Full text of E.15 Agricultural Finance Databook : Second Quarter 1996

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

E. 15 (125)
I

- . **

r- p\ V C D A

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE
DATABOOK
Second Quarter 1996
Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources

Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks ..
Selected statistics from the quarterly reports of condition of commercial

3

banks
Reserve bank surveys of farm credit conditions and farm land values . .

17

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



Page

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 of 1996; the other data generally were available through the third 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 Walraven or Doug Carson
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 I:

AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS

Estimates from the quarterly survey of non-real - estate farm loans
Summary charts
Tables:
I. A
I. B
I. C
I. D
I.E
I.F
I.G
I.H
I.I

Number
Average size
Amount
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

...

7
g
9
1_q
11
12
13
14
16

SOURCES OF DATA:
These data on the farm loans of $1000 or more made by commercial banks are derived from quarterly sample
surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve System during the first full week of the second month of each
quarter. Data obtained from the sample are expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks, which
are shown in the following tables.
Before August 1989, the farm loan survey was part of a broader survey of the terms of lending by a sample of
340 commercial banks. A subset of 25 0 banks was asked for information regarding agricultural lending, and
about 15 0 typically reported at least one farm loan.
S nc
i ^ August of 1989, the data have been drawn from a redesigned sample of 25 0 banks that is no longer part of
the broader survey.
In the redesigned sample, banks are stratified according to their volume of farm lending;
previously, they had been stratified according to the volume of business loans. As before, however, the
sample data are being expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks.
In the February 1996 survey,
194 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled 5479.

In both the previous survey and the new one, the national estimates exhibit variability due to sampling error.
The estimates are sensitive to the occasional appearance of very large loans in the sample.
In addition, the'
breakdown of national estimates into those for large banks and small banks may have been affected somewhat by
the new sampling procedures that were implemented in August 1989; apparent shifts in the data as of that date
should be treated with caution.




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 never been
stratified by region. Consequently, the survey results are less precise for each region than for the totals
for the nation.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
In the May 1996 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks, though up
substantially from February, still was a touch below the springtime readings of the past couple of years.
The average size of loans remained quite high, and together with the large number of loans, boosted the
estimated volume of loans during the survey week to almost $120 billion at an annual rate, the largest figure
since the survey was begun.
In the May survey, the average effective rate of interest on non-real-estate farm loans fell 40 basis points
to 8.1 percent. When loans are separated according to the stated purpose of the loan, rates dropped on loans
for livestock and for farm operating expenses. By size of the loan, most of the decline in interest rates in
the May survey were for loans in amounts greater than $100 thousand --rates on smaller loans were little
changed. The percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats fell precipitously to
about 60 percent, the lowest reading since 1992.
Table I.G offers a historical perspective on changes in the dispersion of rates of interest for non-realestate loans, which suggests that the dispersion of rates in the May survey was considerably greater than in
the survey conducted in May 1995. Changes from the February survey in the average rate of interest charged
for farm loans were mixed across USDA farm production regions. Rates fell about 70 basis points in the
Cornbelt, while they rose about 80 basis points in the Appalachian region and 50 basis points in the
Northeast; changes in other regions were smaller. The estimated standard errors of the weighted average rate
of interest have been high in the past few surveys, indicating a much wider range than usual in the rates
offered to farmers.




>
Chart 1

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers

»
Millions, Annual rate
Number of non-real-estate farm loans

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5

~ Four quarter moving average

2.0

1.0

\

Thousands of dollars
Average size of non-real-estate farm loans

— Four quarter moving average

Billions of dollars. Annual rate

130
120
110

Amount of non-real-estate farm loans




100

— Four quarter moving average

i
Chart 2

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers

(
Months
Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans

— Four quarter moving average

1978

1979

1980

1981

*

Percent

Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans

Percent

Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate




IUU
80

60

40
- Four quarter moving average

(

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NGN-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.A
NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

BY SIZE
OF BANK

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

0 .53
.
0 .51
.
0 .46
,
0 .46
,
0 .43
,
0 .52
,
0 .49
.
0 .51
.
0 .54
,
0 .56
,
0 .51
,
0 .57
.

0 .40
.
0.,30
0 .29
.
0 .27
.
0 .28
,
0 .31
.
0 .35
.
,
0 .32
0 .37
,
0 .37
,
0 .35
,
,
0 .36

0 .09
0 .09
0 .08
0 .08
0.
,07
0.
,09
0.
,09
0.
,10
0.
,11
0 ,12
.
0 ,12
.
0 ,12
.

. LARGE

OTHER

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0 ,18
.
0.,18
0.,20
0..20
0..23
0..36
0..44
0 .50
.
0..51
0,.55
0,.54
0 .66
,

3.
.26
,78
2.
2.,34
, 18
2.
1..99
,23
2.
,20
2.
2., 10
2 .18
.
2 .15
.
1..98
1..83

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

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

3 44
2 96
2 55
2 38
2 21
2 60
2 .. 63
2 ., 60
2 .. 69
2 .70
.
2 ., 53
2 .. 49

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

0 .34
0 .34
0 .30
0 .39
0 .29
0 .30
0 .32
0 .35
0 .35
0 .36
0 .28
o .26

0. 29
0. 23
0 17
0. 13
0. 11
0. 20
0. 24
0. 23
0. 25
0. 27
0. 23
0. 19

2 06
1 77
1 66
1 54
1 45
1 73
1 .69
1 . 64
1 . 67
1 .62
1 .56
1 .48

0., 3 5
0.,36
0.. 17
0.. 14
0., 14
0., 16
0., 19
0.,17
0., 18
0., 18
0.. 18
0., 17

0.,35
0.,27
0..24
0., 19
0.,21
0..20
0., 19
0 ,21
.
0..24
0..27
0..27
0.. 39

2 .42
,
2 .06
,
1 .71
,
1 .57
,
1 .42
,
1 .67
,
1 .70
,
1. 66
1 .67
.
1 .65
1 .55
1 .45
.

NUMBER OF :
LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER,, ANNUAL RATE
1994 02...
Q3 . . .
Q4 . . .

1
1
1

3 ., 18
2 ,. 66
1,.83

1
1
1

o .30
0 .21
0 .32

0. 25
0. 16
0. 18

2 .06
1 .79
0 .98

0..25
0,. 16
0,. 12

0,.32
0,.34
0,.22

1 .97
1 .72
1 .08

0 .65
0 .52
0 .36

0 .42
.
0 .33
.
0 .28
.

0 .15
.
0 .09
.
0 .10
.

1
1
1

0,.66
0..62
0,.41

2 .52
,
2,.04
1,.42

1995 Q1. . .
02...
Q3...
04...

1
1
1
1

2 .35
,
2 ,96
,
2 .61
.
2 .04
,

1
1
1
1

0 .29
0 .23
0 .22
0 .29

0. 23
0. 22
0. 13
0. 20

1 .33
1 .89
1 .68
1 .01

0,. 17
0..23
0,. 15
0,.15

0,.33
0,.39
0,.44
0,.38

1 .31
1 .80
1 .55
1 .13

0 .56
0 .63
0 .60
0 .47

0 .35
0 .40
0 .37
0 .31

0 .12
,
, 14
0.
0 .10
,
0 .13
,

1
1
1
1

0,.54
0,.74
0 .73
0 .63

1,.81
2 .22
,
1..89
1 .41

1996 oi...
02..,

1
1

1,. 95
2 .74
.

1
I

0 .15
0 .15

0. 22
0. 17

1 .14
1 .83

0.. 15
0,. 14

0,.29
0,.45

1 .10
1 .64

0 .41
0 .60

0 .31
0 .38

0 .13
,
0 .13
,

1
1

0 .45
0 .68

1 .50
2 .07




7

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.B
AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS;
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

88..1
82..0
62.,0
85..5
70..0
53.,7
100.. 7
107..0
97..0
106..0
101..3
84..0

13,.8
13,.4
15..3
14 .9
.
16..3
14 ,4
.
13 ,9
.
.
13 .9
15..8
15..8
15..4
15 .7

ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988,
1989.
1990.
1991,
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.

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

17 7
17 6
19 0
20 .8
21..8
19..9
28 .4
31..9
31..2
34..3
33..9
33..8

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

31 .8
25 .7
35 .0
33 .8
34 .1
42 .7
69 .7
61 .0
68 .2
79 .7
60 .3
49 .7

21 9
22 5
25 8
26 3
40..6
29..5
22 .7
25..2
26,.9
23..1
27,.6
26,.7

12 9
12 8
14 0
14 6
16,.7
14 .1
,
15.. 7
15..6
14..7
15..2
16..3
18..5

12..5
12..4
13..6
16..1
13..9
12..1
11..9
15..1
15.,9
13..9
17..5
15..6

34..8
42..1
32..9
44..6
34..7
32..2
94..3
129..3
108..7
112..0
123..6
93 .6
.

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

3.,7
3..5
3..5
3.. 6
3., 7
3 ., 6
.
3 .6
3 ., 6
3., 7
3..7
3..7
3 .7
.

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

43..8
45..5
44..9
46..5
45..2
45..9
46.. 1
46..6
45..9
46..1
47.. 0
44 .9
.

