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 1999 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 General Information The Agricultural Finance Databook is a compilation of various data on current developments in agricultural finance. Large portions of the data come from regular surveys conducted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or Federal Reserve Banks. Other portions of the data come from the quarterly call report data of commercial banks or from the reports of other financial institutions involved in agricultural lending. When the current issue went to press, data from the survey of terms of bank lending were available for the second quarter of 1999; the other data generally were available through the first quarter of 1999. Parts or all of the Agricultural Finance Databook may be copied and distributed freely. Any redistribution of selected parts of the Databook should be accompanied by the "contents" pages at the beginning of the corresponding section, together with the front cover identifying the Databook and date of issue, and this page providing subscription information. Remaining questions may be addressed to Nicholas Walraven or Melissa Post at the address shown on the cover. The Databook is furnished on a complimentary basis to college and university teachers, libraries of educational institutions, government departments and agencies, and public libraries. Others should enclose the annual subscription fee of $5.00. New subscriptions to the Databook (including zip code) to: (Statistical Release E.15) may be entered by sending a mailing address Publications Services, Mail Stop 138 Federal Reserve Board Washington, D.C. 20551 Notice of change of address also should be sent to Publications Services. the old address should be included. A copy of the back cover showing 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 Percentage of loans with a Distribution of farm loans Detailed survey results Regional disaggregation of rate floating interest rate.... by effective interest rate survey results 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 21 SOURCES OF DATA: These data on the farm loans of $1000 or more made by commercial banks are derived from quarterly sample surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve System during the first full week of the second month of each quarter. Data obtained from the sample are expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks, which are shown in the following tables. Before August 1989, the farm loan survey was part of a broader survey of the terms of lending by a sample of 348 commercial banks. A subset of 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 1999 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks was a touch below the estimated level of one year earlier, continuing the gradual downward trend in the number of loans that has been evident since roughly 1994. The average amount of loans in the survey also was a bit lower than typical seasonal patterns would suggest, leaving the estimated amount of farm non-real-estate loans considerably below the second-quarter reading in 1998. In the May survey, the average maturity of farm non-real-estate loans jumped to more than 14 months, the highest in the history of the survey and well above the average of about 10 months that has prevailed for most of the 1990s. The increase came mostly for larger loans with a purpose listed as "other", and the terms of these types of loans typically show considerably more variability from survey to survey than other loans. The average effective rate of interest on non-real-estate farm loans rose 60 basis points to 8.8 percent in the May survey, ending a series of declines totalling about 1 percentage point that began in early 1998. The percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats was about 74 percent in May, largely reversing a trend towards fixed-rate arrangements in the survey data that seemed to begin around 1995. While these substantial changes in the terms of farm non-real-estate loans are noteworthy, the terms of loans that are reported in each survey are fairly volatile, so one shouldn't read too much into the results of a single quarter. Consistent with the earlier estimates for maturity of the loans, the weighted average maturity (line 3 of Tables I.H.I through I.H.6) jumped to about 21 months in the May survey. In contrast to the previous estimates, the weighted average repricing interval (line 4 of the tables) remained around 6-1/2 months. The weighted average risk rating was little changed. The percentage of the volume of loans that were to purchase or improve farm real estate (line 23) surged, especially for larger loans, and the proportion of large farm loans that were secured (lines 25 and 26) rose sharply. Both the proportion of loans that were callable by the bank and the proportion of loans carrying a prepayment penalty increased in the May survey. When broken out by the riskiness of the loan (Tables I.H.4 through I.H.6), a bit more than half of the estimated volume of loans was rated either "moderate" or "low". Loans rated as "moderate" risk carried the lowest rate of interest, although the variability of rates within this risk category (line 7) was higher than for most other loans. By farm production region, weighted average rates of interest rose most sharply in the Northeast and Pacific regions--rates were little changed in the other areas. Lf) Chart 1 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Millions, Annual rate Number of non-real-estate farm loans 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 — Four quarter moving average 2.0 1.5 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Thousands of dollars 1.0 50 45 Average size of non-real-estate farm loans 40 35 30 — Four quarter moving 25 20 15 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Billions of dollars, Annual rate Amount of non-real-estate farm loans 10 130 120 110 100 - 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 1999 LO Chart 2 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Months Xverage 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 0 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.A NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS) ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES BY SIZE OF BANK BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,0008) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 0..46 0..43 0..52 0,.49 0,.51 0..54 0..56 0..51 0..57 0..48 0..50 0,.45 0,.27 0,.28 0,.31 0,.35 0,,32 0,.37 0..37 0,.35 0,.36 0 .31 0,.34 0 .33 100 and over LARGE OTHER 0..08 0..07 0..09 0..09 0,, 10 0,.11 0..12 0..12 0..12 0..11 0..11 0..12 0,.20 0..23 0,.36 0,.44 0,.50 0..51 0..55 0..54 0..66 0,.53 0 .46 0 .39 2,.18 1..99 .23 2, .20 2, 2..10 2..18 2..15 1..98 1..83 1,.69 1 .82 1 .71 2,.14 1,.77 1,.66 ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 2..38 2. .21 2..60 2 . 63 2..60 2,.69 2..70 2..53 .49 2, 2,,22 2, .27 2,. 10 0..39 0..29 0..30 0..32 0..35 0..35 0,.36 0..28 0..26 0,.18 0,.19 0,.15 0..13 0..11 0,.20 0..24 0,.23 0..25 0..27 0,.23 0..19 0,.17 0 .20 0,.18 1..54 1..45 1..73 1..69 1..64 1..67 1,.62 1..56 1,.48 1,.38 1,.40 1,.39 0..14 0,.14 0..16 0,.19 0..17 0..18 0..18 0..18 0,. 17 0,.14 0,.15 0,.17 0..19 0..21 0..20 0..19 0..21 0..24 0..27 0..27 0..39 0,.36 0,.33 0,,22 | 1 | | 1 1 | 1 1 .57 1. 1 .42 .67 1. .70 1, 1,.66 1 .67 1 . 65 .55 1. 1 .45 1 .33 1 .32 1,.20 NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1997 Q2... Q3... Q4... 1998 Ql. . . Q2... Q3... Q4. . . 1999 Ql... Q2... 1 1 1 j | 1 1 2..65 2..21 2..05 0,.17 0,.15 0,.23 0,,22 0 .14 0,.21 1,.72 1,.53 1,,23 0.,14 0..14 0.,15 0..40 0 .23 0 .22 1..62 1..34 1..15 0,.57 0,.47 0,.45 0..37 0,.31 0,.33 0.,09 0..09 0..12 1 1 0..51 0,.43 o..38 2,.08 2..51 2,.12 1. .70 0,.19 0..12 0..10 0..17 0,.20 0,.22 0,.16 0..14 1,.29 1,.72 1,.50 1,.05 0..18 0.,22 0.,15 0.,14 0 .22 0,.24 0,.20 0,.20 1,.07 1..44 1..36 0..94 0,.47 0,.58 0..41 0,.36 0,.38 0..37 0..26 0..30 0..16 0..12 0..09 0,,11 1 1 1 1 o..38 o,.47 o..38 o,.33 1,.70 2,.04 1,.74 1,.37 1..93 2..37 0,.20 0..12 0,.18 0,.18 1..17 1,.77 0.,17 0..17 0,.20 0,.14 0..96 1..41 0,.45 0,.51 0..36 0,.34 0.,15 0..10 | 0. .39 o..45 1,.54 1..93 1 7 - ESTIMATES FROM THE .QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.B AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1, 000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE 44.6 13,.9 34.7 1989 1 19 9 1 42 7 29 5 14 1 1 2 ,.1 32.2 1990 1 28 4 1 69 7 22 7 15 7 11,.9 1991 1992 1 31 9 31..2 1 j 61 0 6 8 .2 25 2 15 6 | j 5 3 ,.7 1 4 ,.4 4 8 7 .,7 1 0 0 ,,7 1 3 ,.9 1 4 .,9 4 6 .,6 5 3 9 .,9 1 0 7 ..0 1 3 ,.9 3,.7 3,.7 1 4 .,8 4 5 ..9 4 6 8 ..2 9 7 ..0 1 5 ,.8 1 4 ..9 4 6 .,1 4 9 0 ..3 1 0 6 ..0 15,.8 1 4 ..6 1 4 ..7 1 5 ..0 14..9 1 4 .,8 4 7 ,,0 4 4 ..9 4 8 0 .,7 4 5 1 ..3 1 0 1 ..3 84 . .0 15,.4 1 5 ,.7 4 5 ..2 4 5 ..8 4 5 .,4 5 4 5 .,9 1 1 5 ..0 1 5 ,.4 3 8 5 ,.3 3 5 7 ..0 9 2 ..0 9 5 ..0 1 6 ,.3 18,.1 j 16,.1 7 5 9 ,.0 4 2 .3 4 1 ,.5 2 7 2 .,1 4 6 .,1 108.7 6 16 39..2 31..4 32..4 4 5 .,9 1 4 .,8 15,.9 14 6 1996 1997 1998 1 4 .,7 14..7 3 40 4 9 .7 3,.6 3,.6 3,.6 j 26 1 7 9 .7 6 0 .3 1 6 ,.3 129.3 8 34 33,.9 33..8 14,.9 7 0 ,.0 15,.1 33 1 34..3 8 5 ,.5 3 2 0 ..4 1 j 1 21 8 1994 1995 3 2 0 ..4 4 5 ,.2 94.3 20 8 1993 4 6 ,.5 3,.6 3,,7 1 1 2 6 ,.9 14.,7 1 4 .,8 1 j 1987 1988 23 , . 