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 1998
Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources
Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks
Page
3
Selected statistics from the quarterly reports of condition of commercial
banks
Reserve bank surveys of farm credit conditions and farm land values
Division of Research and Statistics
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Washington, D.C. 20551
Nicholas A. Walraven and Melissa Post
22
33
2
General Information
The Agricultural Finance Databook is a c o m p i l a t i o n of various data on current d e v e l o p m e n t s in agricultural
finance.
Large portions of the data come from regular surveys conducted by the Board of G o v e r n o r s 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 i n s t i t u t i o n s involved in agricultural
lending.
When the current issue went to press, data from the survey of terms of bank lending w e r e available
for the second quarter of 1998; the other data generally were available through March 1998.
Parts or all of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Finance D a t a b o o k may be copied and distributed freely.
Any redistribution of
selected parts of the D a t a b o o k should be accompanied by the "contents" pages at the b e g i n n i n g of the
corresponding section, together with the front cover identifying the Databook and date of issue. and this page
providing subscription information.
R e m a i n i n g questions may be addressed to N i c h o l a s W a l r a v e n or M e l i s s a Post
at the address shown on the cover.
The Databook is furnished on a complimentary basis to college and university teachers, libraries of
educational institutions, government d e p a r t m e n t s 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 m a i l i n g address
Publications Services, Mail Stop
Federal Reserve Board
Washington, D.C.
20551
138
Notice of change of address also should be sent to Publications Services.
the old address should be included.
A copy of the back cover showing
SECTION I:
AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS
Estimates from the quarterly survey of non-real-estate farm loans
Summary charts
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 rate
Percentage of loans with a floating interest rate
Distribution of farm loans by effective interest rate
Detailed survey results
Regional disaggregation of 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 250 banks was asked for information regarding agricultural lending, and
about 150 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 made by
commercial banks.
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.
SECTION I: (CONTINUED)
More detailed results from each quarterly survey previously were published in Statistical Release E.2A,
"Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers". Beginning in February, 1992, the more detailed results are
included at the end of this section of the Databook. and the E2.A has been discontinued. Starting with the
August 1986 survey, farm loans secured by real estate are included in the data shown in the table of detailed
results, whereas such loans are excluded from the tabulations in Tables I.A through I.G and the summary
charts.
Beginning in November 1991 , several survey statistics are estimated for each of ten farm production regions as
defined by the USDA. These statistics, which are presented in table I.I, should be treated with some caution.
Although an effort was made to choose a good regional mix of banks for the panel, the panel 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 1998 survey, the estimated number of non- real - estate farm loans made by banks was a bit below the
estimate of one year earlier, with the largest decline among these year - over-year comparisons appearing in the
number of loans in the "other" category of purposes. However, the average size of loans was larger, leaving
the estimated amount of loans up a bit from the previous year. Nevertheless, since mid 1996, the estimated
amount of farm non-real - estate loans generally has been coming in towards the low end of the ranee seen during,
the rest of the 1990s.
In the May survey, the average maturity of farm non-real - estate loans was about 10-1/2 months, towards the
middle of the range seen for the past several years. The average effective rate of interest on non-realestate farm loans was 9.2 percent in the May survey, up 10 basis points from the previous quarter. The
percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats remained below 60 percent in May, with
larger loans accounting for the bulk of the movement towards fixed rate arrangements.
The weighted average repricing interval (line 4 of Tables I.H.I through I.H.6) rose to about 9-1/2 months
across all sizes of loans, and the maturity (line 3) lengthened as well. Most of the change in maturity and
repricing interval came for loans of more than $50 thousand. Relative to the previous survey, the percentage
of the volume of loans to purchase or improve farm real estate (line 23) roughly doubled to about 10 percent
of the volume of survey loans, and this type of loan likely carried a longer maturity and may have tended to
carry a fixed rate of interest. The weighted average risk rating (line 5) edged up in the May survey, with
the largest increases in perceived riskiness apparent for large loans. Relative to the February survey,
bankers required somewhat more collateral for farm loans (the total percentage of loans that are secured is
obtained by summing lines 25 and 26), and the percentage of loans that were secured by real estate assets
contributed most to the increase.
When broken out by the riskiness of the loan (Tables I.H.4 through I.H.6), about 60 percent of the estimated
volume of loans was rated either "moderate" or "acceptable", roughly the same proportion of loans that
received these rankings in the previous survey. As has generally been the case since the survey was
redesigned, for the less risky categories of loans, rates seemed to decline as reported risk increased.
Collateral requirements where lowest for loans falling in the "acceptable" category--loans either higher or
lower on the risk scale were more likely to be secured.
By farm production region, changes in the weighted average rates of interest compared with the February survey
were very mixed. The regions showing the largest declines were the Corn Belt and Southern Plains, which each
recorded a decline of 20 basis points, while estimated rates rose 40 basis points in the Lake States.
in
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
2.0
- Four quarter moving average
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Thousands of dollars
Average size of non-real-estate farm loans
— Four quarter moving average
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Billions of dollars, Annual rate
10
130
Amount of non-real-estate farm loans
120
110
100
- Four quarter moving average
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Chart 2
Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers
Months
Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans
- Four quarter moving average
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Percent
20
18
Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans
16
14
12
10
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
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
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
0
E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF BANK N O N - R E A L - E S T A T E L O A N S TO F A R M E R S
T A B L E I.A
N U M B E R OF L O A N S M A D E (MILLIONS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
OTHER
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
BY SIZE
OF BANK
FARM
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
1
to
9
OTHER
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
LARGE
OTHER
A N N U A L N U M B E R OF L O A N S M A D E
1986
1
1
1987
1988
.55
1
o .30
0 .17
1 .66
0 .17
0 .24
1 .71
2 .38
2 .21
|
0 .39
0 .13
1
0 . 14
0 . 19
1 .57
|
0 .29
0
11
1 .45
0 .14
0 .21
1 .42
2 60
|
0 .30
0
20
1 .73
0 .16
0 .20
1 .67
2
54
1989
1
|
1990
1
2
.63
|
0 .32
0
24
1 .69
0 . 19
0 .19
1 .70
1991
1
2
.60
|
0 .35
0 .23
1 .64
0 .17
0 .21
1 .66
1992
1
2
.69
|
0 .35
0 .25
1 .67
0 .18
0 .24
1 .67
1993
I
1
j
2
.70
|
0 .36
0 .27
1 .62
0 .18
1 .65
2 .53
2 .49
|
0 .28
0 .23
1 .56
0.
0 .27
0 .27
|
0 .26
0 .. 1 9
1 .48
0 .17
0 .39
1,. 4 5
1
|
2 .22
2 .27
|
0 .18
0,1 9
.
1, 3 8
.
.
1, 4 0
0, 1 4
.
0, 1 5
.
0 .36
|
0. 1 7
.
0. 2 0
.
1, 3 3
.
.
1, 3 2
1994
1995
1996
1997
NUMBER
|
2. 74
.
1
2 .. 2 4
1
j
Q4. . .
1997
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
1996
|
.
1. 9 5
j
1
2 ., 1 9
2. 6 5
1
Ql. . .
Q2 . . .
1
OF
LOANS
o ., 1 5
0, 1 6
,
0. 2 5
,
o. 2 0
o., 1 7
Q3 . . .
2. 2 1
j
0. 1 5
Q4. . .
1998
1
j
1
2. 0 5
1
o. 2 3
1
j
2. 08
2. 51
1
Ql...
Q2 . . .
j
o. 1 9
0. 1 2
MADE
DURING
FIRST
FULL
18
WEEK
OF
1 .55
0 .33
SECOND
MONTH
OF
0. 4 6
0. 4 6
0. 4 3
0. 5 2
0. 4 9
0. 5 1
0. 5 4
0. 5 6
0. 5 1
0. 5 7
0. 4 8
0. 5 0
QUARTER,
0 .29
0 .08
0 .27
0. 0 8
.
.
0. 0 7
0. 0 9
.
0. 0 9
.
0. 1 0
.
0. 1 1
.
0. 1 2
.
0. 1 2
.
0. 1 2
.
0. 1 1
,
0. 1 1
,
0 .28
0 .31
0 .35
0 .32
0 .37
0 .37
0 .35
0 .36
0, 3 1
.
0 .34
ANNUAL
2 .34
2 . 18
0 .23
1 .99
0 .36
2 .23
0 .44
2 .20
0 .50
2 .10
0 .51
2 .18
0 .55
0 . 54
2 .15
1 .98
0 .66
|
1 .83
0 . 53
0. 4 6
1 .69
0.6 8
.
0. 6 3
.
0. 3 7
.
2 ,. 0 7
1 .82
RATE
0. 1 7
0. 1 1
0. 1 7
.
1. 8 3
,
1. 4 5
1. 0 8
.
0. 1 5
,
0. 1 1
,
0. 4 5
,
0. 3 7
,
0. 3 4
.
1. 6 4
,
1. 3 8
,
1. 1 8
,
0. 6 0
0. 4 9
0. 4 1
0. 3 8
.
0. 2 8
.
0. 2 5
.
0. 1 3
0. 0 9
0. 1 0
0. 2 4
0. 2 2
0. 1 4
0. 2 1
1. 1 3
1. 7 2
1. 5 3
1. 2 3
0. 1 8
0. 1 4
0. 1 4
0. 1 5
0. 4 6
0. 4 0
0. 2 3
0. 2 2
1. 1 8
1. 6 2
1. 3 4
1. 1 5
0. 4 9
0. 5 7
0. 4 7
0. 4 5
0. 3 7
0. 3 7
0. 3 1
0. 3 3
0. 1 5
0. 0 9
0. 0 9
0. 1 2
0. 2 0
0. 2 2
1. 2 9
1. 7 2
0. 1 8
0. 2 2
0. 2 2
0. 2 4
1. 0 7
1. 4 4
0. 4 7
0. 5 8
0. 3 8
0. 3 7
0. 1 6
0. 1 2
0 ., 1 4
o .20
0 .20
1
|
j
j
1
j
o., 4 9
j
0. 5 1
0. 4 3
0, 3 8
|
|
0.3 8
,
0.4 7
j
1, 6 2
.
1. 5 8
.
.
1. 7 0
2 .. 1 4
,77
1.
,
1. 6 6
.
1. 7 0
2 ., 0 4
ESTIMATES FROM THE
T A B L E I.B
QUARTERLY
S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF
BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE
A V E R A G E SIZE OF
LOANS TO
LOANS MADE
FARMERS
(THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
OTHER
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
BY SIZE
OF BANK
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
1
to
9
OTHER
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
LARGE
OTHER
280,.4
320,.4
320,.4
272 ,
.1
4 8 7 ,.7
5 3 9 ..9
4 6 8 .,2
4 9 0 ..3
4 8 0 .,7
4 5 1 ,,3
62 .0
85 .5
70,.0
53 .7
100,.7
107,.0
97,.0
106.,0
101..3
84..0
15 .3
14 .9
16 .3
14 .4
13,.9
13,.9
15,.8
15,.8
15,.4
15,.7
5 4 5 .,9
3 8 5 ..3
115..0
92 .0
15,.4
16,.3
ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE
1986
1987
|
|
1988
1989
1990
1991
1
1
|
j
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1
|
|
|
1
j
19 .0
2 0 .8
21 .8
19 .9
28 4
31 .9
|
|
|
|
|
j
31 .2
34 .3
33 .9
33 .8
39 .2
31 .4
|
j
j
j
j
j
35
33
34
42
69
61
68
79
60
49
.0
.8
2 5 .8
26 .3
.1
.7
.7
.2
.7
.3
.7
40 6
29 5
22 7
25 .2
26,.9
23,.1
27 .6
26,.7
59 .0
4 2 .3
24 .2
26,.0
.0
A V E R A G E SIZE OF
1996 Q2. . .
|
43 .3
33 .3
.2
36,
|
j
j
04...
|
j
j
j
38.
.7
24. 3
28. 3
36. 1
1 9 9 8 0 1 . ..
02...
|
j
37. 9
28.
.0
03...
|
j
04...