291,.2
254,.7
280..4
320..4
320..4
272,. 1
487.. 7
539,. 9
468..2
490..3
480..7
451.. 3

AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
97..5
108,.0
202,.0

1
1
1

3..9
3..5
3..9

14. 4
14. 4
14. 9

46..0
46..0
47..5

377,.9
588..4
572..2

77..6
98..2
142..4

16 .1
11 .0
16..9

15..4
18..7
14..4
12..4

83..8
101..7
79,.5
110,.0

1
|
1
I

3.. 6
3..8
3..6
3..9

14. 8
14..5
14. 5
15. 2

46..7
43..7
44..5
45..1

431..3
466..5
437..5
464 . 0

90..8
82..8
6 6.
.8
99..8

18..1
16..4
12..6
15..9

18..4
15..7

127 .0
73 .2

1
1

3,.6
3..7

15.. 1
14..9

45,.0
44..8

474 . 1
673 .1

122..8
131,.1

19,.6
14 .5

1994 Q2. . .
Q3...
04...

1
1
1

28..9
31..3
45..0

1
1
1

57 .0
72 .3
44 .9

27,.9
24,.0
30,.7

15..7
14,.2
16,.3

19..0
12..7
14..0

1995 01...
02...
03...
04...

I
I
I
1

34..8
33..0
27,.7
41,.7

1
1
|
I

65 .2
62 .7
33 .9
35 .7

24..6
28,.1
26,.4
28,.0

20..1
17..4
14..6
24 .6

1996 oi...
02...

1
1

43,.4
43..3

I
I

59 .7
44 .0

23..2
25..4

27,.1
39..6




"

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK MOM-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.C
AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,0005)

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

BY SIZE
OF BANK

25
to
99

100
and
over

17,.6
13,.5
13 .2
,
12 .6
,
12 .9
,
14 .4
,
15 .9
15 .1
16,.8
17 .1
,
16,.5
16,.0

26,.5
24,.0
22 .3
.5
24 ,
23 ,
.7
23 ,
.4
45,.3
54,.0
52,.8
61,.0
56,.0
54,.4

LARGE

OTHER

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

15 .8
14,.9
12 .6
17 .1
.
15 .9
19 .6
44..2
53 .7
49 .4
58 .8
55 .1
55 .3

45,.0
37..3
35..9
32..5
32..3
32..0
30..5
29..1
34..3
33..8
30..6
28.,8

ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991......
1992
1993
1994
1995

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

60,.8
52.. 1
43,. 5
49,.6
48,.2
51,. 6
74..7
82..8
83..7
92..6
85.,7
84., 1

10.7
8.6
10.4
13.2
10.0
12,9
22.0
21 .4
23.6
28.7
16.8
12 .7

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

26.-5
22..6
23..2
22..5
24.,3
24 .3
.
26..6
25..5
24.,6
24.,7
25..4
27.,3

4, .4
4 .4
2 .4
2 .3
, 1.9
2 .0
.
2 .3
2 .5
2 .9
2 .5
3 .2
,
2,.7

12,.2
11,.3
. 8,
.0
8,.3
7,.4
6,.4
18,.3
27,.6
26,.0
30,.6
33,.9
36,. 1

1
1
1
1
1
1
• 1
1
1
1
1
1

8..9
7..2
6..0
5,,7
5,.2
6..1
6.1,
6..1
6..2
6..1
5..8
5.,4

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

AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
19,.2
15,.0
13,.3

55 .7
54 .6
59 .5

1
1
I

51..5
60,.6
58,.4

40,.5
22,.5
24,.1

8..4
4..8
,2
6..9 ' 9.
8..7
5..5
7.. 1
4..4

16,.2
17 .3
.
16 .3
,
14 .1
,

52 .2
.
64 .3
41 .7
59 .2

1
1
1
1

48..8
61..3
48..6
62..5

32,.8
36,.4
23,.7
22,.4

4,.0
6,.1

14 .1
,
16,.8

60 .5
87 ,
.2

1
1

55..3
89,.1

29,.5
29,.9

1994 Q2...
Q3...
Q4 . . .

1
1
I

91 .99
83 .14
82,.44

I
1
1

17 .2
15,.4
14 .5
,

7.1
3 .8
5.6

32..3
25..5
16..0

,
4 .7
2,.0
1,.7

30..7
36..5
44,.6

1
1
1

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

1995 Q1. . .
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

1
1
1
1

81,.59
97,.62
72,.31
84,.85

I
1
I
I

18,.9
14,.4
7 .5
,
10,.2

5.6
6.3
3.4 ,
5.6

26..8
33:.0
24..5
24..9

2,.6
,
4 .2
2 .1
,
1,.9

27..8
39..7
34..9
42..2

1
1
1
1

1996 Ql. . .
Q2...

1
1

84..76
118..96

I
I

9,.1
6..6

5,1
4.2

31.,0
72..7

2,.7
2,.2

36..9
33..2

1
1




9..3
7..5
5..4

6..2
8.,9

9

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.D
AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE 'MONTHS;

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

OTHER

BY SIZE
OF BANK

1

10

25

to

to

10C

to

and

9

24

99

over

7 .5
7 .7
8 .0
8 .1
9 .2
8 .3
9 .2
8 .3
9 .7
10 . 0
11 .6
10 . 8

7.7
9.1
9.8
9.3
10.2
9.3
11.9
10.6
11.1
11.1
13.5
12.1

LARGE

OTHER

7.0
6 .9
5 .5
5.9
8. l

7. 9
8 .4
8.8
9. 3

ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

7.7
8.0
8.0
8.4
8.7
8.1
7.5
7.3
8.9
9.2
10.3
9.9

1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I

5.0
6.1
5.8
5.5
6.4
6.8
6.0
6.7
6.1
7.3

1
1

7.6
8.7

1

6.6
7.8
6.3
7.7
4.7
7.4
8.8
8.5
9.5
9.6
9.8
9.9

7 .8
7 .3
7 .6
7 .6
8 .5
7 .2

. 7.5
7 .2
8 .6
8,.3
8..6
8..5

12.6
13.4
21.0
22.8
19.8
18.7
21.9
24.6
20.1
30.4
36.6
26.5

8.1
8.8
8.8
12.1
10.9
11.8
6.4
5.3
9.4
9.4
9.4
10.0

.

7.0
6.7
6.8
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.4

7.7
8.3
8.5
8.6
9.0

8.0
7.9
7,1
8.3
7.7
7.1
4.9

7 .
,1

8. 8
8. 2
10 .2
9. 6
10.. 1
10..4
12 ..6
11 .4
.

|
1
|

7.,0
5..9
5. 8

1 1 . ,5
9. 3

5. 6
6. 9

7. 8
4 .7
5 .2

5.8
7.2
7.4
7.2
8.2

6. 4
6 .4

5.. 8

MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER,, ANNUAL RATE
1994 Q2...

Q3...
Q4. . ,
1995 Ql.. .
02...

Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1996 Ql...
02...

1
1
1

13.0
9.3
8.3

1
1
1

8.4
9.4
5.7

9.4
16.2
8.2

10. 5
6, 8
. 7. 3

45.7
32.3
28.2

10.8
7,9
11,3

9.5
8,1
7.6

1
1
1

10.3
10.6
9.0
9.4

1
1
1
1

8.0
7.1
7.9
13.0

9.8
9.2
10.4
10.6

10.
9.
6.
6.

5
5
8
8

28.4
24.7
30.4
23.9

7.0
12.7
10.9
8.6

9.3
10.2
8.0
8.2

1
1

11.2
7.1

1
!

8.3
16.1

15.0
7.4

8. 7
6. 0

26.3
35.7

17.4
5.8

8.9
9.8

1




13..3
9 . ,2
10. 5

14.2
13.2
12.3

10.7
6.8
4.8

11.
12.
9.
10.

8.1

|

0

13,9
13.6
9.4
11.4

8.4
7.6
8.7

I
|
|

9. 6

12. 3
12 . 6
10. 1
9. 2

13. 0
10. 7

12.7
13.0

10.1
5.6

|
|

8. 7
5. 1

12. 8
12. 7

2
1
8

6. 7

15..0

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.E
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

BY SIZE
OF BANK

BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1

to

OTHER

9

10

25

24

to

to
99

100
and
over

14..3
13 .2
.
11..8
11.. 1
11..4
12..7
12..1
10..7
8..8
8..3
8..6
10..3

13 . 7
12.. 1
10..8
9..9
10..8
12..2
10..9
9..2
7.. 1
6..9
7 .3
.
9..0

LARGE

ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

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

14..1
12..8
11..5
10..6
11..2
12..5
11..4
9..8
7..8
7..5
7..8
9..5

13 ., 7
12..5
11.. 1
10 .. 7
10.. 9
12 .3
.
11..5
10..2
8..2
8..0
8..3
10.. 1

14.. 3
12., 7
11..9
10..2
11..9
12..4
12..0
11.. 0
8..6
8.. 1
8.. 0
10..2

14..2
13..0
11..5
10..8
11..2
12..6
11..7
10..4
8..8
8..1
8..4
10..0

14.. 6
13.. 7
12..2
11..5
11.. 7
12..8
12..3
11..3
9..3
8..7
8,.6
10..3

14.. 0
12 . 1
11..2
9..5
10.. 7
12 .3
.
10..7
8..6
6..3
6..2
7 .. 0
8.. 8

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

14..6
13..7
12..4
11..6
11..7
12..8
12..5
11..5
9.. 7
9..0
9.. 1
10..6

14..3
13 .2
.
12 .0
.
11..3
11..6
12..7
12..4
11..2
9..3
8.. 7
8..8
10.. 5

13..1
11..2
9..6
9..2
10..2
12..1
10..9
9..0
6..8
6..7
7.
.2
9..0

14..4
13..4
12.. 1
11..3
11..6
12..7
12..3
11..3
9..4
8..1
8..8
10..4

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

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

8..7
9..2
9..5

10..2
10..4
10..2
10..2

9..8
8..8
8..8
8..8

9..7
8..9
9..0
8..8

10..4
10..3
10..5
10..6

9..8
9..9

7..9
7 .4
.

7..7
7..4

10..0
10..1

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

AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
|
1
1

7.
.8
7..9
8..3

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
I

10..0
9..4
9..5
9..2

10..9
9..6
9..8
9..7

9..9
10..2
9..8
10..6

10..3
9..9
10..2
9..4

10..4
10..2
10..4
10..0

1996 01. . .
02...

