View original document

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 2000
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 James Hull



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 fourth quarter of 1999; the
other data generally were available through the third 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 James Hull or
Nicholas Walraven at the address shown on the cover.

The Databook is furnished on a complimentary basis to college and university teachers, libraries of educational institutions, government
departments and agencies, and public libraries. Others should enclose the annual subscription fee of $5.00.

New subscriptions to the Databook (Statistical Release E. 15) may be entered by sending a mailing address (including zip code) to:
Publications Services, Mail Stop 138
Federal Reserve Board
Washington, D.C. 20551
Notice of change of address also should be sent to Publications Services. A copy of the back cover showing the old address should be
included.




SECTION I: A M O U N T A N D 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
IB
l.C
I.D
I.E
l.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
°
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
s imple 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 necessanly 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 ot
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 1 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
renlaced immediately because new replacement banks would soon have been forced to revise their newly-instituted reporting procedures when the new
survey form went into effect. As a result, the size of the survey panel dwindled through early 1997, and with the May 1997 survey, an unusually-large
number of new reporters (about 25) were added. While this does not affect the validity of the May survey information, it likely introduced sampling error,
especially when the May survey results are compared with those of previous quarters.
The format and the information contained in the tables are likely to change over time as more of the new survey information is acquired.



3

SECTION I: (CONTINUED)
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.
RF.CF.NT DEVELOPMENTS:
In the May 2000 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks was slightly 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 touch below the year-earlier reading. Although these data exhibit considerable seasonality, the year-over-year comparisons suggest that the volume of
farm non-real-estate loans that was closed continued to slide downward through mid-2000. The declines in volumes seemed to be concentrated among loans
for operating expenses and loans for farm machinery and equipment, perhaps suggesting some concerns about growing conditions when farmers made these
early-season borrowing decisions.
In the May survey, the average maturity of farm non-real-estate loans remained more or less at the elevated level that we have seen for the past year. The
average effective rate of interest on non-real-estate farm loans was 9.7 percent in the May survey, an increase of 50 basis points over the February figure,
and the highest reading for this series since early 1995. The percentage of loans that were made with a rate of interest that floats was almost 70 percent in
May, continuing farmers' preference for variable rate arrangements that began early in 1999 as farm rates of interest began to pick up. On the other side of
the loan transaction, bankers included call provisions on roughly 25 percent of the volume of farm loans(line 17 of Table I.H.I), up from about 15 percent in
the February survey.
The weighted average risk rating (line 5 of Tables I.H.I through I.H.6) was little changed in the May survey. The weighted average repricing interval (line 4
of the tables) rose, with most of the increases for loans rated as carrying "minimal" risk and on loans with no rating reported (not rated or not reported). The
percentage of the volume of loans that were to purchase or improve farm real estate (line 23) rose again, and as might be expected, most of these loans were
in the largest size category. The proportion of farm loans that were secured reversed an increase seen in the February survey, and the proportion secured by
farm real estate fell back toward levels seen last fall.
When broken out by the riskiness of the loan (Tables I.H.4 through I.H.6), more than half of the estimated volume of loans was rated either "moderate" or
"low".
By farm production region, weighted average rates of interest jumped sharply in several regions, with increases of more than a full percentage point in the
Lake States, Southern Plains, and Pacific regions. In contrast, rates were unchanged in the Mountain States, and rates fell in the Delta States.




0£

000c 6661 8661 Z.661 9661 5661 P66\ £661 [661 1661 0661 6X61 8861 /.86I 9861 5861 t*86l £861 [861 1861 0861 6/.6I 8/.61

ot05
09
0L

9C9 C S I O I jaucrib
§ JA U U
A

08
06
001
Oil
Oc I

oei

01

sc[
uo

uligj 9iciS9-[G9J-uou

j lniv
o uou

9]cj [unuuy 'sjG[[op jo suoi([ig

000[ 6661 8661 L66\ 9661 5661 t66I £661 [661 1661 0661 6861 8861 Z.86I 9861 5861 fr86l £861 [861 1861 0861 6Z.6I 8/.6I

51
06

5[

9§GJ9AG 3UIAOU1

J9UGnb JROJ

0£

5£
OP

SUG0| U J J 3 C S - G J U U J 9 I 3^GJ9AV
JC 1 1 9 ( 9 - 0 O Z S

5t?
O SJB[[0P JO spuBsnoqx
S

01

000[ 6661 8661 6661 9661 5661 t66I £661 [661 1661 0661 6861 8861 Z.86I 9861 5861 t86l £861 [861 1861 0861 6/.61 8/.6I

51
9§GJ9AG 3uiaoui

0'[

J9ucnb jnoj --

5'[
0'£

5'£

0>
5>

S G j UIJ 9 G S - G J U U J J q U ^
U O LG 1 l 9 [ 9 - O O 9 i n j
05

9G [Gnuuy 'suojwjaI
1J




sjsiujBj

oj Suipuaq >|iu>g jo suugj^ jo

ucq3

,<9Ajn§

aqi

uiojj

sj|nsay

in

0

000: 6661 8661 6661 9661 5661 t66I £661 [661 (661 0661 6861 8861 6861 9861 5861 t*86l 1861 [861 1861 0861 6661 8661

01
oz
a C P C S i O u j u n jnoj oJA uAi a c b
-

oi
OP

05
09
OZ.

08
06

3C 1 39U S n o c qjw S G ( u u j 3JGqs
1 J SJ1 I u n y i. U O u j o

001

lU30J3<j

000Z 6661 8661 6661 9661 5661 t-661 £661 [661 1661 0661 6861 8861 6861 9861 5861 M6I 1861 [861 1861 0861 6661 8661

01
[I
P\

91

S G J UIJ 3 G S - G J U U UO 3G J 3 3 U 3 U 3 J 3§GJ3Ay
U O 1G J J 3 J 3 - O
JJ S J J I A 3 J 3

81
OZ

J3JJ
UD3

000[ 6661 8661 6661 9661 5661 t-661 £661 [661 1661 0661 6861 8861 6861 9861 5861

PM\

£861 [861 1861 0861 6661 8661

01
35gj3ag S A U jnucrib jrio:j i Oi
H
P\

91

L

S G j U C 3GS-GJUU J XUiCU 3 G3 V
U O U J 1 1 3( 3- 0 O l rl l § J A :
sios
quyj




s j s u u e j

oj o u i p u a q >jucg jo suuaj^ jo X3Ajn§

:U I
CQ

ai|i u i o j j s i i n s a y

ESTIMATES
TABLE

FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS

I.A

NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

ALL
LOANS

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

BY

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

0. 43
0. 52
0. 49
0. 51
0. 54
0. 56
0. 51
0. 57
0. 48
0. 50
0. 45
0. 44

0 .28
0. 31
0. 35
0. 32
0. 37
0. 37
0. 35
0. 36
0. 31
0. 34
,33
0.
0.
,32

0 .07
0. 09
0 .09
0 .10
0. 11
0. 12
0. 12
0. 12
0 .11
0 .11
0 .12
0 .11

SIZE

OF

BANK

LARGE

OTHER

o.23
•36
0
•44
0 , 50
•
0 ,51
o. 55
0
•54
0 , 66
•
0 ,53
•
0 ,46
0 .39
•
0 .40
.