1997 oi...
02...
03...
14 .0
14 6
16 7
14 1
15 7
15 .6
14 ,
.7
15,.2
16,. 3
18,.5
26,.0
16..8
LOANS MADE DURING
FIRST
13 .6
16 .1
13 .9
12 . 1
11,.9
15,.1
15,.9
13,.9
17,.5
15,.6
17..2
17..8
FULL WEEK
32.9
44.6
34.7
32.2
94.3
129.3
108.7
1
1
|
3
3
.5
.6
14..9
14 ,
.6
.7
14 ,
4 4 .9
46,.5
45,.2
45,.9
46,.1
46..6
45..9
46..1
47.,0
44..9
15,.0
14,.9
45..2
45..8
QUARTER,
ANNUAL
3 .7
112.0
123 . 6
93.6
|
j
|
3 .6
3 .6
3 .6
3 .7
3 .7
3 .7
3 .7
95.2
97.2
|
j
3 .7
3 .8
OF
1
1
|
j
SECOND MONTH OF
14 .9
14 .7
14,.8
.7
14 ,
14,.8
14,.9
14,.8
RATE
4 4 .0
116,.7
31,.3
25..4
25..6
23.,5
39.,6
15..5
15.,8
15.,7
16. 2
19. 0
73.2
76.4
118.1
1
|
|
.7
3,
.7
3,
3,
.9
14.,9
14.,5
15.,5
44.,8
45. 8
45. 5
673. 1
554. 3
467. 7
131..1
89.,6
119. 1
14.,5
11. 4
16. 9
|
50..7
28.,1
24.,3
13. 6
15. 5
16. 1
73.2
106.6
160.5
1
|
i
22. 2
23. 0
29. 6
5
6
0
8
.7
3.
3.
.7
.7
3.
,9
3.
14.
14.
14.
15.
7
27.,6
51.,9
39.,5
18.
17.
17.
17.
82.1
|
4
4
48. 0
45. 6
45. 1
44. 2
371. 9
357. 7
419. 3
398. 5
95. 0
67. 9
91. 7
120. 5
22. 4
13. 9
12 .9
16. 5
|
j
37..7
43..4
29. 6
21. 0
23. 3
17. 2
39. 6
24. 5
130.7
107.4
3.
,8
.7
3.
15. 1
14. 4
45. 8
46. 6
320. 2
335. 7
100. 3
80. 3
24. 2
16. 0
|
|
1
|
1
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)
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
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE
1986
|
48.
.5
1 0 .,4
4 .,5
2 3 ..2
2 .
.4
8 ..0
1987
j
4 9 ,. 6
1 3 ..2
3 ..4
2 2 ..5
2 ..3
8 ..3
1
j
6 ..0
5 ..7
6 ..9
13 .
.2
2 2 ..3
1
12. 6
3 5 ..9
6 ..8
1 2 ..6
2 4 ..5
|
17. 1
32. 5
1988
4 8 ..2
1 0 ..0
4 .,6
2 4 ..3
1 ..9
7 ..4
|
5.
.2
6 .,4
12 .
.9
23 .
.7
j
1 5 .,9
3 2 .3
1989
5 1 ..6
1 2 ..9
6 ..0
2 4 ..3
2 ..0
6 ..4
j
6 .,1
7 ..7
1 4 ..4
.4
23 .
j
1 9 .,6
32 .
.0
74.
.7
2 2 ..0
5 ..5
2 6 ..6
2 ..3
1 8 ..3
j
6 ..1
7 ..3
1 5 ..9
4 5 ..3
j
4 4 .,2
3 0 ..5
8 2 ..8
2 1 ..4
5 ..8
2 5 ..5
.5
2 ,
2 7 ..6
6 ..1
7 ..6
1 5 ..1
5 4 ..0
j
5 3 ..7
2 9 .1
8 3 .7
2 3 ..6
6 ..7
2 4 ..6
2 ,.9
2 6 ..0
j
6 ..2
8 ..0
1 6 ,.8
5 2 .8
j
4 9 ,.4
3 4 .3
9 2 .6
2 8 ..7
6 .,2
2 4 ,.7
2,.5
3 0 ..6
1
8 ..3
1 7 ,.1
6 1 ,.0
j
5 8 ,.8
3 3 .8
8 5 ,.7
1 6 ..8
6 ..4
2 5 .4
3,.2
3 3 ,.9
- .1
5,.8
7 ,.4
1 6 ..5
5 6 .0
j
5 5 ,.1
3 0 .6
8 4 .1
1 2 ..7
5..2
2 7 .3
2 ,
.7
3 6 ,.1
j
5,.4
8 ..3
1 6 ,.0
5 4 .4
1
5 5 ,.3
2 8 .8
8 7 ,.3
1 0 ..6
4 ..0
3 5 .9
2 .4
3 4 ,.5
j
5,.0
7 ,.1
1 3 ,.9
6 1 .3
j
6 1 ,.2
2 6 .1
7 1 .4
8,.0
5 ..3
2 3 .6
2 .7
3 1 ,.9
1
.0
7 ,.4
1 5 .8
43 ,
.3
j
4 1 ..9
2 9 .6
2 9 ,.9
|
1990
1991
j
1992
1993
j
1994
1995
1996
|
1997
6
5
AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1996
Q2 . . .
1
6 ..6
4 ..2
72 .
,7
2 .
.2
3 3 .,2
1
1 8 ..6
1
2 .
,8
2 2 ..6
,4
2 .
2 8 .,3
2 . 1
3 9 .,6
I
j
|
Ql. . .
|
Q2 . . .
1 6 ..8
8 7 .,2
|
89. 1
.
.0
13 .
4 9 ..5
j
5 6 ..3
1 8 ..5
6 .,4
1 1 ,.6
4 8 ,. 1
j
4 4 ..0
2 6 ..7
j
8 ..0
3 .
.9
1 7 .,2
8 4 . 92
.
|
1 0 ..1
6 ..7
2 7 ..4
3 ..2
37 .
.5
|
.4
4.
7 .
.3
17 ,
.8
5 5 ..5
|
46,
.8
3 8 ,.2
j
4 ..6
5 ..0
2 3 ..3
2 ..4
2 9 ..0
j
6 ..1
8 ..5
16 ,
.9
.0
33 ,
j
3 4 ,.7
2 9 .7
1
j
5 ..0
4 ..4
6 ..8
1 3 ,.9
3 6 ,.8
1
3 9 ,.6
2 2 .9
7 ..0
1 4 ,.5
47 ,
.9
|
46,
.4
27 ,
.5
1
j
4 ..1
5 ..4
7 ..0
1 7 ,.6
5 0 ,.1
|
.7
37,
4 1 .2
8 ..4
1 7 ,.4
3 9 ,.2
j
3 7 ,.7
3 2 .6
6 2 .. 4 9
j
8 ..0
3 ..3
23 .
.8
2 ..4
2 4 ..9
1
7 3 .. 8 3
|
9 ..2
6 ..3
1 9 ..7
2 ..7
3 6 ..0
Ql...
1
7 8 .. 8 0
1
7 ..1
5..9
3 0 ..0
7 .
.1
2 8 ..6
Q2...
|
.
70. 30
j
5 ..3
4 ..6
2 9 ..5
5 ..4
2 5 ..6
8 ..9
7 .
,1
,
7 0 . 77
Q4. . .
Q3 . . .
1998
6 ..1
5 .,1
4 ..7
6 4 .. 4 4
Q4. . .
1997
1 1 8 ., 9 6
7 4 ., 7 2
Q3. . .
9
ESTIMATES FROM
T A B L E I.D
THE
QUARTERLY
SAMPLE SURVEY OF
BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE
AVERAGE MATURITY OF
BY
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
PURPOSE OF
LOANS TO
LOANS MADE
FARMERS
(MONTHS)
BY
LOAN
LOAN
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
1
to
9
10
to
24
SIZE OF
($1,000s)
25
to
99
BY
OF
SIZE
BANK
100
and
over
ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY
|
|
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1
I
1
1
|
1
1
1
|
1
8 .0
8 .4
8 .7
.1
7 .5
7 .3
8 .9
9 .2
io .3
9 .9
8 .5
9 .9
8
|
5. 8
1
1
|
5. 5
6. 4
6.8
6. 0
6. 7
6. 1
7. 3
7. 6
8. 7
7. 8
9. 1
1
1
1
1
|
1
1
1
MATURITY OF
1996 Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .
1
1
1997 Ql. . .
Q2 . . .
|
11,
,7
1
03...
Q4 . . .
1
j
11. 0
8. 8
7. 9
|
j
10. 6
10. 4
1998 01...
02...
|
7, 1
.
,8
7,
.4
8,
|
j
16 . 1
5 .2
|
6 .3
7 .7
4 .7
7 .4
8 .8
8 .5
9 .5
9 .6
9 .8
9 .9
11,.3
11,.0
7 .6
7 .6
8 .5
7 .2
7 .5
7 .2
8 .6
8 .3
8 .6
8 .5
7 .6
10,,7
LOANS MADE DURING
21
22
19
18
.0
.8
.8
.7
2 1 .9
2 4 .6
20,.1
30,.4
36,.6
26,.5
29..4
30.,6
FIRST
FULL WEEK
8 .8
12 .1
10 .9
11 .8
6 .4
5 .3
9 .4
9 .4
9 .4
10 .0
9 .2
7,.4
OF
6 .8
7 .5
7 .1
7 .4
7 .4
7 .7
8 .3
8 .5
8 .6
9 .0
8,.6
8,.8
8.0
8.1
9.2
8.3
9.2
8.3
9.7
10.0
11.6
10.8
10.5
11.6
9 .8
9 .3
10 .2
9 .3
11 .9
10 .6
11,. 1
11,.1
13,.5
12,.1
12,.1
12,.4
7
8
7
7
. 1
.3
.7
. 1
4 .9
5 .8
7 .2
7 .4
7,.2
8,.2
7,.3
8,•8
|
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
5
5
8
7
|
.5
.9
.1
.8
4 .7
5 .2
6,.4
6 .4
5 .8
7 .3
,
6,.4
7,.6
8 .8
9 .3
8 .8
8 .2
10,.2
9 .6
10,.1
10,.4
12..6
11..4
12 .
.3
12,.8
S E C O N D M O N T H O F Q U A R T E R ,, A N N U A L R A T E
6 .4
7 .
.4
10.,8
10. 9
6..0
10..0
9. 2
35. 7
28. 0
28. 5
5.,8
5.,3
7.,0
9., 8
8.,2
7 . 1
,
10.7
9.1
9.4
13.,0
11. 2
11. 1
5. 6
6.,7
7 .6
|
j
j
5., 1
6., 1
6. 4
12.. 7
12 .5
11. 1
1
|
14 .6
7 .2
10. 0
13. 5
12. 2
13. 6
5 .3
7 .4
9. 4
11. 1
9. 5
6. 7
8. 5
6. 8
7. 8
6. 3
9.,5
9. 5
8.,4
7. 5
11.8
12.6
10.7
11.0
13. 4
14. 1
10. 9
10. 6
11. 3
9. 1
7. 8
6. 6
|
j
j
j
9. 1
6. 6
7. 6
6. 8
14 .2
15. 5
|
j
34 . 1
32. 1
23. 2
31. 8
1
|
8 .1
7 .8
12. 1
7. 5
9. 9
10. 4
23 .9
33 . 1
8. 2
9. 1
9. 8
13.1
11.3
13. 2
13. 8
9. 5
8. 8
|
j
7. 4
6. 6
6. 8
10. 8
9. 6
13. 4
14. 5
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.E
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE
OTHER
FEEDER
ALL
LIVESTOCK
LOANS
FARM
CURRENT
OPERATING
MACHINERY
AND
EXPENSES
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
BY SIZE
OF BANK
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
EQUIPMENT
1
10
25
100
to
to
to
9
OTHER
24
99
and
over
LARGE
OTHER
,6
9.
9.
,2
10..2
12 . 1
,
ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE
1986
1
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1
j
1
1995
1996
1997
j
9 .5
8 .4
9 .2
10.,8
11,.1
11..4
.7
12 .
