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 1997
Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources
Page
Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks
3
Selected statistics from the quarterly reports of condition of commercial
b
a
n
k
s
2
2
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 Melissa Post
33
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 first quarter of 1997; the other data generally were available through the end of 1996.
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 Melissa Post
at the address shown on the cover.
The Datftbook 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
(including zip code) to:
(Statistical Release E.15) may be entered by sending a mailing address
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
•
. t
SECTION I:
.
#
#
e
e
#
#
#
AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS
Estimate ^ from the quarterly survey of non-real-estate farm loans
Summary charts
Page
5
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
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
21
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
348 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.
Since August of 1989, the data have been drawn from a redesigned sample of 250 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. However, the sample data
always have been expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks, and these estimates necessarily
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.
Beginning with the May 1997 survey, data on the assessment by the lender of the risk associated with each
loan, the next date that the rate of interest could be adjusted, whether the loan was callable by the bank,
and whether the borrower could prepay the loan without penalty began to be collected. Over time, the data on
the lender's perception of the riskiness of farm loans should help provide a better picture of the effect of
fluctuations in the creditworthiness of farm borrowers as either farm financial conditions or the broader
economic environment changes. The new data on loan repricing dates, callability of the loan, and the
existence of prepayment penalties should help to refine estimates of the duration of farm loans.
Tables I.H.I through 1.H.6 contain most of the new data, while the other tables in section I attempt to show
estimates that are comparable to those that have been presented for a number of years. However, for several
quarters while the new survey was being designed, banks that left the survey panel were not replaced
immediately, because new replacement banks would soon have been forced to revise their newly-instituted
reporting procedures when the new survey form went into effect. As a result, the size of the survey panel
dwindled through early 1997, and with the May 1997 survey, an unusually-large number of new reporters (about
25) were added. While this does not affect the validity of the May survey information, it likely introduced
sampling error, especially when the May survey results are compared with those of previous quarters.
The format and the information contained in the tables are likely to change over time as more of the new
survey information is acquired.
3
SECTION I: (CONTINUED)
• 4
:
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 never has 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 1997 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks edged down relative
to the reading of one year earlier. The average size of loans was the lowest since 1991, but as mentioned in
the introduction to this section, a large influx of new panel members may have affected this estimate, among
others. Relative to one year earlier, the reduction was most apparent in the estimated number of loans of
more than $100,000; the estimated number of smaller loans was fairly stable. The projected annual volume of
loans in the May survey was about $65 billion, the lowest level for this series since the early 1990s .
Although subsequent surveys should help indicate whether this drop in the estimated amount of farm lending
reflects the change to the panel, at this point, other indicators from the Call report and from Reserve Bank
surveys do not indicate a drop in farm lending.
In the May survey, the average maturity of farm non-real-estate loans was 11 months, towards the upper end of
the range seen for the past several years. The average effective rate of interest on non-real-estate farm
loans rose 20 basis points to 9.3 percent in the May survey, continuing the upward drift that has been evident
since the spring of 1996. By purpose of the loan, rates of interest picked up for all categories of loans
except the "other" category. Contrary to the survey in February, when the pickup seemed to be concentrated at
larger banks and for larger loans, most of the increase was for loans of $10,000 to $100,000, and for loans
made by smaller banks. The percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats rose in May
to about 75 percent, towards the upper end of the range seen during the 1990s.
The weighted average repricing interval (line 4 of Tables I.H.I through I.H.6) was about 5 months across all
sizes of loans, but the interval was much shorter for loans of more than $250,000. Also, the weighted average
risk rating (line 5) for these larger loans was higher, while the weighted average rate of interest (line 6)
was lower. Most of the loans in amounts greater than $250,000 were under lines of commitment (line 16), and
as may be calculated by adding lines 25 and 26, only about 46 percent of large loans were secured while more
than 90 percent of smaller loans were secured in some way.
When broken out by the riskiness of the loan (Tables I.H.4 through I.H.6), more than half of the estimated
volume of loans was rated "moderate" or "acceptable" . The repricing interval shrank considerably as the
riskiness reported by the bank rose.
Neither the weighted average rate of interest nor the values of the
75th or 25th percentiles suggested that rates increased with reported riskiness: Although loans rated "special
mention" and loans that were not rated carried higher rates of interest, rates seemed not to vary
systematically with risk for the other loan categories. Also, loans at either end of the rating scale were
more likely to be secured.
By farm production region, weighted average rates of interest fell in the May survey in the Cornbelt, while
rates generally were mostly up in other regions. The estimated standard errors of the weighted average rate
of interest rose, on balance. As mentioned in the introduction, a number of new banks were added to the
panel, and the sample coverage (the proportion of farm loans held by banks that are on the panel) increased in
most regions, most dramatically in the Northeast and the Southeast.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
•
s
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
e
e
•
#
e
#
#
#
#
LT)
Chart 1
Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers
Millions, Annual rate
5.0
Number of non-real-estate farm loans
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
- Four quarter moving average
2.0
1.5
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
i i
1989
1990
i i i i i i i i
1991 1992 1993 1994
1995
1996
1997
Thousands of dollars
1.0
45
Average size of non-real-estate farm loans
40
35
30
Four quarter moving average
25
20
15
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
i ... i ... t ... i ... i ... i
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Billions of dollars, Annual rate
Amount of non-real-estate farm loans
10
130
120
110
100
90
quarter moving average
80
70
60
50
40
... i ... i ... i ... i ... i ••• i ••• i • i i l i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i l i i i I i i i I i i i I i i i l i i i I > ' i l i i i i i i i
——————————————————————————————————
— — — — — — — — —30
—
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
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
i ... i ... i
1979
1980
1981
1982
i ... t • i • i
1983
1984
1985
1986
i ... i ... i ... i ... i
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
i ... i ... i ... i ... i
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Percent
20
18
Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans
16
14
12
10
8
1978
1979
l ... I ... I
1980
1981
1982
1983
l ... I ... I
1984
1985
1986
6
1987
1988
... i ... i ... t ... i ... i ... i ... i
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Percent
Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Four quarter moving average
30
20
10
1978
1979
1980
i ... i
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
i . . . i
1987
1988
1989
i
1990
1991
1992
I ... I ... I . .. i ... i 0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
•
, #
.
•
•
#
e
#
#
e
e
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.A
NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
ALL
LOANS
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
BY SIZE
OF BANK
1
to
9
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
2 . 06
1. 7 1
1 . 57
1 . 42
1 . ,67
1 ., 7 0
1 ., 6 6
1 . ,67
1 .. 6 5
1 . .55
1 .. 4 5
1 .. 3 3
0. 5 1
0. 4 6
0. 4 6
0. 4 3
0. 52
0. 49
0. 5 1
0. 5 4
0. 5 6
0. 5 1
0. 5 7
0. 4 8
0. 3 0
0. 2 9
0. 27
0. 2 8
0. 3 1
0. 3 5
0.
.32
,
0. 3 7
,
0, 3 7
0. 3 5
.
.
0. 3 6
0. 3 1
.
0. 0 9
0. 0 8
0. 0 8
0. 0 7
0. 09
0. 0 9
0. 1 0
0. 1 1
,
0. 12
0. 1 2
,
0. 1 2
,
0. 1 1
,
LARGE
OTHER
0.1 8
0.20
0.2 0
o . 23
,
0.3 6
o .,44
2 . 78
2 .3 4
2 .1 8
1 . 99
2 .2 3
2 .. 2 0
,1
2. 0
2 ., 1 8
2 .. 1 5
1 .. 9 8
1 .. 8 3
1 .. 6 9
ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1
1
1
|
|
1
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1
1
|
|
2 . 96
2 . 55
2 !R
2 21
2 60
2 ., 63
2 -. 6 0
2 .. 6 9
2 .. 7 0
2 .53
.
2 .. 4 9
2. 22
1
1
1
1
1
o 34
o 30
o 39
o 29
o 30
.32
0,
.
0, 3 5
.
0, 3 5
.
0, 3 6
|
0 .28
0 .26
0 .18
0. 23
0. 17
0. 13
0. 1 1
0. 2 0
0. 24
0. 23
0. 25
,27
0.
0.
,23
0. 1 9
,
,
0. 1 7
1 77
1 66
1 54
1 45
1 73
1 ., 6 9
1 .. 6 4
1 . .67
1 .. 6 2
1 . .56
1 .. 4 8
1 . .38
,
0. 3 6
,
0. 1 7
,
0. 1 4
,
0. 1 4
,
0. 1 6
0. 1 9
.
.
0. 1 7
.
0. 1 8
0. 1 8
.
.
0. 1 8
.
0. 1 7
0. 1 4
.
0. 2 7
0. 2 4
0. 1 9
,
0. 2 1
,
,
0. 2 0
0. 1 9
.
.
0. 2 1
0.
.24
0.
.27
0.
.27
.
0, 3 9
0.
.36
|
|
|
1
|
1
1
1
1
|
|
1
o .. 5 0
o ., 5 1
o ..55
0.5 4
.
.
0.6 6
.
o.5 3
NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .
1
1
1
1996 Ql. . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .
1
|
|
Ql...
Q2 . . .
1
|
1995
1997
0. 1 5
0 .15
0 .16
1
.19
2.65
1
1
2
1
1
|
1
o.45
o .68
0.63
o. 3 7
1 .50
2 .07
1 .62
1.58
1
o
.49
0. 5 1
1.70
2 .14
0.31
0 .38
0 .28
0, 1 3
.
0 .13
0 .09
1 .18
0 .25
0 .10
1 .18
1 .62
0.
,49
0. 5 7
,
0 .37
0 .15
0 .09
1 .10
1 .64
1.38
1 .13
1 .72
0.18
0 . 14
0 .46
0.40
0. 2 4
.
0,
.22
1
0. 4 1
0. 6 0
0. 49
0. 4 1
,
0 .29
0.45
0 .37
0.34
o .20
o .17
1 .95
2 .74
2 .24
1.95
0.63
1
1
|
0 .15
0 .14
0 .15
0 .11
o .25
o .29
.
0. 1 4
.
0. 1 0
.
0. 1 3
.14
.83
.45
.08
1
1
1
1
1
.
0. 4 0
.
0, 3 7
.
0, 3 1
.
1, 8 0
.55
1,
0.
.22
0. 1 7
.
0.
.11
0. 1 7
.
2 .. 0 4
2 .22
.
1, 8 9
.
1, 4 1
0. 63
0. 60
0. 4 7
0 .39
0 .44
0 .38
.
1, 8 9
1,
.68
.
1, 0 1
o .23
0 .22
..61
0 .23
0 .15
0 .15
0.
.22
.
0. 1 3
.
0. 2 0
1
2 ..96
2
1 ,. 1 3
0 .37
|
.
o, 7 4
.73
0
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
254 .7
280 .4
320 .4
320 .4
272 . 1
487 .7
539 .9
468,
.2
.3
490,
480,
.7
451,
.3
545,
.9
82 .0
,
62 .0
.5
85,
70,
.0
53,
.7
100,
.1
107,
.0
97 .0
106 .0
101 .3
84 .0
.0
115,
13,
.4
.3
15,
14,
.9
16,
.3
14 .4
,
13 .9
,
13 .9
,
15,
.8
.8
15,
15,
.4
.7
15,
15,
.4
ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994 .
1995
1996 ,
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
17.6
19 0
20 8
21 8
19 9
.4
28,
.9
31.
.2
31,
.3
34.
.9
33.
.8
33.
.2
39.
|
|
|
|
|
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
25 .7
35 .0
33 .8
34 .1
42 .7
69 .7
61 .0
68 .2
79 .7
60 .3
49 .7
59 .0
22 5
25 8
26 3
40 6
29 5
22 .7
25,
.2
26,
.9
23,
.1
27.
.6
26.
.7
24.
.2
12 8
14 0
14 6
16 7
14 1
.7
15,
15, 6
.
.7
14,
15,
.2
16,
.3
18,
.5
.0
26,
12 .4
13 .6
16 . 1
13 .9
12 .1
11 .9
15 . 1
15,
.9
13 .9
.
17, 5
.
15, 6
.
17,
.2
42 .1
32 .9
44 .6
34 .7
32 .2
94 .3
129 .3
108 .7
112 .0
.6
123,
93 . 6
,
.2
95,
|
|
|
j
j
j
3 .5
3. 5
.
3, 6
3, 7
.
.
3, 6
3, 6
.
3. 6
.
.7
3,
.7
3,
3,
.7
3,
.7
.7
3,
14,
.4
14,
.9
14 .1
,
.8
14,
14 .7
,
.8
14,
14.