1 .99
23
2.
2 .20
,
2 . 10
2 . 18
2 .15
1 .98
1 .83
1 . 69
1 . 82
1 .71
.
1. 56

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE

I
1
|
1
1
1
1

1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999,

1
1
|
1

21
60
63
60
2
69
2 70
2 .53
•
.49
2.
2 .22
•
2 .27
2 . 10
.
1 . 96
•
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
I
1
1

1

0 29
0 30
0 32
0 35
0 35
o 36
.28
0.
.26
0.
0 . 18
.
0. 19
.
0. 15
.
0. 14

0. 11
0. 20
0. 24
0. 23
0. 25
0. 27
0. 23
0. 19
0. 17
0. 20
0. 18
0. 16

1. 45
1. 73
1 69
1 64
1 67
1 62
1. 56
1. 48
1. 38
1.
.40
.39
1.
1.
.32

0. 14
0. 16
0. 19
0. 17
0. 18
0. 18
0. 18
0. 17
0. 14
.
0. 15
0. 17
0. 16

0. 21
0. 20
0. 19
0. 21
0. 24
0. 21
0. 21
0. 39
0. 36
0. 33
0. 22
.
0. 18

1. 42
,
1. 67
1. 70
.
1. 66
.67
1.
1. 65
.
1. 55
.45
1.
.33
1.
.32
1.
.20
1.
.09
1.

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

0

NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE

1998 Q1 • • •
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

1
1
1
|

1999

1
1
1
|

Ql . . .

Q2...
Q3...
04...
2000 Ql •
Q2...




1

1

2 .08
,
. 51
2 . 12
1.70

1

2

|

. 93
2 . 37
2 . 05
1.49

1

.91
.27

I

1

1
2

|

|

o . 19
0 . 12
0 .10
0.17

0. 20
0.
,22
.16
0.
.14
0.

1.
.29
.72
1.
.50
1.
.05
1,

0.
.18
0.
.22
.15
0.
0.
.14

0.
.22
0.
.24
.20
0.
.20
0.

.07
1,
.44
1,
.36
1.
.94
0.

0. 47
0. 58
0. 41
0. 36

.38
0.
.37
0.
.26
0.
0,
.30

0. 16
0. 12
0. 09
0. 11

1
1
1
1

.38
0.
.47
•
0 .38
0 .33

1 .70
,
2 . 04
,
1 .74
.
1 . 37
,

0 .20
0 .12
0 .07
0. 15

.
0. 18
.
0. 18
.13
0,
.
0. 15

1 .17
1 .77
1 .47
0 .88

.17
0.
.
0. 17
0 .19
0 .13

0 .20
0 . 14
0 . 19
0 .17

0 .96
1 .41
1 .25
0 .74

0. 45
0. 51
0. 44
,36
0.

.36
0,
0 .34
0 .29
0 .29

0.
,15
.10
0.
.08
0.
0 . 10

1
1
1
1

0 .39
0 .45
0 .44
0 .33

1 .54
1 . 93
1 . 61
1 . 16

0 .09
0 . 12

0 . 16
0 . 19

1 .36
1 .56

0 .13
0 . 18

0 .16
0 .22

1 . 07
1 .28

0 . ,43

0

.
0 .

1

0 ..54

0

0 .72
. 53

1 . 19
1 .74

.27
.33

.
0 ,

14
11

1

0

0

7

ESTIMATES

FROM

THE

QUARTERLY

SAMPLE

SURVEY

TABLE I . B

OF

BANK N O N - R E A L - E S T A T E

AVERAGE

SIZE

OF

LOANS

LOANS

MADE

TO

FARMERS

(THOUSANDS

OF

DOLLARS)
BY

BY

PURPOSE

OF

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

ANNUAL

AVERAGE

SIZE

OF

LOANS

SIZE
BANK

1

10

25

100

to

to

and

9

AND

STOCK

BY
OF

to

24

99

over

LARGE

MACHINERY

LIVESTOCK

LIVE-

LOANS

OF

($1,000s)

FARM

OTHER

FEEDER

ALL

SIZE

LOAN

LOAN

OTHER

EQUIPMENT

OTHER

MADE

1988.

21

8

|

34

1

40

6

16

7

13. 9

34. 7

1

4 5 .,2

3 2 0 ..4

70..0

16..3

19

9

|

42

7

29

5

14

1

12. 1

32. 2

1 4 ., 7

4 5 ..9

272.,1

5 3 .. 7

14..4

1990.

28

4

69

7

22

7

15

7

11. 9

94. 3

1
j

3 ., 7
3 .6
3 ,. 6

1 4 ., 8

1989.

1 4 .. 8

46., 1

4 8 7 .,7

1 0 0 .,7

13 , 9

1991.

31

9

61

0

25

2

15

6

15. 1

129. 3

j

3 ,. 6

14..9

46..6

5 3 9 .,9

107., 0

1 3 ,. 9

1992.

31

2

j

68

2

26

9

14

7

15. 9

108. 7

4 5 ,,9

4 6 8 . .2

97,.0

15., 8

34

3

|

79

7

23

1

15

2

13 . 9

112 . 0

.. 7
3 ,. 7

14..8

1993.

1
j

14.,9

46..1

4 9 0 ..3

106,. 0

15.. 8

1994.

33 . 9

|

60.. 3

27 . 6

16., 3

17. 5

123. 6

1

3

1 4 .. 6

47..0

480.. 7

101.. 3

1 5 ..4

1995.

33 . 8

|

49.. 7

26 . 7

18.. 5

15. 6

93. 6

3

1 4 ., 7

4 4 ,.9

451., 3

8 4 ., 0

1 5 ..7

1996.

39 . 2

59 . 0

24 . 2

26., 0

17. 2

95. 2

1
j

..7
.
.7

3 .. 7

15..0

4 5 ,,2

545.. 9

115.. 0

1 5 ..4

199V.

42 . 3

26 .0

16.. 8

17 . 8

97. 2

385.. 3

9 2 .. 0

16 . 3

41 . 5

24 . 3

1 8 .. 2

28.. 1

127 . 9

.
.8
3 .. 7

45,.8

j

1
j

1 4 .. 9

1998.

31 . 4
32 . 4

14 , 8

4 5 ..4

3 5 7 ..0

95.. 0

18,. 1

1999.

30. 9

|

35 . 6

26 .4

2 1 ..4

3 1 ..8

101.. 1

1

..8

1 4 ,. 8

46,. 8

322.. 1

16. . 2

19 . 3

AVERAGE

SIZE

OF

2000

WEEK

OF

SECOND

QUARTER,

ANNUAL

RATE

39,. 6

1 3 0 ..7

|

3 .8

15.. 1

45.. 8

320,.2

100.. 3

24 . 2

17 . 2

2 4 ., 5

1 0 7 ,,4

|

3 .7

14 ,4
.

46 . 6

335.. 7

16 , 0
.

|

30 . 4

17 . 9

1 4 ,. 4

2 0 ..9

115,. 8

j

3 . 5

.
14 , 6

44 .0

366..8

80 . 3
.
85 , 7

j

50 . 7

29 .3

18.. 9

26,.9

161.,7

|

3 .9

15..3

44 . 6

424 .7

120 . 7

.
21 , 0

26 . 9

25.. 6

21.. 9

2 1 9 ..2

1

3

.7

15 . 5

47 .9

412 , 6
.

.
137 , 6

23 . 4

21 .2

20 . 5

52..4

66 . 3

3

. 8

14 . 5

46 .4

314 . 6

63 .4

17 , 4
.

25 . 1

17 , 0
.