9.,9
1 0 .,8
1
|
j
11.,5
,7
9.
9.
,0
12..7
12 .
,4
11.,2
9..3
8,,7
|
j
j
9.
.1
10,.6
10,.2
10,.2
8,.8
8,.6
9.,2
7..1
6..9
7,.3
10,.5
10,.1
10,.0
10,.3
9,.8
9,.9
9..0
7,.8
8,.8
11.,5
12..2
11..2
|
10.,8
11. 2
12., 6
11. 7
11..5
11..7
9..5
10..7
j
.8
12 .
.3
12 .
11.,0
8.,6
8.,1
8..0
10. 4
8.,8
8.. 1
8..4
11..3
9,.3
8..7
8,.6
12..3
10..7
8,,6
6..3
6..2
7,.0
10..2
9..5
9..8
10..0
8,, 6
9..9
10,.3
9 .7
9 .8
8,.8
8 .0
8 .5
9,,6
11..8
11.,3
11..6
j
j
j
11. 9
10. 2
11. 9
12. 4
12.,0
10.,1
8.,8
11..2
12.. 5
11..4
.8
9.
7,
.8
7 .5
7..8
12..0
,4
12.
11.
.6
11.
,7
12.
.8
12.
,5
11., 1
10. 7
10. 9
12. 3
11. 5
10. 2
8. 2
8..0
8.,3
11 .5
10,.6
j
12,.1
10,.7
8,.8
8,.3
12. 2
1 0 .,9
1
j
j
j
|
j
j
j
j
1
j
|
12., 1
10.
,9
9.
.0
6.
.8
6.
.7
7,
.2
11.,3
11.,6
12 .7
12. 3
11. 3
9.,4
8,, 7
8,.8
.0
9,
7 .8
8 .7
10,.4
1 0 .0
10 .0
AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1996
8. 1
8.,6
,7
8.
|
j
9..3
8.,0
8.,9
9..6
7. 9
9.,7
9.,8
9.,9
8.,1
7. 9
|
j
10. 2
10. 2
10..1
9.,9
7..4
7.,4
10., 1
10.,1
9.,8
7..9
8..1
10. 2
j
9. 5
9..6
9.,8
9.,3
8.,0
j
10.,1
10..1
9..7
8,.2
8..0
9. 9
I
j
j
j
9. 2
9..7
9,.7
9..6
10,.0
10,.0
9,.6
9.,8
10..0
10..0
9.,7
9..9
9,.8
9,.9
8.,5
8,. 5
|
j
8..6
8..6
10., 1
j
j
9..8
10.. 1
10.. 1
10,.0
8,.8
8 .6
8,.5
8,.5
10.
,1
10.
,2
10.
,2
10.
.2
9..7
10..0
|
9. 1
9..3
9..4
.2
9.
10,.0
9,.8
8 .9
8 .7
8,.9
8,.6
10..1
10..1
1998
1
1
.1
9,
.2
9,
|
|
9,.6
9,.6
9 .9
9,.8
9,.7
9,.3
8,.0
|
10.
.2
10,.0
8,.3
|
10.
.1
9,.9
9 .8
9 .8
8 .6
9,.5
8 .2
8 .5
9 .9
9 .9
I
04.. .
1997
02.. .
Q3 . . .
1
oi...
02...
03.. .
04.. .
1
01.. .
02.. .
9,.7
9 .9
9..9
8 .6
9.,8
11
E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF B A N K N O N - R E A L - E S T A T E L O A N S TO F A R M E R S
T A B L E I.F
P E R C E N T A G E OF L O A N S M A D E W I T H A F L O A T I N G INTEREST R A T E
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
OTHER
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
12
BY SIZE
OF BANK
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
1
to
9
OTHER
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
LARGE
OTHER
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE
1986
1
5 3 ,.4
6 0 .5
3 4 .8
5 7 .2
3 0 .9
5 0 .6
|
4 0 .6
4 1 .8
4 8 .2
6 3 .7
7 1 .9
1987
4 7 ,.0
1
5 9 ,.5
5 1 .6
6 9 ,.6
6 2 .1
5 5 .5
6 2 .1
j
4 8 ,.5
4 5 ,.6
5 4 .4
6 8 .5
7 7 .6
1988
4 9 ,.9
|
61,
.4
6 5 .3
3 9 .5
6 3 ,.8
5 4 ,.9
6 3 .2
4 9 ,.3
5 1 ,.5
6 0 ,.8
6 7 ,.0
1989
j
6 1 ..0
7 9 .1
5 2 .,6
7 1 ,.4
4 0 ..0
5 9 ,.7
3 2 ,.9
7 3 ,.6
5 0 .. 4
4 9 ,.6
5 8 ,.5
6 9 .1
|
8 3 .6
4 7 ..2
1
1990
j
6 5 ..2
7 6 ,.8
6 1 ..6
6 8 ,.3
4 0 ,.0
5 1 ,.2
5 3 ..6
5 9 ..2
6 6 ..0
6 7 .5
1991
j
6 5 ..1
1
6 9 .4
5 9 ..3
8 1 ,.5
6 9 ..3
6 8 .8
4 0 ,.6
5 0 ,.3
5 2 ..0
5 9 ..0
6 4 ..0
6 7 ,.8
|
70,
.0
1992
1
7 1 .,7
5 6 ..1
7 8 ,.5
6 3 ..5
6 6 ..3
4 7 ..8
7 5 ,.3
j
1993
j
7 6 .,7
8 4 ,.6
7 0 ..0
7 0 ..3
4 8 ..2
7 8 ..1
1994
1
75. 1
8 2 ..9
7 4 ..3
7 2 .,3
5 1 ..6
7 5 ..7
1995
j
73. 8
83 .
.9
7 5 ..9
7 3 ..0
5 3 ..1
7 2 ..2
1996
j
63. 1
5 8 ..1
71. 2
6 7 .,3
3 2 ..9
6 1 ..4
j
6 0 ..6
1997
j
65. 8
6 6 ..4
73. 2
6 7 ..8
4 9 ..9
6 4 ..3
j
6 0 ..1
5 9 ..1
6 1 ,.2
7 8 ,.6
6 1 ..0
6 4 ..5
8 3 ..9
5 8 ..6
j
5 7 ..3
6 0 ..1
1
5 9 ..8
7 0 ..4
8 0 ..2
6 1 .,7
6 3 .,9
7 3 ..6
7 6 ..7
6 1 .,5
6 9 .,1
6 2 ,.2
5 8 .,0
6 8 .,0
6 7 ..0
8 2 ..9
5 5 .,5
8 6 ,.9
5 8 .,9
83,
.7
5 9 .,7
7 9 ,.9
|
6 2 ..3
6 5 ,.4
5 7 .,9
|
71.
.4
57. 9
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER
02...
6 1 .9
8 5 .9
8 2 ,.0
6 2 .4
2 6 .9
5 5 .8
|
5 5 .3
3 4 .8
7 6 ,.3
7 0 .5
3 2 .2
5 6 .5
Q4. . .
1997
|
03...
j
6 4 ,.8
5 7 .0
7 5 ,.1
7 1 ,.0
3 1 ,.2
6 4 .4
|
1
Ql. . .
|
71.
.2
7 2 .6
7 5 ..0
6 7 ,.3
5 2 ..0
7 4 .7
Q2. . .
j
7 5 ..6
6 4 ,.6
6 7 ..1
6 1 ..9
4 5 ..1
|
57.
,2
7 2 ,.2
6 9 .,9
6 9 .,7
4 6 .,9
j
5 8 .,5
5 5 ..4
78. 0
7 3 .,4
5 4 .,5
4 8 ..0
oi...
|
56.
,6
5 9 .,4
56. 6
7 0 .,2
5 8 ..1
02...
1
5 4 .,6
7 6 ..2
60. 1
6 8 .,1
48. 2
6 3 .9
6 9 .2
6 0 .3
1
6 3 .7
5 6 ,.4
6 3 .3
73 ,
.0
4 8 .7
j
5 4 .8
5 6 ,.9
58,
.3
5 6 .2
6 6 ,.7
6 6 .1
|
71,
.1
5 4 .3
5 9 ..8
5 6 ,.3
6 9 ,.2
7 4 ,.7
|
81,
.3
5 8 ..9
6 0 ..1
3 9 ..8
04...
61,
.8
6 2 ,.7
9 2 ..4
03...
1998
|
5 6 ,.3
6 7 ..7
8 7 ,.4
j
8 9 ,.9
5 8 ..8
5 9 .,2
6 2 ..3
6 2 .,4
5 4 ..0
j
6 0 ,.3
5 1 ..9
j
6 1 ..6
5 7 ..7
7 2 ..2
5 4 ..2
j
5 7 ..2
6 0 ..6
4 1 .,2
1
6 0 .,5
5 6 ..7
6 7 .,0
5 2 ..6
1
5 3 ..9
5 9 .,1
3 4 ..9
j
5 8 .,0
5 0 ..5
6 1 .,9
5 1 ..7
1
5 7 .,6
51. 1
Table l.G
Effective
interest
rate
(percent)
All Loans
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS. 1
BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE
Memo:
Perecentage
Distribution of
Number of Loans,
May
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Feb 98
May 98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
4
-
-
11
4
4
-
11
13
14
23
Under 5 percent
-
-
-
5.0 to 5.9
-
-
-
1
6.0 to 6.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
*
*
*
*
3
14
6
3
1
*
7.0 to 7.9
1
-
-
30
18
22
21
14
19
11
14
1
2
8.0 to 8.9
10
-
-
17
23
18
22
11
15
20
31
17
18
9.0 to 9.9
20
-
1
9
17
16
20
35
18
30
30
39
40
10.0 to 1 0 . 9 . . .
27
5
8
22
10
20
4
24
15
21
14
28
26
11.0 to 11.9. . .
23
8
33
8
7
5
2
11
3
9
7
11
12
12.0 to 1 2 . 9 . . .
15
39
39
2
1
1
*
1
1
2
1
2
2
13.0 to 1 3 . 9 . . .
3
34
14
-
-
-
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
14.0 to 14.9 . . .
-
8
5
-
-
-
*
*
*
*
*
15.0 to 15.9 . . .
-
4
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
*
*
*
*
16.0 to 1 6 . 9 . . .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.0 to 17.9 . . .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.0 to 18.9 . . .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
*
-
*
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.
TABLE I.H.I
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 4-8, 1998
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
LI sizes
$1- 9
$10- 24
$25- 49
$50- 99
$100-249
$250 and over
610,867
52,133
20.33
9.56
2.93
109,371
29, 022
9 .95
4 .53
2 .55
176, 274
12, 233
13 .03
6 .71
2 .59
156, 393
4, 767
18 .81
7 .82
2 .66
223, 976
3, 342
23 .48
10 .51
2 .72
291,616
2,027
21.71
11.36
2.77
653,238
742
22.73
10.48
3.25
9.13
0.14
10 .10
0 .08
9 .91
0 .09
9 .95
0 .08
9 .71
0 .09
9.40
0.08
8.25
0.17
9.93
8.27
10 .72
9 .53
10 .50
9 .38
10 .51
9 .29
10 .41
8 .86
9.93
8.84
8.84
7.37
9.57
9.92
9.74
9.53
8.65
8.27
10 .04
10 .31
10 .09
10 .34
9 .06
9 .77
10 .03
10 .23
9 .99
9 .65
8 .99
9 .77
9 .54
10 .20
10 .15
9 .84
9 .72
9 .35
9 .83
10 .06
9 .84
9 .70
8 .76
9 .35
9.54
9.63
9.61
9.15
9.02
8.98
9.29
8.92
8.85
8.15
8.42
7.96
54 .58
78 .43
19 .30
8 .05
56 .88
71 .57
22 .00
0 .22
49 .87
66 .27
21,
.51
2 .38
61 .34
64 .50
23 .30
2 .05
58 .90
59,
.89
21,
.02
0.
.49
65, 15
.