.9
.8
14.
14 .9
.
14 .6
.
,7
14.
15.
,0
45 .5
44,
.9
46,
.5
45,
.2
45.
.9
46, 1
.
.6
46,
.9
45,
46,
.1
47.
.0
44.
.9
45.
.2
AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1995 Q2. . .
03...
Q4. . .
|
j
1
.0
33.
.7
27.
.7
41.
|
j
j
62 .7
,
33 .9
,
35,
.7
28.
,1
26. 4
28.
,0
17. 4
,6
14.
,6
24.
18.
.7
14.
,4
12 ,4
.
101.
.7
79.
,5
.0
110.
|
|
j
,
3. 8
3. 6
,
3.
.9
14. 5
.
14.
.5
15. 2
43 ,7
.
,5
44.
45. 1
,
.5
466.
437.
.5
464.
.0
82 .8
,
.8
66,
.8
99,
16.
.4
12 .6
.
15.
,9
1996 Ql. . .
02.. .
03...
04...
|
1
|
j
43.
.4
.3
43.
,3
33.
36.
,2
|
j
j
j
59,
.7
.0
44,
116.
.7
31.
.3
23. 2
25. 4
25. 6
23 .
5
27. 1
39. 6
15. 5
15. 8
18.
,4
15.
,7
16. 2
19.
,0
127.
,0
2
73 .
76. 4
118. 1
|
j
|
|
3. 6
,
3.
,7
3. 7
.
3. 9
.
15. 1
14. 9
14. 5
15. 5
45.
,0
8
44 .
45. 8
45. 5
474. 1
,
673 .
,1
554.
.3
467.
,7
.8
122.
131. 1
.
.6
89.
119.
,1
19.
,6
14.
.5
11.
,4
16.
,9
1997 oi...
02.. .
|
1
38.7
24.3
|
j
50.
,7
27.
,6
28. 1
22. 2
24. 3
13. 6
18. 5
17. 6
82. 1
2
73 .
1
j
3. 7
3. 7
14. 7
14. 9
48. 0
45. 6
371. 9
357.
,7
95.
.0
67.
,9
22. 4
13 .
9
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.C
AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
ALL
LOANS
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
BY SIZE
OF BANK
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
1
to
9
OTHER
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
LARGE
OTHER
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE
1985 .
1986.
1987 .
1988.
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992 .
1993 .
1994.
1995.
1996.
8.6
10.4
13.2
10.0
12.9
22.0
21.4
23.6
28.7
16.8
12.7
10.6
52.1
48.5
49.6
48.2
51.6
74.7
82.8
83.7
92.6
85.7
84.1
87.3
5.2
4.5
3.4
4.6
6.0
5.5
5.8
6.7
6.2
6.4
5.2
4.0
22.6
23.2
22.5
24.3
24.3
26.6
25.5
24.6
24.7
25.4
27.3
35.9
37. 3
4 .,4
11. 3
1
7. 2
7 ..4
13. 5
24. 0
1
.4
2 .
8. 0
|
6. 0
6 ..9
1 3 ..2
22. 3
j
14. 9
12. 6
35. 9
.3
2 .
8 .,3
|
,7
5.
6 ..8
.6
12 .
2 4 .,5
|
17. 1
32. 5
1,.9
7 .,4
5 .,2
6 ..4
.9
12 .
2 3 .,7
|
.9
15.
3 2 .,3
.0
2 .
6 .,4
6 ..1
.7
7 ,
1 4 ..4
.4
23 .
j
1 9 ..6
3 2 .,0
.3
2 ,
1 8 ..3
6 ..1
7 ..3
1 5 ..9
4 5 ..3
j
4 4 ..2
3 0 ..5
2 .5
2 7 ..6
6 ..1
7 .6
1 5 ,.1
5 4 ,.0
j
53 .
.7
2 9 ..1
2 .9
2 6 ..0
6 ..2
8 .0
1 6 .8
5 2 ..8
j
4 9 ..4
3 4 ..3
2 .5
3 0 ..6
1 7 .1
6 1 ,.0
j
5 8 ,.8
3 3 ,.8
3 .2
.1
6.
.8
5.
8 .3
3 3 .9
1
|
7 .4
1 6 .5
5 6 .0
1
5 5 .1
3 0 .6
2 .7
3 6 ..1
|
5 .4
8 .3
1 6 .0
5 4 .4
j
5 5 .3
2 8 .8
2 .4
3 4 .5
.0
7 .1
1 3 .9
6 1 .3
j
6 1 .2
2 6 .1
1
5
AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1995 Q2.
Q3.
04.
97.62
72.31
84.85
14.4
7.5
10.2
1996 Ql.
02.
Q3.
Q4.
84.76
118.96
74.72
70.77
9.1
6.6
18.6
8.0
1997 Ql.
84.92
64.44
10.1
4.6
02.
4 ..2
3 9 ..7
,9
6.
9 ..2
1 7 .3
6 4 .,3
|
.3
61.
3 6 ..4
5 ..5
8 ..7
1 6 .,3
4 1 ..7
j
4 8 ..6
.7
23 .
.4
4.
.1
7 .
1 4 .,1
5 9 ..2
j
6 2 ..5
22 .
.4
4 ..0
6 ..1
6,.2
1 4 ..1
6 0 ..5
|
.3
55.
2 9 ..5
8,.9
1 6 ..8
8 7 ..2
j
8 9 ..1
2 9 ..9
5 .1
7 .1
1 3 ..0
4 9 ,.5
j
5 6 ,.3
1 8 ,.5
j
4 ..7
6 .4
1 1 ..6
4 8 ,.1
j
4 4 ,.0
2 6 ,.7
|
,
6 . 3
.
33 . 0
,4
3 .
2 4 .5
2 ..1
3 4 ..9
5 ..6
2 4 ..9
1 ..9
42 .
.2
|
.
5 , 1
3 1 ..0
.7
2 ,
3 6 ..9
1
j
4,.2
.
2 , 8
.7
72 .
2,.2
33 ,
.2
.6
22 ,
2,.4
2 8 ,.3
2 .1
3 9 ,.6
27 ,
.4
3 .2
3 7 .5
1
4 .4
7 .3
1 7 ,.8
5 5 .5
|
4 6 .8
3 8 .2
2 3 ,.3
2 .4
2 9 .0
j
6 .1
8 .5
1 6 .9
3 3 .0
j
3 4 .7
2 9 .7
3,.9
1 7 ..2
6 .7
5 .0
9
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.D
AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE (MONTHS)
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
BY SIZE
OF BANK
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
10
to
24
1
to
9
OTHER
25
to
99
100
and
over
LARGE
OTHER
,
9. 1
.8
9.
9.
.3
10,
.2
.3
9.
11,
.9
.6
10,
11,
.1
11,
.1
13 .5
,
12 . 1
,
12 .1
,
7.
,9
7 .1
.
8.
.3
7.
.7
7.
.1
.9
4,
.8
5,
7,
.2
7,
.4
7,
.2
8,
.2
.3
7,
6.
.9
.5
5.
5.
.9
8,
.1
.8
7.
.7
4,
5,
.2
6.
.4
6,
.4
.8
5,
7,
.3
6,
.4
8.
.4
8,
.8
.3
9,
8,
.8
8,
.2
10,
.2
9,
.6
10,
.1
10,
.4
.6
12,
11,
.4
12,
.3
ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1
|
1
.0
8,
8,
.0
8,
.4
8 .7
8.1
7 .5
7 .3
8. 9
9,
.2
.3
10.
9.
.9
.5
8,
6.
,1
.8
5.
5.
.5
6.
.4
.8
6.
6.
.0
6,
.7
6. 1
.
7. 3
7.
,6
8.
,7
7 .8
.
.8
7,
.3
6,
.7
7.
.7
4.
7,
.4
8.
.8
8. 5
.
.
9, 5
.
9. 6
.8
9.
.9
9.
.3
11,
.4
13.
.0
21.
,
22. 8
19. 8
,
18. 7
.
.
21. 9
.
24. 6
20. 1
.
30.
.4
.
36. 6
26.
,5
29.
.4
.3
7,
7. 6
,
7,
.6
.5
8,
7 .2
,
7 .5
,
7,
.2
.6
8,
8,
.3
8.
.6
.5
8,
7,
.6
8.
.8
8.
.8
12 .1
.
10,
.9
.8
11,
6.
.4
.3
5,
9,
.4
9,
.4
.4
9,
.0
10.
.2
9,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
j
1
1
1
|
7 .7
.
.0
8.
8.
.1
.2
9,
.3
8,
.2
9,
8,
.3
.7
9.
.0
10,
.6
11,
.8
10,
.5
10,
.7
6,
.8
6,
1 .5
•
.1
7,
.4
7,
.4
7,
.7
7,
8,
.3
8 .5
.6
8.
9 .0
8.6
MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
.6
10,
9 .0
9.4
7.1
7.9
13.0
9.
.2
10,
.4
.6
10.
.5
9,
6,
.8
6,
.8
24.
.7
30.
.4
23 .9
.
.7
12,
10,
.9
8,
.6
|
j
1
10,
.2
8,
.0
.2
8,
12 .1
.
.8
9.
10.
.0
13.
.6
.4
9.
.4
11.
8.
.4
7.
.6
8,
.7
6.
,9
,7
6.
,6
9.
,6
12.
10.
,1
9. 2
j
11,
.2
7,
.1
7,
.8
8,
.4
8.3
16.1
5.2
6.4
15.
.0
7.
.4
10.
.8
.9
10.
8,
.7
6,
.0
.0
10,
9 .2
26,
.3
.7
35.
.0
28,
.
28, 5
17,
.4
.8
5,
5,
.3
7 .0
,
1
1
j
j
.9
8,
.8
9,
8,
.2
7,
.1
13 .0
.
.7
10,
9.
.1
.4
9,
12 .7
,
13,
.0
.2
11,
11,
.1
10,
.1
.6
5,
.7
6,
7 .6
,
8.
.7
5.
.1
6.
.1
6.
.4
.8
12.
.7
12.
12 .5
.
11.
.1
1
j
.7
11.
11,
.0
14.6
7.2
10.
.0
.5
13.
12 .2
,
13,
.6
.
34, 1
32, 1
.
8 .5
6 .8
1
1
9 .5
9 .5
.8
11,
.6
12,
13 .4
,
14,
.1
.3
11,
9 .1
9,
.1
.6
6.
14,
.2
15,
.5
1995 Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
04...
I
1996 01...
02...
03...
04...
|
1997 Ql. . .
02.. .
|
#
#
*
#
*
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.E
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
ALL
LOANS
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
BY SIZE
OF BANK
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
1
to
9
OTHER
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
LARGE
OTHER
11.2
9.6
9.2
10.2
12.
,1
10. 9
,0
9,8
6.
6.
,7
.2
7.
.0
9.
.8
7.
13. 4
1
12 .
11. 3
11. 6
7
12 .
12. 3
11. 3
9. 4
8. 7
8.
,8
10.
,4
.0
10.
ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE
12.8
11.5
10.6
11.2
12.5
11.4
9.8
7.8
7.5
7.8
9.5
8.4
1985.
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
|
j
|
j
j
j
|
j
j
j
|
j
12 5
11 1
10 7
10 9
12 ,3
.
.5
11.
10.
.2
8.
,2
8.
.0
.3
8.
.1
10,
.8
8,
12 7
11 9
10 2
11 9
12. 4
,0
12.
,0
11.
8.
,6
8.
,1
.0
8.
10.
.2
.5
9.
13 0
11. 5
10 8
11 2
12 6
,7
11.
10.
,4
8.
,8
8.
.1
8.
,4
.0
10,
8,
.6
13. 7
2
12 .
11. 5
11. 7
12. 8
12 ,3
.
,3
11.
.3
9.
,7
8.
,6
8.
10.
.3
.7
9.
,1
12.
,2
11.
,5
9.
,7
10.
,3
12.
.7
10.
8.
.6
.3
6.
6.
.2
7.
.0
.8
8,
.0
8,
|
j
|
j
|
j
|
j
|
j
|
13. 7
12. 4
11. 6
11. 7
12. 8
12. 5
11. 5
9. 7
9. 0
,1
9.
,6
10.
10.
,2
2
13 .
12. 0
11. 3
11. 6
7
12 .
12. 4
11. 2
,3
9.
,7
8.
.8
8.
10.
,5
10.
.1
13 .
2
11. 8
11. 1
11. 4
12. 7
12. 1
10. 7
,8
8.