26 .6

44..0

1
j

3 .7

14 . 6

45 .9

261 .3

47 . 5

14 . 3

46 . 5

33 . 1

24 . 9

25 . 9

.
54 , 5

1

4 . 1

14 .9

46 .7

242 . 1

58 . 7

23 . 8

1
1

3

. 8

15 . 1

47 .7

256 . 3

42 . 0

24 .4

4 .0

14 . 8

45 .6

255 . 6

51 . 8

17 .4

46 • 6

|

32 . 7

26 • 1
•
21 . 4

1
j

30 . 2
30 . 1

|

|

Ql

31 • 1

|

38 . 5

29 .9

27 . 6

48 .0

43 .5

02

25 •4

|

40 . 3

23 .3

20 . 1

23 .3

58 .5




MONTH O F

23 . 3

02

31 • 5

FULL

21 .0

Ql

04

FIRST

29 . 6

2 5 .• 6
40.• 4

03

DURING

3

.
37 ,7

3 7 .. 9
2 8 .• o

03
04
1999

MADE

3

43 .4

Q1
Q2

1998

LOANS

3

12 . 5

ESTIMATES

FROM T H E

QUARTERLY

SAMPLE

SURVEY

OF

BANK N O N - R E A L - E S T A T E

LOANS

TO

FARMERS

TABLE I.C
AMOUNT OF

LOANS

MADE

(BILLIONS

OF

DOLLARS)
BY

BY

PURPOSE

OF

LOAN

OTHER
FEEDER

ALL

LIVE-

LOANS

CURRENT

MACHINERY

LIVESTOCK

OPERATING

AND

EXPENSES
A N N U A L AMOUNT

OF

LOANS

OF

BY

SIZE

OF

($1,000s)

BANK

FARM

OTHER

STOCK

SIZE

LOAN

1

10

25

100

to

to

to

and

9

OTHER

24

99

over

EQUIPMENT

LARGE

OTHER

MADE

1988

1

48

2

I

10.0

4

6

24

3

1 .. 9

7 ..4

|

5 .. 2

6 ., 4

12 . 9

2 3 ,. 7

|

1 5 ., 9

3 2 ., 3

1989

1

51

6

|

12 . 9

6

0

24

3

2 .0

6 ..4

j

6 .. 1

7 . 7

1 4 ..4

23 .4

j

1 9 .. 6

3 2 .. 0

1990

1

74

7

1

22.0

5

5

26

6

2 ,. 3

1 8 .,3

6 .. 1

7 . 3

15..9

45.. 3

j

4 4 ., 2

30., 5

1991

I

82

8

|

21.4

5

8

25

5

2 .. 5

2 7 ., 6

6 .. 1

7 .. 6

15.. 1

54..0

5 3

83
92

7

1

23.6

6

7

24

6

2 ..9

2 6 .,0

j

6 .. 2

8 ., 0

16..8

52..8

1993

1
1

•7
4 9 . .4

29., 1

1992

1
j

6

|

28.7

6

2

24

7

2 .5

3 0 ..6

j

6 .. 1

8 .. 3

17.. 1

61..0

j

58. ,8

3 3 ., 8

1994

|

8 5 .• 7
84.. 1

1
j

16.8

6 .4

25. 4

3 .2

33. 9

j

5 .. 8

7 .4

16..5

56..0

j

55., 1

30., 6

12.7

5 .2

27. 3

2 .7

36.•

5 .. 4

8 .. 3

16..0

54 . 4

j

55.. 3

28.. 8

87.• 3
7 1 .• 4

1

1995
1996

1

10.6

4 .0

35. 9

2 .4

34. 5

1
j

5 .. 0

7 . 1

13..9

61..3

j

6 1 . .2

26., 1

8.0

5 . 3

23. 6

2 .7

31. 9

j

5 .. 0

7 .,4

15..8

43..3

4 1 ., 9
3 7 . .0

29.. 6

30.. 6

30., 1

41,.2

1998

|

6 8 .• o

6 . 1

4 .4

25. 2

4 ..9

2 7 ..5

j

4 .. 5

6 .,7

14..9

41..9

1
j

1999

|

6 0 .• 6

4.9

4 .2

28. 4

5 .. 2

1 8 .,0

j

4 ..2

6 .. 6

15..1

34..9

j

199'/

3 4 ., 3

AMOUNT

OF

LOANS

MADE

DURING

FIRST

FULL

WEEK

OF

SECOND

MONTH O F

QUARTER,

ANNUAL

31., 1

RATE

7 8 .. 8 0

|

7 . 1

5 .9

30. 0

7 ,1
.

2 8 ..6

|

4 , 1
.

7 .. 0

17..6

50,. 1

|

3 7 .. 7

Q2...

70..30

|

5 . 3

4 . 6

29. 5

5,. 4

25.•6

8 .. 4

17..4

39..2

j

3 7 .. 7

3 2 ,. 6

5 4 .. 2 9

|

3 . 1

2 .9

21. 6

3 .. 2

4 .. 8

6 .. 0

11.. 5

32 . 0

j

32.. 5

21 . 8

6 8 .. 7 3

|

8.8

4 . 1

19 . 7

.
3 ,8

2 3 .. 5
3 2 .. 3

1
|
j

5,. 4

Q3...

1998

.
3 , 6

5 .. 5

13 . 2

46..4

j

40.. 0

28.. 7

8 9 .. 8 6

1

6.7

4 . 8

30. 1

3 .7

3 .6

7 ,0
.

17 ,4
.

61 .9

|

53 . 9

36,. 0

3 .8

36 . 4

8 . 7

44..6
9 .. 5

|

3.5

j

5 .4

7 .. 4

16..0

33 . 0

j

28 . 3

33 . 5

2 .2

3 .2

25. 0

5 .. 1

8 ..4

j

4 . 6

6,. 4

13 .2

.
19 , 7

|

2 0 ,. 8

23 . 1

7 . 1

5 .0

22 . 0

3 .4

9 ..4

j

3 .0

5 . 3

13 . 7

24 . 9

j

19.. 3

.
27 , 7

3 . 6

4 . 8

37 . 6

6 .3

12 . 7

36 . 0

|

30 .4

29 . 0

3 1 .. 5

4 . 1

|
j

6 ,. 6

4 .4

7 , 1
•
12 . 7

4 . 1

4.8

5 . 1

7 .9

15 . 1

29 .3

j

27 . 2

30 . 2

Ql . . .

1

Q4 . . .
1999

|

Ql...

|

Q2...

61.. 85

Q3...

4 3 .• 9 1

|

Q4.. .
2000

|

4 6 .. 9 6

|

Ql...

1
j

59 . 42
5 7 .. 4 4

|

Q2 . . .




9

ESTIMATES
TABLE

FROM THE QUARTERLY

SAMPLE

SURVEY

OF BANK N O N - R E A L - E S T A T E

I.D

LOANS TO FARMERS

AVERAGE M A T U R I T Y OF LOANS MADE

BY

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

P U R P O S E OF

10

(MONTHS)
BY S I Z E OF
LOAN ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 s )

LOAN

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND

10
to
24

25
to
99

.
•1
.
•4

9..2

10..2

8..3

9.. 3

.
•4
.
•7

9..2
8..3
9..7

11..9
10.. 6

1
to
9

OTHER

EQUIPMENT

BY
OF

100
and
over

SIZE
BANK

LARGE

OTHER

8.. 1
7 . 8
4.. 7

8.. 8
8..2

ANNUAL AVERAGE M A T U R I T Y

1988

8 .7

.
4 , 7
7 ,4
.
8.. 8

6.. 8

1991

8 . 1
7 .5
7 . 3

1992
1993
1994
1995

8 . 9
9 .2
10 . 3
9 .9

6,.
7 ,
.
7 .
8,.