78,
.25
18,
.69
6,
.36
47
92
16
15
6 .42
5,
.54
38 .38
6 .56
10,
.15
32.
.95
3 .40
7 .80
72, 18
.
8,
.61
1,
.04
6,
.98
5,
.66
9,
.10
58,
.81
13,
.96
2,
.95
9.
.52
5,
.90
11, 16
.
53,
.24
8.
,96
6.
.48
14.
,26
8.
.76
6.
,74
53.
.53
13.
,31
6.
.82
,84
10.
7,
.59
8. 10
.
49.
,59
6.
,27
8.
.93
19.
,51
5
1
13
1
16
61
16,
,36
59.
,57
5. 23
84. 72
8. 91
81. 99
10.
,20
81. 08
14. 17
77. 03
19. 59
72. 80
21
32
ALL BANKS
1
2
3
4
5
Amount of loans
Number of loans
Weighted average
Weighted average
Weighted average
(thousands)
1
maturity (months)
repricing interval (months)2
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
93
31
44
46
TABLE I.H.2
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 4-8, 1998
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes
$1-9
$10-24
$25-49
$50-99
$100-249
$250 and over
LARGE FARM LENDERS'
1
2
3
4
5
Amount of loans
Number of loans
Weighted average
Weighted average
Weighted average
(thousands)
1
maturity (months)
repricing interval (months)2
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
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
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
71,375
100
2,:
13 .70
4 .34
3 .03
96,!
510
473
1,13 .76
3 . 17
3 . 17
175,503
1, 193
17.18
5.38
3.19
526,282
607
7.90
3.06
3.46
9 .92
0 .09
9 .78
0 .07
9 .52
0 . 10
9.30
0.13
8.22
0.18
10 . 64
9 .46
10 .52
9 .31
10 .43
9 .11
9.93
8.77
8.84
7.25
9.30
9.23
9.52
9.22
8.99
8.25
9 . 66
9 .67
10 .15
10 .16
9 .31
9 .92
9 .72
9 .91
9 .99
10 .14
9 .05
9 .71
9 .53
9 .36
9 .96
9 .63
9 .97
9 .49
9 .35
9 .24
9 .68
9 .89
9 . 14
9 .21
9.17
9.19
9.48
8.92
8.47
9.17
9.02
8.92
8.85
8.15
9.08
8.00
56 .53
89.
.19
.69
14.
.31
2.
76,
.65
89.
.81
,35
28.
0.
,28
45
72 .
87.
.59
32.
,78
0.
,37
79. 01
85. 13
31.
,11
0. 79
83.
.63
,
83. 16
18.
,88
,13
1.
.27
80,
82.
.95
26.
.10
2.
.23
37
93
4
3 13
3 .86
.19
4.
35.
.45
3.
.30
3,
.47
32 .95
3,
,24
5.
.32
73 .
.03
6.
.15
.73
1,
6 .98
6. 18
.
4.
,88
65. 15
,
6.
,54
1.
,24
.52
9,
.25
9.
,57
5.
58. 66
,
,74
5.
,98
1,
14 ,26
,
7.
.66
7. 90
,
.84
54,
,74
6,
3,
.40
.84
10.
.15
5.
8.
.77
52 .92
3.
.09
4 .40
,
.51
19 ,
1.77
1
1 62
16 68
1 81
3 77
61
10.
.27
53.
.44
.80
5.
82 ,
.36
7 . 87
80,
.31
,87
8,
77 ,
,66
,
11. 39
.
73. 18
.
13 , 53
73 .82
9 78
34
970,244
19,827
10.76
3.60
3.30
37,907
io,:
115
8 .79
2 . 12
2 .92
8.84
0.20
10 .07
0 . 10
9.58
7.96
62,667
339
4,:
10 . 64
3 . 88
2 . 93
10 .12
8 .84
TABLE I.H.3
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 4-8, 1998
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
$10- 24
640, 623
32,306
34 .49
18 .47
2 .36
71,464
18,906
10 .56
5 .79
2 .35
113, 607
7, 894
14 .30
8 .25
2 .38
9 .57
0 .20
10 .11
0 .09
10 .25
8 .50
10 .75
9 .58
9 .72
10 .49
10 .02
9 . 66
8 .57
8 .48
10
10
10
10
8
9
51
62
26
16
46
61
18
0
$25- 49
99
i
in
$1- 9
o
.1 sizes
$ 1 0 0 - 249
$250 and over
OTHER BANKS 7
1
2
3
4
5
Amount of loans
Number of loans
Weighted average
Weighted average
Weighted average
(thousands)
maturity (months)1
repricing interval (months) 2
risk rating 3
6 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 4
Standard error 5
7
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
.64
.13
.27
.74
85,018
2, 667
22 .94
10 .67
2 .35
127,466
1, 869
30 .67
16 .03
2 .32
116,113
835
28 .41
20 .44
2 .16
126,956
135
83.00
40.66
2.54
10 .10
0 .13
9 .85
0 .16
9 .55
0 .30
8.36
0.13
10 .50
9 .39
10 .70
9 .50
10 .69
9 .06
9 .96
9 .05
8.27
8.27
.23
.51
.06
.39
.73
.61
10 .23
10 .31
9 .99
9 .55
8 . 97
9 . 87
9 .58
10 .45
10 .35
9 .93
9 .67
9 .15
10 . 13
10 . 91
9 .97
9 .65
8 .65
9 .85
9 .80
10 .46
9 .82
9 .25
9 .25
8 .22
9.38
.40
.90
.63
.18
37
54
15
3
46 .52
47 .18
16 .75
3 . 11
40
42
22
11
.17
.28
.64
.48
42
71
7
73
.29
.13
.49
.93
90.78
90.78
67.61
23.17
9 .91
0 . 12
.42
.50
.30
.50
8.27
6.44
10 .29
7 .60
42 .80
11..50
20,.26
32,,95
3 .48
,
9,
.12
71..73
9.
,92
,67
0.
6.
,98
5 .37
11 .43
55 .31
18 .05
3 .90
9 .52
3 .08
15 .85
48 .70
11 .66
10 .26
14 .26
9 .59
5 .86
52 .54
18 .29
9 .41
10 .84
11
7
44
11
15
19
.28
.10
.56
.08
.77
.51
67.61
61.68
25.,58
68.,85
4. 93
85. 97
9 .49
82 .92
11 .32
83 .96
16 .27
79 .94
28 .74
71 .26
67.61
23.17
TABLE I.H.4
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 4-8, 1998
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All
Minimal
Low
168,488
6,922
17,
.49
9.
.93
1.
.00
177,183
11,957
19 .62
6 .97
2 .00
Moderate
Acceptable
629,283
17,717
27,
.55
14 .23
,
3 .00
263,053
4,741
.17
9.
.74
3.
4.
.00
Special
Not Rated
Not Reported
ALL BANKS
1
2
3
4
5
Amount of loans
Number of loans
Weighted average
Weighted average
Weighted average
(thousands)
maturity (months)1
repricing interval (months)2
risk rating 3
6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)
Standard error 5
7
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
4
610,867
52,133
20 .33
9 .56
2 .93
77,811
1,328
21 .28
1 .32
5 .00
20,905
656
13 . 14
0 .43
-
274,145
8,811
16.58
8.89
-
9 .13
0 .14
9.
.42
0.
.10
9 .69
0 .08
8 .88
.26
0,
8.
.77
0,
.21
9 .81
0 .20
9 .70
0 .56
9 .93
8 .27
.84
9,
8.
.85
10 .15
9 .19
9 .92
8 .22
9.
.28
7.
.90
10 .46
8 .84
9 .92
8 .84
9.95
8.84
9 .57
10 .08
9 .54
9 .28
9 .04
8 .82
.49
9,
10 .13
9 .75
9 .96
9 .22
9 .46
9 .55
10 .26
9 .95
9 .48
8 .43
7 .86
9 .63
8 .95
9 .69
10 .03
8 .20
8 .35
.41
9,
.04
9,
10,
.20
10,
.39
9 .91
9 .39
9 .81
9 .57
9 .71
9 .96
9 .87
9 .76
9 .43
9 .48
8 .99
8 .64
9.92
9.74
9.53
8.65
8.27
9.30
54 .58
78 .43
19 .30
8 .05
58 .08
60 .97
19 .01
0 .63
61 .88
75 .16
25 .22
0 .06
50 .40
82 .74
25 .56
19 .45
46 .05
87 .58
6 .27
0 .83
66 .81
85 .12
9 . 13
4 .96
96 .39
93 .22
1 .20
58.86
69.55
18.02
6 .42
5 .54
38 .38
6 .56
10 .15
32 .95
30 .04
5 .29
38 . 13
4 .39
18 .48
3 .68
10 . 61
8 . 11
58 .40
4 .86
9 .57
8 .45
3 .55
4 .48
30 .46
7 .47
16 .52
37 .52
0 .35
2 . 66
29 .21
0 . 69
1 .93
65 .17
1 .95
3 .81
48 .50
2 .05
2 .08
41 .60
44 .09
6 .80
85 .90
0 .73
22 .73
6 .57
9.65
46.06
14.27
16 .36
59 .57
17 .30
77 .89
12 .92
78 .46
27 .99
45 .95
6 .05
33 .82
14 .93
51 .01
2 .36
93 .86
2.67
91.90
-
9 .72
-
9.28
0.16
-
-
24.92
Footnotes are at the end of table I.H
17
18
TABLE I.H.5
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 4-8, 1998
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All
LARGE
1
2
3
4
5
FARM
Amount of loans
Number of loans
Weighted average
Weighted average
Weighted average
Low
Moderate
Acceptable
Special
Not Rated
Not Reported
LENDERS7
(thousands)
maturity (months)1
repricing interval (months)2
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
Minimal
970,244
19,827
10.76
3.60
3.30
27,272
1,140
33.35
12.34
1.00
73,467
3,392
10.61
3.
.94
.00
2.
390,962
8,084
11.03
4.98
3.00
239,089
2,875
8.40
2.95
4.00
63,327
938
6.26
03
00
19,402
426
13.54
0.18
156,725
2,972
11.09
0.90
8.84
0.20
8.78
0.13
,44
,15
8.68
0.33
8.58
0.22
84
28
9. 67
0.77
8.87
0.32
9 .58
7 .96
9 .24
8 .26
9 .96
8 .84
9 .65
7 .25
8 .97
7 .90
10 .77
8 .84
9 .92
8 .84
9
8
8 .80
10 .01
9 .03
8 .61
8 .58
8 .16
9 .38
10,
.03
.38
9,
9 .89
9,
.74
.41
9,
9 .29
9 .34
9 .77
9 . 12
9 .21
7 .81
9 .28
8 .94
9 .27
10 .58
8 .20
8 .34
9 .81
8 .89
10,
.46
10 .39
9 . 91
9 .42
10 . 12
9 .17
9 .07
8 .88
8, 85
.
8,
.58
9
9
9
8
8
9
56 .53
89 . 19
14,
.69
2,
.31
49.
,93
40. 18
,
26.
,96
3.
,86
73 ,
.11
88 .38
38,
.12
21,
.41
44,
.01
89,
.14
16,
.16
0.
.56
44,
.79
90,
.61
3,
.56
1.
.43
60,
.20
84.
.95
7,
.64
99.
.08
98.
,86
1.
,29
3,
,86
4 , 19
35.
,45
3,
.30
3.
,47
32.
,95
14 .
21
3.
,21
38. 33
8. 58
23. 98
3. 68
18,
.79
3,
.28
55.
.24
3.
.72
3 ,85
.
8.
,45
4.
.45
2.
.36
.69
32.
5.
,65
3.
,88
37.
,52
0.
.24
2.
.91
23.
.12
0.
.26
2.
.12
65.
,17
2,
.40
4,
.33
37.
.99
2.
.52
2.
.56
41.
.60
1.
.63
7.
,32
85.
.60
13. 48
12. 77
6. 57
10. 27
53.
,44
22. 51
70. 94
8.
,47
79.
,23
17.
,59
,89
44.
4.
,92
29.
,04
7.