1 15..2 1 3 ,.9 112.0 j 2 7 ,.6 2 6 ,.7 16..3 18..5 1 7 ,.5 1 5 ,.6 123.6 93.6 j 2 4 ..2 2 6 ,.0 2 6 ..0 16,.8 95.2 97.2 j 2 4 ,.3 18,.2 17,.2 17,.8 2 8 ,.1 3,.7 3,.7 3,.7 | j 3,.8 3 ,7 127.9 AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1997 1998 | 02.. . 03.. . Q4 . . . j Ql. . . | 02.. . 1999 2 4 ,.3 28..3 36,. 1 1 j 3 7 ,.9 1 j 73.2 14,.9 4 5 ,.6 3 5 7 ,.7 67,.9 13,.9 4 5 ,.1 4 4 .2 4 1 9 ,.3 3 9 8 .5 9 1 ,.7 3 .9 1 4 ,.4 1 5 ,.4 1 2 0 ,.5 12,.9 16,.5 I 3 .8 1 5 ,.1 4 5 .8 3 2 0 ,.2 1 0 0 ,.3 2 4 .2 1 4 ,.4 4 6 .6 3 3 5 ,.7 8 0 ,.3 1 6 .0 14,.6 4 4 .0 3 6 6 ,.8 85,.7 1 2 .5 1 5 ,.3 4 4 ,.6 4 2 4 .7 1 2 0 ,.7 2 1 .0 1 3 7 .6 6 3 .4 2 3 .4 1 7 .4 5 1 .9 2 2 ,.2 2 3 ,.0 13,.6 15,.5 1 7 .6 17,.0 106.6 1 j 3 .7 3 .7 3 9 ,.5 2 9 ,. 6 16,.1 1 7 .8 160.5 | 2 7 .6 3 7 .7 2 9 ,.6 2 3 ,.3 3 9 .6 130.7 2 8 ,.0 4 3 ,.4 2 1 ,.0 17,.2 2 4 .5 107.4 3 0 .4 17,.9 14,.4 2 0 .9 115.8 j 3 .7 3 .5 | 3 .9 03.. . j 2 5 ,.6 04.. . I 40..4 j 5 0 .7 2 9 .3 18,.9 2 6 .9 161.7 Ql. . . 1 | 46..6 2 6 ,.1 | 3 2 .7 2 1 .9 219.2 | 3 .7 1 5 ,.5 4 7 .9 4 1 2 ,.6 3 0 .2 2 6 .9 2 1 ,.2 2 5 ,.6 | 2 0 ,.5 5 2 .4 66.3 | 3 .8 1 4 ,.5 4 6 .4 3 1 4 ,.6 02.. . 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 6..8 6..4 7.. 7 7..3 7..6 8..0 8,.3 7 .4 , 8,.3 7 .1 , 7,.4 6,.7 12..6 12..9 14..4 15..9 15..1 16..8 17..1 16..5 16..0 13 . .9 15..8 14..9 24,.5 23 , .7 23 , .4 45,.3 54,.0 .8 52 , 61 .0 56 .0 54 .4 61 .3 43 .3 41 .9 17..1 15..9 19..6 44..2 53..7 49..4 58..8 55..1 55..3 61,.2 41,.9 37,.0 32..5 32..3 32..0 30,.5 29,.1 34,.3 33..8 30..6 28..8 26,.1 29 .6 31,.1 ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 | 1 | | j j 13 . .2 10..0 12..9 22,.0 21..4 23 , .6 28,.7 16,.8 12,.7 10,. 6 8,.0 6,.1 49..6 48..2 51..6 74..7 82 . .8 83..7 92..6 85..7 84..1 87 , .3 71..4 68,.0 3..4 4..6 6..0 5..5 5,.8 6,.7 6,.2 6,.4 5,.2 4,.0 5,.3 4,.4 22,.5 24..3 24..3 26,.6 25,.5 24 .6 24 .7 25 .4 27,.3 35,.9 23,.6 25 .2 2..3 1..9 2..0 2,.3 2,.5 2,.9 2, .5 3 .2 , 2,.7 2,.4 2 .7 4 .9 8..3 7..4 6..4 18..3 27,.6 26,.0 30,.6 33 , .9 36,.1 34 .5 31,.9 27,.5 1 | | | j j 1 5..7 5. .2 6. .1 6..1 6..1 6, .2 6,.1 5,.8 5,.4 5,.0 5,.0 4,.5 AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1997 Q2... Q3... Q4... | 1998 Ql. . . Q2... Q3... Q4. . . 1 1999 Ql... Q2... j 64 .44 62,,49 73,.83 | j 4,.6 8,.0 9,.2 5..0 3..3 6..3 23..3 23,.8 19,.7 2 .4 2 .4 2 .7 29..0 24,•9 36,.0 5..9 4..6 2..9 4..1 30..0 29..5 21..6 19.. 7 7 .1 5 .4 3 .2 , 3 .8 , 28..6 25..6 23..5 32..3 4..8 3.,8 30..1 36..4 3,.7 8,.7 44..6 9. 5 1 j 1 j 78,.80 70..30 54..29 68..73 j 7..1 5..3 3..1 8..8 1 j 89..86 61..85 1 j 6.,7 3..5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 6..1 5..0 4..4 8..5 6.,8 7..0 16..9 13..9 14..5 33,.0 36,.8 47,.9 34.,1 39..6 46,.4 29 .7 22 .9 27,.5 4..1 5..4 4..8 3. .6 7..0 8..4 6..0 5..5 17..6 17..4 11..5 13 . .2 50..1 39..2 32..0 46..4 37,.7 37..7 32..5 40..0 41..2 32..6 21..8 28,.7 3..6 5..4 7..0 7..4 17..4 16..0 61..9 33 . .0 53..9 28..3 36..0 33..5 9 •ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.D AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE (MONTHS) BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1, 000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER 1 to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY 7 7 6 22. 8 12,.1 7.,5 8.,1 9..3 8,.3 | 5..9 9,.3 8 7 5 5 6 4 7 1988 4 7 8 5 19. 8 7.,1 1989 8 1 6 8 7 4 7 2 18. 7 10,.9 11,.8 9..2 8.,3 10..2 9..3 7..7 7..1 | j 8.,1 7.,8 8..2 1990 1991 1992 7 5 6 0 6. 7 6. 1 8 8 8 5 7 7 .3 . 8..9 21. 9 24. 6 20. 1 6,.4 5..3 9,.4 9.,2 8.,3 9.,7 11.,9 10.,6 11..1 | | 4..7 5.,2 10..2 9,,6 7..2 | 6..4 10..1 1993 1994 9..2 10,.3 7. 3 7.,6 8. 3 8.,6 30. 4 36. 6 9,.4 9,.4 7.,4 7.,7 8.,3 8.,5 4..9 5..8 9.-5 9..6 9.,8 7. 2 8.,6 11.,1 8.,6 10.,0 11.,6 7..4 7,.2 | j 6.,4 5..8 10..4 1 2 ,.6 j 7.,3 1 1 ,.4 j 6..4 12..3 j 7..6 12,.8 j 6,.8 13,.2 | j 15,.5 1 0 .8 9 .6 1 1987 8 4 1 5 7.,4 13..5 1995 9,.9 8. 5 26. 5 10,.0 9.,0 10.,8 12..1 8,.5 8.,7 7. 8 9.,9 1996 1 1 ,.3 7.,6 29. 4 9,.2 8.,6 10.,5 12..1 1997 9 .9 9.,1 1 1 ,.0 1 0 .,7 30. 6 7,.4 8.,8 11,.6 12,.4 8,.2 7,,3 8,.8 8.,0 10,.3 9. 9 2 7 .,5 6,.8 8..8 11,.3 12 , .5 8,.7 | 1998 9,.8 1 1 MATURITY 1997 Q2.. . 03... 04... 1998 1999 1 1 1 1 .0 8 .8 1 .9 I 7 oi... 02.. . 03... 1 1 0 .6 1 0 .4 9 .6 1 04... | 8,.3 1 oi... I 9 .2 1 02... | 14,.4 1 OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, 9,. 1 7 .8 6 .6 j 6,.6 7,.6 6,.8 13..2 13,.8 9 .5 8 .8 9 .0 | j j 7 .4 , 6,.8 7 .2 , 13,.4 14,.5 13,.2 7,.6 13,.1 11,.3 11,.5 8,.9 7,.5 | 5,.9 11,.7 6 .1 10,.1 11,.9 10,.9 11,.3 14,.7 | j 1 2 .6 9,.9 8,.4 15,.7 7,.0 1 8 .8 9,.9 18,.0 2 1 .,7 8 .2 6,.6 7 .6 9,.1 9,.8 8,.3 3 1 .,5 5 .2 2 8 .,0 1 3 .,9 1 3 .5 9 .4 11,. 1 13.,6 9.,5 6.,7 3 2 .,1 2 3 .,2 3 1 .,8 8., 1 7,,8 7 ,2 . 8.,3 12,. 1 7,.5 13,.1 8,.6 9.,9 10.,4 9.,9 8..9 2 3 .,9 3 3 .,1 8.,3 8.,8 12,.8 11.,2 12,.0 14.,2 RATE 14,.1 10,.9 10,.6 9,.5 8,.4 7,.5 12,.6 7 .8 6 .3 7.,2 5.,3 7.,4 ANNUAL 8,.8 6,.8 10,.7 11,.0 1 1 .0 11,.4 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.E AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN FEEDER LIVESTOCK ALL LOANS OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE 1 0 ,.6 10,.7 10,.2 10.,8 11,.5 9.,5 11..6 11..3 11,.1 9..9 1 1 ,.2 10,.9 11,.9 11.,2 1 1 ,. 7 10.,7 11,.7 11..6 11,.4 10..8 1 j 9,.2 1 0 ,.2 11,.3 1988 1989 12.,5 11.,4 9.,8 1 2 ,.3 1 1 ,.5 12.,4 12,.0 12.,6 11.,7 12..8 12 , .3 12.,3 10.,7 12.,8 12..5 12..7 12,.7 12..2 j 1 2 ,.1 12,.7 12,.3 10.,4 8.,8 11..3 8.,6 11.,5 1 0 ,.9 9,,2 1 0 ,.9 11..0 8,.6 12,.1 10,.7 | 1 0 ,.2 8,.2 12..4 11..2 6..3 9..7 7..1 | j 9.,0 8,.3 8,.6 10.,0 8.,6 1 0 ,.3 9.,1 10..6 8..8 10..2 9..5 6.,2 7.,0 8.,8 10..5 10,.3 6.,9 7 ,3 , 9..0 9,.0 6,.8 6,.7 7,.2 1 1 ,.3 9,.4 8.,1 8,.0 9..3 8..7 8,.8 8,.0 8,.3 9,.3 8.,7 9,.7 8.,0 10.,2 10..1 9,.8 7.,8 10,.4 10,.0 9,.8 9,,7 9.,9 9.,6 9,.8 9,.3 8.,5 8..0 10.,2 10., 1 1 0 ,.0 9..9 9,.9 9,.7 8..8 j 9,.0 7..8 8,.7 8,.4 1 8,.3 10,.0 9,.8 8 .6 8,.9 8 .6 10,. 1 10,.1 10,. 1 | 1987 1990 j 1991 I 1992 1993 1 7.,8 7,.5 7.,8 1994 1995 | 9.,5 1 0 ,.1 1996 | 8.,4 8..8 1997 1998 1 | 9-,2 9.,0 9..6 9..4 8.. 1 8.,4 8,.6 j j | j 11,.6 8,.7 8,.8 AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 1997 1998 02... 03... 04... | j j 01... | 9,, 1 03... Q4.. . j | 9,.2 9,,0 8.,5 oi... Q2... 1 j 8.,2 8. 8 02... 1999 9,.3 9 .4 9,.2 9 .7 9 .7 9 .7 10,.0 10,.0 9 .6 10..0 10..0 9..9 9,.9 9 .8 9 .9 8 .5 8 .5 8 .5 | j 9,.6 9,.6 9,.9 9,.9 9.,8 9.,7 9,.3 8 .0 9,.5 8 .3 | j 9,.7 9,.7 9,.7 9..1 9,.0 9.,6 9.,3 1 9., 1 9..1 | 9.,0 9.,1 | j | 1 10,.2 10,.2 10,.2 1 0 .1 10,.0 8 .6 10,.1 10,.0 10,.0 9,.8 8,.9 8 .7 1 10,.2 10,.0 9,.8 8,.6 8,.2 9,.9 9,.9 9,.8 9,.9 j 9,.7 9,.0 7,.7 1 9,.9 10,.1 9,.7 8,.6 8,.4 8,.5 8 .3 10,.1 10,.1 9.,3 8,. 1 8 .5 7 .9 , 9,.4 9. 2 9,.2 9.,7 9.,2 8..2 7,.2 7,.9 1 9.,1 1 9.,5 7,.7 8..3 7,.4 8,.1 9,.3 | 9.,4 9.,4 9.,2 9,.9 9,.4 11 12 ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS TABLE I.F PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER BY SIZE OF BANK 1 to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over 48.5 49.3 50.4 53.6 52.0 57.3 60.1 58.6 61.7 60.6 60.1 57.6 45. 6 51. 5 4 9 ..6 59..2 59.,0 59.,1 61,.0 59.,8 63 ..9 61..5 58..0 54..8 54..4 60..8 58..5 66..0 64..0 61..2 64..5 70..4 73,.6 69,.1 68,.0 62 .7 68.,5 67.,0 69.,1 67..5 67 ..8 78.,6 83..9 80..2 76..7 62 . .2 67 . .0 51..1 | j j j j j j 56..3 62,,3 57,.7 67 .7 62 .4 7 2 .2 67 61 59 60 LARGE OTHER | j j | | 77..6 79.,1 83.,6 69.,4 7 0 .,0 82..9 86..9 83.. 7 79..9 65..4 71.. 4 57..1 49,.9 52,.6 47..2 59..3 56..1 55..5 58..9 59,.7 62 .3 57,.9 57,.9 51,.3 87,.4 54,.0 54,.2 | j j 89 .9 60,.3 57,. 2 58 .8 51 .9 60 .6 1 j .3 .8 52,.6 51 .7 .4 52 , 48,.1 j 53,.9 57,.6 61,.9 55 .8 59 .1 51 .1 4 4 .1 4 5 .7 55 .0 66,.2 43 .5 83 .3 1 j 43,.4 91,.5 50 .8 58 .6 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE 59 5 61 4 61 0 65 2 65.,1 71..7 76.,7 75.,1 .8 73 . 63..1 65..8 54..4 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 1 1 | 1 j 51.6 65.3 71.4 76.8 81.5 78.5 84.6 82.9 83.9 58.1 66.4 55.0 69.6 39.5 40.0 61.6 69.3 63.5 70.0 74.3 75.9 71.2 73.2 59.4 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST 1998 1999 62.1 63.8 59.7 68.3 68.8 66.3 70.3 72.3 73.0 67.3 67.8 68.5 FULL WEEK 55.,5 54.,9 32.,9 40..0 40..6 47..8 48..2 51..6 53..1 32..9 49..9 46..7 OF 62.1 63.2 73.6 51.2 50.3 75.3 78.1 75.7 72.2 61.4 64.3 42.0 S E C O N D M O N T H OF Q U A R T E R Q2... Q3... Q4... 