1996
1997
1998
1999

8 . 5
,
9 . 9
9 . 8
11 . 5

7 .8
9 . 1
8 .0

1990

6.. 0
6.. 7

1998

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

1999

7 .8

9.6
8 . 3

7 .2

9 .

8 . 3
,
8 .8

Q1
Q2
Q3

12.0

Q4
2000

11 . 5

Q1
Q2

11 .




OF

8 .1

10.4

14 .

11 .

8..3

6 .9
7 .7
9 .0
.
9 ,7

1 0 ..9
1 1 ..8

1

7

1

7

21,.9

6..4

24,.6
20.. 1

5..3

1
1
1

7

7 . 2
,
8.. 6

.
,5
.
,6
.8

.9
11.. 3
11..0
10,.3
11,.0

8 .0

10.6

19,.8
18,.7

9
9
9
9

1
3
6
7

MATURITY

8.. 5
7.. 2
7 . 5
,

8 ,5
.

6 ,4
.

1989

8..
8..
8..
7 .
10,.

3
6
5

30,.4
36..6
26,. 5

6
7

29 .4
30.. 6
27 , 5
.
20 . 1

9 . 9
11,. 3

LOANS MADE D U R I N G

FIRST

9..4
9..4
9..4
10..0
9.,2
7 .4
6.. 8
10..5

1
|
|
|
1
1
1

9.. 9

2 3 ., 9

8.,2

|

1 0 ..4

13 . 1
8..6

9.. 9
8.. 9

3 3 ., 1
2 1 ..7

6..6
7..6

1
1

31.. 5

5..2

1

12 . 8
12 .0
7 .3

11..2
14 . 2

28,.0
.
13 , 9
22 .3

6,. 1

|

18..8
17 . 1

1
1

24 . 1

16 .9

1

17 . 4
22 . 3

14 . 1
13 .4

1
|

.
9 , 3
.
8 ,7

10 . 4
9 .3

10 . 0
10 . 1

8 .. 3
8 .. 5
8 .. 6
9 ,. 0
8 ,. 6
8 .8
•
8 ,. 8
9 . 8

10,.0
11,. 6
10.. 8
10,. 5
11.. 6
11,. 3
11..2

F U L L WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF Q U A R T E R ,

1 2 ., 1
7 .5

10..9

7

11.. 1
11.. 1
13 . 5
12
12
12
12
12

. 1
,. 1
,. 4
,. 5
.4

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

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

8,. 2
7 ,3
.
8,. 8
8 .7
11,.4

7

1 3 .. 4

5 ., 9

1 4 ., 5
1 3 ., 2
1 1 ..7

1
1
|
j

.
•0
9 .. 9
12 .3
10.. 8

12 . 6
18 . 0
11.. 8
11.. 9

1
1

8 .. 2
11 .2

14 . 3
11 . 9

9..5
8..8

1
1

1 1 ..5
8.,9

1 1 ..0

9.. 0
7 .5

1
1

1 0 .. 1
9 .. 9

11..9
11..3

10., 9
14 . 7

9 .. 4
. .7

10..4
11.. 1

11.. 1
12 . 9

8,. 4
15.. 7
13 .8
11 . 1

12.. 0
11 . 9

10.. 9
11.. 7

11 .4
11 . 6

1 3 ., 1

8 ., 3
1 .6
-

9

9 . 8
.
10 .8

1 1 . ,3

10.. 1
10., 4
1 2 .. 6
11.,4
1 2 ., 3
12 . 8
13 . 2
1 3 ,. 8

ANNUAL RATE

13. 2
13. 8

9 ., 1
9 ., 8

1 0 ..2
9 . 6

1 1 ..4

•4
6 ., 8
7 .2
•

7

ESTIMATES
TABLE

FROM THE

QUARTERLY

SAMPLE

SURVEY OF BANK N O N - R E A L - E S T A T E

LOANS TO FARMERS

I.E
AVERAGE E F F E C T I V E

INTEREST

RATE ON LOANS MADE
BY S I Z E

BY

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVE-

PURPOSE

OTHER
CURRENT

OTHER

OPERATING
EXPENSES

LIVESTOCK

STOCK

ANNUAL AVERAGE

1

1988
1989
1990

-

I

1 1 ., 2
12 . 5
11 . 4

1991
1 992
1 993
1994

9 . 8
7 . 8
7 . 5
7 , 8
.

1995
1996
1997

9 . 5
8 ,. 4
9 .2
9 . 0
8 .7

1998
|

1999

AVERAGE

1998

1999

2000

Ql.
Q2 .
Q3 .
g4 .

10 . 9
12 . 3
11 . 5
1 0 ,. 2
8 .2
8 .0
8 .3
10,. 1
8 .8
9 . 6
9 .. 4
9 , 1
.

INTEREST

1 1 ,. 9
1 2 ,. 4
1 2 ,. 0
1 1 ,. 0
8 . 6
8 .
,
8 .
1 0 ..
9 .
9 ..
9 .

1
0
2
5
8
7

9 .. 1

RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING

1 1 .. 2
12 . 6
1 1 .. 7
1 0 ..4
8 .. 8
8 .. 1
8 .. 4
1 0 .. 0
8 .. 6
9 .. 9
9 .. 6
.
9 ,2

FIRST




BY
OF

SIZE
BANK

FARM
MACHINERY
AND

1
to

10

25

100

to

to

9

OTHER

24

99

and
over

EQUIPMENT

LARGE

OTHER

|

1 0 .. 2
12 . 1
10 . 9

11 . 6
12 . 7
12 . 3

1
1
j
j

..
6 ..
6..
7 ..

0
8
7

11 . 3
.
9 ,4
8 .7

2

1
1
1

9 .. 0
7 . 8
•
8 .. 7

1
j

8 . 3
•
7 ,. 9

8 .8
10 . 4
1 0 ..0
.
10 , 0
9 . 8

RATE

1 1 .. 7
12 . 8
12 . 3
11 . 3
9 . 3
8 .. 7
8 ,. 6
1 0 .. 3
9 .. 7
9 . 8
9 .. 3
8 .8
,

FULL WEEK OF

10,.7
1 2 ,. 3
10,. 7
8 ,. 6
6 ,. 3
6 ,. 2
7 ,0
.
8 ,. 8
8 ,. 0
8 ,. 5
8 ,. 0
7 ,. 6

1
|
|
1
1
1
1
j
j
j
j
1

.
•7
1 2 .. 8
1 2 .. 5
1 1 .. 5
9 . 7
•

1 1

9 ., 0
9 ., 1
10.. 6
1 0 . .2
1 0 . .2
10.. 1
9 .. 7

1 1 ., 6
12 . 7
"12 ., 4
1 1 .. 2

9 .. 5

9 . 3

8
5

9 .6

9.8
9.7
9.6

10.2

10.0

9.5
9.7

10.1

9.0

9.9
9 .9
9.7

9.3

9.6
9.7

8.5

9 . 1

9 .0

9.3

9.0

9 .9

9 .9
10.1
9.7

9.2
9.2

12
10
9
7
6
7

.2
. 9
.2
. 1
.9
. 3
.0
. 8

9
7
8 . 8
8 .4
8 .. 1

9

9 .4

8.2

9.4
9.4
9 .6
9.7

9.2
9.2
9.4
9.4

9.8
10.3

9 .7

9 .5

10.1

10.0

9 .9
9.9

7.4

9.3

9.9

8.5
8.5
7 . 9

9.8
9.8
9.7

9.9

10

10 . 8

ANNUAL RATE

9 .2

9.7
9.5
9.7

12 . 1
10 . 7

1 0 ., 1
1 0 ..0
9 .. 9

3
7

9 .1

10.1

1 1 .. 4
12 . 7

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

9 .,
8 .
8 .
10.,

SECOND MONTH OF Q U A R T E R ,

Ql.
Q2 .
Ql •
Q4 .
Ql.
Q2 .