,19
51.
.47
2. 55
93. 38
9 .57
9 . 68
-
9 .72
92
96
19
10
44
24
1
92
52
22
99
25
72
26
TABLE II.C
ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING
ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUAL
TOTAL
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
ANNUAL
TOTAL
01
Q2
Q3
Q4
1991
105
12
25
36
32
0.32
0. 0 4
0. 0 8
0. 1 0
0. 09
1992
82
14
20
29
18
0.24
0 ., 0 4
0 .. 0 6
0 ., 0 8
0 ., 0 5
0.15
0 ., 0 2
0 ,. 0 5
0 .. 0 1
0 .. 0 7
1993
54
7
16
5
26
1994
69
10
11
15
33
0.19
0 .. 0 3
0,. 0 3
0 ,. 0 4
0 ,. 0 8
0.13
- 0 ,. 0 0
0 .. 0 4
0 ,. 0 3
0 ,. 0 6
1995
51
-2
14
13
25
1996
95
16
27
24
30
0.24
0,. 0 4
0,. 0 7
0,. 0 6
0,. 0 7
1997
93
50
0.23
0,. 0 1
0 .05
0 .05
0 .11
0 .01
* *
* *
* *
1998
6
19
4
* *
19
* *
* Data are estimates of the national cnarge-orrs 01 tarm non-ieai-ca vauc xucno
--~
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.
T A B L E II.B
ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS
A S P E R C E N T A G E OF O U T S T A N D I N G F A R M P R O D U C T I O N
B I L L I O N S OF D O L L A R S
NONPERFORMING
NONPERFORMING
TOTAL
PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING
TOTAL
PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING
NONACCRUAL
PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING
TOTAL
,7
3.
3.
,1
.2
3.
.8
2.
.2
2,
2 .0
2 .1
2 .4
2 .0
1. 3
1. 3
,3
1.
,0
1.
,8
0,
0,
.9
0,
.9
.2
1,
0 .9
2. 3
1. 9
,9
1.
,8
1.
1,
.4
1,
.1
1.
.1
1 .3
1 .1
0. 5
0. 3
,3
0.
0.
.3
.2
0,
0,
.2
0,
.3
.3
0,
0 .2
1. 9
,
1. 6
1. 6
,5
1.
.2
1.
0,
.9
0,
.9
1,
.0
0 .9
TOTAL
PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING
NONACCRUAL
December 31 of year indicated
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1. 1
1. 0
,1
1.
.0
1.
,8
0,
.8
0.
.8
0.
.0
1,
0 .9
0. 4
0.
.4
.4
0.
0,
.3
,3
0.
.3
0,
.4
0.
0 .5
0 .4
0.
,7
0.
,6
,7
0,
0.
.6
0,
.5
0 .4
0 .4
0 .5
0 .5
0. 1
0.
,1
0.
,1
,1
0.
0,
.1
0.
.1
.1
0,
0,
.1
0 .1
0. 6
,5
0.
0.
.5
0.
.5
0.
.4
0,
.3
0,
.3
0 .4
0 .4
End of quarter
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
2.9
2.3
1.9
2.1
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.9
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.0
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
3.4
2.8
2.3
2.4
1.8
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
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.9
1998 Ql.
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
3.3
2.4
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.3
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
3.2
1.8
1.3
0.4
0.9
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 2 5
delinquent total loans at these banks.
TABLE II.A
LOAN VOLUME,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
TOTAL
LOANS
1989 Q3.
04.
1990 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
04.
1991 Ql.
Q2.
03.
04.
1992 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
1993 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
1994 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
1995 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
1996 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
1997 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
1998 Ql.
24
FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
NONRBAL
ESTATE
LOANS
PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS QUARTER
TOTAL
LOANS
2.1
|
4 8 . 0
1 6 . 5
3 1 . 5
j
4 7 . 4
16.6
3 0 . 8
-1.2
4 6 . 1
16.8
2 9 . 3
-2.8
4 9 . 0
1 7 . 1
3 1 . 9
6 . 4
5 0 . 5
1 7
. 3
3 3 . 2
5 0 . 1
1 7 . 2
3 2 . 9
-0.8
4 9 . 5
- 1 . 3
3 . 1
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
1.2
NONRBAL
ESTATE
LOANS
PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR
TOTAL
LOANS
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
NONRBAL
ESTATE
LOANS
4 . 1
7 . 6
2 . 4
0 . 9
-2.2
4 . 9
8.0
3 . 3
0 . 7
- 4 . 7
4 . 3
5 . 9
3 . 4
8 . 7
4 . 3
5 . 1
3 . 9
2.2
1.1
-0.6
2 . 5
4 . 1
5 . 3
5 . 0
5 . 5
- 0 . 9
5 . 7
3 . 5
6 . 9
9 . 1
1 7 . 5
3 2 . 0
1 . 5
7 . 4
4 . 3
18.1
3 4 . 5
6.2
-2.8
5 2 . 6
3 . 4
7 . 7
7 . 2
5 . 5
1 8 . 3
3 5 . 6
2 . 5
1 . 4
3 . 1
6.6
8.1
5 3 . 9
5 . 8
7 . 1
5 3 . 0
1 8 . 4
3 4 . 6
-1.6
0.6
- 2 . 7
5 . 7
7 . 0
5 . 1
5 1 . 9
1 8 . 9
3 3 . 0
-2.1
2 . 7
- 4 . 6
4 . 9
5 5 . 1
1 9 . 5
3 5 . 6
6.2
3 . 3
7 . 8
4 . 9
5 6 . 2
1 9 . 9
3 6 . 2
1 . 9
1 . 9
1 . 9
4 . 2
8.2
8.1
8.6
5 4 . 5
1 9 . 9
3 4 . 7
- 2 . 9
- 4 . 4
2 . 9
7 . 8
5 2 . 8
20.0
3 2 . 8
- 3 . 2
0 . 5
- 5 . 3
1 . 7
5 . 6
- 0 . 5
5 6 . 0
2 0 . 6
3 5 . 4
6.0
3 . 1
7 . 8
5 . 4
-0.6
5 8 . 0
2 0 . 8
3 7 . 1
3 . 5
1.2
1.6
4 . 9
3 . 2
4 . 7
2 . 4
5 7 . 7
2 0 . 9
3 6 . 8
- 0 . 5
6.2
5 6 . 8
2 1 . 2
3 5 . 5
—1 . 5
61.1
2 1 . 9
3 9 . 2
7 . 6
3 . 2
6 3 . 0
2 2 . 4
4 0 . 6
3 . 1
2.2
6 1 . 3
22.6
3 8 . 7
- 2 . 7
5 9 . 9
2 2 . 9
3 6 . 9
- 2 . 3
6 3 . 5
2 3 . 6
4 0 . 0
6 5 . 3
2 3 . 8
4 1 . 5
2 . 9
6 3 . 7
2 3 . 9
3 9 . 8
- 2 . 5
6 1 . 7
2 4 . 0
3 7 . 7
6 5 . 7
2 4 . 7
4 1 . 0
66.6
2 4 . 9
6 5 . 5
6.1
-0.2
3 . 1
3 . 2
1 . 9
0.2
0.1
-0.8
5 . 8
5 . 0
1.8
- 3 . 4
7 . 6
6 . 4
8 . 3
10.2
9 . 1
6 . 4
1 0 . 7
3 . 6
8 . 7
7 . 5
9 . 3
6.2
8.2
5 . 2
0 . 7
- 4 . 6
1.6
- 4 . 6
2 . 7
1.1
5 . 4
8.2
8.0
4 . 0
7 . 5
2.0
3 . 9
3 . 9
3 . 7
6 . 3
2 . 3
0 . 4
- 4 . 1
3 . 9
5 . 9
2.8
- 3 . 1
0 . 5
- 5 . 3
3 . 1
4 . 8
2.0
6 . 5
2 . 7
8 . 9
3 . 4
4 . 7
2 . 7
4 1 . 6
1 . 3
1 . 5
1 . 9
4 . 7
0 . 3
2 5 . 0
4 0 . 5
-1.6
1.1
6 3 . 8
2 5 . 4
3 8 . 4
-2.6
6 9 . 0
26.2
4 2 . 8
8.2
7 1 . 1
2 7 . 0
4 4 . 2
3 . 0
2 . 9
3 . 1
6.8
6.2
8.1
7 1 . 3
2 7 . 1
4 4 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 7
0.0
8 . 9
8 . 5
9 . 1
7 0 . 1
2 7 . 6
4 2 . 4
- 1 . 7
9 . 8
9 . 0
1 0 . 4
0 . 3
-2.8
2.8
4 . 6
1.8
1 . 4
- 5 . 1
3 . 4
5 . 5
2.0
3 . 3
1 1 . 5
5 . 1
1.8
- 3 . 9
4 . 4
6.0
SECTION II: (continued)
Recent Developments:
Loans outstanding: During the first quarter of 1998, the volume of farm loans. both those secured by farm
real estate and other farm loans, continued to surge relative to the comparable period of the preceeding
year. Indeed, at the end of March 1998, the yearly change in total farm loans was 9.8 percent, a rate of
increase not seen in more than a decade.
Problem loans: Compared with one year earlier, the dollar volume of delinquent farm non-real-estate loans in
March 1998 was unchanged. However, there was a slight uptick in loans that were past due from 1 to 3
months, hinting that some farmers may be beginning to have difficulties meeting their payments. Net chargeoffs of farm non-real-estate loans in the first quarter were quite low. After retreating a bit in 1995 and
1996, the proportion of agricultural banks that reported a level of nonperforming loans that was less than 2
percent of total loans advanced more than 1-1/2 percentage points from the first-quarter 1997 reading.
Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks for the first
quarter of 1998 was 0.3 percent, identical to the first-quarter readings recorded since 1992. The capital
ratio for agricultural banks edged up to 11.1 percent at the close of the first quarter, leaving
agricultural banks a substantial cushion to weather any problems that might arise in the farm sector. The
ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks was 68.9 percent at the end of March 1998.
Failures of agricultural banks: Late in July, as this issue went to press, no agricultural bank had failed in
1998. 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.
22
SECTION II:
SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLES:
Page
Commercial banks:
II.A
II. B
II.C
II.D
II.E
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
volume of farm loans at insured commercial banks
delinquent non - real - estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
net charge-offs of non-real-estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
delinquent real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
net charge-offs of real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
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. In 1991, 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 15.3 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.
Table I.I
Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, (selected quarters)
by USPA Farm Production Region
J2E_
outstanding. Mar. 1998
_CS_
-L2-
_HZ_
VSPA Region
_AL_
DL
_£
£_
JEA-
2 .7
12 .2
25 .9
17 .5
7 .4
4 .2
5 .0
9 .5
5 .9
9 .6
Sample Coverage.
May 1998 survey (%)
25 .8
2 .6
11 .1
13 .6
17 .4
7 .8
6 .8
6 .8
24 .5
74 .0
Avg. Loan Size.
Mav 1998 survev ($1000)
59 .8
28 .6
27 .7
18 .3
26 .4
29 .6
18 .7
36 .5
42 .2
123 .0
Survev date:
Weighted Averaee Interest Rate During. Samole 1
tfeek
Nov. 1992
7 .9
(.28)
9 2
( 18)
8 .3
(.25)
7 .9
(.56)
5 .5
(1 .38)
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)
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)
7 9
(.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
8 7
( 28)
9 0
( 26)
8 0
( 17)
8 .1
(.23)
6, 1
.
(,
.79)
8.
.2
(.
.29)
7 .8
,
(,
.60)
8 .4
(.36)
7 .5
(.
.34)
7 .2
,
(,
.26)
Aug. 1994
9 1
( 19)
8 6
( 41)
8 3
( 40)
8 .6
(.19)
6.
.5
(.
.83)
8.
.6
(.
.11)
7 .6
.
(.
.72)
8 .6
(.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)
8,
.0
(,
.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
10 . 1
(. 31) (.22)
•
9.
.4
(.
.39)
9.
.5
(.
.29)
Nov. 1995
10.
