7 .9 ( .43) 7 .3 ( .19) Aug . 1992 7 .7 • 15) 9 .3 ( .21) 9. 1 ( .10) 8 .6 ( .50) 5 .6 (1 .36) 7 .0 ( .17) 8. 1 ( .30) 8 .3 ( .94) 7. 5 ( .32) 7. 1 ( .27) Nov.. 1992 7 .9 ( .28) 9, 2 . (, .18) 8 .3 ( .25) 7 .9 ( .56) 5 .5 (1 .38) 7 .3 ( .3 9) 8 .4 -13) ( 8 .2 ( .50) 7 .6 ( .47) 6 .9 ( .33) 7 .8 • (. .27) 9.. 0 (. ,28) 8 .0 , (, .27) 8 .0 (• -47) 5 .6 . (. .90) 8 .3 (• 2) .2 7. 8 (. 4 1 ) • 7 .8 ( .61) 7 .5 ( .41) 6 .5 ( .44) , 1 8 .3 ( .36) 00 Feb.. 1993 9 ( May 1993 8 . 1 (. 24) 8. 7 (. 21) 8 . 1 , (. 27) 7. 9 (. 2) ,3 5. 2 , (. 57) 8 .4 , (. .29) 7., 8 (. 4 3 ) 8 .3 , (. .48) 7. 7 . (. 52) 6 .8 , (. .26) Aug. 1993 8 .2 (. 3 5 ) 7 .5 (. 69) 8 .2 (. 18) 8..0 (• 3 3 ) 5 .7 (. 9 4 ) 7 . ,3 (• 3 7 ) 7. 0 (. 74) 7. .7 (• .62) 7.. 1 (. 34) 7 .2 (. 39) Nov. 1993 8 .3 (. 28) 8. 1 (. 19) 7 .8 (. 22) 7 .4 (. 50) 5 .3 (1. 73) 6 .3 (. 0 7 ) 8. 2 (. 12) 7 .8 (. 5 7 ) 7. 1 (. 36) 6 .7 (. 4 9 ) Feb . 1 9 9 4 7 .7 (. 3 2 ) 8. 6 (. 25) 7 .9 (. 22) 7. 5 ( • 9) 3 5 .2 (1. 0 9 ) 7 .3 (. 0 9 ) 7. 7 (. 3 3 ) 7 .6 (. 4 3 ) 7. 3 (. 69) 6 .9 (. 31) May 8. 7 (. 28) 9. 0 (. 26) 8 .0 (. 17) 8. 1 (. 23) 6 .1 (. 79) 8 .2 (. 29) 7. 8 (. 6 0 ) 8 .4 (. 3 6 ) 7. 5 (. 34) 7 .2 (. 26) 1994 ' S J j f S i S S : S£ i; repHcations°of r b o o t s ^ a p ^ r o c e d u r e 1 " r e s a m p l i n g ™ " banks) ^ ^ e L r r e g i o n ^ C a l C U l a t e d fr °m 1 0 0 SECTION II: SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY R E P O R T S OF CONDITION OF C O M M E R C I A L B A N K S Page TABLES: Commercial banks: II.A II.B II.C II.D II.E Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated tistimarea Estimated volume of farm loans at insured c o m m e r c i a l b a n k s delinquent nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial b a n s . . ... . . . net charge-offs of nonreal estate farm loans at insured c o m m e r c i a l b a n k s delinquent L ecu. estate farm m loans at insured commercial banks,. a e n n q u e n l real e&uai-c aj 7 — , 1^1^, net charge-offs of real estate farm loans at insured commercial b a n k s 21 9o A g r i c u l t u r a l banks: II.F II.G II.H II.I D i s t r i b u t i o n of agricultural banks by ratio of n o n p e r f o r m i n g loans to total loans D i s t r i b u t i o n of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks Failures of agricultural banks 24 ^ 27 •111* SOURCES OF DATA: in tables II.C and previous paragraph. II.E. 18 SECTION II: (continued) Recent Developments: Loans outstanding: At the end of the first quarter of 1994, the volume of n o n r e a l estate farm loans was 8.3 percent greater than one year earlier = A l t h o u g h the volume of these loans edged down during the first quarter, the decline was about in line with the seasonal pattern in years past. Thus, the demand for nonreal estate farm loans, which appears to have picked upduring the second h a l f of last year, seems to h a v e remained firm in early 1994. The volume of real estate debt that was held by c o m m e r c i a l banks at the end of the first quarter of 1994 was about 6-1/2 percent greater than at the same point in 1993. This y e a r - t o - y e a r growth in farm real estate loans is about in line with the average rate of growth seen since the mid 1980s. Problem loans: In early 1994, delinquent farm nonreal estate loans were $200 m i l l i o n less than in March of 1993. As a percentage of farm production loans outstanding, delinquencies amounted to slightly more than 3 percent, which is quite low when seasonal swings in delinquencies are taken into a c c o u n t . The volume of net charge-offs of farm production loans totaled $10 million in the first quarter of 1994. The volume of delinquent farm real estate loans outstanding was slightly below year-earlier levels. The rate of delinquency of these loans was about 1/2 percentage point less than the year b e f o r e , continuing the trend of decreasing delinquency rates that has been evident since these data first b e g a n to be reported in 1991. At the end of the first quarter of 1994, roughly four of every five agricultural b a n k s reported a level of nonperforming loans that was less than 2 percent of total loans, while fewer than one in twenty- five agricultural banks reported a share of nonperforming loans that was greater than 5 percent. Performance of agricultural b a n k s : Through the end of the first quarter, profits at agricultural banks appear to be running about even with the pace of the last several years, which all h a v e b e e n quite profitable. The average capital ratio for agricultural banks in March 1994 was 11 percent, an increase of 0.4 p e r c e n t a g e points from the previous M a r c h . The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural b a n k s was above y e a r - e a r l i e r levels in all Federal Reserve districts, suggesting substantial underlying strength in the demand for farm loans. Failures of agricultural b a n k s : At the time that this publication went to press, no agricultural banks h a v e failed in 1994. Given the strong capital positions of most agricultural b a n k s and their low level of problem loans, the chance that any of these institutions might fail seems to be i n c r e a s i n g l y remote. TABLE II.A FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS QUARTER LOAN VOLUME, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS 1987 Q 2 . . . 