75,.6 57,.2 58..5 1 j j 64.6 72.2 55.4 67.1 69.9 78.0 61.9 69.7 73.4 45..1 46,.9 54 .5 92.4 39.8 48.0 60.1 59.2 61.6 Ql. . . Q2... Q3... Q4. . . 56,.6 54..6 54..7 51..6 1 j 59.4 76.2 51.6 39.9 56.6 60.1 54.2 66.2 70.2 68.1 67.1 68.0 58,.1 48,.2 28,.3 3 8 .9 41.2 34.9 47.4 44.4 6 0 . 5 . 56,, ! 58.0 50,.5 55.7 57..7 56.4 55,.9 Ql. . . Q2... 46..4 .1 73 , 1 j 50.2 66.6 65.2 72.5 63.6 72.6 33,.9 75,.5 33.2 79.2 47.0 57.6 50..4 58..8 , .0 .9 Table I.G PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS. 1 BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE Effective interest rate (percent) Memo: Perecentage Distribution of Number of Loans, May All Loans Under 5 percent 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Feb 99 May 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - - - - 4 - * - — - * - 4 1 * - 14 * 23 3 14 6 3 4 2 1 22 21 14 19 11 14 12 9 8 23 18 22 11 15 20 31 37 33 34 9 17 16 20 35 18 30 30 30 35 38 5.0 to 5.9 . - 1 11 4 4 6.0 to 6.9 . - 11 13 14 7.0 to 7.9 . - 30 18 8.0 to 8.9 . - 17 1 9.0 to 9.9 . - 10.0 to 10.9 5 8 22 10 20 4 24 15 21 14 11 16 15 11.0 to 11.9 8 33 8 7 5 2 11 3 9 7 2 3 3 12.0 to 12.9 39 39 2 1 1 * 1 1 2 1 * 1 * 13.0 to 13.9 34 14 - - - * 1 * * * * * * 14.0 to 14.9 8 5 - - - * - * * * - * * 15.0 to 15.9 4 — - - - - - - * * * * * 16.0 to 16.9 1 * * 17.0 to 17.9 * - - — - - - - - - * 18.0 to 18.9 19.0 to 19.9 20.0 to 20.9 21.0 to 21.9 22.0 to 22.9 23.0 to 23.9 24.0 to 24.9 25.0 and over . . 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. 13 TABLE I.H.I SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 3-4, 1999 Loans to farmers Size class of loans (thousands) all sizes $1-9 $10-24 $25-49 $50-99 $100-249 $250 and over ALL BANKS 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 interest rate (percent)4 7 Standard error5 Interquartile Range6 8 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 1,410,743 49,597 20.84 6.72 2.98 109,527 28,374 10.10 4.57 2.72 162,475 11,202 11.82 5.84 2.78 164,108 4,727 16.40 8.03 2.84 182,726 2,686 18.29 8.19 2.75 263,408 1,747 30.91 13.41 3.02 528,499 861 23.12 3.19 3.20 8.76 0.15 9.50 0.06 9.36 0.06 9.21 0.09 9.16 0.17 8.73 0.19 8.16 0.25 9.,58 8.,06 9. 99 8.,93 9.,99 8.,84 9.,99 8..56 9,.75 8..42 9.,26 8..03 9 7 8.,99 9.,11 9.,11 8,.24 8,,13 7..93 9.,55 9.,91 9.,43 9.,86 9.,98 9.,22 9..14 9..69 9..40 9..17 9..52 8..82 9..07 9,.87 9..30 9,.38 8,.67 8..21 8,.97 9,.26 9..29 9,.48 8,. 66 8,.83 8..72 8..08 9..15 8..51 7..99 8,.33 8 8 8 7 7 7 70,.78 76..08 21,.98 2.25 2,.25 58.,07 74..13 27.,62 0. .25 0.25 55..13 74..62 26,.74 0, .24 0.24 62,.06 64,.61 29 .29 0, .44 0.44 63,.20 67,.60 24,.69 1 .11 1.11 68,.57 68 .98 22,.28 0,.64 0.64 84 86 15 5 5.05 5,.09 5,.34 56,.05 12,.13 8,.16 13,.24 4..55 6,.91 76..44 6..73 0..89 4..48 5,.04 7,.60 70,.81 7,.34 3,.44 5,.77 7,.63 7,.91 55,.51 15,.79 3,.21 9 .94 11 .60 7 .81 53 .21 7 .38 7 .88 12 .12 4,.87 3,.14 53 .70 8 .77 18,.35 11 . 19 2 3 49 16 7 19 15,.42 77,. 98 4,.80 86,.98 10,.43 83,.19 7,.71 88,.40 13 .00 82,.38 23 .92 72,.44 18 72 TABLE I.H.2 SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 3-4, 1999 Loans to farmers $1 -9 $10 -24 $25 -49 $50 -99 o o Size class of loans (thousands) all sizes 249 $250 and over 778#i613 18,!512 16 .74 3 .62 3 .21 36,1882 9,:349 10 .16 2 .71 3 .01 64,i893 4,:327 11 .78 3 .76 3 .09 70, 997 2, 113 13 .21 4 .59 3 .05 85,'490 i,:311 14 .72 5 . 65 3 .15 134, 735 923 21 .93 5 .88 3 .12 385,617 489 17.50 2.27 3.32 8 .43 0 .17 9 .33 0 .05 9 .16 0 .12 9 .07 0 .12 8 .86 0 .13 8 . 62 0 .13 7.93 0.19 9 . 11 8 .03 9 .92 8 .80 9 .80 8 .57 9 .83 8 .43 9 .54 8 .03 9 . 14 8 .03 8.57 7.50 8 .99 8 .57 8 .76 7 .70 7 .96 8 .00 9 .34 9 .41 9 .36 9 .44 8 .88 9 .03 8 .77 9 .47 9 .24 8 .90 9 .31 8 .86 8 .83 9 .05 9 .17 9 .30 8 .85 8 .64 9 .33 8 .85 8 .86 8 .99 8 . 66 8 .59 8 .88 7 .67 8 .86 8 .45 8 .12 8 .26 8.92 8.28 8.33 7.40 7.25 7.65 83 .26 89 .52 21 .45 2 .99 78 .78 89 .45 29 .57 0 .19 78 .25 89 .26 32 .51 0 .60 74 .97 83 .98 34 .51 1 .01 76 .34 83 .28 31 .13 2 .37 77 .89 85 .19 25 .59 1 .25 89.46 93.48 12.82 4.78 5 .01 5 .77 51 .31 14 .40 3 .61 13 .24 2 .59 7 .08 75 .18 4 .71 0 .67 4 .48 5 .72 7 .03 65 .69 7 .19 2 .23 5 .77 7 .32 9 .66 60 .21 7 .19 3 .17 9 .94 10 .31 6 .26 57 .86 3 .55 3 .65 12 . 12 6 .14 4 .24 57 .03 6 .09 7 .35 11 .19 3.12 5.14 41.51 23.18 2.89 19.78 9 .90 83 .74 5 .39 87 .09 5 .57 85 .87 9 .40 85 .45 8 .64 85 .45 15 .97 79 .63 9.31 83.80 LARGE FARM LENDERS7 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 Weighted average risk rating3 6 Weighted average 5 interest rate (percent)4 7 Standard error 8 Interquartile Range6 a.75th Percentile b.25th Percentile By purpose of loan 9 Feeder livestock 10 Other livestock 11 Other current operating expenses 12 Farm machinery and equipment 13 Farm real estate 14 Other Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment Callable Subject to prepayment penalty By purpose of the loan 19 Feeder livestock 20 Other livestock 21 Other current operating expenses 22 Farm machinery and equipment 23 Farm real estate 24 Other By type of collateral Farm real estate 25 26 Other 15 16 17 18 Footnotes are at the end of table I.H TABLE I.H.3 SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 3-4 , 199 9 Loans to farmers all sizes $1--9 $10--24 $25 -49 $50 -99 H O o Size class of loans (thousands) 249 $250 and over OTHER BANKS 7 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 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 640,075 31,170 25. 78 10. 50 2 .62 73,415 96,279 6,785 19,190 10..04 11,.94 7,,20 5.,47 2,.53 2., 54 92,'442 97,448 2,!586 i,:380 18 .86 21 .53 10 .59 10 .47 2 .37 2 . 67 9 .31 0 .22 9 .43 0 . 16 130,:319 835 40 .01 21 . 15 2 .88 150,171 395 37.64 5.55 2.67 8 .86 0 .23 8.74 0.32 9 .68 8 . 10 9.75 7.77 9. 16 0. 13 9..55 0.,09 9,.49 0,.09 9. 89 8., 50 9.,99 8.,98 •10,.06 8,.88 9., 01 9., 92 9.,46 9, . 27 8.. 17 7.,74 9..59 10.. 19 9 .44 9. , 99 10 .36 9 .77 56., 11 59 .86 22 .59 1,.34 47 .47 65 .90 26 .46 0 .29 40 .57 64 .87 23 .44 8 .72 53 .09 50 .03 25 .82 5,.09 4..64 61..20 9,. 19 13 .65 13,.60 5 .44 6..71 77,.37 7 .68 1 .01 4 .46 4 .70 7 .86 74,.31 7 .19 4 .35 5 .83 8 .03 6 .09 52 .92 22 .26 2 .50 10 .08 12 .33 9 .26 49 .16 10 .85 11 .70 12 .20 3 .54 1 .98 50 .24 11 .57 29 .83 11 . 19 19.88 20.56 22 .07 , 71..04 4 .48 86 .98 13 .80 81 .13 5 .73 91 .27 16 .99 79 .50 32 .22 64 .95 40.52 44.12 9 .44 9 .83 9 .49 9 . 32 9 .59 8 .60 9 .99 8 . 60 10 .07 8 .84 9 .24 10 .87 9 .42 9 . 40 8 .07 7 .70 8 .73 9 .51 9 .74 9 .62 8 .66 9 .41 8 .44 9 .00 9 .49 8 .55 7 .96 8 .79 9.33 51 .70 53 .90 19 .23 58 .81 52 .01 18 .80 72.70 70.44 23.63 - - - - - 8.01 6.78 - 67.31 - TABLE I.H.4 SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 3-4, 1999 Loans to farmers Risk Rating All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not Rated Not Reported 156, 681 5, 578 20 .67 3 .56 4 .00 140, 187 1, 944 18 .69 6 .37 5 .00 101,027 1,711 45.56 4.76 140,642 6,002 20.99 10.32 ALL BANKS 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 Weighted average risk rating3 4 6 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 7 Standard error5 Interquartile Range6 8 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 Feeder livestock 19 20 Other livestock Other current operating expenses 21 Farm machinery and equipment 22 23 Farm real estate 24 Other By type of collateral Farm real estate 25 26 Other 15 16 17 18 Footnotes are at the end of table I.H 401,i005 49,i083 20 .83 6 .73 2 .99 103, 605 245, 622 4, 810 11,233 15 .32 22 .38 8 . 15 8 .27 1 .00 2 .00 513, 241 17, 806 17 . 17 6 .13 3 .00 - 8 .76 0 .08 8 .79 0 .17 8 .77 0 .17 8 .56 0 .21 8 .88 0 .09 8 .89 0 .34 8.91 0.26 .03 .19 9 .58 8 .06 9 .42 8 .33 9 .25 8 .19 9 .64 7 .82 9 .83 8 .24 9 .58 8 .57 9.83 8.16 .69 8 .99 9 .11 9 . 11 8 .24 8 .12 7 .94 8 .45 8 .70 8 .92 9 .22 7 .72 8 .59 8 .87 8 .67 8 .98 9 .17 7 .55 8 .24 9 .06 9 .25 9 .03 7 .38 8 .53 7 .79 8 .85 8 .77 9 .14 8 .97 9 .11 7 .86 9 .45 10 .43 9 .37 8 .59 7 .81 7 .83 9.12 8.42 9.34 8.34 8.70 7.94 9.53 9.50 9.40 9.60 7.90 9.96 .16 70,,99 76,.01 21,.76 2,.26 48 .82 68,.35 34,.21 0,.86 62,.09 75,.28 25,. 60 5,.54 78..37 85..19 16.,73 0., 87 84..48 81,.70 16..52 0..71 84,.36 82,.85 12..01 6,.14 82,.24 61,.96 41,.00 2 .96 , 39 46 26 5..04 5.,25 55.,78 12., 16 8., 17 13.,60 10..80 1., 61 67.,73 5..95 5..06 8..84 5,.79 5.,34 62..48 7..45 8,,22 10,.73 4..95 6.,72 51.,64 13.,57 3.,28 19.,84 2..54 4..59 68.,79 4..67 1..55 17..86 1,.42 0,. 