1
1

8..5
8..1

9..5
9..3

9..9
8..9

8..8
7..9

9..8
9..8




8.. 1
8..7
8..8

8.. 1
8..4
8..7

8..5
8..4
8..7

8..6
9.. 0
9..5

1994 Q2...
03...
Q4. . .

6 6
7 0
7 8

1
i
!

8..9
9,.2
.6
9.

8..7
9..0
9..4

9
8
8
8

0
7
8
8

1
1
1
1

10..6
10..6
10.. 6
10..6

10..3
10..6
10..6
10..5

7 8
8 1

1
1

10.. 3
10..2

10.. 1
10.. 1

8..5
8.. 7
9..1

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.F
PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

12

OTHER

1

10

to
9

to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

38 .9
45 .3
53 .4
59 .5
61 .4
61 .0
,
65..2
65..1
71 ,7
.
76.,7
75.,1
73..8

41 .2
61..4
60..5
51,. 6
65.. 3
71..4
76..8
81.,5
78..5
84., 6
82.,9
83 .9
.

32 .3
44 .9
34 .8
69 .6
.
39..5
40 .0
.
61 .6
.
69 .3
,
63 ,5
,
70.,0
.3
74 .
75 .
.9

41,.7
43..0
57,.2
62,. 1
63 .
,8
59..7
68..3
68,. 8
66., 3
70., 3
72 ., 3
73.. 0

24 .3
19 .6
30 .9
55 .5
54 .9
32 ,
.9
40 .0
.
.6
40 ,
,8
47 ,
48 ,
.2
,6
51 .
53 .
.1

39 .5
47 .3
50 .6
62 . 1
63 .2
,
73 .
.6
51 .2
,
50 ,3
,
75 ,
,3
78 ,
.1
75 .
.7
72 .
.2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

23 .8
27..6
40..6
48..5
49,.3
50., 4
53 .6
.
52..0
57 .3
.
60.. 1
58.. 6
61.,7

31,. 3
31,. 5
41,. 8
45,. 6
51..5
49,, 6
59..2
59., 0
59., 1
61., 0
59., 8
63.. 9

29 .0
42 .0
.
48,.2
54,.4
60,.8
58..5
6 6,.0
64..0
61 .
,2
64 ,
.5
70., 4
73 .. 6

52 .7
56 . 6
63 .7
,
68..5
67..0
69., 1
67 .5
.
67 .8
,
78,, 6
83 ,9
,
80.,2
76.,7

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

71 . 1
77,. 1
71,.9
77 .6
,
79,. 1
83,. 6
69,,4
70.,0
82..9
86.,9
.
83 .7
79..9

27 .6
32 .6
47 .0
49 .9
52 .6
47 .2
59 .3
,
56 . 1
55 .5
58 .9
59 .7
62 .3

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER
Q2 . . .
03...
04...

1
1
1

71 .7
78 .6
73 .1

78,.3
91..3
70.,1

74 .4
79 .8
64 .3

73..9
65.. 6
72,.3

40 .4
51 .1
43 .3

70,.0
83 ,
.6
76,.5

1
1
1

59,.6
58,.9
58,.9

56.. 8 68 .7
62.. 4 70,.2
62,. 2 69,.8

77 .0
85 .3
75,. 9

1
1
1

81 .8
86 .8
80 .3

58 .9
56 .4
55 .7

1995 oi...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

79 .0
67 .3
73,.4
76,.7

88,,3
82.,8
76.,3
82.,8

76,.1
79..'5
51,.1
86,.5

84,.3
65..7
65., 3
78.,0

55 .7
59 .7
50 .2
37 .9

70,,3
62 .0
,
82 .0
.
75 .
,0

1
1
1
1

63,.6
60..9
61..7
60,.6

61.. 4
63 .2
,
65,. 1
6 6..3

82,.9
69..0
77..2
79,, 1

1
1
1
1

83 .
,1
,
73 ,7
83..3
80..8

72 .9
56 .7
53 ,
.2
.5
65 ,

01...

1
1

70..4
61,,9

86..4
85. 9

56.. 6
82 .0
,

74.. 6
62.,4

.0
40 ,
26 ,
.9

67 .0
.
55 ,8
.

1
1

58.,7
61 ,8
.

61.. 6 67 . 1 72.,8
63 . 9 69.,2 60 ,
.3

1
1

74 . 1
63 ,7
.

63 ,
,3
56 ,
,4

1996

02...




79,.9
66.. 1
72,.1
77,.0

Table I.G

Effective
interest
rate
(percent)
All Loans

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS 1
BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE
Memo:
Perecentage
Distribution of
Number of Loans,

May
1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Feb 96

• May 96

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Under 5 percent

-

-

• *-

-

-

-

5.0 to 5.9

-

-

-

-

-

1

6.0 to 6.9

-

-

-

-

-

—

4

11

4

4

11

13

14

-

30

18

17

—

*
—

14

*

*

23

3

14

1

1

22

21

14

19

2

2

23

18

22

11

15

13

12

7.0 to 7.9

1

1

1

-

8.0 to 8.9

6

11

10

-

-

9.0 to 9.9.

12

21

20

-

1

9

17

16

20

35

18

33

10.0 to 10.9 . . .

37

11

23

27

5

8

22

10

20

4

24

15

37

11.0 to 11.9...

34

33

22

23

8

33

8

7

5

2

11

3

11

11

12.0 to 12.9...

22

19

15

39

39

2

1

1

*

1

1

2

13.0 to 13.9 . . .

2

13

3

3

34

14

-

—

*

1

*

*

*

14.0 to 14.9...

2

-

-

8

5

—

—

—

*

*

*

*

15.0 to 15.9 . . .

-

-

-

4

—

—

_

16.0 to 16.9 . . .

-

-

-

1

—

—

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..

-

-

.

-

.

—

*

—

*

*

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

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 fanners. Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding
* indicates less than .5 percent.




13

SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 6-10 1996

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

7

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Amount of loans (thousands)

23

Weighted average maturity (months)1

24
25

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

22 Number of loans

27

28

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

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

41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

54

55
56
57
58
59

60

182,459
12,252
11.4

163,767
4,937
13.3

198,176
3,094
19.7

261,074
1,835
30.3

8.19
0.34
9.65

10.19
9.64- 10.75

10.05
0.11
9.54 - 10.55

10.02
0.11
9.38 - 10.55

9.76
0.14
9.11 - 10.47

9.49
0.09
8.81 - 10.30

9.25
8.87
7.96
9.76
9.15

8.18

10.24
10.21
10.21
10.13
10.45
10.02

9.56
10.45
10.16
9.65
10.25
9.81

10.10
9.77
10.19
10.40
9.70
9.64

9.25
9.61
9.91
9.31
9.99
9.61

9.58
9.25
9.53
9.67
8.98
9.56

8.23
7.43

61.5
74.9

61.8
70.7

64.7
71.1

60.2
69.3

71.6
69.9

65.2
76.1

5.6
3.3
59.2

59.2
76.8

5.0
5.4
62.0
7.6
3.5
16.4

7.8
2.9
54.1
4.7
4.8
25.7

4.3
1.9
52.0
5.9
7.7
28.3

12.8

2.9
27.2

4.2
7.1
70.8
5.1
0.5
12.3

4.5
2.6
62.2

1,438,720
15,678
7.3

29,803
7,550
9.2

57,211
3,849
11.4

51,676
1,575
13.0

82,234
1,252
14.1

7.54
0.37
8.77

10.01
0.08
9.46 - 10.65

9.85
0.08
9.30 - 10.43

9.52
0.07
8.89 - 10.20

9.46

9.00

8.84 - 10.20

8.51 - 9.65

9.15
8.17
7.13
9.84

10.12
10.01
10.18

9.97

9.77
9.37
9.49
10.14
9.51
9.50

9.56
9.42
9.50
9.80
9.53
9.39

9.10
9.08
8.83
9.67

9.27

8.01

8.57
7.34

6.80-

1.8

0.08

6.24 -

Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2
Standard error 3
Interquartile range 4
Bypurpose of loan
Feeder livestock
Other livestock
Other current operating expenses
Farm machinery and equipment
Farm real estate
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Byjxirpose of loan
Feeder livestock
Other livestock
Other current operating expenses
Farm machinery and equipment
Farm real estate
Other