03. . . 04—. | | | 44.3 44.8 43.5 13.8 14.1 14.5 30.4 30.6 29.0 | I | 5.6 1.2 -2.8 5.2 2.1 2.4 5.7 0.7 -5.2 | | I -4.4 -2.8 -0.9 14.2 13.7 13.9 -11.0 -8.9 -6.9 1 1 1 1988 0 1 . . . 02. . . 03... 04... | I | | 42.8 45.4 46.1 45.2 14.7 15.2 15.3 15.4 28.1 30.3 30.8 29.8 | | | 1 -1.5 6.0 1.5 -1.9 1.9 3.0 1.2 0.5 -3.2 7.6 1.7 -3.1 | | I | 2.2 2.6 3.0 4.0 12.1 9.6 8.6 6.7 -2.3 -0.5 0.4 2.6 1 1 1 1 1989 Q l . . . 02... 03... 04... | | I | 44.2 47.0 48.0 47.4 15.8 16.3 16.5 16.6 28.4 30.7 31.5 30.8 | | | | -2.2 6.3 2.1 -1.2 2.7 3.0 1.2 0.9 -4.7 8.2 2.5 —2.2 | I I 1 3.2 3.5 4.1 4.9 7.5 7.6 7.6 8.0 1.0 1.5 2.4 3.3 1 1 1 1 1990 Q l . . . 02... 03... 04... | I | | 46.1 49.0 50.5 50.1 16.8 17.1 17.3 17.2 29.3 31.9 33.2 32.9 | | | | -2.8 6.4 3.1 -0.8 0.7 2.2 1.1 -0.6 -4.7 8.7 4.1 -0.9 1 | | | 4.3 4.3 5.3 5.7 5.9 5.1 5.0 3.5 3.4 3.9 5.5 6.9 1 1 1 1 1991 Q l . . . 02... Q3... Q4... | | | | 49.5 52.6 53.9 53.0 17.5 18.1 18.3 18.4 32.0 34.5 35.6 34.6 | | | | -1.3 6.2 2.5 -1.6 1.5 3.4 1.4 0.6 -2.8 7.7 3.1 -2.7 1 | | | 7.4 7.2 6.6 5.7 4.3 5.5 5.8 7.0 9.1 8.1 7.1 5.1 1 1 1 1 1992 Q l . . . 02... Q3. . * 04... | | 1 | 51.9 55.1 56.2 54.5 18.9 19.5 19.9 19.9 33.0 35.6 36.2 34.7 | | 1 1 —2.1 6.2 1.9 >2.9 2.7 3.3 1.9 -0.2 —4.6 7.8 1.9 -4.4 1 1 | | 4.9 4.9 4.2 2.9 8.2 8.1 8.6 7.8 3.1 3.2 1.9 0.2 1 1 1 1 1993 Q l . . . 02... 03... 04... | I I I 52.8 56.0 58.0 57.7 20.0 20.6 20.8 20.9 32.8 35.4 37.1 36.8 1 | | | -3.2 6.0 3.5 -0.5 0.5 3.1 1.2 0.1 -5.3 7.8 4.9 -0.8 | | | | 1.7 1.6 3.2 5.8 5.6 5.4 4.7 5.0 -0.5 -0.6 2.4 6.2 1 1 1 1 1994 Q l . . . I 56.8 21.2 35.5 1 -1.5 1.8 -3.4 1 7.6 6.4 8.3 1 TABLE II.B ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL MEMO: RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE TOTAL PAST DUE 3 0 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NON ACCRUAL MEMO: RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE Dec en ber 41 of year indicated1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3. ,6 2. ",9 .9 1. 1 ,4 . 1 1 . 1. 0 1. 1 1.0 0. 8 1 .0 0 .8 0 .5 0, .4 0, .4 0 .4 , 0, .4 0. .3 0. .3 2 .6 2. .2 1, .4 .0 1, .7 0. 0. .6 0. .7 0. .6 .5 0. 0, .4 0. .3 0, .2 0, .1 0, .1 0. .1 0. .1 0. .1 0. ,1 2 .2 1 .9 1 .2 0 .9 0 .6 0 .5 0 .5 0 .5 , 0. .4 NA 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 1 10, .1 9 .4 6. .5 4 .5 . 3 .7 , 3 .1 . 3 ,2 , 2 .8 . .2 2. 2 .8 2 .4 1 .7 1 .2 1 .3 1 .3 1 .3 1 .0 0 .8 7, .3 7. .0 4, .8 3, .3 .3 2. .9 1. .9 1. ,8 1. 1 ,4 . 1 ,2 1 .1 ,7 0. 0. .5 0 .5 0. .3 0, .3 0 .3 , 0, 2 . 6 .1 5 .9 . 4 .2 . 2 .9 1 .9 1 .6 . 1 .6 . 1 .5 1 .2 NA 1 .4 1.7 1 .6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 End of quarter 1991 Ql... I 1.3 03... 04... 1 I 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 1992 01... 02... 03... 04... I 1 I I 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 | I I I 4.3 3.3 3.0 2.8 1.9 1.1 1.1 1.0 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 1993 01... 02... 03... 04... \ I I I 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 | I I I 3.9 2.7 2.3 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0,2 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 1994 Ql... I 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 1 3.1 1.5 1.6 0.4 1.2 0.4 02... I 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 | | | ] 4.2 3.3 2.9 3.2 2.0 1.3 0.9 1.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 Data are estimates of the national totals for farm nonreal estate loans. After 1984, estimates are based on reports from banks that hold more than 90 percent of such loans. Earlier, only large banks that held about one-fourth of such loans reported nonaccrual and renegotiated farm loans? for other banks, estimates of delinquent farm loans are based on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks. TABLE II.C ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* TOTAL Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1992 | | | | | 1 503 128 91 51 105 82 199 3 | 54 199 4 | ** 173 28 10 -5 12 14 7 io 133 39 26 19 25 20 16 ** 57 24 15 10 36 29 5 ** 140 37 40 28 32 18 26 ** 1987 1988. . . 198 9 199 0 TOTAL I I I I I I I | 1- 60 0.46 0.27 0.20 0.32 0.2 4 0.15 ** Q1 0.55 0.10 0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 Q2 Q3 Q4 0.46 0.14 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05 ** 0.19 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.01 ** 0.46 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.07 ** * Data are estimates of the national charge-offs of farm nonrea1 estate loans based on reports from banks that hold more than 90 percent of the outstanding national volume of such loans. Additional uncertainty of the estimates arises because small banks report only charge-offs of 'agricultural' loans as defined by each bank for its internal purposes. Banks first reported these data on the March 1984 Report of Income. 21 TABLE II.D DELINQUENT FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM REAL ESTATE L r NONPERFORMING NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ' ACCRUING TOTAL : PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL 2.6 2.1 1.8 1,0 0.8 0.7 1.6 1.3 1.1 TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL December 31 of year indicated 1991...... 