18 48..31 37,.98 4,.00 8,.11 3..78 2..39 49..47 7. , 12 25,.54 11..71 7 10 47 6 27 1 15.,39 77.,98 11..49 81.,09 8..03 84..75 9., 85 84., 83 15.,28 80..30 4..17 83,.68 59,.08 30..37 31 64 TABLE I.H.5 SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 3-4, 1999 Loans to farmers Risk Rating All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not Rated Not Reported 32,889 LARGE FARM LENDERS7 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 Weighted average risk rating3 6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4 7 Standard error5 8 Interquartile Range6 a.75th Percentile b.25th Percentile By purpose of loan 9 Feeder livestock 10 Other livestock 11 Other current operating expenses 12 Farm machinery and equipment 13 Farm real estate 14 Other Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment Callable Subject to prepayment penalty By purpose of the loan 19 Feeder livestock 20 Other livestock 21 Other current operating expenses 22 Farm machinery and equipment 23 Farm real estate 24 Other By type of collateral 25 Farm real estate 26 Other 15 16 17 18 Footnotes are at the end of table I.H 760, 931 17, 913 16 .62 3 .56 3 .22 39,906 1,056 18 .38 8 .78 1 .00 91,:226 2, 739 18 .82 3 .45 2 .00 351, 326 7, 912 16 .77 3 .83 3 .00 118,!908 3,:124 22 .49 3 .17 4 .00 104,i089 1, 188 7 .70 0 .86 5 .00 22,587 288 15.47 0.07 8 .42 0 .11 8 .55 0 .12 8 .35 0 .25 8 .18 0 .21 8 .51 0 .16 8 .91 0 .26 8.17 0.31 9.27 0.14 9 .11 8 . 03 8 .87 7 .75 9 .06 7 .98 9 .06 7 .50 9 .11 8 .03 9 .38 8 .57 9.11 7.98 9.65 8.85 8 .98 8 .57 8 .75 7 .70 7 .97 7 .99 8 .42 8 .30 8 .72 9 .91 7 .69 7 .83 8 .91 8 .41 8 .63 9 .35 6 .82 8 .14 8 .98 8 .52 8 .59 6 .50 8 .71 8 .00 8 .84 8 .73 8 .74 8 .21 9 .10 7 .69 9 .47 10 .36 9 .37 8 .59 8 .96 8 .69 9.11 8.38 8.17 44 33 29 8.65 9.50 9.35 83..50 89..59 21..07 3..03 42,.16 91,.16 59,.95 2,.24 74,.60 81,.07 29,.32 14,.91 86..90 90.,89 15..95 1..27 89,.48 91..57 13..57 0..94 90..59 91 .95 9,.77 2,.87 96 .33 90 .29 3 .83 5..00 5.,76 51..22 14.. 66 3.,56 13..60 4,.49 3,.01 73,.23 1,. 66 6,.60 8,.84 8,.47 9..90 42..57 3,.35 10..04 10..73 4..98 6..42 50..34 13..82 1..38 19..84 3..25 5.,67 64..40 3., 17 1..91 17,.86 1,.83 0,.16 36,.75 51,.15 1,.74 8,.11 16,.52 7,.64 22 .92 10,.20 23 .76 , 11 .71 4 7 75 9.,78 83..82 19,.77 67,.02 10.,23 74..80 9.,96 86..19 13,.27 81.,32 1,.27 94..72 9 .73 69,.36 8 88 1,606 14.76 6.18 - 8.28 7.49 69 82 80 - 3 1 TABLE I.H.6 SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 3-4, 1999 Loans to farmers Risk Rating All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not Rated Not Reported 161,916 9, 894 18.07 11.37 3.00 37,773 2,454 15.10 4.79 4.00 36,098 756 50.10 22.26 78,440 1,423 51.54 5.69 107,753 4,395 22.88 11.58 OTHER BANKS 7 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 Weighted average repricing interval (months) : Weighted average risk rating 3 6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)4 7 Standard error 5 8 Interquartile Range 6 a.75th Percentile b.25th Percentile By purpose of loan 9 Feeder livestock 10 Other livestock 11 Other current operating expenses 12 Farm machinery and equipment 13 Farm real estate 14 Other Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment Callable Subject to prepayment penalty By purpose of the loan 19 Feeder livestock 20 Other livestock 21 Other current operating expenses 22 Farm machinery and equipment 23 Farm real estate 24 Other By type of collateral 25 Farm real estate 26 Other 15 16 17 18 Footnotes are at the end of table I.H 640,075 31,170 25.78 10.50 154,397 8,494 24.47 2.62 63,699 3,754 13.40 7.76 1.00 9.16 0.13 8.95 0.24 9.03 0.14 9.39 0.43 10.05 0.16 8.83 0.68 9.12 0.32 8.96 9,.89 8,.50 9 .73 8,.33 9 .42 8,.51 10,.25 8..75 10,.87 9,.75 10,. 11 8,.50 9,.83 8,.75 9..69 8,,00 9,.01 9..92 9..46 9..27 8.. 17 7..74 8,.46 9 .72 9 .06 9 .14 7 .75 9 .30 8,.81 9,.23 10,. 63 9,.91 9,.42 8,.45 6,.99 9 .47 9 .43 10,. 11 9 .79 9,.31 9 .73 9,.06 10..56 9.,38 7.,25 5..00 9 .50 8,.51 9,.47 8,.34 8,.81 8,.50 9.,54 9.,54 9.,46 9..95 7.,86 10.,38 56,.11 59..86 22,.59 1..34 52 .99 54,.06 18 .08 13,.51 54 .70 , 71,.86 23 .40 59 .87 , 72 .81 18,.41 68 .73 50,.63 25,.81 66..39 56..64 18 .46 . 78,.18 53,.80 51,.71 30,.41 35,.37 9..42 5..09 4..64 61..20 9., 19 13., 65 13.,60 14,.76 0,.73 64,.29 8,.64 4,.10 8..84 4,.20 2 .64 74,.25 9,.87 7 .14 , 10,.73 4,.87 7,.37 54,.46 13,.04 7,.42 19,.84 0,.31 1,. 17 82 .62 , 9,.39 0,.40 17,.86 0..26 0..22 81..62 19.,91 10.,52 8.,11 0,. 11 0,.88 57,.11 7,.90 26,.05 11,.71 7.,89 11.,17 39.,45 22. 07 71. 04 6..30 89.,91 6,.72 90..64 9.,61 81.,87 21..62 77..10 12.,51 51. 83 73..29 19.. 14 38., 17 57.,60 11.10 2.00 - 9 .10 9 .13 8 .15 9 .06 - - - 5.00 - - - 0.18 - - 34.,66 1,.40 ° NOTES TO TABLE I.H The Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers collects data on gross loan extensions made during the first full business week in the mid-month of each quarter by a sample of 250 banks of all sizes. The sample data are blown up to estimate the lending terms at all insured agricultural banks during that week. The estimated terms of bank lending are not intended for use in collecting the terms of loans extended over the entire quarter or those residing in the portfolios of banks. Loans of less than $1,000 are excluded from the survey. 1. Average maturities are weighted by loan size and exclude loans with no stated maturity. 2. The repricing interval measures the period from the date the loan is made until it first may be repriced. For floating-rate loans that are subject to repricing at any time-such as many prime-based loans-the repricing interval is zero. For floating rate loans that have a scheduled repricing interval, the interval measures the number of days between the date the loan is made and the date on which it is next scheduled to reprice. For loans having rates that remain fixed until the loan matures (fixedrate loans), the interval measures the number of days between the date the loan is made and the date on which it matures. Loans that reprice daily are assumed to reprice on the business day after they are made. 3. A complete description of these risk rating categories is available from the Banking and Money Market Statistics Section, mail stop 81, the Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC 20551. The category "Moderate Risk" includes the average loan, under average economic conditions, at the typical lender. The weighted-average risk ratings are calculated by assigning a value of "1" to minimal risk loans; "2" to low risk loans; "3" to moderate risk loans; "4" to acceptable risk loans; and "5" to special mention and classified loans. These values are weighted by loan amount and exclude loans with no risk rating. Some of the loans are not rated for risk. 4. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. 5. The chances are about two out of three that the average rate shown would differ by less than this amount from the average rate that would be found by a complete survey of lending at all banks. 6. The interquartile range shows the interest rate range that encompasses the middle 50 percent of the total dollar amount of loans made. 7. Among banks reporting loans to farmers, most "large banks" (survey strata 1 and 2) had over $25 million in farm loans, most "other banks" (survey strata 3 to 5) had farm loans below $25 million. Table I.I Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, (selected quarters) LS CB USDA Farm Production Region NP AP £E DL 2 .3 12 .0 25 .6 17 .5 8 .9 4 .4 4 .3 8 .7 5 .9 10 .3 Sample Coverage, May 1999 survey (%) 16 .0 3 .5 10 .7 13 .4 20 .6 8 .1 3 .4 6 .1 24 .5 45 .7 Avg. Loan Size, Feb. 1999 survev ($1000) Survev date: 31 .6 24 .5 25 .9 21 .5 38 .2 53 .6 22 .4 29 .0 42 .0 94 .7 Proportion of farm loans outstanding, Mar. 1999 • • • e # PA Weighted Average Interest Rate During Sample Week 9 .2 8 .3 7 .9 5,.5 7 .3 8 .4 8 .2 7 .6 6 .9 Feb. 1993 7 8 9 .0 8 .0 8,.0 5,.6 8 .3 7 .8 7 .8 7 .5 6 .5 May 1993 8 1 8 7 8 .1 7,.9 5,.2 8..4 7 .8 8 .3 7 .7 6 .8 Aug. 1993 8 2 7 .5 8 .2 8,.0 5,.7 7 .3 7 .0 7 .7 7 .1 7 .2 Nov. 1993 8 3 8 1 7 8 7,.4 5..3 6..3 8 .2 7 .8 7,.1 6 .7 Feb. 1994 7 7 8 .6 7 9 7,.5 5,.2 , 7 .3 7 .7 7 .6 7,.3 6 .9 May 1994 8 7 9 .0 8 0 8,.1 6..1 8,.2 7 .8 8 .4 7,.5 7 .2 Aug. 1994 9 1 8 6 8 3 8..6 6,.5 8,.6 7 .6 8 .6 7,.6 7 .5 Nov. 1994 10 2 9 .7 8 9 8,.5 7 .1 , 8,.5 8 .8 9 .0 8,.0 8 .5 Feb. 1995 11 7 10 .7 10 0 9..9 8..6 7,.2 10 .4 10 .4 9,.4 9 .4 1995 9 0 10 .4 9 3 9..4 8..5 10..2 10,.7 10 .1 9,.3 9 .3 Aug. 1995 9 6 10 .3 9 3 9..8 8,.1 9,.6 10 .4 10 .1 9,.4 9 .5 Nov. 1995 10 8 10 3 8 3 9..6 7..9 10..1 10,.3 9 .8 9,.3 8 .9 8..8 ( .32) . 9..9 (.25) • 8..0 (1..10) 9..4 ( .22) . 7..3 (..99) 9,.4 • ( .31) 10,.9 ( .22) . 9 .9 (.24) 8,.9 (..85) 8 .1 (.65) 1996 10,.3 ( .25) , 10,.2 (.13) , 7,.3 ( .93) . 9,.0 (•.38) 8..1 (..86) 9..6 (•.68) 10,.4 , (.36) 9 .8 (.25) 8..7 (..78) 8 .3 (.65) Aug. 1996 8..3 (..87) 9,.9 (.18) • 8..9 ( .49) • 9,.4 ( .25) . 7,.6 (..82) 9..4 ( .59) . 10,.0 ( .37) , 9 .4 (.18) 8..9 (..58) 8 .1 (.56) Nov. 1996 10..1 (..21) 9,.9 (..14) 9,.3 ( .11) . 9..0 (•.55) 7..5 (..82) 9..3 (..57) 9,.9 ( .40) 9 .1 (.25) 9..0 (..75) 8,.6 ( .48) Feb. 1997 8..8 ( .11) . 9..5 (.26) • 9,.5 ( .12) • 9,.3 ( .22) . 8..0 ( .51) • 9..9 ( .32) . 9,.5 ( .35) 9 .5 (.24) • 10..1 ( .27) . 8,.7 ( .35) . May 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) 8,.7 ( .34) , Nov. 1997 9..2 ( .41) . 9..5 (..17) 9..3 ( .10) • 9..8 (..