OF
($1,000s)

LOAN

OF LOAN

9.4
9 .3
9 .6
9 .5

8.1
8.4
8.7
9.0
9.4

8 .7
9.4

9.4

9 .8
10 . 1

11

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE

I . F

12

PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE
BY SIZE OF
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

L O A N

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to

OTHER

25
to

1 0

to
24

9

BY SIZE
OF BANK

( $ 1 , 0 0 0 s )

9 9

1 0 0

and
over

LARGE

OTHER

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE

1988.
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.
1998.
1999.

.. 3

6 1

.. 4

6 5

6 1

.. 0

7 1 . . 4

., 6

., 8

5 4 . . 9

6 3

., 2

|

4 9 . . 3

5 1 . . 5

6 0 . . 8

6 7

.. 0

|

7 9 . , 1

5 2

.. 0

5 9 . . 7

3 2 . . 9

7 3

.. 6

|

5 0 . , 4

4 9 . , 6

5 8

6 9 . . 1

j

8 3

., 6

4 7

,. 2

4 0 . . 0

5 1 . . 2

, 6
•

5 9 . . 2

6 6 . . 0

6 7

.. 5

|

6 9 . , 4

5 9

,. 3
,. 1

3 9 . . 5
4 0

6 3

. 5

6 5

.. 2

7 6

.. 8

6 1 . . 6

6 8 . . 3

1

5

6 5

.. 1

8 1 . . 5

6 9 . . 3

6 8 . . 8

4 0 . . 6

5 0 . . 3

j

5 2

., 0

5 9 . . 0

6 4 . . 0

6 7

.. 8

j

7 0

., 0

5 6

.. 3

4 7

,. 8

7 5 . . 3

1

5 7 . , 3

5 9 . . 1

6 1 . . 2

7 8

.. 6

j

8 2

., 9

5 5

., 5

.. 3

4 8 , . 2

7 8 , . 1

|

6 0 . . 1

6 1 . . 0

6 4 . . 5

8 3

.. 9

|

8 6 . , 9

5 8

., 9

3

7 1

.. 7

7 8 . . 5

6 3

.. 5

6 6

7 6

,. 7

8 4 . . 6

7 0

.. 0

7 0

7 5

.. 1

8 2 . . 9

7 4

.. 3

7 2

.. 3

5 1 . . 6

7 5 . . 7

|

5 8 . . 6

5 9 . . 8

7 0

.. 4

8 0

.. 2

j

8 3

., 7

5 9

. 7

7 3

,. 8

8 3

,. 9

7 5

.. 9

7 3

,. 0

5 3 . . 1

7 2

,. 2

|

6 1 . . 7

6 3

7 3

.. 6

7 6

,. 7

j

7 9 , . 9

6 2

. 3

. 3

3 2

. 9

6 1

. 4

j

6 0 . . 6

6 1 . . 5

6 9 . . 1

6 2

. 2

|

6 5 , . 4

5 7

. 9

,. 8

4 9

. 9

6 4

. 3

j

6 0 , . 1

5 8 , . 0

6 8 , . 0

6 7

. 0

j

7 1 , . 4

5 7

. 9

.. 9

6 3

,. 1

5 8

,. 1

7 1

. 2

6 7

6 5

. 8

6 6

,. 4

7 3

. 2

6 7

. 0

5 9

. 4

6 8

. 5

4 6

. 7

4 2

. 0

j

5 7 , . 6

5 4 , . 8

6 2

. 7

5 1

. 1

5 7

,. 1

5 1

. 3

. 4

5 5

j

5 4

4 5

. 6

6 6

. 0

6 8

. 6

5 8

. 2

5 2

. 0

j

5 2

5 4 , . 6

6 0

. 2

6 3

. 1

j

7 0

,. 8

5 0

. 5

6 0

. 7

. 9

. 6

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER

1998 Ql

Q2
Q3
Q4

5 6.6
54.6
54.7
51.6

5 9 . 4
7 6 . 2
5 1 .

6

3 9 . 9

56.6
60.1
54.2
66.2

1999 Ql
Q2
Q3
Q4

4 6 . 4

5 0 . 2

6 5 . 2

7 3 . 7

66.6

72.5

2000 Ql
Q2




7 0 . 2

4 4 . 6

6 9 . 1

6 2 . 3

3 1 . 2

5 9 . 9

6 3 . 0

4 6 . 4

6 9 . 2

6 8 . 3

5 1 . 0

5 7 . 8

7 0 . 2

5 8 . 1

4 1 . 2

6 0 . 5

5 6 . 7

6 7 . 0

5 2 . 6

5 3

68.1

4 8 . 2

3 4 . 9

5 8 . 0

5 0 . 5

6 1 . 9

5 1 . 7

5 7 . 6

6 7

2 8 . 3

4 7 . 4

5 5 . 7

5 7 . 7

5 9 . 3

5 2 . 4

6 1 . 9

59 .1
51. 1
44 . 1

3 8 . 9

4 4 . 4

5 6 . 4

5 5 . 9

60.8

4 8 . 1

5 5 . 8

4 5 . 7

3 3 . 9

3 3 . 2

4 7 . 0

5 0 . 4

5 5 . 0

4 3 . 5

4 3 . 4

5 0 . 8

7 5 . 5

7 9 . 2

5 7 . 6

5 8 . 8

66.2

8 3 . 3

9 1 . 5

5 8 . 6

4 8 . 8

8 6 . 3

5 0 . 2

5 1 . 4

6 2 . 3

8 6 . 4

9 4 . 3

4 8 . 6

5 4 . 1

82.6

5 4 . 2

5 8 . 0

5 7 . 9

6 6 . 5

9 1 . 8

41.7

80.6

7 0 . 8

5 1 . 8

5 2 . 4

5 3 . 0

6 9 . 7

6 5 . 2

6 0 . 7

5 7 . 6

7 8 . 4

5 3 . 0

5 4 . 7

61.8

7 8 . 0

8 8 . 4

5 0 . 2

. 1

68.0
63
72
71
65
59
69

Table I.G

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

Effective
interest
rate
(percent)
All Loans

Feb 0 0
100

Under 5 percent

-

5.0 to 5.9

-

6.0 to 6.9

100

100

100

100

-

-

-

100

4

—

-

100

100

100

100

May 0 0

100

100

100

*

*

*

-

-

-

14

*

*

4

*

*

*

-

1

11

4

4

-

11

13

14

23

3

14

6

3

4

*

1

*

7.0 to 7.9

-

30

18

22

21

14

19

11

14

12

4

2

1

8.0 to 8.9

-

17

23

18

22

11

15

20

31

37

19

18

11

9.0 to 9.9

.1

9

17

16

20

35

18

30

30

30

36

43

39

8

22

10

20

4

24

15

21

14

11

27

26

32

11.0 to 11.9 . . .