8.
,3
8.
.6
10.
,3
,8
9.
12. 1
10. 8
9. 9
10. 8
12. 2
10. 9
9. 2
7.
,1
6.
.9
7.
.3
.0
9.
.8
7.
|
j
j
j
j
j
1
1
j
1
|
1
AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
.9
9 .0
8.8
10,
.3
.5
10,
10, 6
.
|
j
|
j
7.7
7 .4
8.1
8 .0
10 .0
10 .1
10 .2
9 .9
1
j
8
.6
8 .6
9 .8
10 .1
1995 Q2.
Q3 .
04.
9.4
9.5
9.2
|
|
j
.6
9,
9 .8
9 .7
.2
10,
.8
9,
.6
10,
9 .9
10 .2
9 .4
10,
.2
10 .4
10 .0
8 .7
8 .8
8 .8
|
j
|
.6
10,
.6
10,
.6
10,
.6
10,
10 .6
10 .5
10 .4
10 .2
10 .2
8 .8
8 .8
8 .8
1
1
|
1996 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
8.5
8.1
8.6
8.7
|
j
|
|
9 .5
9 .3
8 .0
9 .5
9 .9
8 .9
9 .6
9 .6
8 .8
7 .9
9 .7
9 .8
9 .8
9 .8
9 .9
9 .3
7 .8
8 .1
7 .9
8 .0
|
|
|
j
.3
10,
10 .2
10 .2
10 .1
10 .1
10 .1
10 .1
10 .1
9 .8
9 .9
9 .8
9 .7
7 .9
7 .4
7 .9
8 .2
1997 Ql.
9.1
9.3
|
j
9 .2
9 .7
9 .6
10 .0
9 .8
10 .0
9 .7
9 .9
8 .5
8 .5
|
j
10 .1
10 .2
9 .8
10 .1
9 .7
10 .0
8 .8
8 .6
02.
8
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
~
12
" "
BY
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
PURPOSE
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OF
BY SIZE OF
LOAN
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
LOAN
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
1
to
9
OTHER
"
BY SIZE
($1, 0 0 0 s )
10
to
24
25
to
99
OF
100
and
over
LARGE
BANK
OTHER
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE
|
1985
45
3
1
61
4
44
0
19. 6
47. 3
|
2 7 .6
31. 5
4 2 .,0
5 6 .,6
|
77. 1
32. 6
57. 2
30. 9
5 0 .,6
j
40. 6
41. 8
4 8 ..2
,7
63 .
j
71. 9
,0
47 .
43
9
1986
|
53
4
|
60
5
34
8
1987
1
59
5
|
51
6
69
6
62. 1
5 5 ..5
6 2 .,1
j
48. 5
4 5 .,6
5 4 ..4
6 8 .,5
j
7 7 ., 6
49 . 9
.
5
63
8
54. 9
63 .
.2
j
49. 3
5 1 ..5
6 0 ..8
6 7 ..0
j
7 9 ..1
.
52 . 6
4 0 .,0
5 9 ..7
3 2 ..9
,6
73 .
j
50. 4
4 9 ..6
5 8 ..5
6 9 ..1
j
83 . 6
47 . 2
.
4 0 ..0
5 1 .,2
j
53. 6
5 9 ..2
66 .
.0
6 7 ,.5
j
6 9 ..4
.3
59 ,
1988
1
61
4
1
65
1989
|
.0
61.
|
7 1 .,4
3
39
1990
|
.2
65.
j
7 6 .. 8
6 1 ..6
6 8 ..3
1991
|
.1
65.
j
8 1 ..5
6 9 .,3
6 8 ..8
4 0 .,6
5 0 ..3
j
52. 0
5 9 ..0
6 4 ..0
.8
67 .
j
7 0 ..0
5 6 .. 1
7 8 .. 5
63 .
,5
6 6 ..3
4 7 .,8
7 5 ..3
j
57. 3
5 9 ..1
6 1 ..2
7 8 ..6
j
8 2 ..9
5 5 ..5
8 4 ., 6
7 0 ..0
7 0 ..3
4 8 ..2
7 8 ..1
j
60. 1
6 1 ..0
6 4 ..5
83 .
.9
j
8 6 ..9
58 .
.9
.3
72 .
5 1 ..6
7 5 ..7
|
58. 6
5 9 ..8
7 0 ..4
8 0 ..2
j
8 3 ..7
5 9 ..7
1992
1
j
1993
7 1 ..7
7 6 ..7
1994
7 3
8 2 ..9
7 4 ..3
j
8 3 ..9
7 5 ..9
73 .
.0
5 3 ..1
7 2 ..2
j
61. 7
6 3 ..9
7 3 ..6
7 6 ..7
j
7 9 ..9
6 2 ..3
j
5 8 .. 1
7 1 ..2
.3
67 .
3 2 ..9
6 1 ..4
j
60. 6
6 1 ..5
6 9 ,.1
62 .
.2
L
6 5 ..4
5 7 ..9
PERCENTAGE
DURING
.8
82 ,
7 9 .5
7 5 ..1
1995
|
1
j
1996
.8
•
.1
63 .
AVERAGE
1995
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
1
j
6 7 ,.3
|
FIRST
FULL
6 5 .7
WEEK
OF
SECOND
MONTH
OF
QUARTER
5 9 ..7
6 2 ,.0
|
60.
.9
6 3 ..2
6 6 ,.1
6 9 ,.0
6 1 ..7
6 5 ,.1
7 2 ..1
7 7 ,.2
1
j
7 3 ,.7
8 3 ,.3
5 6 ,.7
j
6 0 ..6
6 6 ,.3
7 7 .0
7 9 ,.1
j
8 0 .8
6 5 .5
6 3 .3
7 3 .4
.
7 6 .3
5 1 ..1
6 5 ..3
5 0 ..2
8 2 ..0
8 6 .5
7 8 ..0
3 7 ..9
7 5 ,.0
j
5 3 .2
Q4...
7 6 ..7
|
Ql. . .
1
7 0 .4
1
8 6 .4
5 6 ,.6
7 4 ..6
4 0 .0
6 7 .0
|
.1
58.
6 1 ,.6
6 7 .1
7 2 .8
|
7 4 .1
Q2 . . .
1996
j
82 . 8
j
6 1 .9
j
8 5 .9
8 2 .0
6 2 .4
2 6 .9
5 5 .8
j
6 1 ..8
6 3 ,.9
6 9 .2
6 0 .3
j
6 3 .7
5 6 .4
3 4 .8
7 6 .3
7 0 .5
3 2 .2
5 6 .5
|
.7
62.
6 3 ,.3
7 3 .0
4 8 .7
.8
5 6 .9
7 1 .0
3 1 .2
6 4 .4
j
5 8 ..3
5 6 .2
6 6 .7
6 6 .1
1
j
7 1 .1
5 4 .3
5 5 .3
Q3 . . .
5 4
Q4...
1997
|
6 4 .8
|
5 7 .0
7 5 .1
Ql...
1
7 1 .2
7 5 .6
|
7 2 .6
7 5 .0
6 7 ,.3
5 2 .0
7 4 .7
|
.8
59,
5 6 .3
6 9 .2
7 4 .7
|
8 1 .3
5 8 .9
j
6 4 .6
6 7 .1
6 1 .9
4 5 .1
9 2 .4
j
6 0 ..1
5 6 .3
6 7 .7
8 7 .4
j
8 9 .9
5 8 .8
Q2...
j
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS. 1
BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE
Effective
interest
rate
(percent)
All Loans
Under 5 percent
Memo:
Perecentage
Distribution of
Number of Loans,
May
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Feb 97
May 97
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
*
-
14
*
*
23
3
14
6
1
1
5.0 to 5.9
-
-
-
-
1
11
4
4
6.0 to 6.9
-
-
-
-
11
13
14
7.0 to 7.9
1
1
-
-
30
18
22
21
14
19
11
2
2
8.0 to 8.9
11
10
-
-
17
23
18
22
11
15
20
14
10
9.0 to 9.9
21
20
-
1
9
17
16
20
35
18
30
41
37
10.0 to 1 0 . 9 . . .
23
27
5
8
22
10
20
4
24
15
21
31
33
11.0 to 11.9 . . .
22
23
8
33
8
7
5
2
11
3
9
11
15
12.0 to 1 2 . 9 . . .
19
15
39
39
2
1
1
*
1
1
2
9
3
1
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
34
14
-
-
-
-
8
5
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16.0 to 16.9.. .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
17.0 to 1 7 . 9 . . .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.0 to 1 8 . 9 . . .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.0 to 13.9.. .
3
3
14.0 to 1 4 . 9 . . .
-
15.0 to 15.9 . . .
1
*
-
*
19.0 to 1 9 . 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 . .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1. Percentage distribution of the estimated total dollar amount of non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks during
the week covered by the survey, which is the first full business week of the month specified.
Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve survey of terms of bank lending to farmers. Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
* indicates less than .5 percent.
14
TABLE I . H I
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 5-9, 1997
Loans to .armers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes
$1-9
$10-24
$25-49
$50-99
$100-249
$250 and over
1,368,271
54.100
18 . 36
5 . 11
3 .09
121,197
32,284
9 . 64
4 .37
2 .71
175,769
11,806
.86
12,
6,
.99
2 .70
158,789
4,812
15.
.62
,47
5.
,75
2.
196,713
2,968
20 .38
6 .39
2 .80
226,684
1,600
31,
.56
.23
11,
.78
2,
489,118
631
16.54
1.39
3.62
ALL BANKS
Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating 3
6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18
Footnotes are at the end of table I.H
9 .33
0 .20
10 .15
0 .10
10 .06
0 .03
10.
.09
0.
,15
9 .91
0 .20
.31
9,
0 .16
8.40
0.36
10 .25
8 . 57
10 .70
9 .61
10 .52
9 .51
.75
10.
.51
9.
10 .52
9 .15
10 .08
8 .84
9.11
7.09
10 .10
10 .11
10 . 16
10 .38
10 .37
10 .04
10 .05
10 .05
10 .18
9 .77
9 .99
9 .75
.17
10.
10.
.21
.13
10.
.57
10.
9.
.92
9.
.76
9 .72
10 .22
10 .23
10 .23
8 .76
9 .53
9 .52
9 .10
9 .46
10 .10
9 .19
9 .16
9.25
9.90
9.52
7.54
9.39
7.97
74 . 13
78 .24
21 .21
2 .74
59 .85
73 .65
27 .36
2 .25
55 .59
72 .63
29 .84
1 .16
63 .75
.
.81
71,
.18
24.
.47
1.
69 .11
66 .37
23 .06
2 .86
68 .82
70 .13
23 .56
4 .33
92.18
92.02
13.80
3.05
6 . 80
7 . 12
36 .44
3 . 82
4 . 93
40 . 88
6 . 16
8 .49
68 .29
4 .69
1 .20
11 .17
6 .91
9 .42
58 .53
7 .62
3 .84
13 .68
.59
11,
7,
.78
.40
49,
.55
6,
.92
5,
.76
18,
7 .49
12 .60
42 .54
4 .62
6 .47
26 .29
5 .75
6 .00
31 .86
3 .78
10 .95
41 .67
5.58
4.06
16.08
1.06
2.52
70.70
9 .74
63 .88
4 .22
88 .42
7 .56
84 .83
8,
.65
81 .15
9 .33
85 .01
22 .46
62 .12
6.51
36.98
9 . 72
9 . 96
9 . 97
9 . 91
9 .35
8 . 53
TABLE I.H.2
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 5-9, 1997
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
$1-9
$10-24
$25-49
$50-99
$100-249
$250 and over
794,678
15,391
10.39
2.75
3.55
28,849
7,584
9.20
2.45
2.98
53,418
3,547
10.67
3.55
3.01
54,472
1,649
13.84
4.32
3.15
84, 685
1,249
13.05
3.49
3.19
130,112
873
15.61
8.98
3.36
443,142
489
7.85
1.14
3.78
8.84
0.25
10.06
0.13
10.02
0.11
9.87
0.04
9.51
0.08
9.21
0.13
8.26
0.33
9.84
7.91
10.63
9.46
10.69
9.38
10.50
9.35
9.99
8.90
9.84
8.77
11
07
9.60
9.75
9.75
8.82
9.03
8.41
10.01
10.10
10.16
9.97
10.23
9.88
9.77
9.85
10.26
9.82
10.35
9.73
9.56
9.90
10.07
9.99
9.73
9.73
9 56
9 74
9 66
9.94
9.20
9.37
9.36
9.33
9.65
9.38
,66
88.66
81.30
90.66
23.95
0.72
81.82
91.22
25.79
1.15
85.97
85.20
23.09
1.49
80.35
84.91
22.08
0.59
40.88
,36
, 67
54.68
2.42
2.83
11.17
4.54
8.37
47.75
33
76
13.68
7.25
6.65
37.27
4.55
5.00
18.76
5.98
52.35
4.14
83.12
78.93
8.80
9.43
73.98
all sizes
LARGE FARM LENDERS1
1
2
3
4
5
Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating3
6 Weighted average 5 interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error
8
Interquartile Range6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
15 With floating rates
16 Made under commitment
17 Callable
18 Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
92.64
16.70
2.40
4.58
4.82
21.60
1.41
2.86
8.61
9.08
,87
,36
.54
8.36
7.97
82.22
93.77
96.88
12.33
3.37
7.12
8.85
31.60
1.16
6.38
26.29
4.68
5.73
20.94
09
41.67
3.76
2.94
12.65
1.17
1.45
70.70
10.52
76.34
7 35
73 86
4.06
33.58
87.37
20.09
1.52
12
Footnotes are at the end of table I.H
15
16
TABLE I.H.3
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 5-9 z 1997
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes
-9
$1-
24
$10-:
$25-49
$50-!