199 2 1993 I I I 0.5 0.4 0. 4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0,0 0.2 0. 2 0. 2 I I I 0,4 1.2 0,2 1.0 0.8 , 0, 5 .5 0. 0 ,4 , 0, .4 . 1. 3 1. .2 .2 1. 1. .2 0, 3 End of quarter 0. .2 0. .2 0. .2 0, .2 1 1 1 1 .0 3. .6 2. .4 2. .6 2. .5 0. ,5 o. 0. .4 0, ,4 .8 1. .7 1. ,6 1. .6 1. 0. 1 . 0. .1 0. .1 0. .1 0. .2 0, .2 0. .2 0, .2 1 1 1 I .1 3. .4 2. .1 2. .1 2. 0. .6 0. .5 0. .4 0, .3 .8 1. .1 1. .5 1. .3 1. o, ".6 0, .5 0 .4 , 0. .3 .2 1. 1. .2 .2 1. .0 1. 0. .3 0. .3 0. .3 0. .2 0. .1 0. .1 0. .1 .0 0. 0. .2 0, .2 0, .2 0, .2 1 1 1 1 .5 2. .0 2. .8 1. .8 1, .5 0. 0. .4 .3 0, .7 0. .5 1, 1. .4 .3 1, 1. 1 . 0. .5 0, .4 0, ,3 0. ,2 .0 1, .0 1. .9 0. 0. .8 0. .2 0. .1 0. .2 1 .1 2, .0 1. ,1 1. 0. .4 .7 0. 1991 Ql. . . 'Q2... 03... 04... I I 1 I .5 0. .5 0. .4 0. .5 0. 0. .2 0. .2 v0. .1 '0. .2 0. .3 - 0. .3" 0. .3 0. .3 1992 oi... 02... 03... Q4... 1 1 1 1 .6 0. .5 0. .4 0. .4 0. 0. .2 0. .1 0. .1 0. .2 0. .3 .3 0. 0. .3 0. .3 1993 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 .5 0. .4 0. .4 0. .4 0. 0. .2 0. .1 0. .1 • 0. .1 1994 oi... 1 .4 0. 0. .2 0. .1 0. .1 • 0. .1 0. .1 All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. . TABLE II.E NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING ESTIMATED AMOUNT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUAL TOTAL 1991... 1992... 1993.., 1994.., 1 16 1 20 1 1 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 1 4 1 -1 5 7 1 4 4 2 6 6 3 ** ANNUAL TOTAL Q4 1 1 1 1 0.09 0 . 11 0.03 01 02 03 04 0.005 0.019 0.003 0.004 0.028 0,021 0,022 0,008 0.034 0.029 0.020 0.033 0.003 * All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. 23 TABLE II.F DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY THE SHARE OF THEIR LOANS THAT ARE NONPERFORMING* NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS TOTAL UNDER 2.0 2.0 TO 4.9 5.0 TO 9.9 . 10.0 TO 14.9 15.0 TO 19.9 20.0 AMD OVER Percentage disL.ribut.iony December 3 1 of year indicated1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 .0 100, .0 100, .0 100, .0 100, .0 100, 3 6.4 39 . 6 50 . 3 59 .0 65 .8 69 . 6 70 .8 7 6.2 80 . 6 33 , 1 32 . 2 , 30 , 6 . , 28, 9 2 5. 1 , .7 22 , 22 , 3 18 . 9 , 15 . 9 . 21 . 6 19 .7 14 . 4 9 .7 7. 6 6. 4 5. 8 3. 9 2. 8 5 .6 , 5. 5 , 3. 3 , 1 .9 , 1 .2 , 1 .0 , 0 .7 , 0 .8 , 0. 6 , and of (quarter Percentage distribution, < 2. 1 1> 9 0 ,9 . 0 .4 , 0 ,2 0. 2 0 ,3 , 0 ,1 . 0. 1 1 .2 , 1 >0 , 0 .3 0.2 0 .1 , . 0 .0 0. 1 , 0 ,0 0 .0 , 1 I | I 1 I 1 i 1 • - - - - - - - - 0 .7 , 0, 3 . 0, 1 i 1991 04... I . 100, 0 7 0.8 . 22 , 3 5. 8 1992 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 I 1 . 100, 0 .0 100, . 100, 0 .0 100, 6 6. 4 68 .2 71 . 6 76 .2 . 24 , . 24, 22 , . . 18, 6 1 1 9 7. 6. 5. 3. 5 5 5 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 8 0. 3 , 0 .2 . 0 .1 , 0 .1 . 0. 1 , 0. 1 0. 1 0 .0 . 1 1 1 1 1993 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 .0 100, .0 100, .0 100, .0 100, 71 .8 74 .5 76 . 6 80 . 6 . 21 , 8 . 20, 3 19 , 1 . 15 .9 , 5. 4. 3. 2. 3 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 9 6 6 6 0 .2 , 0. 1 , 0. 1 , 0. 1 , 0 .0 . 0 .1 , 0 .0 0 .0 1 1 1 1 1994 0 1 - . 1 .0 100, 79 .2 .8 16, 3. 3 0 .5 . 0. 1 , 0 .0 . 1 * Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccrual status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated or restructured loans in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section II. TABLE II.G SELECTED MEASURES OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS* NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS ALL BANKS NEGATIVE 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 .0 100, .0 100. .0 100. .0 100. .0 100. .0 100. .0 100. .0 100. , 4 .0 7 .0 . 13 . .0 18. .0 19. .0 13 .0 . 9. .0 5. -0 4. .9 4. .1 1. .9 , 1. 5 0 TO 4 5 TO 9 10 TO 14 AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN TO EQUITY 15 TO 19 20 TO 24 25 AND OVER RATE OF RETURN TO ASSETS NET CHARGE-OFFS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRI CULTURAL BANKS .0 14, .0 11, 8, .0 6, .0 5, .0 8, .0 10. ,0 .0 11. 10, .8 10. .9 .6 12. 12 .4 . 12 .0 , 12 .0 .0 12, .0 11, 8, .0 8. .0 9. .0 10. .0 8. .5 8. .9 .5 11. 12 .4 . 1. 1 . .0 1, 0, .7 0, .5 0. .4 0. 7 . 0. .9 . 1. 0 .0 1. .0 1. 1. .2 . 1. 2 0 ,9 0 ,9 0 .8 0 .8 , 0 .6 , 0 .6 , 0 .7 , 0. .8 0 .7 0 .7 1 .0 , 1 .1 , 0 ,7 0 .9 1 ,2 , 2 .1 , 2 .3 1 ,3 0 ,7 , 0 .6 , 0 ,4 0 .4 , 0 .4 , 0 .2 , OTHER SMALL BANKS AVERAGE CAPITAL RATIO (PERCENT) AGRI-CULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS 0. 6 . 0. .7 0. .6 0. .8 1. .1 0. .9 0. .7 0. .7 0, ,7 .8 0. 0. ,7 0. .4 9 .3 9 .4 , 9 ,5 9 .6 . 9. .5 9 .8 , 9 .9 10 .1 , 9 .9 , 10 .1 , 10 .4 , 10 .8 . 8 .5 8 .4 , 8. .5 8 .5 , 8 .4 . 8 .8 . 8. .8 . 9 .0 9 .0 , 9 ,2 . 9 .5 10 .0 . 9 ,3 9 .5 9 .6 , 9 ,5 , •percentage distribution1982 1983 1984. ..... 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 5 .0 7, .0 9, .0 .0 11. 14 .0 , 13 .0 , 9. .0 7. .0 7. .5 7. .7 5. .0 5. .7 15 .0 18 .0 23 .0 22 .0 27, .0 31, .0 30. .0 29. .0 33 .4 . 32, .2 25. .5 .8 27. 33, .0 36, .0 36. .0 33. .0 .0 28. 31. .0 36. .0 38. .0 37. .6 39. .2 41. 1 . 40. .6 28 .0 24 .0 15 .0 , 13 .0 , 9. .0 9. .0 12 .0 . 