0.12

1,501,828
1,008
7.1

6.24

8.80
7.82
6.87

6.1

43.1
1.3
6.5
30.1

112,933
757

22.6

0.18

7.17
0.31
8.00

1.6
29.1

1,104,863
695
4.8

5.75

6.97
0.35
7.58

7.87

9.21
9.99

9.61
9.93
9.96
9.74
9.92
9.75

73.5
74.0

84.9
77.7

85.2
81.5

87.3
86.5

89.2
85.6

81.7
87.4

69.9
70.6

3.4

4.8
4.0
44.1
2.8
1.6
42.7

3.4
1.9
42.7
3.1
2.4
46.6

5.2
2.4
43.7
1.3
2.5
44.9

4.2
4.1
44.8
3.0
5.4
38.5

1.9
3.5
55.6
0.9
38.1

8.61

2.5
3.4
53.2

0.6

1.4
38.9

2.6

56.2
2.9
0.4
34.5

BANKS5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1

$250 and over

120,252
32,498
10.0

FARM LENDERS5

21

26

$100-249

2,427,556
55,624
11.4

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
LARGE

Size class of loans (thousands)
$10-24
$25-49
$50-99

BANKS

1
2
3

8

$1-9

8.92
7.82
6.57

988,836
39,946
17.1

90,448
24,948

10.2

125,248
8,403
11.4

112,091
3,362
13.4

115,942
1,843
23.3

148,141
1,078
36.0

396,965
313
13.0

9.12

10.25
0.08
9.72 - 10.78

10.15
0.15
9.65 - 10.75

10.24
0.13
9.65 - 10.78

9.98
0.17
9.65 -10.52

0.12

9.87

9.36 - 10.50

7.70
0.39
7.03 - 8.57

1031
10.22
10.26

10.15
9.88
10.42
10.46
9.73
9.83

8.93
9.81
10.12
9.26

9.65
9.31
10.11

7.44

10.04

9.53
9.92

9.67

0.28

7.03 - 10.35
9.28
9.93
8.90
9.74
9.36
9.90

10.70
10.10

9.53
10.61
10.22
9.64
10.30
10.06

44,0
76.4

54.1
68.4

55.3
66.4

47.6
61.4

59.2
58.8

52.6
67.5

10.2

29.5
94.0

4.5
8.5
75.6
5.9

5.2

9.9
3.4
59.3
5.5
5.9
16.1

3.6

19.4
7.6
41.8

80.6

7.4
23.8

3.6
4.2

3.3
67.9
3.5
5.2

10.0

10.12

0.6
5.0

6.1

70.2
9.8
4.5
4.4

10.06

1.6

57.9
9.2
11.4
16.4

8.74

8.00

11.6

NOTES TO TABLE I.H

The Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers collects data on gross loan extensions made during the first full
business week in the mid-month of each quarter by a sample of 250 banks of all sizes. The sample data are blown up to
estimate the lending terms at all insured agricultural banks during that week. The estimated terms of bank lending are
not intended for use-in collecting the terms of loans extended over the entire quarter or 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.

I




Survey

NE
P r o p o r t i o n of
farm loans
outstanding,
May 1996
survey
Sample Coverage
May 1996
s u r v e y (%)
A v g . Loan Size,
May 1996
survev ($1000)
S u r v e y date:

2 .9

14 1

33

1

T a b l e I.I
of T e r m s of Bank L e n d i n g to F a r m e r s , (selected
bv U S D A Farm P r o d u c t i o n R e g i o n
USPA Region
LS
CB
NP
AP
SE
DL

10

2

25 .0

17 .6

6. 1

5 2

7 .2

15 .7

16 8

157 .3

34 . 1

Wei ehted

A v e r a g e Interest : R a t e D u r i n g

quarters)

SP

MN

PA

5 .0

5 .3

9 .8

11 . 2

8.6

6. 6

7 .8

2 0 .4

71 . 7

80 . 8

27 . 1

28 . 2

51 .0

1 1 1. 5

35 .5

7. 2

11 . 0

Sample. W e e k

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
( .5 2)

9. 5
( .58)

8 .3
( .36)

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
( .5 0)

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)

Feb.

1993

7 8
( .27)

9 0
(..28)

8 0
( .27)

8.0
( .47)

5. 6
( .90)

8 .3
( .2 2)

7. 8
( .41)

7 .8
,
(•.61)

7 .5
,
(..41)

6 .5
( .44)

May

1993

8. 1
( .24)

8., 7
(•.21)

8. 1
( .27)

7. 9
( .3 2)

5. 2
(..57)

8 .4
( .29)

7,. 8
(•.43)

8.
,3
( .48)

7, 7
(.• 52)

6 .8
( .26)

Aug.

1993

8. 2
( .35)
.

. 5
L ,69)

8. 2
(•,18)

8.0
( .33)

. 7
.94)

7
( *37)

. 0
V .74)

7.
, 7
(.6
• 2)

(•

7. 2
( . 39)

Nov.

1993

8. 3
(..28)

8.
i 9)

7.
,8
(•.22)

7 .4
,
( .5 0)

5. 3
.73)

6.3
( .07)

8.
, 2
(..12)

7 .8
,
( •• 57)

Feb.

1994

7 .7
,
(•.3 2)

8 .6
(. 25)

7 .9
,
(..22)

7 .5
,
(..3 9)

5. 2
(1 •
.09)

7 .3
,
( .09)

7.
, 7
(..33)

7 .6
,
.43)

(..69)

6. q
. il)

7.

6. 7
( .49)

May

1994

8 .
,7
(..28)

9. 0
(. 26)

8.
,0
(..17)

8,. 1
(•.23)

6.
, 1
(..79)

8 .2
,
( .29)

7,. 8
(..60)

8 .4
,
(..36)

7.. 5
(. 34)

7.
, 2
( .26)
.

Aug.

1994

9 .
,1
(,.19)

8.,6
(• 41)

8 .3
,
(,.40)

8,.6
(•• 19)

,
6 .5
(,.83)

8 .6
,
(•.11)

7 .6
,
(..72)

8 .6
,
(•.3 7)

7. 6
(. 35)

7 ,5
,
(•• 25)

Nov.

1994

10,. 2
(•.38)

9. 7
(. 18)

8 .9
,
(..18)

8 .5
,
(..3 9)

7. 1
(..39)

8 .5
,
(..37)

8.. 8
(•.68)

Q,
.0
(..17)

8. 0
(. 43)

8 .5
,
(..20)

Feb.

1995

1 1 ..7
(..65)

10. 7
(. 14)

, 0
10 .
(.• 14)

9,
.9
(..16)

. 6
8,
(• 79)

7,
. 2
(1 •
.79)

10..4
(•.34)

10 .. 4
(. 21)

9 .4
(. 5 0)

9,
.4
( .25)
•

May

1995

9 . 0
(..38)

10. 4
f. 29)

9 .3
,
(•.45)

9 .4
.
(..42)

8..5
(..93)

10 , 2
( .31)
•

10.. 7
(. 74)

1 0 .. 1
(. 18)

9. 3
(. 23)

9 .3
,
( •34)
•

Aug.

19 9 5

9 .
,6
(..3 6)

10.. 3
(., 21)

9 ., 3
( .46)

.
9 ,8
( ,. 16)

8.
( ,96)
.

9 ,6
.
( .10)
.

10. 4
1 0 .i
(.• 3 1 ) (. 2 2)

9. 4
(. 39)

9 .5
,
( ,29)
.

Nov.

19 95

10 .
.8
( .3 2)

10. 3
(. 21)

8 .3
,
(.,93)

9..6
(-,26)

. Q
7.
(..80)

10 . 1
(•.25)

8. 8
( .3 2)

9 .9
(. 25)

8 .
.0
(1 .
.10)

9 .4
(• 2 2)

7. 3
(. 99)

Feb.

1996

9 .4
.
(•• 31)

1 0 .1
(. 32)

q. 8
(. 24)

9 .3
(. 66)

, q
8 .
( .40)
•

1 0 .9
(. 22)

9 .9
( •24)

8 .9
(. 85)

8 .1
(• 65)

10 .3
10. 2
9 .6
.
.3
7.
9. 0
10. 4
8. 1
9 .8
8. 7
8 .3
( .25)
(. 13)
(• 93)
( ,68)
.
(. 3 8)
(. 86)
(. 36)
(. 25)
( .65)
78)
* NE is N o r t h e a s t , LS is L a k e S t a t e s , CB is C o r n b e l t , NP is N o r t h e r n P l a i n s , AP is A p p a l a c h i a ,
SE is S o u t h e a s t , DL is D e l t a S t a t e s , SP is S o u t h e r n P l a i n s , MN is M o u n t a i n S t a t e s , and PA is
Pac if ic.

May

19 96

S t a n d a r d e r r o r s are in p a r e n t h e s e s b e l o w each e s t i m a t e .
Standard errors are
r e p l i c a t i o n s of a b o o t s t r a p p r o c e d u r e (resampling of b a n k s ) in each region.




calculated

from

100

SECTION II:

SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

Commercial banks:
II.A
II. B
II.C
II.D
II.E

Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated

volume of farm loans at insured commercial banks
delinquent non - real - estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
net^ charge - offs of non-real - estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
delinquent real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
net charge-offs of real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks

19
' 20
!.. 21
22
23

Agricultural banks:
II.F
II.G
II.H
II. I

Distribution
Distribution
Loan-deposit
Failures of

of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans
of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity
ratios at agricultural banks
agricultural banks

24
25
26
27

SOURCES OF DATA:
The data in tables II.A through II.H are prepared using data from the quarterly reports of condition and
income for commercial banks. Delinquencies and charge™offs of non-real-estate farm loans for the nation as a
whole (table II.B and table II.C) are estimated from reports of banks that hold more than 90 percent of total
non-real-estate farm loans. The incomplete coverage arises because banks with less than $300 million in
assets have been excused from some reporting requirements. First, these smaller banks report delinquencies
and chargeoffs of "agricultural loans" according to the particular bank's own definition, which may include
loans that are secured by farm real estate. Furthermore, small banks that hold less than 5 percent of total
loans as farm production loans are not required to report any information regarding delinquencies or chargeoffs of "agricultural loans." In constructing the data presented in the tables, banks that are not required
to report these data are assumed to have the same delinquency rates as those that do report. Recently, banks
began to report delinquencies of loans that are secured by farm real estate. These data, which are shown in
tables II.D and II.E, are reported by all banks, regardless of the size of the institution or the relative
amounts of farm loans that they hold. Because "agricultural loans" and loans secured by farm real estate may
overlap for some small banks, it is unclear whether it is proper to add the data in table II.B to its
counterpart in table II.D to obtain total agricultural delinquencies. A similar caveat applies to the data
concerning charge-offs in tables II.C and II.E.
Examination of total lending at banks that have a high exposure to agricultural loans provides an alternative
perspective on the agricultural lending situation. Agricultural banks in table II.D through table II.I are
those that have a proportion of farm loans (real estate plus nonreal estate) to total loans that is greater
than the unweighted average at all banks. The estimate of this average was 15.5 percent in March of 1996.
Information on failed banks (table II.I) is obtained from news releases of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, with agricultural banks broken out in our tabulation according to the definition stated in the
previous paragraph.