33

8

7

5

2

11

3

9

7

2

11

10

13

12 0 to 12.9 . . .

39

2

1

1

*

1

1

2

1

*

2

1

2

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

-

-

—

10.0 to 1 0 . 9 . . .

*

13 0 to 1 3 . 9 . . .

14

-

-

-

14.0 to 1 4 . 9 . . .

5

-

-

-

1 5 0 to 1 5 . 9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16.0 to 16.9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

*

—

*

-

-

—

*

17.0 to 17.9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

—

—

18.0 to 1 8 . 9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

—

21.0 to 2 1 . 9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

—

22.0 to 22.9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

—

23.0 to 2 3 . 9 . . .

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

—

—

24.0 to 24.9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

—

—

—

—

20.0 to 20.9 . . .

—

—

19 0 to 1 9 . 9 . . .

*

—

*

1. Percentage distribution of the estimated total dollar amount of non-real-estate farm loans of $ 1 , 0 0 0 or more made by insured commercial banks during
the week covered by the survey, which is the first full business week of the month specified.
Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve survey of terms of bank lending to farmers. Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
* indicates less than .5 percent.



14
TABLE I.H.I
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 1-5, 2 000
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans
all sizes

$1-9

(thousands)

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

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
risk rating 3

(months) 2

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




333, 957
49, 344
17 .77
7 .16
2 .93

109,1035
27,'
769
11 .34
5 .43
2 .71

169,:336
462
11,'
12 .09
6 .16
2 .78

145, 658
4, 392
11 .65
4 .98
2 .86

191, 837
2, 859
23 .38
14 .03
3 .02

326, 655
2, 177
23 .90
9 .66
2 .63

391,436
685
16.38
3.41
3.25

9 .69
0 .14

10 .24
0 .08

10 .08
0 .07

10 .08
0 .05

9 .91
0 .16

9 .63
0 .11

9.17
0.34

10 .47
9 .00

10 .79
9 .65

10 .78
9 .50

10 .70
9 .41

10 .50
9 .31

10 .25
8 .84

9.71
8.44

9 .56
9 .86
9 .91
10 .07
9 .18
9 .20

10 .21
10 .41
10 .22
10 .43
10 .24
10 .12

9 .99
10 .06
10 .10
10 .19
10 .29
9 .86

9 .97
10 .50
10 .17
9 .52
8 .88
9 .91

10 .17
9 .73
10 .03
10 .31
8 .99
9 .80

9 .24
9 .82
9 .80
9 .77
9 .20
9 .60

9.05
8.58
9.50
10.21
9.07
8.77

.60
67.
74..26
24..53
0.
.86

55.
,12
72.,13
25,,55
.22
0.

,18
56.
.30
69.
25..76
.13
0.

63.,34
73.,80
30,,14
.34
0.

57.
.97
68.
.52
22 .
.35
0.
.49

62 .
.96
68.
.04
32,.19
.36
1.

,21
86.
85,, 16
16.
,32
.32
1.

7.
.95
6,
.39
.23
52,
6 .21
7 .98
19 .23

.62
4.
.77
7.
.
70. 01
.40
8.
.95
1.
.26
7,

.80
4.
.82
7,
.39
66,
7 .72
2 .69
.58
10,

.64
8.
.90
8.
.13
62.
7.
.50
.76
1,
11,.08

9.
.62
7.
.21
51,.44
6,
.94
8,
.96
15,.83

13 ,
.51
8,
.23
50,.11
4 .93
12 .13
11 .09

4. 52
,
,
2 . 53
39.
,61
,
5. 19
.33
10.
37,.81

17 .48
74 .16

10 .68
81 .95

10 .04
83 .17

8,
.69
86 .65

17 .99
76 .85

26 .94
70 .48

17,.70
65 .20

TABLE I.H.2
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 1-5, 2000
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans
all sizes

(thousands)

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

815,1330
191
22,:
15 .23
3 .67
3 .22

45,753
11,<529
11 .39
4 .01
3 .01

75,768
5,059
11 .08
3 .53
3 .10

82,250
2,413
13 .19
5 .36
3 .04

99, I
074
505
1/!
16 .81
7 .34
3 .28

145,1375
991
17 .69
4 .22
3 .21

367,110
594
15.61
2.08
3.29

9 .59
0 .19

10 .20
0 .09

10 .01
0 .12

10 .02
0 .06

9 .91
0 .22

9 .73
0 .06

9.18
0.35

10 .27
8 .84

10 .78
9 .61

10 .62
9 .41

10 .64
9 .38

10 .47
9 .38

10 .27
9 .15

9.88
8.36

9 .57
9 .39
9 .87
10 .08
9 .27

10 .24
10 .02
10 .24
10 .36
10 .17

10 .09
9 .77
10 .06
9 .97
9 .54

10 .26
9 .24
10 .13
9 .83
8 .88

9 .58
9 .73
10 .08
9 .87
9 .58

9 .73
9 .46
9 .89
10 .02
9 .65

9.05
8 . 58
9.54
10.21
9.09

80 .17
86 .27
22 .49

73 .20
90 .02
27 .77

74 .87
89 .12
31 .52

71 .85
85 .39
30 .41

66 .15
80 .17
27 .89

80 .02
82 .07
25 .83

87.84
88.72
15.41

5 .87
5 .89
48 .55
5 .72
6 .36
19 .23

4 .25
7 .45
70 .29
4 .89
2 .14
7 .26

5 .05
6 .60
65 .58
5 .16
2 .36
10 .58

7 .72
3 .52
63 .84
6 .69
3 .11
11 .08

7 .88
10 .46
50 .13
4 .77
5 .88
15 .83

7 .01
11 .30
49 .34
6 .82
6 .59
11 .09

4.82
2.70
38.16
5.54
8.47
37.81

16 .71
72 .40

19 .59
73 .42

17 .19
76 .77

13 .47
79 .96

16 .86
79 .14

18 .23
78 .47

16.33
65.45

LARGE FARM LENDERS 1
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans
Number of loans
Weighted average
Weighted average
Weighted average

(thousands)
maturity (months)1
repricing interval
risk rating 3

(months) 2

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
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
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

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




15

16
TABLE I.H.3
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 1-5, 2000
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans
all sizes

(thousands)

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

518,127
27,153
21.69
12.58
2.34

63,283
16,140
11.30
6.45
2.47

93,568
6,403
12 . 8 8
8.24
2 .48

63,409
1,979
9.66
4.48
2.59

92,762
1,353
30.08
20.99
2.59

180,780
1, 186
28.81
13.98
1.99

9.86
0.09

10.27
0.10

10.14
0.11

10.16
0.18

9.90
0.14

9.55
0.13

9.04
0.03

10. 52
9.
,11

10. 97
,69
9.

10.,89
,51
9.

10. 85
,65
9.

10.,51
9.
,25

10.,24
.77
8.

9. 11
9. 00

,55
9.
10.
,46
.95
9.
10.
.07
9.
.09
.93
9.

10.
.19
,67
10.
.20
10.
.45
10.
.30
10.
.32
10.

,90
9.
10..23
10 .
.13
10.
.29
10..77
.75
9.

,68
9.
10.
.87
10.
.22
9.
.20
9.
.83

10.,59
,75
9.
9.
,98
10.
.56
8.
.69
.68
9.

9.
.09
10..40
.73
9.
.36
9.
9.
.06
10.
.26

47.
.81
55.
.34
27.
.75
0,
.03

.06
42 .
.20
59.
.95
23 .
.28
0.