14 .0 . 12 .9 . 13 .4 . 19. .8 18. .5 11 .0 7 .0 3. .0 3. 0 , .0 2. .0 2. 3 .0 , .0 4. .6 2. .5 2. 5. .1 4. .6 4•0 2 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 2 .0 3 .0 1 .1 0 .9 , 1• 7 , 1 ,3 | | | | | | | | 1 | | | QUARTERLY YEAR TO DATE 1992 Ql... Q2 . . . Q3... Q4. . . 100,.0 100,,0 100,.0 100,.0 **. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * 1993 Ql... Q2. . ; Q3. . . Q4. . . 100..0 100..0 100..0 100..0 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1994 Ql... 1 ,0 100. ** , ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 3 .4 . 6. .7 10. .0 12 .6 . ** ** * * * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** • 1 3 .0 . 6. .1 8. .9 .5 11. 0. 3 . . 0. 6 1<.0 1 .2 . 0 .3 0 .5 0 .8 1 .0 0 ,1 , 0 .2 , 0.2 , 0 ,4 , 0. .1 0. -3 0. .4 0. .7 10 .3 10 .5 10 .7 10 .4 3. .5 6. .8 9. .9 12 . 4 ** ** ** 3 .6 . 6. .8 9. ,7 12 . .4 0 .3 . 0. ,7 .0 1. 1. .2 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1, .1 0 .0 , 0 .1 . 0 ,1 . 0 -2 . 0. ,1 0. .2 0. .3 0. .4 10 10 11 10 3. .0 3. ,1 0. .3 0 .3 0. .0 0. .1 11 .0 , .6 .9 .0 .8 , 9 .9 , 10 .0 , 10 .0 , 10 .0 , 10. .1 * Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section II; small banks have less than 500 million dollars in assets. Total primary and secondary capital (items that are available at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets. Quarterly data in the lower panel are cumulative through the end of the quarter indicated and, for periods of less than a year, are not comparable to the annual data in the upper panel. 25 26 TABLE II.H AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS* CLEVELAND U.S. ATLANTA ST, LOUIS CHICAGO MINNEAPOLIS SAN FRANCISCO KANSAS CITY MINIMUM FARM LOAN RATIO LOANS NUMBER LOANS LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER TO OF TO TO OF TO . OF OF TO OF • TO OF TO OF TO OF TO OF BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS DECEMBER 31 1989 1990 , 1991 1992 1993 4181 4068 3955 3854 3723 0 ,54 . 0. .55 0. .55 .55 0. 0. .58 84 77 71 75 67 ,64 0. .65 0. 0. .64 0 .64 . 0 .66 , 138 135 133 131 130 0. 588 0. 595 0, 609 0, 607 0 ,618 1055 1009 969 948 912 0, 548 0, 563 0. 572 0. 574 ,600 0. 477 4 77 470 456 432 0. 558 0. 566 0. 567 0. ,563 0. ,590 758 743 725 694 669 0, 552 0, 559 0, 569 0, 579 0 .615 1.19 6 1171 1135 1092 1063 0 ,511 , 0. 511 0, .522 0 ,533 . 0, .566 393 385 378 3 84 378 0. 481 0 . 460 , 0, 438 422 0, 442 57 57 60 61 58 0. 637 0. 699 0, 711 0, .708 ,733 0. 15 15 16 16 17 1992 Ql. . . Q2 . . . Q3 . . . Q4... 3977 3970 3942 3854 .54 0. .57 0. .58 0. 0 .55 . 72 76 78 75 0 .65 . 0 .66 . .67 0. 0 .64 . 157 153 147 131 0. ,611 0, .626 0, .639 0. 607 . 964 959 964 948 0 .563 , .586 0. 0, ,597 o. .574 460 474 481 456 0. .562 0. .590 0, .608 .563 0, 725 725 703 694 0 .568 . 0 .601 . 0 .611 , 0. 579 . 113 3 1118 1 110 109 2 0 , 506 0 ,528 0 .539 0 .533 386 3 85 387 384 0. ,428 0 .446 , . 0 .455 o. .422 58 59 58 61 0 ,662 . o. 75 3 0, .728 ,708 0, 4 16 , : . 3 16 .98 17 .08 16 ,72 . 1993 Ql... Q2 . . . Q3 . . . Q4. . . 3822 3820 3794 3723 0 .56 0 .58 0 .60 0 .58 73 74 73 67 0 .65 0 .68 0 .67 0 .66 140 144 144 130 0. .616 0 .633 0 .654 0 .618 931 925 925 912 0 .574 0 .594 0. .609 0 .600 437 458 459 432 .563 0. .593 0, 0 .618 0 .590 682 678 676 669 .579 0. 0. .621 , 0. 640 0 . 615 1091 1076 1067 1063 0 .532 0 .556 0 .564 0 .566 391 3 89 377 3 78 0. .431 o. .439 0. .463 0 ,442 59 57 59 58 0 .722 0 ,765 0 .756 0 .733 16 ,47 16 .97 17 .27 17 .04 1994 Ql... 3705 0 .59 66 0 .67 132 0 .620 894 0 .606 421 0 .590 672 0 .622 1057 0 .570 387 0 .453 , 58 0 .749 16 .88 * The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total deposits. that shown in the last column, as described in the introduction to section II. . ,87 ,92 . ,56 . ,72 . ,04 , Agricultural banks are defined as banks with a farm loan ratio at least as great as TABLE II.I FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS* NUMBER OF FAILURES Q1 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 02 Q3 Q4 ANNUAL TOTAL 14 22 11 5 3 2 1 1 0 14 19 6 7 5 2 1 2 0 21 12 12 5 6 3 1 2 •* 16 16 7 5 3 1 4 0 ** 65 69 36 22 17 8 7 5 ** * Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section II. 28 SECTION III: FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS AND FARM LAND VALUES TABLESi III.A III. B III,C III .D III.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 availability Interest rates. . . Trends in real estate values and loan volume 30 32 34 . 36 38 SOURCES OF DATA: Data are from quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks. These surveys are conducted at the end of each quarter by five Federal Reserve Banks. The size of the surveys differs considerably, as is noted in the information below. In addition, the five surveys differ in subject matter covered (as is evident in the tables), wording of basically similar questions, and type of banks covered. Most of the differences in wording are reflected in the use of different column headings on the two pages of each table. The states included in each district are indicated in the table headings; states that fall only partly within a given district are marked with asterisks. Beginning in 1994, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank revised its survey considerably. Many questions were changed and it was not always possible to match the data to the categories that we have shown in previous editions of the Databook, Whenever possible, we have tried to fit the data from the revised survey into the older format. Series that were discontinued show no data for the first quarter, while those that were added suddenly appear. When a significant break in the data occurred, we included the new data and added a footnote to highlight the changes. Research departments at each of the five Reserve Banks issue more detailed quarterly reports on their survey results: these reports are available at the addresses given below. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Box 8 3 4 , Chicago, Illinois, 6 0 6 9 0 The sample includes member banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total loans as of June 1972 (a 10 percent standard is used for banks in the state of Michigan). The sample has undergone periodic review. The latest survey results were based on the responses of about 450 banks. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 6 4 1 9 8 The sample chosen originally in 1976 consisted of 181 banks selected from banks at which farm loans constituted 50 percent or more of total loans, with appropriate representation of all farm areas. The sample was redrawn and significantly expanded in 1987; 323 banks responded to the latest survey. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Minnesota 5 5 4 8 0 Before 1987, the sample provided a cross - section of banks of all sizes that were engaged in farm lending. Members of the Upper Midwest Agricultural Credit Council formed the core of the survey panel. Beginning in 1987, the sample was redrawn to include only banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total loans. As outlined above, the Minneapolis survey was changed considerably beginning in the first quarter of 1 9 9 4 c In the most recent survey, 1 3 8 banks responded to the survey. Section III: (continued) FpHpral Rpsprva Bank of Dallas. P.O. Box 655906. Dallas, Texas 75265 -5906 The sample is stratified regionally and includes banks at which farm loans are relatively important or which hold a major portion of bank loans in their region. The sample was enlarged in the first quarter of 1985 and was redrawn in the second quarter of 1989. The results for the most recent quarter were based on the responses from 221 respondents. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Richmond, Virginia 23261 , Tn_ The number of agricultural banks in this district is much smaller than those of the other districts. When the survey was initiated in 1975, the sample consisted of 43 banks of all sizes; banks with larger amounts of farm loans were sampled more heavily. More recently, the sample has consisted of about 30 banks, roughly three-fourths of which typically respond to the quarterly surveys. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: Bankers responding to the surveys indicate that farm loan demand continued on a course of moderate expansion through early 1994. In all districts that report, the proportion of respondents who noted that demand for loans was higher than normal was greater than at the same point in 1993. Relative to early 1993, repayment rates for loans worsened slightly according to bankers that were surveyed in the Kansas City and Chicago districts„ perhaps owing to some lingering financial problems associated with the flooding in several Midwestern states in the summer of 1993. However, bankers that were surveyed in the Minneapolis district, where flood damage also was substantial, reported some improvement in the rate of repayment of farm loans. Renewals and extensions were up in all Districts except Dallas. The survey responses continue to suggest that commercial banks have ample funds available for farm lending. The number of respondents saying that fund availability is greater than a year ago (or, in some surveys, greater than normal) has continued to exceed --by wide margins - - the number of those reporting diminished fund availability. In most districts, a large majority of the respondents still characterizes its current loan-todeposit ratio as being lower than desired. Rates of interest on farm loans remained about flat in the first quarter of 1994. The timing of the surveys varies across districts, and the recent surge in rates in the general economy began roughly in the middle of the quarter. As a result, next quarter's Databook should provide a clearer picture of the effect of recent fluctuations in interest rates on farm lending markets. Prices for farmland picked up in all districts according to the first-quarter surveys. Ranchland seemed to show the strongest gains, perhaps reflecting the persistent strength of cattle through early 1994. Increases for cropland generally were less, with year-over-year changes ranging from -1 percent for irrigated land in the Dallas district to 6 percent in the Minneapolis district. 