39
$100-249
$250 and over
573,593
38.709
28 .27
7 . 57
2 .53
92,347
24,700
.77
9.
.81
4.
.65
2,
352
122,:
8,258
13 .78
8 .09
2 .59
317
104,:
163
3,:
16 .49
5 .89
2 .57
112,028
1,719
25 .56
7 .91
2 .55
96,572
727
51 .03
12 . 98
2 .31
45,976
142
.53
89,
.38
3,
.49
2,
10 . 01
0 . 16
.18
10,
.13
0,
10 .08
0 .05
10 .20
0 .22
10 .22
0 .29
0 .23
.45
0,
10 . 56
9 . 33
.70
10.
.64
9.
10 .52
9 .62
10 .80
9 .66
11 .02
9 .47
10 .20
8 .84
10,
.51
.61
8,
9 .79
10 . 09
10 .09
10 .21
9 . 52
9 . 91
.12
10.
.11
10,
.16
10,
10,
.44
.55
10,
10,
.28
10 .12
10 .13
10 .15
9 .76
9 .84
9 .79
10 .34
10 .34
10 . 14
10 .75
10 .00
9 .82
9 .83
10 .44
10 .49
10 .27
8 .43
9 .96
9 .67
8 .82
9 .35
10 .11
9 .35
9 .79
.61
8,
.96
9,
9,
.92
54 .00
58 . 30
27 .46
3 .21
53.
.15
68,
.34
28,
.43
.73
2,
44 .14
64 .51
31 .62
1 .16
52 .14
64 .83
24 .75
1 .46
60 .61
52 .36
23 . 81
4 .57
50 .77
46 .91
28 .23
8 . 12
76 .85
45 . 18
27 . 89
9 . 88
10 .31
57 .01
7 . 16
7 .80
40 .88
6 .72
8 .75
72 .54
,
.40
5,
.70
0,
.
11, 17
7 .94
9 .88
63 .24
9 .49
3 .87
13 .68
13 .85
8 . 37
55 .74
7 .60
6 .40
18 .76
7 .76
15 .43
50 .80
7 .24
6 .53
26 .29
7 .19
6 .36
46 . 57
8 .76
20 .15
41 .67
23 .15
14 .79
49 .16
14 .96
79 .86
4 .25
90 .08
7 .02
87 .41
8 .25
84 .90
8 .43
91 .57
42 .82
46 .29
30 .18
69 .82
OTHER BANKS7
1
2
3
4
5
Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating3
6 Weighted average 5 interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error
8
Interquartile Range6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
15 With floating rates
16 Made under commitment
17 Callable
18 Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
Footnotes are at the end of table I.H
9 .45
.70
9,
10,
.51
12 .89
70 .70
TABLE I.H.4
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 5-9, 1997
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All
Minimal
Low
Moderate
Acceptable
Special
Not Rated
Not Reported
ALL BANKS
Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating3
6 Weighted average 5 interest rate (percent)
7
Standard error
8
Interquartile Range6
a.75th Percentile
b.2 5th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18
271
54, 100
18 . 3 6
5 . 11
3 .09
9 .33
0 .20
84, 457
5, 560
17 .03
7 .56
1 .00
9 .69
0 . 12
189,329
9, 324
32 .39
5 .72
2 .00
9 . 55
0 .22
335,439
18, 591
26 .04
5 . 60
3 .00
356,476
6,671
7.15
2.09
4.00
46, 745
1, 323
17 . 97
0 . 64
5 .00
69,349
3, 577
19 . 04
9.41
286,477
9,055
12.86
9.99
9 .90
0 .19
8.60
0.29
10 .45
0 .22
10.23
0.30
8.93
0.23
10 . 52
9 .31
9.38
7.48
11 . 02
9 .99
11. 02
9.78
9.84
7.96
9 .74
10 .34
10 .09
9 .95
9 . 51
9 .20
9.86
9.40
10.15
9.29
9.89
8.19
10 .85
10 .40
10 .43
9 .43
10 .79
10 . 53
10.03
10 .28
10. 50
10. 92
8 . 84
10.64
9.18
10.03
9.83
9 . 69
9.24
8.59
10 .25
8 . 57
10 .27
9 . 01
9 .72
9 . 96
9 . 97
9 . 91
9. 3 5
8. 5 3
10 . 12
10 . 11
9 .46
10 .47
10 . 00
9 . 50
9 .50
9 .50
9 .66
9 . 64
9 . 18
9 .46
74 .13
78 .24
21 .21
2 . 74
56 .70
39 . 60
24 .07
6 .87
61, 16
.
67,
.71
32 .27
.
6,
.84
70 .82
74,
.72
24 .50
,
3 .07
.
89.47
93.33
8.47
2.36
90 . 58
89 .47
48 .48
43 .16
35 . 88
30.09
77.43
90.39
18.48
6,
.80
,
7 . 12
3 6.,44
3 . 82
.
4 . 93
40 . 88
13,
.98
6, 10
.
66, 73
,
7 , 05
4.
,52
1. 63
,
15.
,41
11.
,84
45. 95
7.
84
10. 29
8. 66
7.
.04
9.
,47
56.
,29
4 ,35
.
7.
.25
15. 59
1.49
3.86
15.20
2.15
0.93
76.37
2 .21
,
1, 61
.
69.
.24
0.
.92
0.
.04
25. 98
,
18 .71
18.29
38. 24
8.20
10.99
5.59
3.19
3.80
18.63
1.10
3 .10
70.18
9.
,74
63 , 88
.
11. 07
,
81. 42
17 .
48
77 .
38
14 .
36
77 .
01
3.66
23.01
11. 96
62. 73
10.89
87.42
5.75
79.76
10 .09
8 .76
Footnotes are at the end of table I.H
17
18
TABLE I. H. 5
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 5-9, 1997
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All
Minimal
Low
Moderate
Acceptable
Special
Not Rated
Not Reported
39, 855
520
19 .45
0 .20
5 .00
4,<476
56
8 .22
8 .09
234,582
5,362
12.14
11.05
LARGE FARM LENDERS7
1
2
3
4
5
Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating3
6 Weighted average 5 interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error
8
Interquartile Range6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17
18
Footnotes are at the end of table I.H
794, 679
15, 391
10 .39
2 .75
3 .55
12,:
284
705
19 .41
7 . 62
1 .00
60, 265
1, 742
15 .58
2 . 14
2 .00
130,538
4,494
12 .77
3 .88
3 .00
312, 676
2, 513
5 .98
1 . 13
4 .00
8 .84
0 .25
9 .42
0 .17
9 .11
0 .23
9 .49
0 .22
8 .33
0 .30
10 .46
0 .20
10 .89
0 .24
8.75
0.31
9 .84
7 .91
10 .15
8 .90
9 .95
8 .55
10 .42
8 .84
9 .11
7 .37
11 .02
9 .99
11 .02
11 .02
9.65
7.32
9 .60
9 .75
9 .75
8 .82
9 .03
8 .41
9 . 66
9 .68
9 .43
10 .06
8 .66
9 .30
9 .79
9 .67
8 .99
8 .51
8 .84
8 .39
9 .55
9 .71
9 .84
10 .09
8 . 60
8 .92
9 .14
9 .30
9 .79
7 .84
9 .74
8 .13
11 .14
10 .77
10 .41
9 .37
10 .79
10 .54
11 .04
10 .91
10 .26
10 .75
9.33
9.94
9.92
10.02
9.24
8.58
88 . 66
92 . 64
16 .70
2 .40
69 . 15
45 .73
9 .58
13 .29
80 .34
86 .38
32 .43
16 .28
78 . 10
88 .94
31 .08
5 . 83
93 .73
96 .72
5 . 66
95 .52
94 .92
50 .61
87 .31
89 .22
99 .64
89.79
93.02
12.42
4 . 58
4 .82
21 . 60
1 .41
2 .86
40 .88
6 .65
2 . 17
72 .84
6 .41
9 . 30
1 .63
17 .01
10 .21
54 . 10
3 .71
5 .56
8 .66
13 .34
6 .58
47 .31
1 .26
5 .09
15 .59
0 .78
3 .98
8 .54
1 .47
0 .86
76 .37
2 .13
1 .42
65 .43
0 .95
0 .05
25 .98
1 .59
94 .06
4 .23
35 .46
198 .47
5 .59
1.96
2.58
6.55
70.18
5 .98
52 .35
6 .70
89 .13
9 .81
81 . 56
11 .86
71 .00
1 .91
14 .67
13 .34
60 .55
311 .98
100 .00
80.45
-
-
-
TABLE I.H.6
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 5-9, 1997
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All
Minimal
Low
Moderate
Acceptable
Special
Not Rated
Not Reported
573,593
38,709
28.27
7.57
2.53
72,172
4,855
16.63
7.55
129,063
7,582
40.18
7.38
2.00
204,901
14,097
34.48
6.63
3.00
43,799
4,158
15.41
8.97
4.00
6,890
803
9.50
3.20
5.00
64,873
3,522
19.14
9.42
51,895
3,692
15.08
8.90
10.01
0.16
9.73
0.15
0.21
9.75
10.17
0.18
10.48
0.42
10.42
0.56
10.19
0.35
9.71
0.34
10. 56
9.33
10.33
9.01
10.41
9.00
10.65
9.55
11.47
9.95
11.57
10.11
10.79
9.75
10.38
8.95
9.79
10.09
10.09
10.21
9.52
9.91
10.16
10.14
9.46
10.53
10.57
9.56
9.34
10.47
10.34
10.50
11.44
10.56
10.09
9.50
9.28
10.50
9.88
10.12
10.03
9.96
10.50
10.92
8.84
10.64
9.02
10.15
9.79
9.36
10.02
10.28
10.57
10.22
9.93
9.85
9.73
54.00
58.30
27.46
3.21
54.58
38.56
26.54
8.04
52.20
58.99
32.19
8.77
66.19
65.66
20.30
0.24
59.08
69.12
28.55
1.85
61.97
57.91
36.15
40.11
32.20
25.29
21.56
78.50
45.89
9.88
10.31
57.01
7.16
7.80
40.88
15.22
6.76
65.68
7.16
3.71
1.63
14.67
3.04
11.31
6.60
19.89
13.06
40.58
8.76
8.75
9.32
73.25
3.00
5.59
70.18
14.96
79.86
11.82
80.11
11.65
86.55
4.82
76.66
OTHER BANKS7
1
2
3
4
5
Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating3
4
6 Weighted average 5 interest rate (percent)
7
Standard error
8
Interquartile Range6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
Feeder livestock
9
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
15 With floating rates
16 Made under commitment
17 Callable
18 Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
Footnotes are at the end of table I.H
1.00
10.06
9.84
9.25
12.60
42.15
9.77
12 . 50
8.66
21.06
75.42
6.32
8.63
15.59
7.03
1.44
76.37
2.67
2.69
91.25
0.73
110.59
25.98
15.96
80.84
16.15
82.55
3.94
75.31
62.01
2.97
62.80
9.17
o
CM
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 those residing in the portfolios of banks. Loans of less than $1,000
are excluded from the survey.