17

18
SECTION II: (continued)

Recent Developments:
Loans outstanding: At the close of the first quarter of 1996, the volume of
fallen 5.3 percent from its level in December 1995, a touch larger decline
patterns. The volume of farm real estate debt that was held by commercial
first quarter, also a bit less than the typical increase seen for the same
years.

non-real-estate farm loans had
than indicated by past seasonal
banks edged up 0.5 percent in the
interval over the past several

Problem loans: At the end of March 1996, delinquent farm non-real-estate loans amounted to $1.3 billion,
about 3-1/2 percent of such loans outstanding. Both in absolute levels and as a percentage of loans
outstanding, these figures are the highest since early 1993. The pickup in delinquencies of farm non-realestate loans likely reflects assorted production problems this year for crops and cattle that reflect poor
weather conditions in many parts of the Midwest. In addition, net charge-offs picked up as well, apparently
as agricultural bankers moved quickly to deal with problem agricultural loans. The volume of delinquent
farm real estate loans outstanding picked up a bit as well, but charge-offs of farm real-estate remained
low. Beginning in the third quarter of 1995, the proportion of agricultural banks that reported a level of
nonperforming loans that was greater than 2 percent of total loans began to edge up, perhaps foreshadowing a
bit less favorable operating environment than agricultural banks have enjoyed since the latter 1980s.
Nevertheless, most agricultural banks continued to report few problem loans.
Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks in the first
quarter was 3.1 percent, identical to the first-quarter return for the past several years. The average
capital ratio for agricultural banks edged down relative to the first quarter of 1995. Nevertheless,
agricultural banks remained well-capitalized when compared to the average over the past decade, maintaining
a substantial cushion for any losses on nonperforming loans. On March 31, 1996, the ratio of loans to
deposits at agricultural banks was a touch higher than at the end of March 1995. For all agricultural
banks, the ratio of loans to deposits was 63.9 percent, much higher than the late 1970s, when the liquidity
of many agricultural banks was a concern.
Failures of agricultural banks: Two agricultural banks failed in the first quarter of 1995, breaking a string
of ten consecutive quarter with no failures. Given the strong capital positions of most agricultural banks
and their still low levels of problem loans, the number of failures seems likely to remain fairly small in
coming quarters.




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
NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

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

I
1
I
I

44
47
48
47

2
0
0
4

15
16
16
16

8
3
5
6

28. 4
30. 7
31. 5
30. 8

I
I
1
1

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

2. 7
3. 0
1. 2
0. 9

-4.7
8. 2
2. 5
-2. 2

1
1
1
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

|
|
|
|

1990 oi...
02...
03...
04...

1
I
I
I

46
49
50
50

1
0
5
1

16
17
17
17

8
1
3
2

29. 3
31. 9
33 2
32 9

1
1
1
1

-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
1
1
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

I
I
|
I

1991 oi...
02...
03...
04...

I
I
I
I

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
I
1
1

-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
1
1
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

I
I
1
I

1992 01. ..
02...
03...
04...

I
1
I
I

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
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
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
|
I
|

1993 oi...
02...
03...
04...

I
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
1
1
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

I
1
1
1

1..7
1,.6
3..2
5..8

5.,6
5..4
4..7
5..0

-0.5
-0.6
2.4
6.2

|
|
I
|

1994 oi...
02...
03...
04...

I
1
1
1

56.,8
61..1
63..0
61.• 3

21..2
21..9
22 , 4
22..6

35..5
39..2
40.,6
38..7

I
I
1
1

-1 .5
7 .6
3 .1
-2 .7

1.,8
3..2
2..2
0..7

-3..4
10..2
3..6
-4..6

1
1
I
1

7.,6
9 ,1
8..7
6 .2

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

8.3
10.7
9.3
5.2

|
|
|
I

1995 oi...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
I
1

59..9
63..5
65..3
63..7

22..9
23..6
23..8
23 .9

36..9
40..0
41.,5
39,.8

1
1
1
I

-2 .3
6 .1
2 .9
-2 .5

1..6
2.• 7
1..1
0.. 4

-4..6
8.2
3 .9
-4 .1

1
1
I
I

5 .4
4 .0
3 .7
3 .9

8..0
7.5
6 .3
5 .9

3.9
2.0
2.3
2.8

I ,
I
|
I

1996 oi...

1

61 .7

24 .0

37..7

1

-3 .1

0 .5

-5 .3

1

3 .1

4 .8

2.0

I




TABLE II.B
ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS

NONPERFORMING

NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

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

1..7
1 .2
1 .3
1..3
1..3
1,.0
0..8
0..9
0..9

4,.8
3,.3
2..3
1..9
1,.9
1..8
1..4
1..1
1.. 1

0,.7
0,.5
0..5
0,.3
0,.3
0..3
0..2
0..2
0..3

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

1 .7
1 .6
1 .4
1,.1
0..9
0,.7
0,.5
0..4
0..0

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE

December 31 of year indicated1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1 .9
1 .4
1 .1
1 .0
1,.1
1..0
0..8
0..8
0.,8

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

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

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

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

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

1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

-End of quarter-

1996 Ql.

ly
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

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

1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8

0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

3.1
2.2
1.9
2.0

1.5
0.7
0.6
0.9

1.6
1.5
1.3
1.1

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2

1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8

0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.9
2.3
1.9
2.1

1.6
0.9
0.7
0.9

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.3

0.7

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.0

3.4

1.5

1. 6

0.5

1.1

0.0

Data are estimates of the national totals for farm non-real-estate loans. After 1984, estimates are based on reports from banks that hold more than 90
percent of such loans. Earlier, only large banks that held about one-fourth of such loans reported nonaccrual and renegotiated farm loans; for other banks,
estimates of delinquent farm loans are based on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks.




TABLE II.C
ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*

TOTAL

1 9 89
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

1996

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|

9

1
51
1°5
82
54
69

51
**

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

10
-5
12
14
7
10
-2
16

26
19
25
20
16
11
14
**

15
10
36
29
5
15
13
**

40
28
32
18
26
33
25
**

TOTAL

I
I
!
I
I
I
I

|

0.27
0.20
0.32
0.24
0.15
0.19
0.13
**

Q1

0.03
-0.02
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
-0.00
0.04

Q2

0.09
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.04
**

Q3

Q4

0.05
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.01
0.04
0.03

0.13
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.06

**

**

* D a t a a r e estimates of the national charge-offs of farm non-real-estate loans based on reports from banks that hold more than
90 percent of the outstanding national volume of such loans. Additional uncertainty of the estimates arises because small
banks report only charge-offs of 'agricultural' loans as defined by each bank for its internal purposes.
Banks first reported
these data on the March 1984 Report of Income.




21

TABLE II.D

DELINQUENT FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING
FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
NONPERFORMING

NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

-December 31 of year indicated1992
1993
1994
199 5

I
I
|
|

0.4
0.4
0. 3
0.5

0.2
0.1
0. 1
0.2

0.3
0.2
0. 2
0.2

0.1
0.0
0. 0
0.1

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

I
I

2.1
1.8
1.5
2.1

0.8
0.7
0.7
1. 0

1.3
1.1
0.8
1.0

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6

2.5
2.0
1.8
1.8

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.7

1.5
1.4
1.3

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

2.1
1.6

1.0
0.6

1.1
1.0

1.0

0.4
0.4
0.3

0.8

0.2

0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6

0.1

0.1
0.1

1.9
1.5
1.4
1.5

0.5
0.7

1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6

0.1

2.1

1.0

1.0

0.4

0.6

I

I

-End of quarter0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.1
0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.5

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

0.1

0.2

1996 Ql...

0.3
0.3
0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.1

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




0.2

0.2
0.2

0.2

0.1

1.5
1.5

0.5
0.7
0.9
0.6

1.1

TABLE II.E

NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Q2

03

Q4

6
-1
3
**

0
-1
-0
-1

1
-1
-0

2
0
2
**

3
1
2
**

ANNUAL
TOTAL
1
1
1
j
1

0.03
-0.00
0.01
**

i i i
O O CD CD

Q1

Q1

02

Q3

Q4

.002
.004
.001
.004

0..003
-0..004
-0.,001

.008
.002
,006

.015
.003
.007
**

|
|
|
1

o o o

1
1
!
i

ANNUAL
TOTAL

o o o

1993.
1994
1995
1996

CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

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
AND
OVER

Percentage distribution, December 31 of year indicated
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0
100..0
100..0
100..0
100..0
100..0

I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

50
59
65
69
70
76
80
85
83

.3
.0
.8
.6
.8
.2
.6
.5
.7

30..6
28..9
25..1
.7
22 .
22..3
18,.9
15,.9
12 ,
.3
13 ,
.8

14 .4
9 .7
7 .6
6 .4
5 .8
3 .9
2 .8
1 .9
2 .1

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

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

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

4 cLI
fv-i
Uio
-L JJ1U.4-LA-LAnVend
ll v i_ yucii Lei
1993 Q4. . .

|

100..0

80 .6

15,.9

2 .8

0,.6

0..1

0..0

100..0
100..0
100..0
100..0

79
81
83
85

.2
.1
.6
.5

16,.8
16..0
13 ,
.6
12..3

3 .3
2 .4
2 .4
1 .9

0,.4
0,.3
0,.2

0,.5

0..1
0..1
0..0
0..1

0..0
0..0
0..0
0..0

81
82
83
83

.7
.1
.0
.7

15,.3
15,.0
14,.3
13,.8

2 .7
2 .5
2 .3
2 .1

0,.2
0,.2
0,.3
0,.3

0..1
0..1
0..0
0..1

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

78 .4

17,.2

3 .5

0,.5

0..1

0.,1

1994 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .
Q4.. .