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 1998 9..2 ( .49) • 9..4 ( .24) . 9..2 ( .15) • 9..7 (..10) 7 .6 . (..54) 10..2 (..12) 10..3 (..34) 9,.6 (..30) 9..8 (..42) 8,.4 (•.39) Aug. 1998 10..2 (..19) 9..5 (-.21) 9..5 ( .12) . 9..5 (•.17) 8..8 (..17) 9..5 (..29) 9..7 (..29) 9,.5 (,.28) 9..6 (..47) 8,.5 (,.33) Nov. 1998 9..4 ( .01) . 9..2 (•.28) 8..7 ( .20) . 9..0 (.12) 8..3 (..38) 9..4 (..31) 9..7 ( .20) . 9,.2 ( .32) , 9..1 (..59) 8,.0 ( .38) • Feb. 1999 8..4 ( .40) . 8..9 (..20) 8..9 ( .15) . 9..1 (..12) 8..2 (..20) 9..0 (..23) 9..6 (..13) 9,.1 (,.52) 9..0 (..41) 7,.5 ( .51) , May e M 7 .9 Feb. 1996 e SP Nov. 1992 May e NE May 1999 9,.6 8..8 9..1 8..0 9..0 9..0 9..8 9,.0 8..7 8,.0 ( .1$) . ( ,19) • (..13) ( .15) . (•.33) (•,35) (•.43) (-.40) ( ,23) . . f .08) *** NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbeltz 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 the more recent estimates. Standard errors are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region. 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 m a y 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 In 1991, banks to report these data are assumed to have the same delinquency rates as those that do report. began to report delinquencies of loans that are secured by farm real estate. These data, which are shown in tables II.D and II.E, are reported by all banks, regardless of the size of the institution or the relative amounts of farm loans that they hold. Because "agricultural loans" and loans secured by farm real estate may overlap for some small banks, it is unclear whether it is proper to add the data in table II.B to its counterpart in table II.D to obtain total agricultural delinquencies. A similar caveat applies to the data concerning charge-offs in tables II.C and II.E. Examination of total lending at banks that have a high exposure to agricultural loans provides an alternative perspective on the agricultural lending situation. Agricultural banks in table II.D through table II.I are those that have a proportion of farm loans (real estate plus nonreal estate) to total loans that is greater than the unweighted average at all banks. The estimate of this average was 15.0 percent in March of 1999. Information on failed banks (table II.I) is obtained from news releases of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with agricultural banks broken out in our tabulation according to the definition stated in the previous paragraph. SECTION II: (continued) Recent Developments: Loans outstanding: During the first quarter of 1999, growth in the volume of farm loans continued to slow, especially for non-real-estate farm loans, which fell to a 1 percent year-on-year gain, compared with more than 10 percent in early 1998. The yearly increase in loans secured by farm real estate was 7.6 percent, below the rate seen at the beginning of 1998, but still towards the upper end of the range seen in the 1990s. Problem loans: Compared with one year earlier, the rate increased in the first quarter of 1999. This increase chargeoffs. The proportion of agricultural banks that than 2 percent of total loans increased, although only greater than 10 percent of total loans. of delinquencies on farm non-real-estate loans in delinquencies came even as banks increased their reported a level of nonperforming loans that was more about 1 in 20 agricultural banks had problem loans Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks in the first quarter of 1999 was 1.2 percent at an annual rate, the same pace that has prevailed for most of the 1990s. The capital ratio for these banks edged down relative to one year earlier, though it remained roughly in line with the average over the past 3 or 4 years. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks edged up from the previous year, after slipping on a year-on-year basis at the end of 1998 for the first time in a number of years. Failures of agricultural banks: Despite the hints of financial stress at some agricultural banks, none has failed thus far in 1999, and only one agricultural bank failed in 1998. Given the strong capital positions and low levels of problem loans of most agricultural banks, the number of failures seems likely to remain fairly small in coming quarters. However, if recent financial problems in the farm sector persist, stress among agricultural banks likely would rise further as well. 23 TABLE II.A FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS 5 .3 5 .7 5 .0 3,.5 5.5 6.9 -2,,8 7,,7 3.,1 -2,,7 7 .4 7 .2 6 .6 5 .7 4,.3 5,.5 5,.8 7,.0 9.1 8.1 7.1 5.1 -4«,6 7,,8 1.,9 -4,,4 4 .9 4 .9 4 .2 2 .9 8 .2 8 .1 8,.6 7,.8 3.1 3.2 1.9 0.2 0.5 3.1 1.2 0.1 -5.,3 7,, 8 4.,9 -0,,8 1 .7 1 .6 3 .2 5 .8 5 .6 5,. 4 4,.7 5,.0 -0.5 -0.6 2.4 6.2 1990 Q3 * * Q4... 50.5 50.1 17.3 17.2 33.2 32.9 3.1 -0.8 1.1 -0.6 4,•1 -0, 9 1991 Ql. • . Q2. .. Q3. . . Q4. . . 49.5 52.6 53.9 53.0 17.5 18.1 18.3 18.4 32.0 34.5 35.6 34.6 -1.3 6.2 2.5 -1.6 1.5 3.4 1.4 0.6 1992 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4... 51.9 55.1 56.2 54.5 18.9 19.5 19.9 19.9 33.0 35.6 36.2 34.7 -2.1 6.2 1.9 -2.9 2.7 3.3 1.9 -0.2 1993 Ql. . . Q2. . . Q3. .. Q4... 52.8 56.0 58.0 57.7 20.0 20.6 20.8 20.9 32.8 35.4 37.1 36.8 -3.2 6.0 3.5 -0.5 || | PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS QUARTER LOAN VOLUME, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS 1 1 1994 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. .. .. .. .. 56.8 61.1 63.0 61.3 21.2 21.9 22.4 22.6 35.5 39.2 40.6 38.7 -1.5 7.6 3.1 -2.7 1.8 3.2 2.2 0.7 -3,,4 10,,2 3,,6 -4.,6 7 .6 9 .1 8 .7 6 .2 6,.4 6 .4 7 .5 8 .2 8.3 10.7 9.3 5.2 1995 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. .. .. .. .. 59.9 63.5 65.3 63.7 22.9 23.6 23.8 23.9 36.9 40.0 41.5 39.8 -2.3 6.1 2.9 -2.5 1.6 2.7 1.1 0.4 -4,.6 8,> 2 3,.9 -4,.1 5 .4 4 .0 3 .7 3 .9 8 .0 7 .5 6 .3 5 .9 3.9 2.0 2.3 2.8 1996 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. .. .. .. .. 61.7 65.7 66.6 65.5 24.0 24.7 24.9 25.0 37.7 41.0 41.6 40.5 -3.1 6.5 1-3 -1.6 0.5 2.7 1.1 0.3 -5,.3 8,.9 1,.5 -2,.8 3 .1 3 .4 1 .9 2 .8 4,.8 4 .7 4,.7 4.6 2.0 2.7 0.3 1.8 1997 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. .. .. .. .. 63.8 69.0 71.1 71.3 25.4 26.2 27.0 27.1 38.4 42.8 44.2 44.2 -2.6 8.2 3.0 0.3 1.4 3.3 2.9 0.7 -5,,1 11,,5 3,.1 0,.0 3 .4 5 .1 6 .8 8 .9 5 .5 6 .2 8 .1 8 .5 2.0 4.4 6.0 9.1 1998 Ql... Q2. .. Q3. .. Q4. .. 70.1 75.0 76.3 74.7 27.6 28.5 28.9 29.3 42.4 46.5 47.4 45.5 -1.7 7.1 1.7 -2.0 1.8 3.2 1.3 1.3 -3,,9 9,,6 1..9 -4,.0 9 .8 8 .6 7 .2 4 .8 9,.0 8 .8 7 .2 7,.8 10.4 8.5 7.3 3.0 72.7 29.7 42.9 -2.8 1.7 -5,.6 3 .7 7,,6 1.1 1999 Ql... | | 1 | 1 j | | 1 | j | | j j | TABLE II.B ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION BILLIONS OF DOLLARS NONPERFORMING NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL December 31 of year indicated 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 | I-.0 1. ,1 1..0 0..8 0,.8 0..8 1..0 0..9 1,.0 0,.4 0,.4 0,.3 0,.3 0,.3 0,.4 0,.5 0 .4 0,.5 0..6 0,.7 0..6 0 .5 0,.4 0,.4 0,.5 0,.5 0,.5 0., 1 0.,1 0.,1 0..1 0,.1 0.,1 0.,1 0,,1 0.,1 0..5 0,,5 0,.5 0,.4 0..3 0,.3 0,.4 0..4 0,.4 1 3 .1 3 .2 2 .8 2 .2 2 .0 2 .1 2 .4 2 .0 2 .2 1..3 1,.3 1,.0 0,.8 0..9 0,.9 1,.2 0,.9 1,.0 1.,9 1.,9 1..8 1..4 1,.1 1.. 1 1..3 1..1 1,.2 0..3 0.. 3 0,.3 0,.2 0..2 0..3 0..3 0..2 0..3 1..6 1,.6 1..5 1,.2 0,.9 0..9 1..0 0,.9 0..9 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 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 End of quarter 1996 Ql. 02. Q3 . Q4. 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 1997 Ql. Q2 . 03. 04. 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 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 1998 Ql. 03. 04. 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.2 2.4 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.1 0.8 1.0 1999 Ql. 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.4 3.7 2.1 02. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.5 0.5 1.0 Data are estimates of the national totals for farm non-real-estate loans. After 1984, estimates are based on reports from banks that hold more than 90 percent of such loans. Earlier, only large banks that held about one-fourth of such loans reported nonaccrual and renegotiated farm loans; for other banks,estimates of delinquent farm loans are based on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks. 25 26 TABLE II.C ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* ESTIMATED AMOUNT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUAL TOTAL 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 82 54 69 51 95 93 87 CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING Q1 02 03 04 ANNUAL TOTAL 14 7 10 -2 16 6 4 18 20 16 11 14 27 19 15 29 5 15 13 24 . 