.8
(.
.32)
10.
.3
(.
.21)
8.
.3
(.
.93)
9.
.6
(,
.26)
7 .9
.
(.
.80)
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)
.7
8.
(.
.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)
.0
9.
(.
.55)
7 .5
.
(.
.82)
9.
.3
(.
,57)
9.
.9
(.
,40)
9, 1
.
(.
.25)
.0
9.
(.
.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)
1997
9.
,4
(.43)
10. 1
.
(.
.17)
9.
.2
(.
,22)
9.
.5
(.
.27)
8.
,3
(.62)
9. 9
(.
,66)
10. 2
(.
.29)
9.
.7
(,
.23)
10.
.0
(.
.29)
8.
.7
(.
.51)
Aug. 1997
9. 3
(.47)
9.
.8
(. 18)
9.
.6
(.
.14)
.9
9.
(.
.08)
8.
.5
(.26)
10. 1
.
(.24)
9.
,9
(. 12)
9,
.7
(.
.27)
10.
.5
(.
.23)
.7
8.
(.
.34)
Nov. 1997
9. 2
(.41)
9.
.5
(.
,17)
9.
,3
(.
.10)
.8
9.
(.
.08)
7 ,5
.
(.60)
9. 8
(. 11)
9. 4
(.05)
9,
.4
(,
.38)
10.
.1
(.
.57)
8.
.8
(.
.31)
Feb. 1998
9.
.3
(.
.51)
9.
,0
(.
,27)
9.
.4
(.
.17)
9.
.8
(.
.09)
7 ,3
.
(.77)
10. 0
(.48)
10. 3
(. 13)
9,
.8
(.
.30)
9.
.6
(.
.43)
8.
.5
(. 19)
.
May
May
May
May
May
10.
.1
10.
.3
(. 25) (.
•
.32)
1998
9.
.2
9.
.7
9.
.4
.2
9.
7.
6
10. 2
10. 3
9,
.6
.8
9.
8.
.4
(,
(,
(,
(,
(,,34)
(,
(,
(,30) (,,42) (,,39)
,49)
,24)
,15)
,10)
,54)
,12)
NS is Northeast, LS is Lake States. CB is Cornbelt. NP is Northern Plains. AP is Appalachia, SE is
Southeast, DL is Delta States, SP is Southern Plains. MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific.
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.
°
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.H.6
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 4-8, 1998
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All
Minimal
Low
Moderate
Acceptable
640,'
623
32,306
34 .49
9 .46
1 .00
141,:
216
5, 782
14 .35
9 .10
2 .00
103, 715
8,565
25 .96
29 .09
3 .00
238, 321
9, 633
53 .95
11 .48
4 .00
23, 964
1, 866
16 .44
2 .57
5 .00
9 .57
0 .20
9 .55
0 .10
9 .88
0 .06
9 .22
0 .43
10 .66
0 .41
10 .25
8 .50
9 .96
9 .38
10 .39
9 .38
10 .38
8 .27
12 .21
9 .58
9 .54
10 .09
9 .65
9 .59
9 .16
9 .53
10 .03
10 . 16
9 .99
9 .99
9 .12
9 .58
10 .83
9 .60
9 .47
10 .74
9 .74
10 .90
9 .75
Special
Not Rated
Not Reported
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
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
-
10 .33
9 .79
8 .30
8 .12
-
-
-
14, 484
391
85 .56
3 .64
9 . 68
0 .82
10 .36
9 .38
-
10 .08
9 .96
-
10 .42
7 .67
95 .74
85 .88
15 .62
61 .60
20 .42
1,263 .68
-
1, 503
230
8 .02
19 .32
117, 420
5, 839
23 . 89
2 . 36
26 .27
10 .07
9 . 82
0 .23
9 .96
9 . 96
10 .25
9 .06
9 .86
10 . 82
9 .86
9 .53
9 .15
9 .93
10 .49
10 .02
9 . 66
8 . 57
8 .48
51 .64
14 .20
33 .47
62 . 13
10 .29
16 .74
25 .58
59 .66
64 .98
17 .47
0 .07
53 .92
65 .80
16 .08
102 .86
60 .89
72 .25
41 .00
0 .18
58 .62
57 .41
33 .39
33 .09
5 .69
38 .10
3 .58
17 .41
32 .95
4 .82
11 .54
60 .64
5 .66
13 .62
3 .68
2 .09
7 .95
26 .79
10 .46
37 .25
8 .45
1 .45
0 .22
89 .94
4 .95
9 .49
37 .52
61 .45
1 .53
94 .48
1 .06
629 .98
89 .79
2,428 .19
48 .62
65 .17
41 .60
6 .57
16 .30
79 .23
16 .07
77 .92
45 .06
47 .68
17 .33
81 .48
48 .78
48 .99
370 .98
100 .00
90 .81
-
7 . 60
42 .80
11 . 50
20 .26
7 . 54
24 .92
68 .85
Footnotes are at the end of table I.H
19
•
# .
•
e
TABLE II.D
e
e
e
#
•
.
,
•
•
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
TOTAL
2. 1
1. 8
1. 5
2. 1
1. 5
,3
1.
NONACCRUAL
PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING
0. 8
0.7
0. 7
1. 0
0. 7
0. 6
1. 3
1. 1
0. 8
1. 0
0. 8
,7
0.
0. 3
0. 2
0. 2
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
1. 0
0. 8
0. 6
0. 6
0. 6
0. 5
1 .5
.7
0,
0,
,8
.2
0,
.6
0.
|
TOTAL
PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING
NONACCRUAL
-December 31 of year indicated1992.,
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 3
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0
0. 1
0, 1
0.
,1
T w # f
T % 9
*
1
!
1
|
|
|
^^-
Q4.
0.3
0.1
0. 2
.0
0.
0.1
|
1
1995 01.
02.
03.
04.
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
,2
0.
,2
0.
,2
0.
0,
.2
0,
.1
0,
.1
.1
0,
0,
.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1 .9
1 .5
1 .4
1 .5
0,
.9
.6
0,
.5
0,
0 .7
.0
1,
0 .9
0 .9
0 .8
0,
.3
.3
0,
0 .3
0.
.2
>
0, 6
.6
0,
0,
.6
0,
|
|
1996 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
.2
0,
.3
0,
0,
.2
0 .2
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2 .1
1 .7
1 .5
1 .5
1 .0
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
|
|
|
|
1997 Ql.
02.
03.
04.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0 .2
0 .2
0 .2
0 .2
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1 .9
1 .4
1 .3
1 .3
1 .0
0 .6
0 .5
0 .6
0 .9
0 .9
0 .8
0 .7
0 .4
0 .3
0 .3
0 .2
0 .5
0
0*
•5
0 •5
|
1998 Ql.
0.5
0.3
0 .2
0 .1
0.1
1.9
1 .1
0 .8
0 .3
0 •5
|
1
5
|
!
|
|
All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.
27
TABLE II.E
NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUAL
TOTAL
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
6
-1
3
1
4
* *
CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING
Q1
Q2
Q3
04
0
-1
-0
-1
-1
-2
1
-1
-0
-1
-0
2
0
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
4
* *
* *
* All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.
ANNUAL
TOTAL
0.03
-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
* *
Q1
02
03
04
0. 002
,004
-0,
-0. 001
,004
-0,
.004
-0.
.006
-0,
0.
.003
.004
-0,
-0,
.001
-0,
.003
-0 .001
0.
.008
.002
0,
0.
.006
0.
.003
0.
.005
.015
0.
.003
0,
.007
0,
.009
0,
.013
0.
* *
* *
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 indicated100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
,0
100.
,0
100.
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995,
1996,
1997
65 8
69 6
70 8
76 2
80 6
85 5
83.
,7
.8
81.
84,
,4
25. 1
22. 7
22. 3
18. 9
15. 9
12. 3
,8
13.
15.
,5
13 .
.0
7 .6
6 .4
5 .8
3 .9
2 .8
1 .9
2 .1
2 .3
2 .4
Hi et"r i hi 1" i o t
1
r
UJLdtJ. XiJULXUli /end of
1995 Q2 . . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
||
|
|
j
1. 2
1. 0
0. 7
0. 8
0. 6
0. 2
0. 3
0. 2
0.
,1
0. 2
0. 2
0. 3
0. 1
0. 1
0.
,1
0.
.1
0.
,1
0.
.1
0. 1
0. 0
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 1
0.
.1
0.
.0
t
100.
.0
.0
100,
100 .0
82.1
83 .0
83 .7
15.0
14 .3
13 .8
2.5
2 .3
2 .1
0.2
0 .3
0 .3
0 .1
0 .0
0 .1
0,
.1
0 .1
0 .1
1996 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
100
100
100
100
.0
.0
.0
.0
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
0 .6
0 .5
0 .2
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
100 .0
100 .0
100 .0
100 .0
79 .0
80 .6
81 .7
84 .4
16 .8
15 .8
15 .2
13 .0
3 .7
3 .2
2 .7
2 .4
0 .4
0 .4
0 .2
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
0 .0
0 .1
0 .0
100 .0
80 .6
16 .4
2 .8
0 .1
0 .1
0 .1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1998 Ql. . .
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
TABLE II.O
30
SELECTED MEASURES OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS*
AVERAGE RATE
OF RETURN
TO EQUITY
NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE
OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT
AGRICULTURAL BANKS
ALL BANKS
NEGATIVE
0
TO
4
5
TO
9
AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)
NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS
RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS
15
TO
19
20
TO
24
25
AND
OVER
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
14,
.0
12,
.9
.4
13.
.8
19,
18,
.5
.1
17,
13 .3
.3
14,
.3
14,
.0
4,
.6
2,
,5
2,
5,
,1
4 ,6
3. 3
,4
2,
2, ,6
.2
3,
3.0
1.1
0.9
1.7
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.2
11.0
10.8
10.9
12.6
12.4
11.9
11.3
11.5
11.6
10.0
8.5
8.9
11.5
12.4
12.4
11.6
11.6
11.8
.0
1,
1,
.0
.0
1,
1,
,2
.2
1,
.2
1,
1,
.2
1,
.2
.2
1,
.8
0,
.7
0,
0,
,7
,0
1,
.1
1,
1,
.1
1,
.1
,1
1,
.2
1,
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
10.1
9.9
10.1
10.4
10.8
10.7
11.1
10.9
11.0
.0
9,
.0
9,
9,
.2
9,
,5
10,
.0
9,
.9
10,
.5
10 .6
10 .7
10
TO
14
•percentage distribution1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1
j
1
1
1
|
1
1
|
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.0
4.9
4.1
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.6
7.0
7.5
7.7
5.0
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.9
29.0
33.4
32.2
25.5
27.8
31.3
36.8
33.5
34.3
38.0
37.6
39.2
41.1
40.6
40.2
39.9
41.5
39.5
QUARTERLY
YEAR TO DATE
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
11.3
11.3
0.3
11.1
10.4
10.5
10.5
3.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
11.0
9.0
0.9
0.9
0.2
11.0
10.6
10.5
10.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.8
8.9
11.3
6.1
0.6
0.6
11.6
1.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.1
9.2
11.5
11.6
3.0
3.1
6.2
9.3
6.1
0.6
1.2
0.3
0.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1998 Ql.
11.6
11.8
9.3
1.0
1.2
100.0
3.0
3.2
0.3
6.2
9.0
6.1
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
10.9
10.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
11.0
11.1
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
11.0
10.6
10.7
10.9
10.7
0.3
0.0
0.1
11.1
10.7
1.1
0.3
0.6
0.9
* Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section II; small banks have less than 500 million dollars in assets.
Total primary and secondary capital (items that are available at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets.
Quarterly data in the lower panel are cumulative through the end of the quarter indicated and, for periods of less than a year, are not comparable to
the annual data in the upper panel.
11.0
11.3
TABLE II.H
AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*
DECEMBER 31
U.S.