1

1995 Ql...
Q2 . . .
03...
Q4...

1
1
|

100..0
100,.0
100..0
100,.0

1996 Ql...

|

100,.0

|
|
|

j

* 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 OP FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS*
NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE
OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT
AGRICULTURAL BANKS

ALL BANKS

NEGATIVE

0
TO
4

5
TO
9

10
TO
14

AVERAGE RATE
OF RETURN
TO EQUITY
15
TO
19

20
TO
24

15,.0
13,.0
9,.0
9..0
12.,0
14.,0
12. 9
13. 4
19. 8
18. 5
17. 1
13. 3

3 .0
3 .0
2 .0
2 .0
3 .0
4,.0
2,.6
2,.5
5.,1
4. 6
3. 3
2. 4

25
AND
OVER

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

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

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

NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

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

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

9.5
9.6
9.5
9.8
9.9
10.1
9.9
10.1
10.4
10.8
10.7

8.5
8.5
8.4
8.8

11.1

9.9
10.5

-percentage distribution1984
1985.
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

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

100,,0
100,.0
100,.0
100..0
100.,0
100.,0
100.,0
100.,0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0

13 .0
18 .0
19 .0
13,. 0
9,.0
5,.0
4,.9
4.,1
1. 9
1.,5
1. 5
1. 4

9 .0
11 . 0
14,. 0
13,.0
9.. 0
7., 0
7.,5
7, 7
5. 0
5. 7
5. 7
5. 6

23,.0
22,. 0
27,,0
31., 0
30., 0
29., 0
33. 4
32. 2
25. 5
27. 8
31. 3
36. 8

36 .0
33 .0
28,.0
31,.0
36,,0
38.,0
37. 6
39. 2
41. 1
40. 6
40. 2
39. 9

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

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

8 .0
6 .0
5,,0
8,,0
10,.0
11,.0
10..8
10.,9
12. 6
12, 4
11. 9
11. 3

12 .0
11,.0
8,.0
8,,0
9,,0
10.,0
8.,5
8. 9
11. 5
12. 4
12. 4
11. 6

8.8
9.0
9.0
9.2
9.5

10.0

QUARTERLY
-YEAR
1994 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

1995 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1996 Ql...

3 .0
6,.2
9,.2
11,,9

3 .1
6 .3
9,,4
12,.4

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

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1

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

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

11,,0
11,.0
11,.1
10,.7

10 .1
10 .1
10 .1
9 .9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3., 0
5. 8
8. 9
11. 3

3c,1
6., 1
9. 3
11. 6

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

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1

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

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

11.,1
11. 3
11. 3
11. 1

10,.3
10,,4
10.,5
10.,5

100.0

3. 1

3. 1

0. 3

0.3

0. 0

0. 1

11. 0

10.,6

**

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 LN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*
DECEMBER 31

U.S.

CLEVELAND

ATLANTA

CHICAGO

MINNEAPOLIS

ST. LOUIS

KANSAS
CITY

SAN
FRANCISCO

MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO

LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS
OF
OF
TO
TO
OF
OF
TO
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
TO
OF
OF
TO
BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

3955
3854
3723
3550
3482

0 .551
0 .555
0 .582
0 .625
0 .641

71
75
67
56
60

0 ,642
0 . 64 3
0 .660
0 ,707
0 . 717

133
131
130
125
13 5

0.609
0.607
0.618
0.646
0.64^

969
948
912
860
841

Q ,572
0 .574
u .600
0 ,643
0 ,658

470
456
432
402
393

0 .567
0 .563
0 ,590
0 .629
0 .654

725
694
669
658
637

0 ,569
0 .579
0 .615
0 .674
0 .681

11.3 5
1092
1063
1014
981

0 .522
0 .533
0 .566
0 ,618
0 .634

378
384
3 78
3 66
359

0 .438
0 .422
0 .442
0 .474
0 .499

60
61
58
53
55

0 .711
0 .708
0 .733
0 .747
.741

16 .56
16 .72
17 .04
16 .99
15 .79

1994 Ql. ..
Q2...
Q3.,.
Q4. . .

3705
3689
3 640
3550

0 .586
0 ,621
0 .643
0 .625

66
64
61
S6

0 .670
0 .704
0 ,701
0 ,707

132
138
131
125

0.620
0.652
0 .669
0.646

894
886
889
8 60

0 .606
0 ,634
0 .658
0 ,643

421
431
432
402

0 .590
0 .626
0 ,657
0 .629

672
6 68
6 64
658

0 .622
0 . 677
o ,702
0 .674

1057
1046
1023
l 014

0 .570
0 .601
,618
0 ,618

387
379
3 67
3 66

0 .453
0 .476
0 .503
0 . 474

58
59
56
53

0 .749
0 .764
0 .768
. 747

16 .88
,
17,.42
17 .55
16 .99
.

0 .634
0 , 655
0 .668
0 .641

56
55
64
60

0 .718
0 ,730
u .736
. 717

129
13 6
150
13 5

0,653
0.663
0.680
0,64^

84?
844
868
8 41

.650
0 .664
.685
.658

389
3 97
43 2
3 93

.634
0 ,665
.692
0 .654

638
639
6 52
6 3 '<

.684
0 .714
0 ,717
.681

993
984
100?
981

.')

; 022
.637
c . 647
,634

3 64
361
368
359

0 , 491
0 .518
.525
.499

50
52
56
55

0 .768
0 .791
0
0 .7 41

16 ,75
17 .12
.
17 .27
15,.79

0 .639

56

0 ,721

143

0,664

828

0 .657

394

632

0 .682

978

0 .629

3 57

.489

57

0 .737

15 .46
,

3484
1995 Ql...
3488
Q2...
Q3. .. 3617
Q4. . . 3482
1996 Ql...

3471

: 650

* The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by tot aJ depsits. Agricultural banks are defined as banks with a farm loan ratio at least as great as
that shown in the last column, as described in the introduction to section II.







TABLE II.I
FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS
NUMBER OF FAILURES

1988
..
1989 .
..
1990
..
1991. . . .,.
1992. , , ...
1993
..
1994..
..
1995. . . ...
1996. , . .

Q1

02

Q3

Q4

ANNUAL
TOTAL

11
5
3
2
1
1
0
0
0

6
7
5
2
1
2
0
0
2

12
5
6
3
1
2
0
0

7
5
3
1
4
0
0
0

* *

36
22
17
8
7
5
0
0

* *

* *

* Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial
banks and mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural
banks are defined in the introduction to section II.

28
SECTION III:

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

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

"

™

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 834, Chicago, Illinois, 60690
The sample includes member banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total loans as of
June 1972 (a 10 percent standard is used for banks in the state of Michigan). The sample has undergone
periodic review. The latest survey results were based on the responses of about 450 banks.
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198
The 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; roughly 300 banks responded to the latest survey.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480
Before 1987, the sample provided a cross - section of banks of all sizes that were engaged in farm lending.
Members of the Upper Midwest Agricultural Credit Council formed the core of the survey panel. Beginning in
1987, the sample was redrawn to include only banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total
loans. As outlined above, the Minneapolis survey was changed considerably beginning in the first quarter of
1994. In recent surveys, about 130 banks responded.




Section III: (continued)
Federal Reserve 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 about 200 respondents.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Richmond, Virginia 23261
The number of agricultural banks in this district is much smaller than those of the other districts. When
the survey was initiated in 1975, the sample consisted of 43 banks of all sizes; banks with larger amounts of
farm loans were sampled more heavily. More recently, the sample has consisted of about 30 banks, roughly
three-fourths of which typically respond to the quarterly surveys.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
Bankers responding to the surveys indicated that the demand for farm loans remained fairly steady in the
first quarter of 1996. Most banks also reported that funds had become more readily available than in early
1995, there were some concerns about the liquidity of agricultural banks. Many banks in the Kansas City and
Dallas districts, where drought and low prices for cattle reduced farm returns, reported a lower rate of loan
repayments relative to one year earlier. In addition, bankers in these regions reported more renewals or
extensions, and collateral requirements had been increased as well. Taken together, these indicators may be
showing some early hints of debt repayment problems. In contrast, there appeared to be little change in the
rate of loan repayment, renewals or collateral requirements in the Chicago, Minneapolis, or Richmond
districts.
Bankers in all districts that report expected loan volume (Chicago, Dallas, Richmond, and Minneapolis)
anticipated that loan volumes for feeder livestock would weaken in coming quarters.
Consistent with the data from the Call reports shown in the previous section, the ratio of loans to deposits
was about even with year-earlier levels at banks in all the districts that report. However, more bankers
characterized the loan-deposit ratio as "lower than desired".
Reported rates of interest on farm loans edged down, on balance, in all districts in the first quarter of
1996.
Relative to one year earlier, prices for agricultural land seem to be up substantially in the Chicago and
Minneapolis districts. In contrast, prices for farmland generally were weak in the Kansas City, Dallas, and
Richmond districts.




29

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
XII.Al

SAME

FUND AVAILABILITY

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

30

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1994 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4...

1
1
1
1

12
10
13
21

41
41
42
46

47
49
45
33

I
1
I
1

9
13
22
18

61
67
60
63

30
20
18
19

|
I
I
I

28
20
20
18

50
69
66
53

22
11
14
29

1
I
I
I

18
10
13
24

50
65
68
60

32
25
19
17

|
|
1
1

0
0
1
1

86
89
88
90

14
11
11
9

1995 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...

1
1
1
1

15
13
13
20

49
50
52
48

37
37
36
32

I
1
1
1

20
14
16
6

64
67
65
65

16
18
19
29

I
I
I
|

19
16
13
15

64
76
76
53

17
9
11
32

I
I
I
|

17
13
13
29

63
71
72
57

20
16
16
14

1
1
1
1

1
o
1
1

87
89
90
90

12
10
9
9

1

15

44

41

!