19 24 18 26 33 25 30 50 45 0.24 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.24 0.23 0.20 * * 01 02 03 04 0,.04 0,,02 0,.03 -0,.00 0 .04 0 .01 0 .01 0 .04 0,.06 0..05 0,.03 0..04 0..07 0,.05 0,.04 0..08 0,.01 0,.04 0..03 0..06 0,.05 0,.05 0..05 0..07 0,.08 0 .06 0,.07 0,.11 0,.09 * Data are estimates of the national charge-offs of farm non-real-estate loans based on reports from banks that hold more than 90 percent of the outstanding national volume of such loans. Additional uncertainty of the estimates arises because small banks report only charge-offs of 'agricultural' loans as defined by each bank for its internal purposes. Banks first reported these data on the March 1984 Report of Income. TABLE II.D DELINQUENT FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS NONPERFORMING TOTAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONPERFORMING NONACCRUAL PAST DUE 30 TO 89 DAYS ACCRUING TOTAL 1.8 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 TOTAL PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING NONACCRUAL December 31 of year indicated 1993 1994 199 5 199 6 199 7 199 8 | j j | j j 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 | j j j j End of quarter 1995 Q4. 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.6 1996 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 1997 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1998 Ql. 02. 03. 04. 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1999 Ql. 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.3 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. 27 28 TABLE II.E NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING ESTIMATED AMOUNT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUAL TOTAL 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20 6 -1 3 1 4 2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 4 0 -1 -0 -1 -1 -2 -1 7 1 -1 -0 -1 -0 -1 4 2 0 2 1 1 0 6 3 1 2 2 4 4 All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991. ANNUAL TOTAL 0.11 0.03 -0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 0..019 0..002 -0..004 -0..001 -0,.004 -0,,004 -0,.006 -0,.002 0..033 0..003 -0..004 -0,.001 -0,.003 -0,.001 -0,.002 0..022 0,.008 0,.002 0,.006 0..003 0,.005 0,.001 0. 029 0..015 0. 003 0..007 0..009 0. 013 0. 012 TABLE II.F DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY THE SHARE OF THEIR LOANS THAT ARE NONPERFORMING* NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS 2.0 TOTAL UNDER 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..0 100..0 100.,0 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 69 .6 70 .8 76 .2 80..6 85,.5 83,.7 81,.8 84,.4 81..9 22 .7 22 .3 18 .9 15,.9 12,.3 13,.8 15,.5 13,.0 14..9 6,.4 5,.8 3,.9 .8 2, 1..9 2..1 2..3 2.. 4 2..8 1,.0 0,.7 0,,8 0,.6 0..2 0..3 0.,2 0..1 0..3 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 0.,0 -Percentage distribution, end of quarter 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 78 .5 79 .3 81,.8 16 .9 17,.0 15 .5 . 3 .9 3 .1 2 .3 0,.6 0,.5 0..2 0,.1 0,.1 0..1 0..1 0..1 0..1 | | | | 100 .0 100..0 100,.0 100,.0 79,.0 80,.6 81..7 84,.4 16,.8 15,.8 15..2 .0 13 , 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 1998 Ql... Q2 . . . Q3. . . Q4 . . . | 100,.0 100..0 100..0 100..0 80..6 81..0 80.,3 81.,9 16..4 15..7 16..2 14..9 2,.8 2..9 3..0 2..8 0.,1 0.,3 0..3 0..3 0..1 0.,1 0.,1 0..1 0..1 0.,0 0.,0 0.,0 1999 Ql... | 100.,0 77.,6 17.,5 4..4 0.,5 0,,0 0. 0 1996 Q2... Q3 . . . Q4 . . . | 1997 Ql..• Q2... 03... Q4.. . | | | | | * 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 30 TABLE II.G SELECTED MEASURES OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS* NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS ALL BANKS NEGATIVE 0 TO 4 5 TO 9 10 TO 14 AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN TO EQUITY 15 TO 19 20 TO 24 25 AND OVER AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS RATE OF RETURN TO ASSETS AGRICULTURAL BANKS NET CHARGE-OFFS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AVERAGE CAPITAL RATIO (PERCENT) AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS •percentage distribution1 9 9 0 | 1 0 0 ..0 4 . 9 7,.5 3 3 . .4 3 7 . .6 1 2 .9 2..6 1..1 1 1 0 ..8 8 . 5 1,. 0 0,.7 0,.4 0..7 9,.9 9 . 0 1 9 9 1 | 1 0 0 ..0 4 . 1 7 .7 3 2 . .2 3 9 . .2 1 3 .4 2..5 0..9 j 1 0 ..9 8 .9 1,.0 0,.7 0,.4 0..8 1 0 ,. 1 9 . 2 1 9 9 2 | 1 0 0 .,0 1 . 9 5 .0 2 5 . .5 4 1 . . 1 1 9 ..8 5., 1 1.,7 1 2 ..6 1 1 ,. 5 1,.2 1..0 0,.4 0..7 1 0 ,.4 9 . 5 1 9 9 3 j 1 0 0 . .0 1 . 5 5 .7 2 7 . .8 4 0 . .6 1 8 .. 5 4..6 1..3 1 2 ..4 1 2 ,.4 1,.2 1., 1 0..2 0..4 1 0 ,.8 1 0 ,. 0 1 9 9 4 | 1 0 0 .,0 1 . 5 5 .7 3 1 . .3 4 0 . .2 1 7 .. 1 3..3 0..9 1 1 ..9 1 2 ,.4 1,.2 1 9 9 5 | 1 0 0 .,0 1 . 4 5 .6 3 6 . .8 3 9 . .9 1 3 .,3 2..4 0..6 1 9 9 6 | 1 0 0 ..0 2 . 0 5,.5 3 3 . ,5 4 1 . .5 1 4 . .3 2.,6 0.,5 | 1,.1 0..2 0..3 1 0 ,.7 9,.9 1 1 . .3 1 1 ,.6 1,.2 1..1 0..2 0..3 1 1 ,. 1 1 0 .. 5 | 1 1 . 5 1 1 , .6 1..2 1..1 0..3 0.,3 1 0 ..9 1 0 ..6 1 9 9 7 | 1 0 0 ..0 1 . 6 5 .9 3 4 . .3 3 9 . .5 1 4 . .3 3..2 1. 2 | 1 1 . ,6 1 1 ..8 1..2 1..2 0..2 0..3 1 1 , .0 1 0 ..7 1 9 9 8 j 1 0 0 . ,0 2 . 0 8,.7 3 5 . .5 3 5 . .7 1 3 . .4 3.,5 1. 3 | 1 1 . ,4 1 1 ..4 1..2 1..1 0 . ,2 0..3 1 0 ..9 1 0 , .7 0,. 1 0,.2 0,. 3 0., 1 0..2 0.. 3 1 1 . ,0 1 0 . ,5 1 1 . .0 1 0 . ,5 1 0 . .9 1 0 . .6 1 1 . .0 1 0 ..6 QUARTERLY •YEAR TO DATE 1 9 9 6 Q2... Q3... Q4. 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 . . Ql... Q2. . . Q3... Q4. . . Ql... Q2... Q3... Q4... | J | | J | | j ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** w* * * ** * * ** * * ** ** ** ** ** *w ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *w ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *w ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * * * ** *w ** ** .2 .2 6..1 1 6. j 9. 1 1 1 .. 5 1 1 ..6 1 3 ., 0 3., 1 j 6. j 9..0 9..3 | 1 1 ..6 1 1 . .8 | 3 ., 0 3 . ,2 j 6.,1 6..1 1 8 ..9 8.,7 j 1 1 . ,4 2.. 9 1 .2 9..0 6., 1 0.. 6 0.. 9 1..2 0,. 6 0,. 9 1,, 1 0.. 3 0.. 7 1.. 0 1.,2 0,. 3 0,. 6 0,. 9 1,.2 0..3 0,. 3 0,. 6 0,. 9 1 1 . ,4 0.. 6 0.. 9 1. 2 1..1 2.. 9 0.,3 0, .3 0.. 1 0,.2 0..2 0.. 1 0., 1 0..2 0.. 3 0.. 0 0., 1 0.. 1 0..2 0.. 1 0., 1 0.,2 0..3 0., 0 0.. 1 0,.0 * Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section II; small banks have less than 5 0 0 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. 1 1 . ,1 1 0 ..7 1 1 . .3 1 0 . .9 1 1 . .0 1 0 . .7 1 1 . .1 1 0 . .7 1 1 . ,1 1 0 . .9 1 1 . ,3 1 1 . .0 1 0 . .9 1 0 . .7 1 1 . .0 1 0 . .7 TABLE II.H AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS* DECEMBER 31 U.S. ATLANTA CLEVELAND CHICAGO KANSAS CITY MINNEAPOLIS ST. LOUIS DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO MINIMUM FARM LOAN RATIO LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER LOANS NUMBER NUMBER OF TO TO TO OF OF TO OF TO OF TO OF TO OF TO TO OF OF BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 3723 3550 3482 3347 3207 3056 0 .582 0 .625 0 .641 0 .658 0 . 687 0 .682 67 56 60 55 54 46 0 .660 0 .707 0 .717 0 .775 0 .770 0 .772 130 125 135 126 122 106 0 .618 0 .646 0 .647 0 .682 0 .706 0 .703 912 860 841 814 784 744 0 .600 0 .643 0 .658 0 .681 0 .721 0 .711 432 402 393 384 360 339 0 .590 0 .629 0 .654 0 .666 0 .699 0 .693 669 658 637 619 584 568 0 .615 0 .674 0 .681 0 .698 0 .727 0 .715 1063 1014 981 944 904 884 0 .566 0 .618 0 .634 0 .649 0 .679 0 .680 378 366 359 331 325 306 0 .442 0 .474 0 .499 0 .492 0 .528 0 .525 58 53 55 55 53 50 0 .733 0 .747 0 .741 0 .734 0 .660 0 .664 17.04 16.99 15 .79 15.41 15.40 15.32 1996 02.. 03.. 04. . 3461 3400 3347 0 .665 0 .674 0 .658 57 58 55 0 .743 0 .780 0 .775 151 140 126 0 .690 0 .708 0 .682 829 814 814 0 .671 0 .690 0 .681 402 406 384 0 .692 0 .699 0 .666 630 623 619 0 .712 0 .716 0 .698 964 952 944 0 .651 0 .662 0 .649 349 331 331 0 .515 0 .510 0 .492 54 54 55 0 .778 0 .757 0 .734 15.94 15.84 15.41 1997 01. . 02. . 03.. 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 1998 01. . Q2.. 03. . 04.. 3176 3164 3127 3056 0 .689 0 .713 0 .725 0 .682 53 50 52 46 0 .782 0 .792 0 .806 0 .772 118 118 119 106 0 .719 0 .731 0 .742 0 .703 762 757 752 744 0 .726 0 .746 0 .757 0 .711 355 360 358 339 0 .691 0 .726 0 .733 0 .693 583 579 578 568 0 .731 0 .769 0 .769 0 .715 906 904 892 884 0 .681 0 .699 0 .720 0 .680 325 322 305 306 0 .527 0 .536 0 .549 0 .525 53 53 54 50 0 .667 0 .701 0 .693 0 .664 15.28 15.76 15.75 15.32 1999 oi.. 3055 0 .690 45 0 .798 112 0 .718 741 0 .722 334 0 .689 560 0 .724 884 0 .683 311 0 .534 52 0 . 682 15.04 * The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total deposits. Agricultural banks are defined as banks with a farm loan ratio at least as great as that shown in the last column, as described in the introduction to section II. 31 TABLE II.I FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS* NUMBER OF FAILURES 1988..,, 1989 1990.... 1991 1992 1993 1994 . 1995. . . 