1. Average maturities are weighted by loan size and exclude loans with no stated maturity.
2. The repricing interval measures the period from the date the loan is made until it first may be
repriced. For floating-rate loans that are subject to repricing at any time-such as many prime-based
loans-the repricing interval is zero. For floating rate loans that have a scheduled repricing interval,
the interval measures the number of days between the date the loan is made and the date on which
it is next scheduled to reprice. For loans having rates that remain fixed until the loan matures (fixedrate loans), the interval measures the number of days between the date the loan is made and the
date on which it matures. Loans that reprice daily are assumed to reprice on the business day after
they are made.
3. A complete description of these risk rating categories is available from the Banking and Money
Market Statistics Section, mail stop 81, the Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC 20551. The
category "Moderate Risk" includes the average loan, under average economic conditions, at the
typical lender. The weighted-average risk ratings are calculated by assigning a value of "1" to
minimal risk loans; "2" to low risk loans; "3" to moderate risk loans; "4" to acceptable risk loans; and
"5" to special mention and classified loans. These values are weighted by loan amount and exclude
loans with no risk rating. Some of the loans are not rated for risk.
4. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other terms of
the loans and weighted by loan size.
5. 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.
6. The interquartile range shows the interest rate range that encompasses the middle 50 percent of the
total dollar amount of loans made.
7. Among banks reporting loans to farmers, most "large banks" (survey strata 1 and 2) had over $25
million in farm loans, most "other banks" (survey strata 3 to 5) had farm loans below $25 million.
Table I.I
Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, (selected quarters)
hv TISDA Farm Production Region*
Proportion of farm loans
outstanding, Mar. 1996
HE_
USDA Region
_AE_
_££L
_DL_
-PA-
_£E_
2.8
.3
10.
.9
25.
17.3
6.
.1
5.
.0
5.
.1
9.
.4
.9
6.
11.
.1
Sample Coverage,
May 1997 survey (%)
29.4
.9
4.
6.
.9
14.0
12.
.1
13,
.5
6.
.4
6,
.6
.3
25.
.9
71.
Avg. Loan Size, .
Mav 1997 survev ($1000)
75.6
17,
.9
19.
.1
23.8
63,
.3
20.
.2
.0
25,
32 .4
16.
.1
107.
.1
Weighted Average Interest Rate; During Samole Week
Survey date:
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)
9. 5
(.
58)
8.3
(.36)
Feb. 1992
8.4
( 15)
10.2
( 16)
9. 3
( 21)
8.8
( .44)
6.
.3
.06)
(1.
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)
.
.9
7.
( • 43)
.
7.3
(.19)
Aug. 1992
7. 7
( 15)
9. 3
( 21)
9. 1
( 10)
8.6
(.50)
.6
5.
(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.
.38)
(1.
7. 3
(.
39)
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
( .22)
.
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
( .32)
5.
.2
( .57)
.
8. 4
(.
29)
7.
,8
( .43)
.
8.
.3
( .48)
.
7.
.7
( .52)
.
6.8
(.26)
Aug. 1993
8 2
( 35)
7 5
( 69)
8 2
( 18)
8.0
(.33)
5,
.7
( .94)
.
7. 3
.
( .37)
.
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
( .07)
.
8.
.2
( .12)
.
7.
.8
( .57)
.
7.
.1
( .36)
.
6.7
( .49)
Feb. 1994
7.
.7
( .32)
.
8.
.6
( .25)
•
.9
7,
(.22)
•
7.5
( .39)
5.
.2
(1 .09)
7.
.3
( .09)
.
7.
.7
( .33)
.
7.
.6
( .43)
.
7.
.3
( .69)
.
6.9
( .31)
May
1994
.7
8.
( .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
( .37)
-
7,
.6
( .35)
.
7.5
( .25)
Nov. 1994
10.
.2
(.38)
9,
.7
(.18)
•
8 .9
(.18)
8.5
(.39)
7 .1
(.39)
8.
.5
( .37)
.
8.
.8
( .68)
.
9.
.0
( .17)
-
.0
8.
(.43)
•
8.5
(.20)
Feb. 1995
11 .7
(.65)
10,
.7
(.14)
10 .0
(.14)
9.9
(.16)
8 .6
(.79)
7.
.2
(1.
.79)
10,
.4
(.34)
.
10.
.4
( .21)
.
9.
.4
(.50)
•
9.4
( .25)
1995
9 .0
(.38)
10 .4
(.29)
9 .3
(.45)
9.4
(.42)
8 .5
(.93)
10,
.2
( .31)
,
10 .7
(.74)
10.
.1
(.18)
,
9 .3
(.23)
.
9.3
( .34)
Aug. 1995
9 .6
(.36)
10 .3
(.21)
9 .3
(.46)
9.8
(.16)
8 .1
(.96)
9.
.6
(.10)
•
10 .4
(.31)
10 .1
(.22)
9 .4
(.39)
9.5
(.29)
Nov. 1995
10 .8
(.32)
10 .3
(.21)
8 .3
(.93)
9.6
( .26)
7 .9
(.80)
10 .1
(.25)
10 .3
(.32)
9 .8
(.24)
9 .3
(.66)
8.9
( .40)
Feb. 1996
8 .8
(.32)
9 .9
(.25)
8 .0
(1 .10)
9.4
(.22)
7 .3
(.99)
9 .4
(.31)
10 .9
(.22)
9 .9
(.24)
8 .9
(.85)
8.1
(.65)
1996
10 .3
(.25)
10 .2
(.13)
7 .3
(.93)
9.0
(.38)
8 .1
(.86)
9 .6
(.68)
10 .4
(.36)
9 .8
(.25)
8 .7
(.78)
8.3
(.65)
Aug. 1996
8 .3
(.87)
9 .9
(.18)
8 .9
(.49)
9.4
(.25)
7 .6
(.82)
9 .4
(.59)
10 .0
(.37)
9 .4
(.18)
8 .9
(.58)
8.1
(.56)
Nov. 1996
10 .1
(.21)
9 .9
(.14)
9 .3
(.11)'
9.0
(.55)
7 .5
(.82)
9 .3
(.57)
9 .9
(.40)
9 .1
(.25)
9 .0
(.75)
8.6
(.48)
Feb. 1997
8 .8
(.11)
9 .5
. .26)
(
9 .5
(.12)
9.3
(.22)
8 .0
(.51)
9 .9
(.32)
9 .5
(.35)
9 .5
(.24)
10 .1
(.27)
8.7
(.35)
May
May
8 .3
9 .9
9.5
9 .2
10 .2
9 .7
10 .0
(.27)
( ,62)
(,66)
{,29)
(.22)
(,23)
(,29)
NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE
Southeast, DL is Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific.
May
1997
9 .4
( .43)
10 .1
f.17)
Standard errors are in parentheses below each estimate. Standard errors are calculated from 100
replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.
8.7
( -51)
22
SECTION II:
SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLES:
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 - off s 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
24
25
26
27
28
Agricultural banks:
II.F
II.G
II.H
II.I
Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans
Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity
Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks
Failures of agricultural banks
29
30
31
32
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 charge - offs 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 15.0 percent in March of 1997.
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.
SECTION II:
(continued)
Recent D e v e l o p m e n t s :
Loans outstanding:
As of March 1997, the quarterly change in the volume of farm loans, both those secured by
farm real estate and other farm loans, was roughly in line with the average change seen during the same
season for the past several years.
The yearly change in total farm loans was 3.4 percent, a bit faster
growth than in the previous year, but far short of the average rate of expansion in farm lending seen during
the 1990s.
Problem loans:
At the end of March 1997. delinquent farm non-real- estate loans amounted to $1/3 billion,
about 3.3 percent of such loans outstanding.
Both in absolute levels and as a p e r c e n t a g e of loans
outstanding, are about the same as in the first quarter of 1996, w h e n a slight increase in the rate of
d e l i n q u e n c i e s first was noticeable.
However, after a slight increase last year, net c h a r g e - o f f s of farm
non-real - estate loans dropped back to roughly the average seen in 1993 through 1995.
The v o l u m e outstanding
of delinquent farm real estate loans was unchanged from year - earlier levels, and charge - offs of these loans
were about flat as well.
Compared with the previous year, the proportion of agricultural banks that
reported a level of nonperforming loans that was greater than 2 percent of total loans b e g a n to shrink a
bit, after edging up on a year - over-year basis for about two years.
Performance of agricultural banks:
The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks in the first
quarter of 1997 was 0.3 percent, identical to the annual return at agricultural banks for the past several
years.
On March 31, 1997, the average capital ratio for agricultural banks remained near the high seen in
mid 1995.
Although capital ratios edged down slightly, on average, in 1996 as the volume of problem loans
grew, agricultural banks were able to weather the apparently temporary slip in loan repayments, and now
appear to remain well - capitalized as farm financial prospects seem to be improving.
As has been the case
for the past three or four years, at the close of 1996, the ratio of loans to deposits at a g r i c u l t u r a l banks
remained quite high relative to historical norms.
Failures of agricultural banks:
No agricultural banks failed in the first two quarters of 1997.
Given the
strong capital positions of most agricultural banks and their low levels of problem loans, the number of
failures seems likely to remain fairly small in coming quarters.
23
24
TABLE II.A
FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER
PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR
PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS QUARTER
LOAN VOLUME,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS
TOTAL
LOANS
1989 Q l . . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .
1990 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1
1
j
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS
44.2
47. 0
48. 0
47.4
15. 8
16. 3
16. 5
16. 6
28. 4
30. 7
31. 5
30. 8
|
j
j
j
-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
|
j
j
3-2
3.5
4.1
4.9
7.5
7.6
7.6
8.0
1.0
1.5
2.4
3.3
|
j
j
j
46. 1
49. 0
50. 5
50. 1
16. 8
17. 1
17. 3
17. 2
29. 3
31. 9
33. 2
32. 9
|
j
j
-2.8
6.4
3.1
-0.8
0. 7
2. 2
1. 1
-0. 6
-4.7
8. 7
,1
4.
-0. 9
1
|
j
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
|
j
j
j
49. 5
52. 6
53. 9
53. 0
17 5
18 1
18. 3
18.
.4
32. 0
34. 5
35. 6
34. 6
|
j
|
|
-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
j
7.4
7.2
6.6
,7
5.
4.3
5.5
5.8
7.0
9.1
8.1
7.1
5.1
|
|
51. 9
55.
,1
56.
,2
,5
54,
18,
.9
.5
19,
19,
.9
19,
.9
33. 0
35. 6
36. 2
34. 7
|
-2.1
6.2
1.9
-2.9
,7
2.
.3
3.
.9
1.
-0.
.2
.6
-4.
,8
7,
.9
1,
.4
-4,
1
1
j
,9
4.
.9
4.
4.
.2
.9
2,
8.2
8.1
8.6
7.8
3.1
3.2
1.9
0.2
|
|
.8
52.
56,
.0
58,
,0
57.
.7
20,
.0
,6
20,
.8
20.
20,
.9
32. 8
35.
,4
37.
,1
36.
.8
|
-3.2
6.0
3.5
-0.5
0.
.5
3,
.1
.2
1,
0,
.1
-5,
.3
.8
7,
4.
.9
.
-0. 8
1
.7
1"
1,
.6
.2
3,
.8
5,
5.6
5.4
4.7
5.0
-0.5
— 0.6
2.4
6.2
|
|
j
|
.8
56.
61,
.1
63,
.0
.3
61,
21,
.2
21.
.9
22 .4
.6
22.
,5
35.
39.
.2
.6
40,
38,
.7
|
-1.5
7.6
3.1
-2.7
.8
1.
3.
.2
.2
2.
0..7
-3.
.4
10,
.2
.6
3,
-4 .6
1
1
.6
7,
9 .1
8,
.7
6,
.2
6.4
6.4
7.5
8.2
8.3
10.7
9.3
5.2
|
.9
59,
63,
.5
65 .3
63 .7
22 .9
23 .6
23 .8
23 .9
36,
,9
40,
,0
.5
41,
.8
39,
|
-2.3
6.1
2.9
-2.5
.6
1.
2 .7
1,
.1
0 .4
.6
-4,
8 .2
3 .9
-4 .1
.4
4 .0
3 .7
3 .9
8.0
7.5
6.3
5.9
2.0
2.3
2.8
24 .0
24 .7
24 .9
25 .0
.7
37,
.0
41.
.
41, 6
.5
40.
|
|
|
0 .5
2 .7
1 .1
0 .3
-5 .3
8 .9
1 .5
-2 .8
1
1
.1
3 .4
1 .9
2 .8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
2.0
2.7
0.3
1.8
j
j
j
-3.1
6.5
1.3
-1.6
25 .4
38.