6

62

31

1

13

57

30

1

29

56

15

I

0

91

9

1996

01...

III,. A2 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1994 Ql. . .
Q2 o . »
Q3 o . .
04...

1
1
1
1

9
10
10
9

59
53
49
56

32
37
41
35

|
!
i
!

10
19
28
26

72
67
62
65

18
13
9
9

I
I
1
1

16
16
18
25

76
78
74
65

8
6
8
10

I
1
I
|

7
5
8
10

78
84
77
69

15
12
15
21

1
!
I
1

1
0
0
0

89
92
90
89

10
8
9
11

1995 Ql. . .
Q2...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

10
11
16
16

51
58
53
56

39
32
32
28

I
!
I
I

21
18
20
14

69
69
67
66

10
14
14
20

I
I
I
1

28
32
32
43

67
67
63
53

5
1
5
4

1
1
1
!

6
2
5
5

69
70
67
55

25
27
28
41

1
1
1
I

o
o
0
1

87
88
86
84

13
12
13
15

1996 Ql. . .

1

18

56

26

1

10

69

21

1

51

46

4

1

5

49

45

1

1

79

20

III .A3

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, T X )

1994 Ql...
02*..
Q3...
04...

1
1
1
1

11
22
16
13

62
56
49
54

26
21
35
33

1
1
!
1

3
3
10
7

78
79
72
71

19
18
18
22

I
I
1
I

9
14
13
16

78
75
76
72

13
11
12
12

|
|
|
|

17
12
10
13

76
77
75
68

7
11
16
20

1
I
I
I

1
1
2
0

86
91
88
88

13
8
10
11

1995 Ql. . .
Q2 e . »
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

13
12
17
20

53
50
50
45

34
38
33
36

1
1
1

8
8
10

1

9

78
79
76
78

14
14
14
14

1
I
I
I

20
21
28
40

72
74
63
53

7
5
9
7

I
|
|
i

11
9
12
8

67
70
64
54

22
21
24
38

I
I
I
I

1
0
2
1

83
81
78
75

16
19
20
24

1996 Ql...

1

17

50

32

1

5

74

21

1

50

46

5

1

6

42

52

1

o

65

34




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

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

LOWER
•

NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS)

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

HIGHER

I
I

III.A4

SAME

I

LOWER

FUND AVAILABILITY

s
*

DEMAND FOR LOANS

1994 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
04...

1

|
|
|

1995 01. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
04...

1

1996 Ql. . .

,1
HI.A5

***

***
***
***

***

* *
$**

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

• **
***
***
***

***

***

W*

SAMII

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

NT' *q>, SD, *1* )

1
1
1
1

11
16
29
17

61
64
54
66

28
19
17
17

|
I
I
1

30
25
28
36

59
71
62
47

10
5
9
17

1
1
1
1

21
20
21
11

66
62
60
62

13
18
20
27

I
|
|
|

43
45
35
36

51
53
59
49

6
2
6
15

1

11

57

32

I

46

37

1
1
1

7
10
10
11

63
71
74
64

30
;o
16
25

1
1
1
1

1
1
o
o

83
86
93
86

16
13
7
14

1
1
1

10
7
9
4

55
63
66
60

35
30
25
26

1
1
1
1

o
1
1
0

81
74
84
84

19
25
15
16

17

1

15

49

36

1

4

76

20

»
|

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

1994 Ql..,
02...
03...
04. . .

1
1
1
1

4
5
13
19

72
76
79
71

24
19
8
10

1
1
1
1

4
0
0
0

64
67
75
76

32
33
25
24

1
1
1
l

20
10
4
10

64
90
88
81

4
0
8
10

1
1
1
1

o
o
17
14

76
86
79
76

24
14
4
10

1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0

88
80
83
76

13
20
17
24

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

20
20
32
24

68
76
64
62

12
4
5
14

1
1
1
1

12
9
0

72
72
64
76

12
16
27
24

1
1
1
1

12
12
9
29

84
88
82
67

4
0
9
5

I
1
1
1

12
4
14
5

84
88
68
67

4
8
18
29

1
1
1
1

4
4
0
0

80
84
91
90

16
12
9
10

1996 Ql...

1

14

71

14

1

o

81

19

1

14

81

5

1

5

75

20

1

90

10




0

31

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B
FARM NONRBAL 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.B1

FEEDER CATTLE
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

DAIRY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

CROP STORAGE
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

OPERATING
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

32

FARM MACHINERY
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

HIGHER

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (XL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

1994 01. ..
02...
03...
04. . .

1
1
1
1

11
13
23
18

42
55
48
52

48
32
29
30

I
1
|
|

22
48
44
31

72
50
50
62

6
2
5
7

I
1
|
1

16
24
20
21

74
70
74
74

10
6
6
5

1
|
1
1

28
19
12
19

64
67
45
58

8
14
43
23

1
1
I
I

7
8
21
12

38
50
49
46

55
42
29
42

|
1
I
1

15
25
17
16

48
54
50
54

36
21
34
30

1995 01. ..
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

14
14
15
17

53
60
59
50

33
26
26
32

|
|
|
1

32
38
40
47

62
58
54
48

6
3
6
5

1
I
1
1

19
21
21
21

71
74
75
71

10
5
S
8

1
I
1
1

19
26
23
37

68
65
58
52

13
9
1»
11

|
1
1
1

13
11
13
13

42
53
60
46

46
36
27
41

I
|
I
1

15
22
16
8

53
61
55
46

33
17
29
45

1996 01...

I

17

44

39

I

59

38

4

1

23

68

9

1

36

56

8

1

14

37

50

|

10

37

53

III.B2

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

1994 01..,
Q2...
03...
04. . .

1
1
I
1

7
18
10
6

75
67
62
63

18
15
28
31

1
i
1
I

14
38
28
18

74
51
55
68

12
10
17
13

I
|
1
1

13
16
9
13

77
80
88
81

1995 01...
02...
03...
04...

I
1
1
1

15
16
15
15

65
54
59
57

21
30
25
28

1
1
1
I

22
33
31
41

63
55
50
50

15
12
20
10

I ,i
1
|
I

13
20
25
20

83
78
71
77

1996 01...

I

30

51

19

1

48

45

6

1

28

72

III.B3

<

9
4
3
6

17
15
8
11

79
72
74
84

5
13
17
6

1
1
1
1

7
5
10
5

65
63
63
60

28
32
28
36

|
1
I
1

8
15
15
12

74
69
66
69

18
16
19
19

12
11
16 '
18

86
79
75
71

3
10
9
11

I
I
I
1

12
8
13
15

55
58
54
49

34
33
33
36

I
|
|
|

12
15
23
26

67
69
64
54

21
16
14
20

1

29

65

6

1

19 ,,

46

35

|

33

56

11

1
1
1
I

14
10
9
5

82
86
77
95

5
5
14
0

1
1
I
I

13
10
17 ,
5

57
62
71
71

30
29
13
24

I
I
I
I

23
10
13
0

59
67
67
81

18
24
21
19

1
1
1
I

,3 ' • 1
I
3
4
1
3
I
1

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

1994 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

14
5
18
11

59
65
68
72

27
30
14
17

1
1
1
I

5
16
> 15
13

90
74
70
81

5
11
15
6

1
1
|
I

11
18
11
7

89
82
84
87

1995 01. . .
Q2 o . «
03...
04...

1
1
1
I

17
8
16
20

67
79
74
65

17
13
11
15

1
I
1
1

25
20
18
35

70
80
82
65

5
0
0
0

1
1
1
I

14
21
27
25

76
79
73
75

10
0
0
0

I
I
I
I

W
14
25
20

77
86
60
65

9
0
15
15

I
1
|
I

12
4
15
19

72
88
80
62

16
8
5
19

1
1
1
I

8
4
19
19

71
84
67
67

21
12
14
14

1996 01. ..

1

20

70

10

|

31

69

0

1

20

80

0

1

11

83

6

j

14

57

29

|

10

81

10




0 ,
0
5
7

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
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

LOWER

LOWER

III.B4

SAME

HIGHER

SAME

DEBT EXTENSION
OR REFINANCING

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1990 04...

1

8

69

23

1

9

81

10

1991 01...
02...
03...
Q4...

1
1
1
1

5
4
3
8

72
75
78
75

23
21
18
18

1
1
1
1

12
14
12
11

82
84
81
82

1992 01. ..
02...
Q3...
04...

1
1
1
1

2
8
10
5

86
78
80
86

11
14
10
9

1
1
1
1

3
11
13
14

1993 01. . .
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

5
3
7
3

84
81
62
69

11
16
32
28

I
1
1
1

8
13
15
7

FEEDER LIVESTOCK
LOWER SAME

11

68

20

|

6
2
7
7

6
5
5
4

83
78
66
69

12
16
29
27

1
|
|
|

90
86
82
80

7
3
5
6

2
2
8
7

79
86
78
68

18
11
14
25

|
|
|
|

85
82
71
75

7
6
14
18

3
6
6
6

84
78
55
56

13
17
39
38

|
|
|
|

OTHER INTERMEDIATE

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

1

FARM REAL ESTATE

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

OTHER OPERATING

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

FARM MACHINERY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

1994 04...

1

31

61

7

1

13

77

10

1

33

55

12

1

3

66

31

1

24

61

15

1995 01. ..
02...
03...
04...

I
1
1
1

28
47
43
53

68
49
50
36

4
4
7
11

1
1
1
1

15
27
25
26

75
58
64
59

10
16
11
15

1
1
1
1

30
44
38
31

60
48
52
53

10
8
10
16

1
1
1
1

5
5
16
9

58
59
64
62

37
36
20
29

1
1
1
1

29
45
36
32

58
49
55
55

13
7
9
12

01. ..