29 30 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.A FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) DEMAND FOR LOANS LOWER Ill .A1 SAME SEVENTH FUND AVAILABILITY HIGHER LOWER SAME LOAN REPAYMENT RATE HIGHER (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT LOWER SAME RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS HIGHER LOWER SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER ( IL* / IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 Ql. . Q2. . Q3. . Q4. . 1 1 1 1 15 15 20 20 42 47 50 52 44 38 30 28 I I I I 6 8 9 7 59 62 59 60 34 31 32 33 1 1 1 1 34 27 19 30 55 67 73 47 11 6 8 23 I 1 1 1 10 10 9 21 53 60 69 52 37 30 22 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 73 77 80 83 26 22 19 16 1993 Ql. . 02. . Q3. . 04.. 1 1 1 1 23 24 20 15 46 49 50 44 31 27 30 40 1 I 1 I 8 5 10 6 53 61 59 62 39 34 31 32 1 1 1 1 20 18 21 29 58 68 67 46 22 13 11 25 1 1 1 i 20 13 13 21 58 65 64 49 22 22 23 30 1 I 1 1 1 0 1 1 82 85 84 87 16 15 15 12 1994 Ql. , 1 12 41 47 1 9 61 30 1 28 50 22 1 18 50 32 1 o 86 14 III..A2 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO* , NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 16 22 21 16 53 48 51 55 31 31 28 28 1 1 1 1 10 15 16 10 58 57 54 60 32 28 30 30 1 1 1 1 30 22 20 13 62 72 70 69 8 6 10 19 10 8 16 16 63 72 69 72 27 19 15 12 1 1 4 1 76 78 77 82 23 21 20 16 1993 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 18 14 16 14 56 58 57 56 25 28 26 30 1 1 1 1 8 11 17 12 64 62 61 68 28 27 22 20 1 1 1 1 10 7 12 20 74 82 80 71 15 11 8 10 14 11 7 10 75 82 81 74 11 7 12 16 0 1 0 1 86 88 89 91 13 11 11 9 1994 01... 1 9 59 32 1 10 72 18 1 16 76 8 7 78 15 1 89 10 III. A3 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT 1 1 ( LA*, NM*, TX ] 1 1992 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 18 19 24 26 49 57 53 55 33 24 22 19 1 1 I I 5 7 5 5 59 62 66 56 36 31 29 39 1 1 1 1 29 18 14 16 58 67 67 62 13 15 19 21 13 14 14 22 56 65 70 62 31 20 15 17 0 0 0 1 64 65 73 75 35 34 27 24 1993 01... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 20 20 18 8 58 58 54 62 22 22 28 30 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 3 62 59 65 70 37 38 31 27 1 1 1 1 9 6 10 12 70 75 77 70 22 18 13 18 24 16 14 24 68 78 76 63 9 6 11 14 1 0 1 0 75 85 82 86 24 15 17 14 1994 Ql... 1 11 62 26 1 3 78 19 1 9 78 13 17 76 7 1 86 13 1 1 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.A (CONTINUED) r m m T H n expeRIHNCB COMPARED WITH NORMAL CONDITIONS T DEMAND FOR LOANS LOAN REPAYMENT RATE FUND AVAILABILITY LOWER LOWER LOWER COLLATERAL REQUIRED RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS SAME LOWER HIGHER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL 1993 Ql 6 6 8 7 77 70 73 83 17 24 19 10 1 | | | 31 19 30 30 65 78 70 63 4 3 1 7 2 5 7 9 69 81 82 65 30 14 11 26 7 9 9 3 80 79 75 79 13 12 16 18 1 | | | 33 20 44 49 60 78 54 45 7 2 2 6 8 8 7 8 64 77 73 52 28 15 20 40 1 1992 Ql 30 59 10 7 63 31 1 1 • *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1 1 *** *** 83 1992 Ql 22 33 29 17 65 54 63 65 13 13 8 17 52 58 58 67 48 42 42 33 | | | | 9 17 13 25 78 79 75 71 13 4 13 4 23 21 17 9 59 67 71 57 18 13 13 35 0 4 0 0 82 70 75 71 18 26 25 29 1993 Ql 8 9 23 30 83 83 73 57 8 9 5 13 67 70 73 74 33 30 27 26 | | | | 17 5 14 30 78 91 86 65 4 5 0 4 4 18 5 5 75 77 86 64 21 5 10 32 5 0 0 0 76 87 86 70 19 13 14 30 1 20 76 4 0 76 24 13 24 32 88 72 72 0 4 31 TM^I^B B R V B BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF 12 AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) TOTAL LOWER SAME III.BL 1992 01... LOWER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME CROP STORAGE HIGHER LOWER SAME OPERATING HIGHER LOWER SAME FARM MACHINERY HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT <IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, MI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 49 57 56 57 40 29 28 29 1 1 1 1 24 23 19 16 69 72 67 70 7 5 14 14 1 1 1 1 19 15 19 16 71 78 74 78 10 7 7 6 21 16 14 16 72 74 51 55 7 9 35 29 8 8 14 13 43 51 57 48 49 41 29 39 16 18 13 10 27 31 28 22 51 56 51 53 59 58 56 43 25 23 31 47 22 13 21 25 1 1 1 1 19 22 18 19 66 69 68 72 15 9 14 8 1 1 1 1 20 16 17 16 74 77 78 75 5 6 5 8 23 24 18 28 66 67 59 59 11 9 23 13 16 14 12 7 46 51 53 36 38 35 35 57 11 20 33 30 21 51 47 47 43 42 29 20 23 36 48 1 22 72 6 1 16 74 10 28 64 8 7 38 55 15 48 36 03... 04... 1993 01,.. 02 .. . 03... 04.. . I III.B2 1992 QL. HIGHER DAIRY 11 14 16 15 02... 1994 01... FEEDER CATTLE ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 17 20 18 20 58 63 65 62 24 17 17 18 1 1 1 1 18 18 15 18 72 72 72 69 11 10 13 13 17 13 14 16 75 79 79 78 7 8 7 6 1 1 1 1 15 17 15 16 80 74 68 75 5 9 17 9 14 19 16 13 55 65 68 67 31 17 16 19 65 63 59 62 58 59 65 63 21 24 28 31 14 14 14 19 03. 04. 14 13 13 7 28 27 21 18 1 1 1 1 15 10 13 11 71 75 63 69 13 16 24 19 14 7 11 12 78 85 82 79 8 8 7 9 1 1 1 1 17 11 11 9 78 76 82 81 5 13 7 10 13 10 10 7 1994 QL. 61 65 65 61 26 25 25 31 7 16 13 12 10 75 67 69 67 62 18 17 18 21 28 1 14 74 12 13 77 9 1 17 79 5 7 65 28 8 74 18 02. 03. 04. 1993 01. 02. III.B3 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1992 01., 02. . 03., 04.. 13 17 22 5 78 74 65 82 9 9 13 14 1 1 1 1 5 15 14 20 90 85 73 75 5 0 14 5 15 30 24 11 80 70 76 90 5 0 0 0 10 23 14 15 85 73 68 70 5 5 18 15 1993 01.. 