41..04
.26
53 .
21..09

.30
52.
.76
58.
.78
29.

49..22
56.
.08
16.
.43

49,.19
56 .71
37 .31

11,
.23
7 .19
,
58 .02
6 .99
10 .55
19 .23

.88
4,
7 .99
69 .81
10 .93
1 .81
7 .26

4 .60
,
8 .80
67 .05
9 .79
2 .96
10 .58

9 .83
15 .88
59 .93
8 .54
17 .92
11 .08

11,.48
3 .74
,
52 .84
9 .25
32 .36
15 .83

18 .75
5 .76
50 .73
3 .40
5 .18
11 .09

37 . 81

18 .69
76 .94

4 .24
88 .11

4 .26
88 .35

2 .50
95 .34

19 .20
74 .41

33 .97
64 .04

38 .46
61 . 54

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
risk rating 3

(months) 2

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
Feeder livestock
19
Other livestock
20
Other current operating expenses
21
Farm machinery and equipment
22
Farm real estate
23
Other
24
By type of collateral
Farm real estate
25
Other
26
15
16
17
18

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




-

-

-

-

24,326
91
27.91
23 . 09
2.32

-

,
9. 07
-

.
9. 00

.54
61.
.40
31.
.
30. 14

-

-

61 . 54
-

TABLE I.H.4
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 1-5, 2000
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

1,333,957
49,344
.77
17.
.16
7.
2.
.93

126,633
5,842
19 .69
14 .17
1 .00

194,1381
321
9,:
16 .45
7 .77
2 .00

524,917
18,359
16 .18
5 .02
3 .00

216,884
6,569
17 .21
4 .23
4 .00

75,794
1,608
,60
10.
,78
0.
,00
5.

38,1534
1,389
21 .56
16 .60

157,013
6,256
26.59
13.06

.69
9.
0.
.14

9 .46
0 .19

9 .65
0 .07

9 .64
0 .25

9 .83
0 .16

9.
.88
.35
0.

9 .87
0 .24

9.77
0.28

.47
10,
.00
9,

10 .24
8 .68

10 .25
9 .25

10 .47
8 .61

10 .47
9 .31

.73
10.
.62
8.

10 .55
9 .38

10.52
9.11

9 .56
9 .86
9 .91
10 .07
9 .18
9 .20

8 .98
9 .23
9 .89
9 .69
8 .70
9 .23

10 .02
9 .94
9 .60
9 .43
9 .02
9 .28

9 .49
9 .67
10 .05
10 .19
9 .25
8 .81

9 .97
9 .41
9 .94
10 .08
9 .73
9 .51

.67
9,
10,
.09
10,
.09
.18
11,
10 .03
9 .24

6 .73
10 .16
10 .15
9 .22
9 .47
9 .76

9.75
10.24
9.71
9.92
9.31
10.09

67.60
L A 't^
n'pr
u.8b

48.28
ac'H
H e
1
•

51.
.88
.23
75.
.65
26.
.82
2.

.26
71.
76.
.49
22 .
.14
0.
.62

84.
,62
.24
84.
.76
18.
.28
0.

.79
90.
80.
,86
.29
8.
.28
0.

58.
,87
.32
65.
.54
2.

57.
,86
,01
58.
.72
33 .

'•^
° ^
c oi
6.21
o?
19.23

?"?c
cc'i?
i aq
1.48
3.30

.55
12 ,
.77
13,
.95
60,
3 .71
,
3 .45
5 .55

.78
5,
.83
5,
50 .03
6 .30
8 .27
23 .80

.49
3.
.51
2,
.50
56,
.22
9,
4 .09
24 .20

.70
4,
0.
.99
.81
55,
6 .69
1 .21
30 .61

0,
.93
21,.40
24 .75
7 .67
0 .75
44 .50

.36
9,
7. 66
,
45 .13
8 .11
.
14 .59
15 .14

i,
71.35

8 .95
83 .36

17 .03
72 .53

13 .48
76 .18

23 .40
76 .22

12 .52
75 .39

28 .78
66 .43

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)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

74.16

-

-

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




17

18
TABLE I.H.5
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 1-5, 2000
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

37,872
1,794
28.33
11.13

LARGE FARM LENDERS'
1
2
3
4

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2

5

Weighted

average

r i s k

r a t i n g

3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent)
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th P e r c e n t i l e

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
Feeder livestock
Other livestock
Other current operating expenses
Farm machinery and equipment
Farm real estate
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
Feeder

l i v e s t o c k

Other livestock
Other current operating expenses
Farm machinery and equipment
Farm real estate
Other
By type of collateral
Farm r e a l
Other

Footnotes

e s t a t e

a r e at the end of




t a b l e I.H

4

815,830
22,191
15.
.23
.67
3.
3.
.22

25,162
1,444
18 .09
6 .87
1 .00

95,741
3,035
12 .20
5 .13
2 .00

400,071
9,895
14 .09
2 .96
3 .00

173,472
4,428
18 .36
3 .76
4 .00

70,237
1,254
10 .73
0 .69
5 .00

13,275
342
10 .65
0 .84

.59
9.
0.
.19

9 .37
0 .44

9 .42
0 .10

9 .45
0 .29

9 .78
0 .12

9 .94
0 .34

9 .21
0 .24

10.20
0.06

10.
.27
8.
.84

9 .69
9 .25

9 .88
9 .00

10 .27
8 .51

10 .27
9 .38

10 .73
8 .84

9 .65
8 .11

10.74
9.76

.57
9,
9.
.39
.87
9.
.08
10.
9.
.27
.10
9,

9 .33
9 .47
9 .53
9 .39
8 .25
9 .27

9 .76
9 .63
9 .36
9 .00
9 .57
9 .05

9 .38
9 .08
9 .94
10 .19
9 .01
8 .79

9 .92
9 .38
9 .95
9 .87
9 .73
9 .48

9 .67
10 .09
10 .23
11 .18
10 .03
9 .24

10 .18
9 .68
9 .84
9 .93
9 .47
8 .91

10.64
10.08
10.15
9.86
9.98
10.43

80.
.17
86.
.27
.49
22 .
.39
1,

79 .85
96 .42
37 .76
7 .80

61 .09
90 .93
32 .21
5 .72

77 .31
84 .04
22 .77
0 .81

89 .44
91 .97
8 .20
0 .35

91 .55
80 .79
7 .61
0 .05

95 .57
88 .80
7 .39

89.92
74.48
83.11

.87
5.
.89
5.
.55
48.
5,
.72
.36
6.
.23
19,

13 .35
2 .67
64 .16
0 .29
8 .25
3 .30

10 .95
14 .76
63 .27
4 .02
2 .36
5 .55

5 .78
5 .40
45 .31
5 .03
7 .69
23 .80

3 .99
2 .63
49 .64
9 .25
5 .11
24 .20

5 .07
1 .07
52 .31
7 .21
1 .30
30 .61

0 .42
27 .09
6 .90
0 .68
2 .18
44 .50

0.96
7.26
37.82
3.74
17.69
15.14

.71
16,
.40
72 ,

17 .85
69 .50

9 .06
79 .34

17 .24
69 .91

16 .72
70 .69

23 .92
75 .67

7 .73
87 .05

19.37
79.72

-

-

-

-

TABLE I.H.6
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING MAY 1-5, 2000
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

518,127
27,153
21.69
12.58
2.34

101,472
4,398
20.05
15.84
1.00

9.86
0.09

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

98,340
6,286
20.58
10.33
2.00

124,846
8,464
22.82
11.59
3.00

43,413
2,141
12.79
6.04
4.00

5,557
354
9.03
1.92
5.00

25,359
1,048
25.02
21.60

119,141
4,462
26.03
13.69

48
26

9.88
0.14

10.26
0.20

10.03
0.34

9.14
0.67

10.22
0.26

64
33

,52
10.
,11
9.