1996 1997 1998 1999 , • ,, ., ,, Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 ANNUAL TOTAL 11 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 5 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 5 6 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 7 5 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 36 22 17 8 7 5 0 0 2 1 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 TABLES: III.A III.B III.C III.D III.E Page Nonreal estate lending experience Expected change in non-real-estate loan volume and repayment conditions Average loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availability Interest rates Trends in real estate values and loan volume 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 197 6 consisted of 181 banks selected from banks at which farm loans constituted 50 percent or more of total loans, with appropriate representation of all farm areas. The sample was redrawn and significantly expanded in 1987; roughly 300 banks responded to the latest survey. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480 Before 1987, the sample provided a cross-section of banks of all sizes that were engaged in farm lending. Members of the Upper Midwest Agricultural Credit Council formed the core of the survey panel. Beginning in 1987, the sample was redrawn to include only banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total loans. As outlined above, the Minneapolis survey was changed considerably beginning in the first quarter of 1994. In recent surveys, about 130 banks responded. 33 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. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: Bankers responding to the surveys indicated that the demand for farm loans may have remained fairly weak early in 1999. Consistent with the pickup in delinquencies that was shown in section II of the Databook, bankers in all districts that report indicated that rates of loan repayment had deterioriated substantially since the spring of 1998. As might be expected, given the fall in loan repayments, there continues to be a pronounced stepup in the incidence of renewals and extensions of loans in all the districts that report. Finally, a substantial portion of banks in the surveys reported higher collateral requirements than had been the norm in recent years, suggesting some mounting concerns about repayment prospects. Banks in those districts that report referrals to nonbank agencies noted an increase in this series, suggesting heightened concern among midwest bankers about the quality of new agricultural loans. Rates of interest reported in these Reserve bank surveys were little changed in the first quarter of 1999, but as discussed in section I of the Databook, rates increased substantially in the second quarter of 1999, suggesting that coming Reserve bank surveys should show a pickup as well. Perhaps reflecting the general low prices and returns of most of 1998, the nominal prices of farmland were about even with year-earlier levels in most of the districts that report. These flat prices stand in contrast to the fairly rapid yearly rate of growth seen at the beginning of 1998, which reached double-digit rates of increase in the Chicago and Richmond districts. In contrast to this widespread slowdown, yearly increases in the prices of both farmland and ranch land have remained quite large in the Dallas district, buoyed in large part by demand for nonfarm uses of the land. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.A FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) DEMAND FOR LOANS LOWER III•Al 1997 Ql... Q2 . . . 03... Q4... 1998 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . | 1 1| | 1 | 1 . . . . 1999 Ql... | 1 III.A2 1997 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4... SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME LOAN REPAYMENT RATE HIGHER LOWER SAME RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS HIGHER LOWER SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER o 1 o 1 92 89 92 90 8 10 8 9 1 1 1 0 89 86 80 75 11 14 19 25 0 69 31 SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS io 8 11 14 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 8 15 19 20 49 44 46 47 42 42 35 34 12 13 10 6 64 71 75 66 24 16 14 28 27 31 43 51 64 65 53 42 9 4 3 7 8 3 3 7 64 64 56 45 29 33 41 48 19 42 39 8 65 27 63 35 2 4 39 57 | 1 | 1 I 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 8 9 6 6 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 12 16 16 9 68 69 69 73 20 15 15 18 15 25 44 47 76 72 55 51 9 3 2 2 9 68 22 46 53 1 1998 Ql... 02... 03... 04... | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 5 7 14 13 69 63 59 66 25 30 26 20 1999 Ql... | 1 15 66 20 III.A3 FUND AVAILABILITY | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 1 16 13 15 9 74 78 79 79 10 9 7 12 0 1 1 0 88 89 91 92 12 10 8 8 6 4 2 3 79 74 60 56 15 22 38 41 0 91 9 1 1 79 80 20 19 3 52 45 2 79 19 0 1 0 0 74 79 88 82 26 20 12 18 | 1 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX ) 1997 Ql. 02. 03. 04., 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 1998 Ql. 02. 03., 04., 14 24 28 17 62 49 50 54 24 27 22 30 3 4 5 2 76 70 71 77 21 26 24 22 16 29 52 52 71 64 45 42 13 8 3 7 14 9 3 3 69 64 51 44 16 26 46 52 |1 |1 |I |1 2 0 1 0 86 82 73 69 13 18 26 31 27 48 24 5 73 22 49 48 4 4 43 53 |1 0 65 35 1999 01. 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 Ill .A4 SAME LOWER HIGHER *** 1998 Ql. . . Q2. . . 03... 04... *** *** *** | 1 1 III .A5 9 11 15 13 77 77 73 70 15 11 12 18 1998 Ql. . . 02... 03... Q4... 8 13 29 19 73 73 64 68 20 13 7 13 41 59 0 1 SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME! HIGHER 10 23 23 15 67 57 65 58 23 20 12 27 13 15 27 12 59 66 56 63 28 19 17 24 8 71 21 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 | |1 | 1 35 44 52 « 54 52 42 46 11 4 6 8 4 3 5 2 64 61 57 59 32 36 38 39 0 2 0 0 77 70 73 75 23 28 27 25 | 1 56 34 10 6 47 45 0 74 26 | 1 | 1 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV* ) 1997 Ql. . . Q2... Q3.. . 04... 1999 Ql. . . LOWER HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI* ) 1997 01.. . Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 1999 Ql... SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS LOAN REPAYMENT RATE FUND AVAILABILITY DEMAND FOR LOANS 36 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 | 1 | 1 ! 1 1 o 6 o 3 73 71 75 65 28 23 25 32 10 16 21 35 88 77 71 55 3 6 7 10 8 6 7 10 80 74 75 55 13 19 18 35 3 0 0 0 85 81 71 71 13 19 29 29 1 3 69 28 24 76 0 7 72 21 o 68 32 | 1 1 ! 1 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.B FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) TOTAL LOWER SAME III.B1 FEEDER CATTLE HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER 8 12 10 9 52 55 61 54 40 33 28 37 28 22 23 24 63 64 65 69 9 13 12 8 1998 Q l . . . 02... Q3. . . Q4. . . 11 14 21 12 51 59 39 48 38 26 40 40 33 38 38 31 61 59 52 65 6 3 10 4 17 43 39 27 65 8 I1 III.B2 1997 Q l . Q2. Q3. Q4. •• .. .. .. 58 62 68 62 26 22 18 25 15 14 15 14 57 63 62 69 28 23 24 17 25 34 37 34 68 58 56 53 7 8 7 13 22 63 14 |1 | |1 | 16 30 32 26 63 51 48 49 20 19 20 25 1999 Q l . . . | 28 50 22 |1 |1 j1 j1 1998 Q l . . . 02... Q3... Q4... 1999 Q l . . . |1 |1 LOWER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME FARM MACHINERY HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER 20 22 24 24 69 69 69 69 10 9 7 7 |1 |1 | 1 22 24 20 14 67 68 71 76 11 8 9 10 1| 20 70 10 19 17 10 12 69 65 59 62 13 18 31 26 1 |1 |1 | 13 12 12 32 64 64 33 59 23 24 55 9 |1 35 58 7 8 7 9 5 42 52 59 49 50 41 32 46 1 j | 1 22 12 11 47 53 52 53 45 25 36 36 |1 |1 |1 1 7 7 9 9 43 51 39 34 50 42 52 57 | j j j 17 33 68 55 56 56 27 36 27 11 5 9 1I 11 33 56 1 63 31 6 17 15 12 11 54 59 66 57 29 25 22 32 16 12 16 17 63 63 63 67 21 26 21 16 9 23 19 17 24 71 76 81 72 6 5 2 4 19 9 13 18 74 74 67 68 7 17 21 14 I1 1| I1 |1 17 20 19 15 71 79 78 78 7 0 3 6 17 10 21 17 78 76 58 68 6 15 21 14 1 I1 I1 |1 15 23 24 23 64 53 46 49 21 23 30 28 |1 j1 |1 ]j 21 32 41 40 59 58 54 50 20 10 5 10 |1 17 78 5 I1 15 75 9 1i 23 51 26 |1 42 49 8 I1 I1 1| |1 13 15 20 17 82 76 60 79 5 9 20 3 6 5 20 8 63 80 61 66 31 16 20 26 1 |1 |1 |1 io 5 29 18 65 75 54 66 25 20 17 16 13 17 19 19 81 70 62 65 6 13 19 15 8 10 11 13 74 77 71 80 18 13 18 7 18 29 43 40 70 58 46 60 13 13 11 0 26 65 9 33 56 11 45 55 0 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 16 8 14 7 58 80 74 77 26 13 11 17 17 16 21 13 73 81 79 83 10 3 0 4 8 18 15 27 75 79 69 65 17 4 15 8 20 27 0 18 76 68 95 82 4 5 5 o 30 65 4 13 87 o HIGHER OPERATING ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1998 Q l . . . Q2... Q3... Q4... 1997 Q l . . . Q2... Q3... 04... |1 16 15 14 14 III.B3 LOWER SAME CROP STORAGE SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*# IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1997 Q l . • . Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4... 