1 1 1 1 17 8 21 17 65 83 79 71 17 8 0 13 9 0 10 11 87 96 80 74 1 1 1 1 13 17 33 21 74 75 67 71 13 8 0 8 4 4 10 16 1 1 1 1 11 10 11 11 78 85 84 78 11 5 5 11 6 5 17 18 94 95 78 82 0 0 6 0 17 9 23 30 83 82 55 70 0 9 23 0 1 1 1 1 4 13 9 4 88 78 64 70 9 9 27 2& 14 59 1 I 1 I 4 13 27 18 83 83 59 64 27 13 4 14 18 1 5 90 5 11 89 0 14 82 5 1 13 57 30 1 23 59 18 02.. 03. . 04. . 1994 Ql.. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.B (CONTINUED) EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM LOANS DURING NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH NORMAL DEMAND (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) SHORT-TERM NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER LOWER DEBT EXTENSION OR REFINANCING INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS SAME HIGHER SAME LOWER HIGHER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) III.B4 1990 Q4. 8 69 23 1 9 81 10 11 68 20 1991 Ql. Q2. Q3. 04. 5 4 3 8 72 75 78 75 23 21 18 18 1 1 1 1 12 14 12 11 82 84 81 82 6 2 7 7 6 5 5 4 83 78 66 69 12 16 29 27 1992 Ql* Q2. 03. 04. 2 8 10 5 86 78 80 86 11 14 10 9 1 1 1 1 3 11 13 14 90 86 82 80 7 3 5 6 2 2 8 7 79 86 78 68 18 11 14 25 1993 Ql. 5 3 7 3 84 81 62 69 11 16 32 28 1 I I | 8 13 15 7 85 82 71 75 7 6 14 18 3 6 6 6 84 78 55 56 13 17 39 38 02. 03. 04. LOWER SAME 1994 Ql... 33 63 LOWER SAME HIGHER | 11 71 LOWER SAME HIGHER 17 I 24 58 LOWER SAME HIGHER 18 FARM MACHINERY OTHER OPERATING FARM REAL ESTATE OTHER INTERMEDIATE FEEDER LIVESTOCK I 65 LOWER SAME HIGHER 33 | 18 60 HIGHER 21 33 34 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.C AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) AVERAGE LOAN-TODEPOSIT RATIO, END OF QUARTER PERCENT Ill .CI REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS LOWER AT DESIRED THAN DESIRED LEVEL HIGHER THAN DESIRED NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS CORRESPONDENT BANKS NONE NONBANK AGENCIES COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 03... 04... 1 1 59 59 1 1 60 64 30 29 10 8 1 1 | j *** *** 1 j 1993 01.. . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 58 59 59 60 I 1 1 1 68 66 64 65 24 25 26 25 8 9 10 10 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 *** *** *** j 1 j 1 *** *** *** *** 1994 01. .. 1 60 1 66 24 10 1 | *** *** 1 *** III, C2 > TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM* f OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 03... 04... 1 1 55 54 1 1 77 78 8 8 15 14 I I 2 0 76 75 I 1 78 77 27 18 69 76 4 6 1 1 69 67 24 18 67 71 9 11 1993 01. .. 02... 03... 04. . . 1 1 1 1 53 55 57 56 1 1 1 1 82 79 75 77 6 6 8 8 11 15 17 15 1 1 I 1 2 1 2 2 76 75 76 75 1 1 1 1 78 78 79 77 16 15 14 12 77 80 79 83 7 5 7 5 1 1 1 1 66 68 68 69 16 14 15 13 73 77 76 78 11 9 9 9 1994 01. .. 1 56 1 74 10 17 1 2 77 1 I 75 10 84 6 1 64 11 76 13 III. ,C3 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX) 1992 03... 04... 1 1 43 41 | | *** *** 1993 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 41 42 44 45 1 | | 1 *** *** 1994 01. .. 1 45 1 *** 1 1 *** *** *** 1 3 *** *** | 1 1 *** 12 15 80 76 7 9 j 1 *** 6 11 84 79 11 10 j 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 15 14 13 12 80 80 80 84 5 6 7 4 j 1 1 j *** *** | I | 1 I 1 | I 8 16 14 11 84 77 81 85 8 7 5 4 j 1 *** I 1 *** 11 83 6 1 10 83 7 *** FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.C (CONTINUED) AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) AVERAGE LOAN-TODEPOSIT RATIO, END OF QUARTER PERCENT ,C4 III. 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 NONBANK AGENCIES CORRESPONDENT BANKS NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER HIGHER LOWER SAME NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1992 Q3... 04 . . . 1 1 58 56 1 1 44 53 48 41 9 6 1 1 2 5 1 1 32 41 7 2 60 57 1 0 1 1 31 38 5 2 62 56 2 3 1993 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 I I 1 54 58 60 56 1 1 1 1 49 46 41 36 45 45 44 54 7 9 15 10 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 5 1 I 1 1 31 40 32 31 3 2 4 3 64 57 59 62 1 0 5 3 1 1 1 1 27 28 32 28 3 3 4 4 64 63 60 63 6 6 4 6 1994 01. .. 1 63 1 *** 1 6 1 45 3 1 38 14 III .C5 52+ 49+ FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1992 03... 04... 1 1 68 69 1 1 52 52 44 44 4 4 I I 8 14 67 83 1 1 57 80 0 5 43 15 0 0 1 1 64 71 9 5 18 24 9 0 1993 01. . . 02... 03... 04 . . . 1 I I 1 67 67 69 68 1 1 1 1 50 62 60 53 42 33 30 37 8 5 10 11 1 1 1 1 4 0 5 0 75 78 68 65 1 1 1 1 77 71 84 71 0 0 0 0 9 24 16 29 14 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 82 20 71 65 0 5 0 0 14 75 29 35 5 0 0 0 •1 69 1 50 40 10 1 0 77 1 71 0 29 0 1 30 5 65 0 1994 oi... •Beginning in 1994, Minneapolis omitted the response "none" for the number of referrals to either correspondent banks or nonbank agencies • The column that has been added combines responses that formerly would have been reported as either "none" or "low". 35 36 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS Ill.D1 OTHER OPERATING LOANS SHORTTERM NONREAL ESTATE INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER LOWER SAME HIGHER SAME LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI* , WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1 9 .2 9 .1 9. 2 9 .1 8 ,6 8, .6 1 1 *** *** 1 1 *** | | | 1 *** 1993 Ql. . . 02. . . 