1

52

44

4

1

24

62

14

1

31

50

19

1

5

64

31

1

30

54

15

1996




33

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
III.,C1

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

NONBANK AGENCIES

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

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

1994 Q3...
04...

I
1

65
64

1
1

50
50

30
32

20
18

1
1

1
1

1995 01...
02...
03...
04...

I
I
I
1

65
66
67
65

|
|
1
1

49
48
51
53

34
35
32
36

17
17
17
11

1
1
1
1

j
j
|
j

1996 oi...

1

65

1

56

30

14

1

|

III,,C2

34

j
1

***

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

;
1
|
1

***

***

|

***

***

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

1994 Q3...
04...

I
1

61
60

1
1

59
61

10
7

26
30

1
1

3
4

70
72

1
1

74
75

11
12

81
81

9
7

1
1

70
67

11
9

77
77

12
14

1995 Ql. . .
02...
Q3...
04...

1

I
1

61
62
63
61

1
I
1
1

61
61
58
59

7
7
7
7

29
26
25
24

I
1
1
1

5
5
4
3

70
66
64
66

1
1
I
I

76
78
80
78

9
11
11
8

85
84
83
86

6
5
6
6

1
1
1
1

68
70
74
68

8
9
11
9

79
81
78
77

13
10
11
14

1996 oi...

1

60

1

75

10

23

I

3

77

j

80

8

88

4

1

65

6

77

17

10
13

83
84

7
4

|

III .C3

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

1994 03...
04...

1
1

47
44

j
j

***
***

1995 oi..,
02...
04...

1
j
|
1

45
47
51
49

j
|
j
|

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

1996 oi...

1

46

j

***




»**
***
** *
***

1
|

1
1

j
I

***
***

12
13

82
80

6
7

1
1

j
|
|
j

1
1
1
1

j
j
I
1

** *
***
***

9
14
9
10

85
80
83
81

5
6
8
9

1
I
j
j

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

11
18
10
8

84
76
84
81

5
6
6
11

|

1

1

15

81

4

1

***

11

69

20

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.C (CONTINUED)
AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
AVERAGE
LOAN-TODEPOSIT
RATIO,
END OF
QUARTER
PERCENT
III.C4

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO

ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONBANK AGENCIES

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

NONE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

NONE

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

1994 Q3...
04...

|
I

68
66

I
I

***
***

***
***

***
***

I
I

11
7

***
***

|
|

42+
36

50
57

8
7

I
|

41
34

51
56

8
10

1995 01...
02...
03...
04...

I
I
I
I

66
69
68
71

I
I
I
I

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

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

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

I
I
1
I

10
9
4

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

|
|
|
|

36
36
44
43

58
55
53
57

6
9
3
0

|
|
|
|

31
32
42
39

57
57
50
58

12
11
8
3

1996 01...

I

72

I

***

***

***

|

6

***

|

46

51

3

|

40

47

13

III.C5

7

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

1994 Q3...
04...

|
|

71
70

|
|

38
37

52
58

10
5

I
1

0
0

78
90

1
1

85
88

0
0

15
13

0
0

1
1

74
71

0
0

26
24

0
6

1995 Ql...
Q2...
03...
04...

|
|
1
|

75
76
75
71

I
|
|
1

42
36
45
52

46
41
50
43

13
23
5
5

I
1
1
I

0
0
0
0

76
83
68
86

1
1
1
1

83
86
81
95

4
0
0
0

13
14
19
5

0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1

70
77
89
90

9
0
0
0

22
23
11
10

0
0
0
0

1996 Ql...

|

72

1

53

42

5

1

0

90

1

89

0

11

0

1

84

0

16

0

••Beginning in 1994, Minneapolis omitted the responsei "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

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

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D1

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

SHORTTERM
NONRBAL
ESTATE

INTERMEDIATE
NONRBAL
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
NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS

LOWER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

1
1

9.3
9.9

9 .4
10 .0

8 .9
9 .5

1
i

***

***

1
1

1995 Ql. . .
02...
03 . . .
04...

1
1
1
1

10.3
10.2
10.1
9.9

10 .3
10 .2
10 .2
9 »9

9 .7
9 .6
9 .3
8 .9

1
1
1
1

***
***
***

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

1
1
1
1

1996 01...

1

9.6

9 .6

8 .7

|

...

.*.

j

LOWER

SAME

...

...
***
***,

***
***
***

***

1
|

...
...

1
|
1
I
1
|
1

***
...

HIGHER

|
1

...

|1

***
...

1
1
1
1

...
...

...
#**

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

1994 03...
04...

1
1

9.4
10.0

9, 6
10, 1

9.6
10,1

9 ,2
9 ,7

1
1

***
***

1995 Ql. . .
02 . , .
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1

10, 5
10 05
10 04
10. 2

10.5
10.4
10.3
10.1

10,.1
9<
,9
9,,8
9, 6

I
1
i
1

***

1996 01...

1

9.9

10. 0

9.9

9; 3

1




HIGHER

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

1994 03...
Q4. . .

III.D2

SAME

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS

***
***

***

***

1
1

***
...

1
|
1
1

***

***
***

1

***

1I

1

...

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

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D3

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

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

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

1994 Q3...
04...

1
1

9.5
10,3

9.8
10.4

8 .7
9 .7

I
I

I
1

***
***

|
|

***
***

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

10 o 6
10.8
10 o 3
10.0

10.6
10.8
10.3
10.4

10 .1
10 .2
9 .9
9• 7

1
|
|
I

|
|
|
|

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

|
|
I

***
***
***

1996 Ql...

1

9.9

9.9

9 .2

|

|

***

j

***

|
|
j

***
***

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

|
|
|
|1

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

1

***

j

***

...

i

***

***
***
***

|
|
|

***

...

i

III .D4

1
1

10 .1
10 .5

10,1
10,5

10.1
10.6

10 .1
10 .6

1
I

***
***

I
1

***
***

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

11 .0
11 .0
10 .8
10 .7

11.1
11.0
10.9
10.8

11.2
11.1
10.7
10.8

11,>0
10«.7
10« 5
10 c6

I
|
|
|

***
***
***

|
I
|
|
|
|
|

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

1996 Ql...

1

10 .4

10.6

10.4

10. 0

|

***

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

1994 Q3...
Q4. . .

1
1

9 ,6
,
10,,0

9.5
10,2

9.7
10,2

9. 4
9. 8

I
1

***
***

I
1

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

10. 7
10. 4
10. 4
10. 1

10.5
10.4
10.2
10.1

10.5
10.4
10.2
10.1

10. 2
10. 0
10. 0
9, 5

1
1
1
1

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

|
|
|
|

1996 Ql...

1

9. 8

9,8

9.9

9. 5

1

***




***

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

1994 Q3...
04...

III. D5

| ...

j

***

|

***

1

37

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

ALL
Ill .El

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

DOWN

1
1

1
1

1
I

7
7

1995 Ql.
Q2.
03.
04.

1
1
1
1

1
0
1
2

i
1
1
1

s
5
4
5

***

j

***

|

1996 Ql.

1

4

1

9

** *

j

1
1

4
-5

1995 Qlo,
02.
03.,
04.,

1
1
1
1

18
-6
-8
8

1996 Ql..

1

-3

***

***

***

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

***

|

***

|

***
***

4
3

59
65

37
32

!
1

17
19

64
63

19
18

2
3
3
1

67
73
65
41

31
23
31
58

1
1
1
1

18
18
16
11

60
69
63
60

22
13
21
29

0

30

69

i

12

52

36

4
5

92
95

4
0

i
1

17
15

74
80

9
5

4
0
5
0

96
96
91
100

0
4
5
0

1
1
1
1

17
26
16
26

83
74
74
68

0
0
11
5

0

95

5

1

17

83

0

j
|

!
i

4
-1

!
I
1
1

8
9
-3
9

1

-9

* * *

** *

|

***

j

* * *

|

** *
***

j
j

** *

|

***

|

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

1994 Q3..
04. .

1
1

0
1

-2
3

-5
9

1995 Ql..
02. .
03. .
04. .

1
1
1
1

-1
1
-1
1

1
4
-3
1

1
9
3
0

1996 Ql..

1

-1

-2

-5




UP

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

1994 Q3.,
04. .

III. E3

STABLE

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

1994 Q3.
04.

III,>E2

EXPECTED TREND IN FARM
RRAT. KfiTATH T.DAKT VOT.TTKTB
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

|

* * *

|

***

|

j
j
1
|

***
***

***

* * *

4
4

5
5

-0
3

|
I

i
1

14
11

72
79

14
10

1
1
-0
-1

4
5
4
2

6
14
24
14

!
|
|
|

1
1
1
I

10
17
14
20

78
73
73
67

12
10
13
12

-1

-1

7

1

!

31

57

12

***

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

ALL
III.E4
1994 Q3. . .
Q4...

1
I

1995 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3 . . .
Q4...

j
1
1
1

1996 01...

1
III.E5

1994 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
|

1995 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
|
j

1996 oi...

j




DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

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

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

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

2
2

2
-0

1
1

1
1

6
6

6
5

7
7

1
I

|
j

***
***

2
1
1
1

2
1
0
1

3
-0
2
1

1
|
1
1

7
7
6
5

4
4
3
4

6
5
5
5

!
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

***
***
***

-2

-2

1

1

1

-0

3

1

j

***

***

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

***
***

j
|

6
4

4
4

4
5

I
1

|

***

1

***

***
***

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

|
j
|
j

4
3
3
4

4
3
4
6

3
2
3
2

1
1
I
1

1
|
j
|

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

***

j

4

6

2

1

j

***

39