1999 Q l . . . DAIRY 1 21 17 19 20 79 80 81 70 o 3 o 10 I1 |1 |1 1 9 15 21 5 87 80 79 95 4 5 0 0 1 25 75 o 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) LOWER SAME III.B4 56 58 52 57 18 17 15 16 8 8 9 6 65 65 58 70 27 27 34 24 55 13 4 68 28 26 25 33 27 67 8 32 18 13 37 28 76 3 25 1 I 39 30 27 19 9 7 9 9 4 1 13 7 20 57 64 67 74 72 80 55 64 58 67 50 66 38 32 38 28 4 6 7 7 58 61 58 60 77 79 73 75 1998 01. .. 02... 03... Q4. . . 21 11 14 16 21 28 28 24 12 12 18 18 56 52 62 63 14 11 9 10 7 15 17 10 7 29 32 28 31 | 1 72 10 7 1997 Ql. . . Q2. . . Q3. . . 04... | 1 HIGHER 14 60 74 15 1999 01... LOWER SAME HIGHER 30 19 58 | LOWER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI:*, Ml¥, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 28 1996 Q4... LOWER SAME HIGHER FARM MACHINERY OTHER OPERATING FARM REAL ESTATE OTHER INTERMEDIATE FEEDER LIVESTOCK | I 1 I | 1 | 1 | 26 57 17 22 18 25 24 68 75 58 63 10 7 17 14 | | 1 | 1 | 1 22 36 59 46 63 58 37 52 15 7 4 2 | 1 51 46 3 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 68 70 70 71 1998 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4... 69 73 72 70 70 ! 1 III.C2 LOWER AT THAN DESIRED DESIRED LEVEL HIGHER THAN DESIRED 51 47 43 44 32 32 34 36 17 21 23 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 43 43 39 50 39 34 38 34 18 22 22 16 1 | 58 27 14 62 65 66 66 78 72 55 51 8 9 8 7 30 34 33 31 1998 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 66 68 68 67 54 54 53 56 8 8 8 11 27 31 32 26 61 7 26 | 1 III.C3 66 49 53 53 51 NONE NONBANK AGENCIES COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER WWW www www www www www www | I I | I WWW www www www *** WW* www I | www www www WWW | j www WWW | I www 1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 1 |1 1 2 1 1 89 89 72 69 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 1 2 3 2 70 66 63 65 78 78 79 79 7 89 4 8 82 10 7 7 88 89 5 5 70 73 74 72 6 6 80 80 13 14 2 65 79 5 91 4 67 4 81 15 13 12 14 9 83 85 78 84 12 12 21 12 74 81 72 80 14 7 6 8 18 8 9 12 75 85 86 79 17 8 6 8 69 81 81 74 14 11 13 18 72 20 | 1 1 i ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX) 49 52 54 50 1999 Ql... CORRESPONDENT BANKS TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1997 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 1999 Ql... NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1997 Ql... Q2... Q3 * 04... 1999 Ql... REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS 51 www *** www *** www *** www *** *** *** www *** *** *** *** * ** *** *** *** *** *** *** 81 11 39 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 Ill ,C4 73 74 72 72 1998 01... Q2... 03... 04... 73 74 74 71 I III ,C5 AT LOWER DESIRED THAN DESIRED LEVEL HIGHER THAN DESIRED NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS AGENCIES NONBANK . CORRESPONDENT BANKS COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1997 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1999 01... REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS 40 69 | 56 15 *** *** *** 29 68 9 24 10 11 12 13 35+ 31 35 35 63 60 59 61 2 9 6 4 30+ 32 32 36 52 55 58 52 18 13 10 12 34 29 27 7 62 66 67 85 4 5 6 7 28 27 24 7 58 62 64 81 14 11 12 11 3 91 6 3 68 28 |1 |1 11 | 1 7 12 io 9 | 1 io *** 1| | 1 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1997 01... 02... 03... 04... 72 74 72 73 36 39 45 41 50 49 53 51 14 12 3 8 0 2 2 0 77 82 80 73 85 91 85 87 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 1998 01... 02... 03... 04... 72 73 72 73 46 48 62 63 41 48 35 30 14 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 78 81 70 71 92 93 96 93 0 0 0 0 8 7 4 7 0 0 0 0 83 100 85 83 3 0 0 0 8 0 11 13 6 0 4 3 62 28 10 0 64 78 4 15 4 74 4 19 4 1999 Ql... 1 74 | | 1 | 1 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". FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE ZZI.D INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS ZZZ.D1 1997 Ql. OTHER OPERATING LOANS Q3. Q4. 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.6 1998 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.1 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.1 1999 Ql. 9.0 9.0 III.D2 LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.6 Q2. INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE *** * ** * ** 8.8 8.8 8.8 *** 8.7 *** 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.1 8.1 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1997 Ql. Q2. 03. Q4. 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.8 10.0 10.1 10.1 1998 Ql. Q2. Q3. 04. 1999 Ql. 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.4 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.4 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.4 9.5 9.3 8.7 8.8 41 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D (CONTINUED) INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS III.D3 INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) *** 1997 Ql. Q2. 03. Q4. OTHER OPERATING LOANS *** *** 10.0 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.1 9.7 9.3 9.6 9.3 9.4 10.0 10.0 1998 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.6 1999 Ql. 9.5 9.4 8.6 III.D4 8.8 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1997 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 10.5 10.6 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.6 10.6 10.4 10.5 10.4 10.4 10.1 10.0 1998 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 10.5 10.4 10.3 9.9 10.5 10.5 10.4 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.2 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.3 9.9 10.0 9.7 9.2 1999 Ql. I III.D5 9.7 9.7 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 9.8 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.9 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.2 1998 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 9.9 9.8 9.5 9.3 9.7 9.6 9.2 9.0 9.4 9.3 9.1 8.9 9.2 9.2 9.0 8.7 1999 Ql. 9.2 9.0 8.9 8.6 1997 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 9.9 9.8 10.0 • • • • • • • • • • • FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.E TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER ALL III.El 1997 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . DRYLAND IRRIGATED 2 1 2 2 1998 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 2 *** *** 1 1 1 3 -10 6 1999 Ql... 1 2 *** *** *** -1 * ** *** *** STABLE UP LOWER SAME HIGHER *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 11 20 12 11 61 63 62 62 29 17 26 27 1 1 1 1 io 17 51 43 76 67 40 50 15 16 9 8 17 25 45 31 57 61 47 53 26 14 8 16 1 41 50 9 30 54 17 4 4 13 41 2 5 5 5 81 77 80 88 17 18 15 8 11 9 13 18 80 80 79 77 9 11 8 5 19 20 -4 -3 3 10 7 13 74 81 89 81 23 io 4 6 | 1 | j | 1 I 16 20 29 34 70 67 61 66 14 13 11 0 3 83 14 | 1 36 64 0 15 12 io 15 65 72 77 69 19 17 13 16 12 23 27 26 73 67 66 60 15 10 7 13 28 61 11 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | I 1 1 *** *** *** *** | 1 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1997 Ql... Q2... Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 -1 -0 2 3 0 0 1 -2 2 -3 4 1998 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4... -1 1 -2 4 -1 2 0 5 -1 7 6 8 2 1 3 DOWN FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC , VA, WV*) 1 | 1 1 1 RANCHLAND 34 27 38 36 o 1998 Ql.. . Q2... Q3. . . Q4. .. III.E3 IRRIGATED 64 64 60 62 o *** 16 3 12 5 1 1 DRYLAND 2 8 2 2 0 -1 1997 Ql. . . Q2. .. Q3. .. Q4... 9 8 7 io 10 8 4 1 0 III.E2 1999 Ql.. . ALL SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS . . . . 1999 Ql . • • TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER RANCHLAND EXPECTED TREND IN FARM REAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) * ** *** *** 1 *** 3 3 1 2 3 3 5 1 4 1 1 -0 2 0 2 1 2 3 6 2 7 16 20 5 8 26 5 | *** *** *** |1 *** *** |1 *** *** |1 *** *** |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 Ill E4 1997 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . *** *** 1998 Ql. . . Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 1999 Ql... * ** *** 1 III .E5 * ** . . . 1999 Ql... IRRIGATED RANCHLAND 4 1 3 0 5 5 4 5 6 6 6 5 9 9 9 7 2 0 -1 -1 3 0 -1 -1 3 3 -2 0 6 6 4 1 7 5 3 1 7 9 5 5 0 0 -0 -1 -1 1 | 1 www WW* www www www www www www www *** DRYLAND 2 1 1 1 *** I 1 ALL 1 1 1 2 *** . . . RANCHLAND DOWN STABLE LOWER UP SAME HIGHER | | | | I | 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 NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1997 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4... 1998 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. IRRIGATED TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) *** . . . . DRYLAND TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER *** *** *** *** * ** 1 4 2 4 3 6 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 www www www www www www www 7 5 3 3 6 3 2 -0 7 5 5 2 www www www www www www www www 3 -1 1 www www | | www www www www 1 21 28 28 24 58 61 58 60 21 11 14 16 26 25 33 27 56 58 52 57 18 17 15 16 32 55 13