.4
|
-2.6
1 .4
-5 .1
1
3 .4
5.5
2.0
|
1991 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
I
1992 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1993 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1994 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1995 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1996 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
j
|
61 .7
65 .7
66 .6
65.5
1997 Q l . . .
1
63 .8
j
|
j
|
j
TOTAL
LOANS
j
|
j
j
j
|
|
TOTAL
LOANS
j
1
1
j
1
1
j
|
1
1
j
1
1
1
5
3
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j.
|
|
|
|
|
TABLE II.B
ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
NONPERFORMING
TOTAL
AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS
NONPERFORMING
PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING
PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING
NONACCRUAL
TOTAL
PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING
I
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
4 .5
3.7
3.1
3.2
2.8
2.2
2 .0
2.1
2.4
1,
.2
1 .3
1 .3
.3
1,
1 .0
0 .8
0 .9
0 .9
1 .2
3 .3
.
2 .3
,
.9
1.
.9
1,
1,
.8
.4
1.
1 .1
1 .1
1 .3
MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE
NONACCRUAL
MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE
0,
.5
0.
.5
0,
.3
0,
.3
0 .3
0,
.2
0 .2
0 .3
0 .3
,9
2.
,9
1.
.6
1.
.6
1.
.5
1.
.2
1,
0 .9
0 .9
1 .0
1. 6
1. 4
1.
.1
0.
.9
.7
0,
0 .5
0 .4
0 .0
0 .0
PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING
-December 31 of year indicated1,
.4
.1
1.
1 .0
1 .1
1 .0
0 .8
0 .8
0. 8
.0
1,
1988.
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993 .
1994.
1995.
1996.
0.
.4
0.
.4
0.
.4
0,
.4
0 .3
0 .3
0,
.3
0 .4
0 .5
,0
1,
0,
.7
0,
.6
.7
0.
.6
0,
0.
.5
0,
.4
0.
.4
.5
0.
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
0,
.1
0,
.1
0,
,1
0,
.1
0,
.1
0,
.1
0,
.9
.6
0.
0,
.5
0,
.5
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
0 .3
0 .4
,5
0.
0. 4
0.
,4
.3
0.
0,
,2
0,
.2
0,
.1
0,
.0
.0
0,
-End of quarter-
1994 01...
02...
03...
04...
|
i
1
1
1.1
0. 9
.8
o.
.
o. 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
1
1
1
|
,1
3.
.2
2.
1 ,9
2 .0
.
1. 5
0. 7
,
0. 6
0.
.9
.6
1.
,5
1.
1.
.3
1 .1
,
0.
.4
0.
,4
0.
.3
0.
.2
.2
1.
.1
1.
.0
1.
0 .9
,
0. 4
0.
4
0. 4
0.
.4
1995 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3...
04...
1
|
1
1
1 .1
0.
.9
.8
o,
.8
o.
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
1
1
1
1
2
.9
,
2 .3
1 .9
2 .1
1 .6
,
,9
0.
0,
.7
0,
.9
.4
1,
1,
.3
1,
.2
1 .1
.4
0,
0 .4
,
0 .3
0 .3
.0
1,
.0
1,
0 .9
0 .9
0.
.0
0 .0
,
.0
0,
0 .0
1996 Ql...
Q2 . . .
03...
04...
1
1
|
1
1 .3
1 .2
.0
1,
1. 0
0 .7
0 .5
0 .3
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0,
.2
0 .2
,
0 .2
0. 1
0 .4
0 .5
0 .4
0 .4
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
1
1
1
1
3 .4
.8
2 .3
2 .4
.8
1,
1 .2
0 .8
1 .2
1 .6
1 .6
1 .5
1 .3
0 .5
0 .5
0 .4
0 .3
1 .1
1 .1
1 .0
1 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
0 .0
1997 Ql...
1
1 .3
0 .7
0 .6
0 .2
0 .4
0 .0
1
3 .3
1 .7
1 .5
0 .5
1 .0
0 .0
2
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.
26
TABLE II.C
ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
TOTAL
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
TOTAL
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
199 0
|
51
-5
19
10
28
|
0.20
-0.02
0.06
0.03
0.08
199 1
|
105
12
25
36
32
j
0.32
0.04
0.08
0.10
0.09
1992
|
82
14
20
29
18
j
0.24
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.05
1993
|
54
7
16
5
26
j
0.15
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.07
199 4
|
69
10
11
15
33
|
0.19
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.08
199 5
|
51
-2
14
13
25
j
0.13
-0.00
0.04
0.03
0.06
199 6
|
95
16
27
24
30
j
0.24
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.07
1997
I
**
**
**
**
g
**
0.01
**
**
**
* Data are 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.
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
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.3
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING
NONACCRUAL
December 31 of year indicated1992
1993
199 4
199 5
199 6
.
|
|
|
|
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
|
j
|
|
j
2.1
1.8
1.5
2.1
1.5
End of quarter
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
|
2.1
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
j
j
j
1.6
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.1
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
|
j
j
|
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
|
2.1
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
j
|
j
1.7
1.5
1.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
I
1.9
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.5
1994 Ql...
02...
03...
04...
|
|
|
|
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1995 01...
02...
03...
04...
|
|
|
|
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
1996 01...
02...
03...
04...
|
j
j
|
1997 01...
|
All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.
28
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
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
|
1
1
|
j
20
6
-1
3
1
Q1
Q2
Q3
4
0
-1
-0
-1
-1
7
1
-1
-0
-1
4
2
0
2
1
6
3
1
2
2
* All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.
ANNUAL
TOTAL
04
|
|
|
|
|
0.11
0.03
-0.00
0.01
0.01
Q1
Q2
Q3
0,
.019
.002
0,
-0,
.004
-0 .001
-0 .004
-0 .004
.033
0.
.003
0.
.004
-0,
.001
-0,
.003
-0,
.022
0.
.008
0.
.002
0.
.006
0.
.003
0,
Q4
.029
0.
0 .015
.
.003
0,
0 .007
0 . 009
|
|
|
|
|
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 indicated1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
100 .0
100,.0
100 .0
100,.0
100,.0
100,.0
100,.0
100,.0
100,.0
59.
.0
65.
.8
69.
.6
70.
.8
76. 2
.
80.
.6
85.
.5
.7
83.
81.
.8
28,
.9
25 .1
22 .7
22 .3
18,
.9
15 .9
12 .3
.8
13,
15,
.5
9,
.7
7,
.6
6,
.4
.8
5,
3,
.9
2,
.8
.9
1,
2,
.1
.3
2,
1.
.9
1.
.2
.0
1.
.7
0.
0.
.8
0.
.6
0.
.2
0.
.3
0.
.2
0.
.4
0.
.2
0.
.2
0.
.3
0.
,1
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
.2
0.
0.
.1
.0
0.
0.
.1
.0
0.
0.
.0
.0
0.
0.
.1
0.
.1
-Percentage distribution, end of quarter
1994 02...
<23...
04...
|
|
|
100,.0
100,.0
100,.0
81,
.1
83,
.6
85,
.5
16 .0
13 .6
12,
.3
2 .4
2 .4
1,
.9
0,
.4
0,
.3
0,
.2
0,
.1
.0
0.
0.
.1
0.
.0
.0
0.
0.
.0
1995 01...
02...
03...
04...
|
|
|
|
100,.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
100.
.0
81,
.7
82,
.1
83.
.0
83 ,
.7
15,
.3
15,
.0
14,
.3
13,
.8
.7
2,
.5
2,
.3
2,
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
1996 01...
02...
03...
04...
|
|
|
|
.0
100.
100.
.0
100.
.0
.0
100.
78.
.4
78.
.5
79.
.3
81.
.8
17,
.2
16,
.9
17,
.0
15.
.5
3 .5
,
3 .9
,
3,
.1
2,
.3
0,
.5
.6
0,
0,
.5
0,
.2
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
0.
.1
1997 oi...
|
.0
100.
79.
.0
16.
.8
.7
3.
0,
.4
0.
.1
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.
29
T A B L E II.O
S E L E C T E D M E A S U R E S O P F I N A N C I A L P E R F O R M A N C E OF A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D OTHER B A N K S *
N E T INCOME A S A P E R C E N T A G E
OF A V E R A G E E Q U I T Y A T
AGRICULTURAL BANKS
ALL BANKS
NEGATIVE
0
TO
4
TO
9
5
10
TO
14
AVERAGE RATE
OF R E T U R N
TO E Q U I T Y
15
TO
19
20
TO
24
25
AND
OVER
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
RATE
OF R E T U R N
TO A S S E T S
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
9.9
10.1
9.9
10.1
10.4
10.8
10.7
11.1
10.9
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.9
10.5
10.6
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
•percentage distribution1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
|
j
j
|
j
j
j
|
j
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.0
5.0
4.9
4.1
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.4
2.0
.09
7,.0
7,.5
7..7
5..0
5..7
5..7
5..6
5,,5
30. .0
29. .0
33. .4
32. .2
25. .5
27. .8
31. .3
36. .8
33. .5
36 .0
38. .0
37. .6
39. .2
41. .1
40. .6
40. .2
39. ,9
41. .5
12.0
14.0
12.9
13.4
19.8
18.5
17.1
13.3
14.3
3.0
4.0
2.6
2.5
5.1
4.6
3.3
2.4
2.6
2.0
3.0
1.1
0.9
1.7
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.5
|
|
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
10.0
11.0
10.8
10.9
12.6
12.4
11.9
11.3
11.5
9.0
10.0
8.5
8.9
11.5
12.4
12.4
11.6
11.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
QUARTERLY
•YEAR TO D A T E
1994
Q2...
Q3. ..
Q4...
|
|
|
100.0
100.0
100.0
6 .2
9 .2
11, .9
6.3
9.4
12.4
0.6
0.9
1.2
0 .6
0 .9
1 .1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
11.0
11.1
10.7
10.1
10.1
9.9
1995
Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
04...
|
|
|
|
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3 .0
5..8
8..9
11. .3
3.1
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
1996
Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
|
|
|
|
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3..1
6..2
9..2
11. .5
3.1
6.1
9.0
11.6
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
0..3
0..6
0..9
1..1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0..1
0..1
0..2
0.,3
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.9
10.6
10.5
10.5
10.6
1997
Ql...
|
3..0
3.1
0.3
0..3
0.0
0..1
11.0
10.6
* Agricultural a n d o t h e r b a n k s are d e f i n e d in the i n t r o d u c t i o n to s e c t i o n II; small banks have less t h a n 500 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s in a s s e t s .
Total p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y c a p i t a l (items that are a v a i l a b l e at the e n d of the p e r i o d specified) are m e a s u r e d as a p e r c e n t a g e of t o t a l a s s e t s .
Q u a r t e r l y data in the lower p a n e l are c u m u l a t i v e t h r o u g h the e n d of the q u a r t e r indicated and, for p e r i o d s of less than a year, are not c o m p a r a b l e to
the annual data in the u p p e r p a n e l .
TABLE II.H
AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS A T AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*
DECEMBER 31
U.S.
CLEVELAND
ATLANTA
CHICAGO
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. LOUIS
KANSAS
CITY
DALLAS
SAN
FRANCISCO
MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO
NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
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
1996
3955
3854
3723
3550
3482
3347
0 .551
0 .555
0 .582
0 .625
0,
.641
.658
0,
71
75
67
56
60
55
0 .642
0 .643
0 .660
0 .707
0 .717
0 .775
133
131
130
125
135
126
0 .609
0 .607
0 .618
0 .646
0,
.647
0,
.682
969
948
912
860
841
814
0 .572
0 .574
.600
0.
0.
.643
0.
.658
0.
.681
470
456
432
402
393
384
0 .567
0,
.563
0,
.590
0,
.629
0,
.654
0,
.666
725
694
669
658
637
619
0 .569
0,
.579
0,
.615
0,
.674
0,
.681
0,
.698
1135
1092
1063
1014
981
944
0,
.522
0,
.533
0,
.566
0.
.618
0.
.634
0,
.649
378
384
378
366
359
331
0 .438
0 .422
0 .442
0 .474
0 .499
0 .492
60
61
58
53
55
55
0,
.711
0,
.708
0.
.733
0,
.747
0.
.741
0,
.734
16.56
16.72
17.04
16.99
15.79
15.41
1994 02...
03...
04...
3689
3640
3550
0,
.621
0.
.643
0.
.625
64
61
56
0.
.704
0,
.701
0.
.707
138
131
125
0,
.652
0.
.669
0,
.646
886
889
860
0.
.634
0.