ST. LOUIS
CHICAGO
ATLANTA
CLEVELAND
MINNEAPOLIS
SAN
FRANCISCO
KANSAS
CITY
MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO
LOANS
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
NUMBER
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS
BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997,
3854
3723
3550
3482
3347
3207
0. 555
0. 582
0. 625
0. 641
0 .658
0. 687
75
67
56
60
55
54
0.643
0.660
0.707
0.717
0.775
0.770
131
130
125
135
126
122
0.607
0.618
0.646
0.647
0.682
0.706
948
912
860
841
814
784
0. 574
0. 600
0. 643
0. 658
0. 681
0. 721
456
432
402
393
384
360
0. 563
0. 590
0. 629
0. 654
0. 666
0. 699
694
669
658
637
619
584
0. 579
0. 615
0. 674
0. 681
0. 698
0.727
1092
1063
1014
981
944
904
0. 533
0. 566
0. 618
0. 634
0. 649
0. 679
384
378
366
359
331
325
0. 422
0. 442
0. 474
0. 499
0. 492
0. 528
61
58
53
55
55
53
0.708
0.733
0.747
0.741
0.734
0.660
16.72
17.04
16.99
15.79
15.41
15.40
1995 Q2 . .
Q3 . .
04..
3488
3617
3482
0 .655
0 .668
0 .641
55
64
60
0.730
0.736
0.717
136
150
135
0.668
0.680
0.647
844
868
841
0, 664
0, 685
.658
0,
397
432
393
.665
0,
0 .692
0 .654
639
652
637
0. 714
0, 717
0,
,681
984
1007
981
0 .637
0 .647
0 .634
361
368
359
.518
0,
0,
.525
0,
.499
52
56
55
0.791
0.763
0.741
17.12
17 .27
15.79
1996 Q1. .
Q2 . .
Q3. .
04. .
3471
3461
3400
3347
0 .639
0 .665
0 .674
0 .658
58
57
58
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
57
54
54
55
0.737
0.778
0.757
0.734
15.46
15.94
15.84
15.41
1997 Q1. .
Q2 . .
Q3 . .
04. .
3336
3323
3274
3207
0 .660
0 . 696
0 .703
0 .687
52
55
54
54
0.780
0.809
0.808
0.770
128
144
139
122
0.706
0.714
0.732
0.706
806
799
795
784
0 .685
0.712
0.730
0 .721
382
383
384
360
0 .662
0.703
0.722
0 .699
611
604
591
584
0 .701
0 .763
0 .749
0 .727
941
922
913
904
0 .644
0 .677
0 .686
0 .679
339
338
325
325
0.499
0 .536
0 .543
0 .528
54
54
52
53
0.722
0.704
0.679
0.660
15.02
15.57
15.64
15.40
3176
0 .689
53
0.782
118
0.719
762
0 .726
355
0 .691
583
0 .731
906
0 .681
325
0 .527
53
0.667
15.28
1998
oi..
* 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.
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
Ql
1987
1988
, ,
1989
1990
1991....
1992
1993
1994
, ,
1995
,,
1996
1997
1998
Q2
Q3
Q4
ANNUAL
TOTAL
22
11
5
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
19
6
7
5
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
12
12
5
6
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
16
7
5
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
69
36
22
17
8
7
5
0
0
2
1
* *
* *
* *
* 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
Page
TABLES:
III.A
III.B
III'c
III .D
III .E
Nonreal estate lending experience
Expected change in non-real-estate loan volume and repayment conditions
Average loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availability
Interest rates
Trends in real estate values and loan volume
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 Citv. 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 nf Minneapolis. M i n n e a p o l i s . 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 655906, Dallas, Texas 75265-5906
The sample is stratified regionally and includes banks at which farm loans are relatively important or
which hold a major portion of bank loans in their region. The sample was enlarged in the first quarter of
1985 and was redrawn in the second quarter of 1989. The results for the most recent quarter were based on the
responses from about 200 respondents.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Richmond, Virginia 23261
^ ,
The number of agricultural banks in this district is much smaller than those of the other districts. When
the survey was initiated in 1975, the sample consisted of 43 banks of all sizes; banks with larger amounts of
farm loans were sampled more heavily. More recently, the sample has consisted of about 30 banks, roughly
three-fourths of which typically respond to the quarterly surveys.
RF.CF.NT DEVELOPMENTS:
Bankers responding to the surveys indicated that the demand for farm loans held up fairly well in early 1998,
and funds seemed to remain adequate. A substantial portion of the banks in the Chicago and Kansas City
district surveys reported some deterioration in rates of repayment relative to the rates reported one year
earlier. There also was an apparent pickup in the incidence of renewals and extensions of loans in these two
districts, while banks in the other districts that report seemed to see renewals and extensions about in line
with the first quarter of previous years.
In general, bankers seem a bit less optimistic about the demand for loans this summer than they were at at a
similar point in 1997. For instance, the volume of loans for farm machinery are expected to be a bit weaker
in the Chicago and Richmond districts, while the volume of loans for feeder livestock in the Dallas and
Minneapolis districts is viewed as weakening a bit. Of course, these indicators are quite noisy from quarter
to quarter, so one shouldn't read too much into the latest observation.
In all the Federal Reserve districts that report, the ratio of loans to deposits has been quite high by
historical standards for the past several years. Nevertheless, most bankers seem more or less comfortable
with the upward movement in the level of loans relative to deposits--few report either that the ratio is
higher than desired or that they have adjusted their loan growth by, for example. refusing a loan because of a
lack of funds or referring a farm loan to another lender.
Reported rates of interest on farm loans edged down slightly in the first quarter of 1998 in most districts
that report, and rates that are reported in these surveys have remained little changed since early 1996.
The year-over-year rate of increase in the price for agricultural land was 10 percent in the Chicago district,
as demand seemed to remain fairly strong for the premium farmland that is common there. Prices for farmland
edged down in the much-smaller Richmond survey, after rising sharply in that district for much of 1997.
Prices picked up through the first quarter in the other districts that report as well, and the average across
all districts looks to be around 8 percent or so.
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)
LOWER
III.A1
1996 Q l . . .
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
|1
III.A2
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
HIGHER
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
15
17
17
14
44
49
45
50
41
34
38
36
6
11
11
9
62
65
65
71
31
24
24
19
13
13
7
24
57
66
74
58
30
21
19
18
29
23
23
19
56
62
69
61
15
16
8
21
0
1
1
0
91
89
92
90
9
10
7
10
46
50
47
52
44
42
42
34
14
17
17
11
62
68
69
69
24
14
14
20
15
17
15
19
66
72
77
68
19
11
8
14
14
13
10
14
69
69
77
72
17
18
13
14
0
1
0
1
92
89
92
90
8
10
8
9
a
49
42
12
64
24
27
64
9
8
64
29
1
89
11
|1
|
I
1
|1
TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
18
15
14
11
1997 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3 • . •
Q4. . .
I1
III.A3
56
54
60
64
26
30
26
26
10
16
16
12
69
66
67
71
21
19
16
17
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
0
1
79
78
84
87
20
22
16
13
8
9
6
6
1996 Q l . . .
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
1998 Q l . . .
LOWER
HIGHER
COLLATERAL REQUIRED
10
8
11
14
1
1
|
1
|
1
1997 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4...
1998 Q l . . .
SAME
RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS
LOAN REPAYMENT RATE
FUND AVAILABILITY
DEMAND FOR LOANS
64
57
61
60
28
34
33
34
9
19
21
16
72
67
67
72
19
14
12
13
10
10
7
13
69
76
75
76
21
14
18
12
16
13
15
9
74
78
79
79
10
9
7
12
0
1
1
0
88
89
91
92
12
10
8
8
5
69
25
12
68
20
15
76
9
6
79
15
0
91
9
|
1
|1
1
1
ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX )
1996 Q l . . .
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
18
26
24
21
51
42
44
50
31
32
32
28
5
7
8
7
73
77
75
74
22
16
16
19
49
59
44
31
45
39
47
53
6
2
9
17
7
2
8
10
41
38
48
51
52
60
44
40
0
0
1
0
66
61
65
73
34
39
34
27
1997 Q l . . .
Q2.. •
Q3...
Q4...
17
18
15
16
55
54
57
58
28
29
28
26
4
4
3
3
76
69
80
74
21
27
17
24
29
13
16
21
56
71
67
60
16
16
17
19
14
16
14
15
59
66
71
64
27
17
15
21
0
1
0
0
74
79
88
82
26
20
12
18
14
63
24
3
76
21
17
70
13
14
68
17
2
85
13
1998 Q l . . .
1
I
|
1
1
|1
1
35
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)
LOWER
III ,A4
1996 01.
Q2.
03.
04.
1997 Ql.
02.
Q3.
04. •
1998 Ql.
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME! HIGHER
***
***
***
**
*
11
12
18
13
57
65
61
67
32
23
21
20
46
37
19
34
37
48
69
45
17
14
12
21
15
15
15
17
49
54
68
64
36
31
31
19
4
1
1
0
76
75
81
85
20
24
18
15
***
***
•
1
1
III .AS
1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
04. •
SAME
***
**
*
***
*#
*
***
**
*
***
***
***
***
***
10
23
23
15
67
57
65
58
23
20
12
27
46
33
31
24
47
59
61
58
7
8
8
18
10
5
1
12
57
63
72
70
33
32
18
18
0
0
1
0
75
80
81
82
25
20
18
18
***
***
***
13
59
28
35
54
11
4
64
32
o
77
23
***
1998 Ql.
LOWER
HIGHER
NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI* )
***
***
***
***
..
1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
04. •
SAME
COLLATERAL REQUIRED
RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS
LOAN REPAYMENT RATE
FUND AVAILABILITY
DEMAND FOR LOANS
36
|
1
|
1
1
|
1
FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV* )
•
14
12
12
10
71
71
77
76
14
17
12
14
0
3
12
3
81
71
67
85
19
26
22
12
14
17
17
5
81
78
72
78
5
5
12
17
5
3
13
32
75
76
68
56
20
21
18
12
0
0
0
2
90
83
85
93
10
17
15
5
•
9
11
15
13
77
77
73
70
15
11
12
18
4
9
2
5
77
68
76
60
19
23
22
35
0
2
7
18
88
93
88
78
13
5
5
5
13
16
10
13
81
80
85
70
6
5
5
18
0
2
0
0
94
91
83
85
6
7
17
15
8
73
20
o
73
28
io
88
3
8
80
13
3
85
13
1
1
1
1
1
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE XII.B
FAHM
{jONREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
LOWER SAME
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
HIGHER
AGRICULTURAL BANKS
SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)
ZZZ.B1
17
17
17
12
02...
03...
Q4...
1997 Ql...
02...
03...
04...
|
44
54
55
48
39
29
28
40
59
62
38
27
38
36
52
59
4
2
10
15
23
25
18
22
68
67
72
69
9
8
10
9
36
33
16
15
56
57
50
58
8
10
34
27
14
12
21
8
37
47
50
39
50
41
29
53
10
14
10
12
37
48
39
42
53
38
51
46
8
12
10
9
1996 Ql...
1998 Ql...
LOWER SAME
HZGHER
FARM MACHINERY
OPERATING
CROP STORAGE
DAIRY
FEEDER CATTLE
TOTAL
52
55
61
54
40
33
28
37
28
22
23
24
63
64
65
69
9
13
12
8
20
22
24
24
69
69
69
69
10
9
7
7
19
17
10
12
69
65
59
62
13
18
31
26
8
7
9
5
42
52
59
49
50
41
32
46
9
22
12
11
47
53
52
53
45
25
36
36
11
51
38
33
61
6
22
67
11
13
64
23
7
43
50
17
56
27
III.B2
1
1
1
ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
1996 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4. . .
30
40
19
18
52
44
58
54
18
17
23
27
49
57
31
24
45
36
51
56
6
7
18
20
29
31
20
22
71
67
74
73
1
2
7
5
29
30
24
20
65
56
63
76
6
14
13
5
19
22
18
16
47
42
49
55
34
36
33
30
33
42
25
22
56
50
55
63
11
8
20
15
1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4...