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 8 .8 8 .7 .6 8, .5 8, 8, .9 ,8 8, 8, ,6 8, .5 8, 3 . 8, .2 8. ,0 7, ,9 1 1 | 1 *** | W** 1 1 | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | | I | 1 *** *** *** *** 1994 Ql. . . 1 ,5 8. 8, ,5 8, ,0 1 *** *** j *** j 1 *** *** ** * | III.D2 *** TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 Q3••. Q4... I I 9.4 9.2 9.6 9.4 *** *** 9»6 9.4 8.9 8.9 | | *** ** * ** * *** *** *** | 1993 Ql... Q2... 03... Q4... | | I | 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.7 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9 *** *** *** *** 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 | | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | | *** * ** *** | *** *** *** *** *** *** ; j 1994 Ql... | 8.7 8.9 *** 8.9 8.4 | *** *** *** i *** *** *** i *** | | *** *** *** *** *** * ** j *** *** *** | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D (CONTINUED) INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS III.D3 OTHER OPERATING LOANS SHORTTERM NONREAL ESTATE INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1992 Q3. Q4. 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.8 9.3 9.1 32 12 61 62 7 26 31 10 62 64 7 26 23 10 70 69 7 22 1993 Ql. Q2 . Q3. Q4. 9.4 9.3 9.0 8.8 9.5 9.3 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.4 10 6 12 7 80 86 82 85 10 8 6 8 11 7 9 5 79 85 85 86 10 8 6 9 8 5 9 3 81 90 83 88 11 5 7 9 9.2 8.4 9.2 1994 Ql. III.D4 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1992 Q3. Q4. 9.8 9.7 9.9 9.8 10, 10, 10.0 9.9 1993 Ql. 9.7 8.5 9.4 9.3 9, 9, 03. 04. 9.5 9.4 9.1 9.1 9 9 9.5 8.7 9.3 9.2 1994 Ql. 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.2 02. III.D5 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1992 Q3... 04... 1 | 8.5 8.6 8.9 8.8 ,3 9, 9. .4 9.2 9.4 1 1 *** *** *** *** | 1 | 1 *** 1993 Ql... 02... 03... Q4... 1 1 1 1 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.3 8, .9 • 8. 9 .8 8, 8 .7 9.1 8.6 8.4 8.3 1 1 1 1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 1 1 1 1 *** *** *** 1994 01... | 8.6 8.6 8 .2 9.1 I 1 | *** *** *** *** | | 1 *** *** *** *** *** 1 | 1 | 1 I *** *** *** *** *** 1 37 38 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III .E TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED TREND IN FARM REAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND ALL III.El DRYLAND IRRIGATED TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER RANCHLAND ALL DRYLAND SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT IRRI™ GATED RANCHLAND DOWN 11 15 1 1 16 16 67 65 17 18 3 9 5 4 79 78 74 66 18 13 21 30 1 1 1 1 15 23 17 14 63 62 65 57 22 15 18 29 1 63 37 I 13 57 30 | 0 0 100 88 0 13 1 1 18 18 82 82 0 0 | 0 0 0 5 96 100 100 91 4 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 24 9 33 19 76 86 62 71 0 5 5 10 4 88 8 1 13 78 9 2 2 * * * 1993 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 * * * | * * * | 1994 Ql. . . 1 2 5 1992 Q3 . , Q4. . f 1993 Q l . # Q2 . . Q3 . . Q4. . 1994 Ql.., 1 * * * | 1 1 1 1 1 -3 -5 -3 o 1 8 III.E3 * * * | * * * | * ** j * * * * * * | | *** *** 0 -0 1993 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4... | | | | *** *** *** *** 1994 Ql... | *** 3 6 * * * | (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 4 6 -0 -9 1 | | 1 * * * -3 -2 -2 7 1 2 - 0 - 2 1 - 5 1 3 1 | * * * 2 1 * * * - 3 | *** 5 | * * * 1 1 2 3 13 8 0 -3 2 4 4 -1 1 * * * | (LA*, NM*, TX) *** *** 4 | -0 10 | - I I 2 I | * * * ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT 1992 Q3... Q4. . . | * * * | 1 (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT 4 HIGHER 84 82 0 0 FIFTH SAME 5 3 1 1 III.E2 LOWER UP (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1992 Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1 STABLE - -3 | I I *** *** *** *** *** *** I I 23 23 70 61 6 16 0 1 3 1 I I 5 | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** I I I | 17 13 15 8 64 73 72 74 19 13 13 17 9 *** *** *** I 12 75 13 | FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE XII. B (CONTINUED) TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH NORMAL (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND ALL III.E4 1992 Q3 » . » 1 Q4... I DRYLAND IRRIGATED TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER RANCHLAND ALL DRYLAND IRRIGATED RANCHLAND DOWN STABLE LOWER UP SAME HIGHER TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NB, NM*, OK, WY) *** 0 1 0 2 -1 2 1 1 2 4 3 5 3 6 1 1 j j *** *** 1993 Ql, . . Q2 , . , Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 *** *** 0 2 -0 2 1 1 -1 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 5 4 3 2 5 6 8 7 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 *** *** *** 1994 Ql,.. | *** 1 3 3 1 4 4 8 1 j *** III.E5 *** *** *** NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI* / MN, MT, ND, SC, WI*) 1992 Q3... Q4. . . 1 | *** *** *** | | 3 4 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 14 79 72 9 14 1993 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . | | | j *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | J | 5 4 9 5 1 3 4 3 3 4 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 11 12 7 89 84 75 79 5 5 13 14 1994 Ql... 1 *** | 6 6 5 1 1 24 58 18 39
@FedFRASER