,658
0.
.643
431
432
402
0.
.626
0.
.657
0.
.629
668
664
658
0.
.677
0.
.702
0,
.674
1046
1023
1014
0.
.601
0.
,618
0.
,618
379
367
366
0,
.476
0.
.503
0,
.474
59
56
53
0.
.764
0.
.768
0.
.747
17.42
17.55
16.99
1995 oi...
02...
3484
3488
3617
3482
0.
.634
0.
.655
0.
.668
0.
,641
56
55
64
60
0.
.718
0.
.730
0.
,736
0,717
129
136
150
135
0.
.653
0.
.668
0. 680
0.
.647
847
844
868
841
0.
,650
0.
,664
0. 685
0. 658
389
397
432
393
0. 634
0.
,665
0.
,692
0.654
638
639
652
637
0.
,684
0.
,714
0,717
0, 681
993
984
1007
981
0.
,622
0.
,637
0.647
0.634
364
361
368
359
0.
.491
0.
.518
0.
.525
0.
.499
50
52
56
0.
.768
0.
.791
0.
.763
0.
.741
16.75
17.12
17.27
15.79
0. 639
0. 665
0. 674
0.658
58
57
58
04...
3471
3461
3400
3347
55
0.721
0.743
0.780
0.775
143
151
140
126
0.664
0.690
0.708
0.682
828
829
814
814
0. 657
0.671
0.690
0. 681
394
402
406
384
0.650
0.692
0.699
0.666
632
630
623
619
0. 682
0.712
0.716
0. 698
978
964
952
944
0.629
0.651
0.662
0.649
357
349
331
331
0,
.489
0.
.515
0.
.510
0.
,492
55
0.
,737
0.
,778
0.757
0.
.734
15.46
15.94
15.84
15.41
1997 oi...
3336
0.660
52
0.780
128
0.706
806
0.685
382
0.662
611
0.701
941
0.644
339
0.499
54
0. 722
15.02
03...
04...
1996 oi...
02...
03...
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.
55
57
54
54
Agricultural banks are defined as banks with a farm loan ratio at least as great as
31
TABLE II.I
FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS*
NUMBER OF FAILURES
Q1
1986 . . . .
1987
1988. . . .
1989
1990
1991....
1992
1993
1994. . . .
1995
1996
1997
Q2
03
Q4
14
22
11
5
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
14
19
6
7
5
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
21
12
12
5
6
3
1
2
0
0
0
16
16
7
5
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
**
*•
ANNUAL
TOTAL
65
69
36
22
17
8
7
5
0
0
2
**
* 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.
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
Ra&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
35
37
39
41
43
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.
34
Section III:
(continued)
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. P.O. Box 65 5 906, 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 was roughly unchanged in the
first quarter of 1997. Repayment rates continued to improve in both the Dallas and Kansas City districts,
where in the spring and summer of 1996 drought and low prices for cattle had reduced farm returns.
Consistent with the improved outlook for cattle producers in recent months, bankers in most districts that
report anticipated higher loan volumes for feeder livestock. Relative to one year earlier, bankers in the
Dallas and Richmond districts anticipate stronger demand for loans for farm machinery.
The ratio of loans to deposits edged above year - earlier levels at most banks that report, yet most bankers,
especially those in the Kansas City district, characterized their loan-deposit ratio as "lower than desired".
Reported rates of interest on farm loans were little changed in all districts in the first quarter of 1997,
and rates have remained about flat since early 1996.
The year - over - year rate of increase in the price for agricultural land edged down in the Chicago district, but
still, the yearly change in prices for farmland in that district was 9 percent through the first quarter of
1997.
In most other districts, the yearly change in the price of cropland was around 4 or 5 percent, roughly
in line with the increases seen over the past couple of years. The year - over-year changes in the price of
ranchland in the Kansas City and Dallas districts picked up, likely reflecting the improved outlook for
returns to cattlemen in those areas.
#
•
#
#
#
#
e
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 .Al
SAME
SEVENTH
HIGHER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
13
13
20
49
50
52
48
37
37
36
32
1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
17
17
14
44
49
45
50
1997 Ql. . .
10
46
1995 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1997 Ql. . .
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
HIGHER
) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
17
9
11
32
17
13
13
29
63
71
72
57
20
16
16
14
|
1
1
1
1
o
1
1
87
89
90
90
12
10
9
6
64
76
76
53
62
65
65
71
31
24
24
19
1
1
1
1
13
13
7
24
57
66
74
58
30
21
19
18
29
23
23
19
56
62
69
61
15
16
8
21
1
1
|
1
o
1
1
o
91
89
92
90
9
10
1
6
11
11
9
1
I*
62
24
1
15
66
19
14
69
17
1
o
92
8
1
41
34
38
36
1
44
1
9
7
10
(KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO* , NE, NM*, OK, WY) A G R I C U L T U R A L BANKS
21
18
20
14
69
69
67
66
10
14
14
20
1
1
1
1
28
32
32
43
67
67
63
53
5
1
5
4
6
2
5
5
69
70
67
55
25
27
28
41
1
1
1
1
0
o
o
1
87
88
86
84
13
12
13
15
|
10
16
16
12
69
66
67
71
21
19
16
17
1
1
1
1
51
38
22
15
46
58
65
66
4
4
13
20
5
6
11
14
49
57
67
70
45
37
23
16
1
1
|
1
1
1
0
1
79
78
84
87
20
22
16
13
1
9
72
19
1
10
69
21
16
74
10
1
0
88
12
1
1
1
1
18
15
14
11
56
54
60
64
26
30
26
26
1
1
8
64
28
ELEVENTH
1
1
(DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
12
17
20
53
50
50
44
34
38
33
35
1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
26
24
21
51
42
44
50
31
32
32
28
|
1
|
17
54
29
1
( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, W I *
SAME
19
16
13
15
39
32
32
28
1
1
LOWER
HIGHER
1
1
1
1
1995 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
1997 Ql...
SAME
16
18
19
29
20
14
16
51
58
53
56
I I I .A3
LOWER
HIGHER
64
67
65
65
1
10
11
16
16
.
.
.
.
1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
TENTH
SAME
(CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
1995 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
I I I .A2
LOWER
COLLATERAL REQUIRED
RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS
LOAN REPAYMENT RATE
FUND AVAILABILITY
1
|
( LA*, NM*, TX
1
)
8
8
10
9
78
79
76
78
14
14
14
14
1
1
1
1
20
21
28
40
72
74
63
53
7
5
9
7
11
9
12
8
67
70
64
54
22
21
24
39
1
1
1
j
1
o
2
1
83
81
78
75
16
19
20
24
5
8
7
73
77
75
74
22
16
16
19
1
1
1
1
49
59
44
31
45
39
47
53
6
2
9
17
7
2
8
10
41
38
48
51
52
60
44
40
1
1
|
|
o
o
1
0
66
61
65
73
34
39
34
27
*
75
21
1
28
57
15
13
60
27
1
o
74
25
7
1
35
3 6
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)
FUND AVAILABILITY
DEMAND FOR LOANS
LOWER
I I I .A4
1995 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
.
.
.
.•
.
.
NINTH
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
|
1
35
30
25
26
0
1
1
0
81
74
84
84
19
25
15
16
4
1
1
0
76
75
81
85
20
24
18
15
o
75
25
4
4
0
0
80
84
91
90
16
12
9
10
o
0
2
90
83
85
93
10
17
15
5
o
94
6
)
51
53
59
49
6
2
6
15
|
j
10
7
1
j
9
4
55
63
66
60
57
65
61
67
32
23
21
20
1
|
46
37
19
34
37
48
69
45
17
14
12
21
1
j
j
j
15
15
15
17
49
54
68
64
36
31
31
19
67
23
|
46
47
7
1
io
57
33
1
1
io
I I I .A5
1997 Ql. .•
HIGHER
43
45
35
36
1997 Ql..
|
SAME
1
1
1
|
1
1996 Ql. .
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4.. •
LOWER
HIGHER
13
18
20
27
11
12
18
13
FIFTH
(RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
4
0
9
5
1
j
1
j
12
4
14
5
84
88
68
67
4
8
18
29
81
78
72
78
5
5
12
17
1
1
j
j
5
j
14
17
17
5
3
13
32
75
76
68
56
20
21
18
12
|
1
I
|
1
|
1
|
0
88
13
1
13
81
6
1
I
81
71
67
85
19
26
22
12
1
1
o
3
12
3
1
*
77
19
1
71
71
77
76
14
17
12
14
1
I
I
1
14
12
12
10
1
9
77
15
1
)
84
88
82
67
12
16
27
24
12
4
5
14
|
1
12
12
9
29
72
72
64
76
68
76
64
62
( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*
16
12
9
o
20
20
32
24
1
( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*
SAME
66
62
60
62
1
|
|
|
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
21
20
21
11
I
I
I
1
.
LOWER
|
1
1
1
|
|
1995 Ql. .
Q2..
Q3. ..
Q4. .•
HIGHER
(MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
1996 Ql. .
Q2 • .
Q3. .
Q4. .•
•
SAME
COLLATERAL REQUIRED
RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS
LOAN REPAYMENT RATE
1
|
#
0
•
#
•
,
•
•
e
#
#
#
#
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
TOTAL
LOWER SAME
III.B1
1995 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
.
.
.
.
FEEDER CATTLE
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
DAIRY
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
CROP STORAGE
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
OPERATING
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
FARM MACHINERY
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
S E V E N T H ( C H I C A G O ) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T (IL*# IN*, IA, MI*, W I * ) A G R I C U L T U R A L B A N K S
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
14
14
15
17
53
60
59
50
33
26
26
32
32
38
40
47
62
58
54
48
6
3
6
5
|
j
j
|
19
21
21
21
71
74
75
71
10
5
5
8
|
I
1
1
19
26
23
37
68
65
58
52
19
11
1996 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
I
1
1
17
17
17
12
44
54
55
48
39
29
28
40
59
62
38
27
38
36
52
59
4
2
10
15
|
j
j
23
25
18
22
68
67
72
69
9
8
10
9
1
I
1
1
36
33
16
15
56
57
50
58
10
34
27
1997 Ql. . .
1
8
52
40
28
63
9
1
20
69
10
1
19
69
III . B2
1
j
|
j
13
11
13
13
42
53
60
46
46
36
27
41
1
|
1
1
15
22
16
8
53
61
55
46
33
17
29
45
1
j
1
1
14
12
21
8
37
47
50
39
50
41
29
53
1
1
1
1
io
14
io
12
37
48
39
42
53
38
51
46
13
1
8
42
50
1
9
47
45
12
15
23
67
69
64
54
21
16
14
20
13
9
8
E L E V E N T H ( D A L L A S ) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T (LA*, N M * , T X )
1995 Ql...
02...
Q3. . .
Q4...
1
1
1
1
15
16
15
16
65
54
59
57
21
30
25
27
22
33
31
41
63
55
50
49
15
12
20
10
|
j
|
j
13
20
25
20
83
78
71
77
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
12
11
16
18
86
79
75
71
3
10
9
11
1
1
1
1
12
8
13
15
55
58
54
49
34
33
33
36
1
1
1
1996 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1
1
1
30
40
19
18
52
44
58
54
18
17
23
27
49
57
31
24
45
36
51
56
6
7
18
20
|
j
j
j
29
31
20
22
71
67
74
73
1
2
7
5
|
1
1
1
29
30
24
20
65
56
63
76
6
14
13
5
|
j
j
1
19
22
18
16
47
42
49
55
34
36
33
30
1
1
1
1
33
42
25
22
56
50
55
63
11
8
20
15
1997 Ql...
1
16
57
27
16
56
29
|
24
71
1
21
70
9
1
17
54
30
1
17
61
22
|
1
1
I
|
1
|
.
1
14
14
25
20
77
86
60
65
9
0
15
15
1
1
1
12
4
15
72
88
80
62
16
|
I
|
I
|
I
|
1
8
4
19
19
71
84
67
67
21
12
14
14
11
18
13
18
83
68
72
67
6
14
15
14
1
j
j
|
14
7
10
8
57
58
66
70
29
35
24
22
10
17
14
7
81
60
66
65
10
22
20
28
13
82
5
1
6
63
31
io
65
25
III, ,B3
|
26
F I F T H ( R I C H M O N D ) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T ( M D , N C , sc, V A , W V * )
1995 Ql. . .
02...
Q3. . .
04...
1
1
1
1
17
8
16
20
67
79
74
65
17
13
11
15
|
j
|
j
25
20
18
35
70
80
82
65
0
0
1996 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...