16
15
14
14
58
62
68
62
26
22
18
25
15
14
15
14
57
63
62
69
28
23
24
17
23
19
17
24
71
76
81
72
6
5
2
4
19
9
13
18
74
74
67
68
7
17
21
14
17
15
12
11
54
59
66
57
29
25
22
32
16
12
16
17
63
63
63
67
21
26
21
16
17
62
21
25
67
8
17
71
7
17
77
6
15
63
22
22
58
20
1998 Ql...
1
III.B3
1
1
FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
20
11
11
7
70
73
71
81
10
16
18
12
31
35
29
23
69
63
62
75
0
3
10
3
20
24
21
19
80
71
71
75
0
6
8
6
11
18
13
18
83
68
72
67
6
14
15
14
14
7
10
8
57
58
66
70
29
35
24
22
10
17
14
7
81
60
66
65
10
22
20
28
02...
16
8
14
7
58
80
74
77
26
13
11
17
17
16
21
13
73
81
79
83
10
3
0
4
21
17
19
20
79
80
81
70
0
3
0
10
13
15
20
17
82
76
60
79
5
9
20
3
6
5
20
8
63
80
61
66
31
16
20
26
10
5
29
18
65
75
54
66
25
20
17
16
1998 Ql...
8
75
17
20
76
4
9
87
4
13
81
6
8
74
18
18
70
13
1996 Ql...
02...
Q3. . .
04...
1997 Ql...
03.. .
Q4. . .
1
1
1
1
37
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B (CONTINUED)
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM LOANS DURING NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED WITH NORMAL DEMAND
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
FEEDER LIVESTOCK
LOWER SAME
XII.B*
HIGHER
OTHER INTERMEDIATE
LOWER SAME
FARM REAL ESTATE
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
52
60
51
28
44
35
41
58
4
6
8
15
24
16
17
19
62
68
73
74
14
17
10
7
1997 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
29
32
28
31
56
52
62
63
15
17
10
7
12
12
18
18
77
79
73
75
1998 Q l . . .
38
58
18
72
9
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
FARM MACHINERY
HIGHER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
1
31
28
30
30
50
56
56
60
19
16
14
10
5
9
16
14
64
56
65
72
31
35
19
14
30
24
24
26
54
58
54
57
15
18
22
17
21
28
28
24
|
|
|
I
|
1
11
9
10
7
.
.
.
.
OTHER OPERATING
NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
.
.
•
.
1996 Q l .
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
38
58
61
58
60
21
11
14
16
4
6
7
7
57
64
67
74
39
30
27
19
22
18
25
24
68
75
58
63
10
7
17
14
26
56
18
8
65
27
22
63
15
1
|
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.C
AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
AVERAGE
LOAN-TODEPOSIT
RATIO,
END OF
QUARTER
PERCENT
III.CI
REFUSED OR
REDUCED A
FARM LOAN
BECAUSE OF
A SHORTAGE
OF LOANABLE
FUNDS
LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL
HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED
NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS
NONE
COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
NONE
COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1996 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q3.. .
Q4...
65
66
68
68
56
54
50
48
30
32
33
35
14
14
17
17
1997 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3.. .
Q4...
68
70
70
71
51
47
43
44
32
32
34
36
17
21
23
21
1998 Ql...
69
43
39
18
III.C2
NONBANK AGENCIES
CORRESPONDENT BANKS
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
|
I
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
|
|
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO* , NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
. .
..
..
..
60
62
64
63
77
76
72
74
10
9
9
10
24
26
32
30
3
4
3
2
79
79
84
89
80
79
83
82
8
9
12
10
88
86
83
86
4
5
5
4
65
65
70
71
6
8
12
10
77
78
78
83
17
14
10
8
1997 Ql.. .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
62
65
66
66
78
72
55
51
8
9
8
7
30
34
33
31
1
2
1
1
89
89
72
70
82
82
82
78
11
8
6
7
86
87
87
88
4
5
7
6
69
73
75
73
8
9
6
9
83
82
87
83
9
9
7
8
54
8
27
1
71
78
7
89
4
70
8
82
10
15
11
8
12
80
78
82
78
5
12
9
10
11
7
10
10
70
73
75
75
20
19
16
14
www
www
www
13
12
14
9
83
85
78
84
4
3
8
7
12
12
21
12
74
81
72
80
14
7
6
8
www
18
74
9
17
71
12
1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
1998 Ql...
1
III.C3
66
|
1
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
46
51
52
49
* **
1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
49
52
54
50
1
|
1
(DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX)
ELEVENTH I
1996 Ql...
Q2...
Q3.. .
Q4. . .
1998 Ql. . .
|
1
50
www
www
www
|
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
1
www
www
o
www
I
I
WWW
39
40
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.C (CONTINUED)
AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
AVERAGE
LOAN-TODEPOSIT
RATIO,
END OF
QUARTER
PERCENT
III .C4
AT
LOWER
DESIRED
THAN
DESIRED LEVEL
72
71
73
69
1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4. • »
73
74
72
72
1
III .C5
1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4. •
1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4. •
1998 Ql.
HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED
NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS
73
|
|
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
***
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
* *
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
6
7
7
7
NONE
10
11
12
13
|
1
7
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
***
COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER
NONE
•
53
45
31
39
42
40
56
50
5
15
13
11
0
0
0
0
90
71
75
82
•
72
74
72
73
36
39
45
41
50
49
53
51
14
12
3
8
0
2
2
0
46
35
33
38
63
60
59
61
2
9
6
4
62
4
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
3
8
3
6
34
j
1
51
57
64
56
35
31
35
35
|
I
**
*
***
**
*
***
**
*
13
16
9
6
52
55
58
52
18
13
10
12
58
***
47
51
59
54
14
46
41
14
0
78
72
1
1
|
89
89
88
91
0
2
2
0
11
9
11
7
0
0
0
2
84
80
80
79
0
4
4
0
16
13
14
21
0
4
2
0
85
91
85
87
|
|
j
1
77
82
80
73
5
0
0
0
10
9
15
13
0
0
0
0
83
86
78
74
3
0
0
0
10
14
23
15
5
0
0
10
92
0
8
0
83
3
8
6
1
-•Beginning in 1994, Minneapolis omitted the response "none" for the number of referrals to either correspondent banks or nonbank
agencies. The column that has been added combines responses that formerly would have been reported as either "none" or "low".
COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER
FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, sc. VA, WV*)
72
73
73
71
1
NONBANK AGENCIES
CORRESPONDENT BANKS
NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
1996 Ql.
02.
Q3.
Q4.
1998 Ql.
REFUSED OR
REDUCED A
FARM LOAN
BECAUSE OF
A SHORTAGE
OF LOANABLE
FUNDS
LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
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
HI.Dl
OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS
SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE
INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE
9.6
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.7
9.6
1997 Ql...
Q2.. .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
9.6
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.5
www
www
www
www
8.7
8.8
www
www
www
www
8.8
9.5
I
III.D2
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER
LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
SAME
HIGHER
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
www
WW*
www
www
www
8.8
8.7
8.8
8.8
8.7
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
8.4
TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1996 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4. . .
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
10.0
10.1
10.1
10.0
1998 Ql...
9.8
9.9
SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1996 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
1998 Ql...
LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
9.8
9.3
9.4
9.4
9.3
www
www
www
9.4
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
9.2
41
42
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.D (CONTINUED)
INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS
AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER
COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS
(AVERAGE, PERCENT)
FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D3
OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS
SHORTTERM
NONRBAL
ESTATE
INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE
LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
SHORT-TERM
NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
LOWER
SAME
www
www
www
HIGHER
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)
www
***
www
***
1997 Ql..
Q2.,
Q3. .
Q4. . .
WW*
www
www
www
1998 Ql...
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.4
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
9.3
9.6
9.3
9.4
www
www
www
www
www
10.0
10.0
10.1
9.7
10.0
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
9.9
1996 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3.
Q4.
III.D4
LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
9.8
9.4
www
www
www
www
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.8
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
9.9
www
www
www
ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
1996 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
10.4
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
www
www
www
10.4
10.4
10.5
10.4
10.0
10.1
10.0
9.9
1997 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
10.5
10.6
10.5
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.6
10.6
www
www
www
www
10.4
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.1
10.0
1998 Ql..
10.5
10.5
10.4
www
www
9.7
III.D5
1996 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
9.7
9.7
FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
9.8
9.9
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
www
www
www
www
9.9
9.7
9.7
10.0
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.5
9.9
9.8
www
www
www
www
9.9
9.8
9.9
9.6
9.5
9.6
9.5
9.2
9.4
9.2
10.0
1997 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
10.0
9.8
9.9
9.8
9.8
9.7
1998 Ql...
9.9
9.7
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.E
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
EXPECTED TREND IN FARM
REAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
ALL
Ill .El
DRYLAND
4
1
3
1
www
www
www
1997 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
2
1
2
2
***
1998 Ql...
2
***
www
WWW
www
www
LOWER
UP
SAME
HIGHER
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
0
1
1
6
30
42
35
61
69
57
64
33
12
11
9
16
52
63
58
59
36
26
33
25
www
www
www
www
2
8
2
2
64
64
60
62
34
27
38
36
11
20
12
11
61
63
62
62
29
17
26
27
www
76
15
17
57
26
0
2
3
o
95
86
82
83
5
12
15
17
17
16
10
5
83
75
80
90
0
9
10
5
2
5
5
5
81
77
80
88
17
18
15
8
11
9
13
18
80
80
79
77
9
11
8
5
3
74
23
16
70
14
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
30
38
24
17
58
52
62
69
12
10
14
14
www
www
www
www
www
15
12
10
15
65
72
77
69
19
17
13
16
12
73
15
***
www
***
www
www
10
www
www
|
1
i
o
|
1
FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC , VA, WV*)
1997 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
.
.
.
.
.
•
.
.
16
3
12
5
***
-1
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
-9
-1
11
-13
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
4
4
13
41
www
www
www
***
***
www
***
www
www
j
1
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
19
j
1
1
1
1
1
1
j
ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
1996 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
***
1997 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
***
***
www
***
***
***
STABLE
DOWN
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
1
RANCHLAND
9
11
12
10
www
www
www
www
-3
3
3
-15
1998 Ql. . .
IRRIGATED
9
8
7
10
.
.
.
.
III .S3
DRYLAND
www
www
www
.
.
.
.
1
ALL
www
www
www
www
www
1996 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
1998 Ql. . .
RANCHLAND
SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1996 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. ..
Q4...
III •E2
IRRIGATED
TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
-2
-0
2
1
1
-1
-0
4
3
-1
-0
-1
1
-1
-1
-0
4
www
www
www
www
-2
-3
-0
1
-1
-5
-3
-2
-2
-10
-13
2
3
0
6
-2
2
-3
6
www
www
www
www
3
3
1
3
3
3
5
9
1
4
1
3
I
|
|
I
www
www
www
www
www
8
1
www
6
14
6
I
www
www
0
j
www
1
43
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
III.E4
RANCHLAND
ALL
DRYLAND
IRRIGATED
RANCHLAND
DOWN
STABLE
UP
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
***
***
WWW
-2
0
2
1
-2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
www
www
www
www
1
1
2
2
-0
-0
1
2
3
4
5
6
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
#**
***
***
***
1997 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
3
0
www
www
www
www
5
5
4
5
6
6
6
5
9
9
9
7
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
2
3
3
www
6
7
7
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
|
|
III.E5
***
j
I
|
|
www
www
|
NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MTi, ND, SD, WI*)
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
4
5
4
5
6
4
3
5
2
2
3
4
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
4
2
4
3
6
4
3
3
3
4
2
3
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
www
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
www
www
www
7
6
7
www
www
www
1996 Ql...
Q2...
Q3.. .
Q4...
WWW
1997 Ql...
Q2.. .
Q3...
Q4...
***
1998 Ql...
IRRIGATED
TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NB, NM*, OK, WY)
WWW
1996 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
1998 Ql...
DRYLAND
TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
***
***
***
WWW
WWW
|
***
www
***
***
***
***
WW*
I
I
|
www
www
www
www