1
1
i
20
11
11
7
70
73
71
81
10
16
18
12
|
j
j
j
31
35
29
23
69
63
62
75
1997 Ql. . .
i
16
58
26
|
17
73
!
6
|
5
|
j
j
j
14
21
27
25
76
79
73
75
10
o
o
o
0
3
10
3
|
j
j
j
20
24
21
19
80
71
71
75
0
6
8
10
|
21
79
o
0
6
1
j
19
5
19
8
1
37
FEDERAL kisSSiivei BAJNK 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)
FEEDER LIVESTOCK
LOWER SAME
XII.B4
1995 Ql...
02...
Q3...
Q4...
|
1
1
1
|
I
28
47
43
53
68
49
50
36
52
60
51
28
1996 Ql.. .
Q2...
03...
04...
1997 Ql...
NINTH
44
35
41
58
29
56
OTHER INTERMEDIATE
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
FARM REAL ESTATE
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
(MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
( Ml
HIGHER
75
58
64
59
10
16
11
15
|
|
|
1
30
44
38
31
60
48
52
53
10
16
8
15
24
| 16
|
17
|
19
62
68
73
74
14
17
10
7
1
j
|
|
31
28
30
30
50
56
56
60
19
16
14
10
15
|
77
11
1
21
58
21
I
I
1
|
7
11
4
|
6
12
LOWER SAME
FARM MACHINERY
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
15
27
25
26
4
4
OTHER OPERATING
10
8
5
5
16
9
58
59
64
62
37
36
20
29
|
5
9
16
14
64
56
65
72
31
35
19
14
1
4
57
39
1
|
1
29
45
36
32
58
49
55
55
9
12
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
30
24
24
26
54
58
54
57
15
18
22
17
1
|
22
68
10
13
7
•
•
•
•
#
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL
SEVENTH
1995 Ql. . .
Q2...
03...
Q4...
65
66
67
65
1 9 9 6 Q l . ..
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q 4 . ..
1997 Ql...
HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED
(CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
49
*8
51
53
34
35
32
36
17
17
17
11
65
66
68
68
56
54
50
48
30
32
33
35
14
14
17
17
68
III .C2
51
32
TENTH
1995 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q 3 . ..
04...
1
1
1
17
60
62
64
63
NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS
CORRESPONDENT BANKS
NONE
1
1
1
j
|
I
70
66
64
66
|
1
|
1
j
|
77
76
72
70
10
9
9
9
24
26
32
29
|
j
j
j
3
4
3
2
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
62
|
73
7
28
|
1
84
ELEVENTH
(DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
1995 Ql. . .
02...
03...
Q4...
45
47
51
49
|
|
1
|
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
1996 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...
46
51
52
49
|
1
|
|
49
|
|
1
|
|
j
1
I
|
1
j
I
|
68
70
74
68
8
9
11
9
79
81
78
77
13
10
11
14
65
65
70
71
6
8
12
10
77
78
78
83
17
14
10
8
8
83
9
11
18
10
8
84
76
84
81
5
6
6
11
11
7
10
10
70
73
75
75
20
19
16
14
13
73
14
76
78
80
78
9
11
11
8
85
84
83
86
6
5
6
6
80
79
83
82
8
9
12
10
88
86
83
86
4
5
5
4
82
11
86
4
1
69
1
1
1
1
9
14
9
10
85
80
83
81
5
6
8
9
|
|
|
1
1
www
www
1
1
2
2
1
www
www
I
1
79
79
84
85
***
www
www
www
www
www
( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL B A N K S
5
5
4
3
1
COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
1
***
|
|
|
j
1997 Ql. . .
www
www
www
***
WW*
|
29
26
25
24
I I I ., C 3
NONE
I
j
I
7
7
7
7
1
COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
1
61
61
58
59
1997 Ql...
NONBANK AGENCIES
( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, W I * ) A G R I C U L T U R A L B A N K S
(KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
61
62
63
61
1996 Ql...
02...
Q3...
04...
REFUSED OR
REDUCED A
FARM LOAN
BECAUSE OF
A SHORTAGE
OF LOANABLE
FUNDS
LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
15
11
8
12
80
78
82
78
5
12
9
10
14
83
3
|
( LA*, NM*, TX)
1
***
|
I
***
www
39
40
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
T A B L E I I I .C ( C O N T I N U E D )
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
1995 01.
02. •
03. •
04.
1996 01.
02.
03.
04.
NONE
COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER
COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
NONE
NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
10
9
7
4
58
55
53
57
6
9
3
0
1
1
1
1
31+
32
42
39
57
57
50
58
12
11
8
3
1
1
1
1
72
71
73
69
6
7
7
7
51
57
64
56
3
8
3
6
1
1
1
1
40
33
32
40
47
51
59
54
13
16
9
6
73
63
2
1
30
52
18
,C5
III.
1997 01.
HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED
NONBANK AGENCIES
CORRESPONDENT BANKS
1
1997 01.
1996 01.
02. *
03. *
04.
LOWER
AT
DESIRED
THAN
DESIRED LEVEL
NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS
66
69
68
71
•.
•.
1995 01.
02. #
03. #
04.
REFUSED OR
REDUCED A
FARM LOAN
BECAUSE OF
A SHORTAGE
OF LOANABLE
FUNDS
LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
|
1
10
1
FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
75
76
75
71
*
*
*
1
1
|
|
|
42
36
45
52
46
41
50
43
13
23
5
5
1
j
|
j
0
0
0
0
76
83
68
86
|
72
73
73
71
#
|
|
1
|
53
45
31
39
42
40
56
50
5
15
13
11
1
90
71
75
82
|
|
j
0
0
0
0
72
1
36
50
14
1
0
77
83
86
81
95
4
0
0
0
13
14
19
5
0
0
0
0
1
j
j
j
70
77
89
90
9
0
0
0
22
23
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
11
9
11
7
0
0
0
2
1
j
1
89
89
88
91
j
84
80
80
79
0
4
4
0
16
13
14
21
0
4
2
0
1
85
5
10
0
1
83
3
10
5
|
•Beginning in 1994, M i n n e a p o l i s omitted the r e s p o n s e "none" for the number of referrals to either correspondent b a n k s or n o n b a n k
agencies. The column that has been added combines responses that formerly would have been reported as either "none" or "low".
•
#
I
•
•
e
#
#
t
•
•
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.D
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.D1
1995 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1
9. 6
9. 7
9. 7
9. 6
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
HIGHER
8..7
8..8
8..8
8..7
9. 7
8..8
1997 Ql...
1
9 .6
|
***
***
***
|
I
j
T E N T H ( K A N S A S C I T Y ) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T (CO, K S , M O * , N E , N M * , O K ) A G R I C U L T U R A L B A N K S
1 0 ..4
10..3
10..2
10.
.1
10..5
10..5
10..4
10..2
10..5
10..4
10..3
10.. 1
10..1
9..9
9..8
9..6
10.,0
10..0
10..0
10..0
9..9
9..9
9..9
9..9
9..3
9..4
9..4
9..3
10..0
9..9
9..4
1996 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
1
1
9..9
9..9
9..9
9..8
1997 Ql. . .
1
9..9
LOWER
LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
9..7
9..6
9..3
8..9
1
|
SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
10. 3
10. 2
10. 2
9. 9
9 .6
9 .7
9 .7
9 .6
1
INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE
1 0 .3
1 0 .2
1 0 .1
9 .9
1
1995 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE
S E V E N T H (CHICi .30) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T ( I L * , I N * , I A , M I * , W I * ) A G R I C U L T U R A L B A N K S
1996 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
III.D2
OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS
|
***
***
|
***
***
1
|
41
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
10.6
10.8
10.3
10.0
10.6
10.8
10.3
10.4
***
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
***
10.0
10.0
11.2
11.1
10.7
10.8
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.6
|
|
j
|
j
SAME
HIGHER
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
|
I
|
I
|
I
|
1
j
I
www
www
|
|
www
www
www
www
10.0
10.1
10.0
9.9
|
j
1
j
1
j
www
***
10.4
10.4
10.5
10.4
www
www
10.3
10.0
|
www
10.4
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
1997 Ql...
|
1
10.4
10.6
I
1
I
1
I
1
j
1
www
www
www
www
www
www
...
www
www
|
1
www
www
1
I
j
1
|
1
|
1
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
1
FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
1995 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
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
|
j
j
1
|
...
www
1996 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
9.8
9.9
9.8
10.0
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.7
9.7
10.0
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.5
|
|
|
|
www
www
www
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.5
|
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal •
Reserve Bank of St. e
Louis
LOWER
HIGHER
www
www
11.1
11.0
10.9
10.8
|
1
j
1
|
1
|
1
1
LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
1996 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4...
1997 Ql.. .
SAME
www
www
11.0
11.0
10.8
10.7
III.D5
LOWER
HIGHER
www
www
www
...
9.3
www
1995 Ql. . .
Q2.. .
Q3. • .
Q4.. .
SAME
INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.4
***
III.D4
LOWER
10.1
10.2
9.9
9.7
***
1997 Ql...
SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
1995 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3.. .
Q4. . .
1996 Ql. . .
Q2. •.
Q3. • .
Q4.. .
42
#
•
e
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
I
1
I
1
1
j
1
#
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
e
www
www
www
www
www
1
#
www
|
1
1
1
1
#
'
www
www
www
|
j
e
#
•
#
•
•
•
•
#
•
•
#
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.E
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES A N D 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
Ill .El
DRYLAND
IRRIGATED
RANCHLAND
1996 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
1997 Ql. . .
2
.
.
.
.
1997 Ql. . .
III .E3
***
DOWN
STABLE
LOWER
UP
SAME
HIGHER
1
5
67
73
65
41
31
23
31
58
1
1
j
j
18
18
16
11
60
69
63
60
22
13
21
29
9
11
12
io
0
1
1
6
30
42
35
61
69
57
64
33
|
j
j
j
12
11
9
16
52
63
58
59
36
26
33
25
9
2
64
34
1
11
61
29
9
-3
9
4
0
5
0
96
96
91
100
0
4
5
0
|
j
1
j
17
26
16
26
83
74
74
68
0
0
11
5
0
2
3
0
95
86
82
83
5
12
15
17
1
j
j
j
17
16
10
5
83
75
80
90
0
9
10
5
2
81
17
1
11
80
9
1
1
1
5
5
4
***
|
FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC , VA, WV*)
1
1
8
-3
3
3
-15
1
RANCHLAND
2
3
3
1
1
18
-6
-8
8
.
.
.
.
IRRIGATED
I
4
1
3
1
1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
DRYLAND
1
1
0
1
2
1995 Ql. . .
Q2. ..
Q3. . .
Q4...
ALL
SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI *) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1995 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q3. ..
Q4. . .
III .E2
TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
|
-9
-1
11
-13
16
1
*
1
***
|
ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
1995 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3.. •
Q4. . .
-1
1
-1
0
1
4
-3
-0
1
9
3
-11
1
1
-0
-1
4
5
4
1
6
14
24
1
|
j
j
j
1
j
j
|
io
17
14
20
78
73
73
67
12
10
13
12
1996 Ql.. .
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4. . .
-2
-0
2
2
-1
-0
-1
2
-1
-1
-0
4
-2
-3
-0
1
-1
-5
-3
-1
-2
-10
-13
2
|
j
j
|
|
|
|
30
38
24
17
58
52
62
69
12
10
14
14
1
2
3
4
2
6
1
1
17
65
18
1997 Ql. . .
1
|
***
43
44
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
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR
FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED WITH NORMAL
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
ALL
I l l .E4
1995 Q l . . .
02...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1996 Q l .
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1997 Q l . . .
DRYLAND
IRRIGATED
RANCHLAND
ALL
2
1
0
1
3
-o
2
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
-2
0
2
1
-2
1
2
1
IRRIGATED
RANCHLAND
DOWN
1
1
1
2
4
***
***
j
1
1
***
***
7
7
6
5
4
4
3
4
6
5
5
5
STABLE
|
j
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
III ,E5
DRYLAND
LOWER
UP
SAME
TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO , KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)
2
1
1
1
|
TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
-0
-0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
5
6
9
I
***
***
***
j
j
|
***
NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI *, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
1995 Q l . . .
Q2.. .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
6
3
2
3
2
j
1996 Q l .
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
4
5
4
5
6
4
3
5
2
2
3
4
|
j
j
j
4
6
3
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1997 Q l . . .
1
1
***
|
1
|
j
***
1
***
HIGHER