10.
.24
8.
,68

10.
,51
9.
,31

,06
11.
,72
9.

11. 20
8. 77

9.
,89
8.
,62

10. 75
9. 96

10.
.50
8. 84
,

,55
9.
.46
10.
9.
.95
10,.07
9,
.09
.93
9,

8.
.92
9.
.03
10.
.00
.70
9.
.75
8.
9.
.16

10.
,21
,85
9.
9.
,93
8.
,74
9.
,45

9.
,84
,08
11.
10.
,30
10.
,19
.83
9.
,97
9.

10.,51
,58
9.
,91
9.
10.
,96

6. 11
10. 54
10. 18
,20
9.

.73
9.
10.
,28
.60
9.
,93
9.
,
9. 04
9.
.72

47,.81
55,
.34
27 .75
0.
.03

40.
.46
57.
.62
48,.24
0,
.18

42.
.90
.94
59.
21.
.23

51.
.86
52.
.29
.10
20.

,39
65.
.37
53.
.96
60.

.23
11.
7 .19
.02
58,
6 .99
10 .55
19 .23

21,.47
.77
0,
53,.62
.77
1,
21,.05
.30
3,

14.
.11
12.
.81
58.
.69
3.
.42
.52
4,
.55
5,

.79
5.
.23
7.
65.
.14
.36
10.
10.
.12
23,.80

.46
1.
.03
2.
.90
83.
9.
.11
.35
37.
24,.20

.50
5.
.07
84.
100,.00
51,.71
30,.61

44,.50

15,.14

18 .69
76 .94

24 .53
71 .81

8,
.84
87 .26

.36
16,
80,
.94

.54
0,
98 .12

.84
16,
83 .16

15 .03
69 .28

31 .77
62 .21

OTHER BANKS1
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans
Number of loans
Weighted average
Weighted average
Weighted average

(thousands)
1

maturity (months)
repricing interval
risk rating 3

(months) 2

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

-

-

-

-

-

,14
9.
-

-

-

10.,56

,50
10.
81.
.23
.67
81.
16.
.84

39.,65
53.,03
84.
.63

47,.67
52,.78
-

-

-

56.
.54
36..62
.09
34.
44,.60
-

-

47,.46
-

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




19

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 a s 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 (fixed-rate
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)
USD A Farm Production Region
CB™
NP
AP
W

"NT

T?

2.4

11.6

25.9

17.3

10.8

4.8

4.4

8.8

5.9

8.1

Sample Coverage,
May 2000 survey (%)

20.4

3.5

11.8

10.2

16.8

7.4

5.1

6.3

21.3

65.0

Avg. Loan Size,
May 2000 survey ($1000)

39.4

18.1

21.1

27.9

45.5

87.3

27.8

37.0

24.1

78.0

Weighted Average Interest
9.0
8.0
8.0
8.7
8.1
7.9
7.5
8.0
8.2
8.1
7.8
7.4
7.9
7.5
8.6
9.0
8.0
8.1
8.6
8.6
8.3
9.7
8.9
8.5
10.7
10.0
9.9
10.4
9.3
9.4
10.3
9.3
9.8
10.3
8.3
9.6
8.0
9.9
9.4
7.3
10.2
9.0
9.9
8.9
9.4
(.18)
(.49)
025)

Proportion of farm loans
outstanding, Feb. 1999

DL

Rate During Sample Week
5.6
7.8
8.3
5.2
8.4
7.8
5.7
7.3
7.0
6.3
5.3
8.2
5.2
7.3
7.7
6.1
8.2
7.8
6.5
8.6
7.6
7.1
8.5
8.8
8.6
7.2
10.4
8.5
10.2
10.7
8.1
9.6
10.4
7.9
10.1
10.3
7.3
9.4
10.9
8.1
9.6
10.4
7.6
9.4
10.0
082)
059)
037)

Survey date:
Feb.
May
Aug.
Nov.
Feb.
May
Aug.
Nov.
Feb.
May
Aug.
Nov.
Feb.
May
Aug.

1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996

7.8
8.1
8.2
8.3
7.7
8.7
9.1
10.2
11.7
9.0
9.6
10.8
8.8
10.3
8.3
(.87)

Nov.

1996

10.1
(.21)

9.9
(.14)

9.3
Oil)

9.0
055)

7.5
(.82)

9.3
057)

Feb.

1997

8.8
(.11)

9.5
(.26)

9.5
012)

9.3
022)

8.0
051)

May

1997

9.4
(43)

10.1
(.17)

9.2
(.22)

9.5
027)

Aug.

1997

9.3
(.47)

9.8
(.18)

9.6
014)

Nov.

1997

Feb.

1998

9.2
(.41)
9.3
(.51)

9.5
(.17)
9.0
027)

May

1998

9.2
049)

Aug.

1998

Nov.

SP

"MNT

PA

7.8
8.3
7.7
7.8
7.6
8.4
8.6
9.0
10.4
10.1
10.1
9.8
9.9
9.8
9.4
018)

7.5
7.7
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.6
8.0
9.4
9.3
9.4
9.3
8.9
8.7
8.9
058)

6.5
6.8
7.2
6.7
6.9
7.2
7.5
8.5
9.4
9.3
9.5
8.9
8.1
8.3
8.1
056)

9.9
(.40)

9.1
025)

9.0
075)

8.6
(48)

9.9
032)

9.5
035)

9.5
(.24)

10.1
027)

8.7
035)

8.3
(62)

9.9
(66)

10.2
029)

9.7
023)

10.0
029)

8.7
051)

9.9
(08)

8.5
026)

10.1
(.24)

9.9
012)

9.7
027)

10.5
(23)

8.7
034)

9.3
010)
9.4
017)

9.8
(08)
9.8
009)

7.5
(60)
7.3
077)

9.8
011)
10.0
048)

9.4
(.05)
10.3
013)

9.4
038)
9.8
(30)

10.1
(.57)
9.6
(43)

8.8
031)
8.5
019)

9.4
024)

9.2
015)

9.7
010)

7.6
054)

10.2
012)

10.3
(.34)

9.6
(30)

9.8
(42)

8.4
039)

10.2
(19)

9.5
021)

9.5
012)

9.5
017)

8.8
017)

9.5
029)

9.7
029)

9.5
028)

9.6
(.47)

8.5
033)

1998

9.4
(01)

9.2
028)

8.7
(.20)

9.0
012)

8.3
038)

9.4
(.31)

9.7
020)

9.2
032)

9.1
059)

8.0
(38)

Feb.

1999

8.4
(40)

8.9
020)

8.9
015)

9.1
012)

8.2
(.20)

9.0
023)

9.6
013)

9.1
052)

9.0
(.41)

7.5
(51)

May

1999

9.6
(19)

9.1
013)

8.8
015)

9.0
(08)

8.0
016)

9.0
033)

9.8
035)

9.0
(.43)

8.7
(.40)

8.0
022)

Aug.

1999

10.2
(29)

8.9
056)

8.7
014)

9.3
018)

8.2
022)

8.9
037)

10.0
055)

8.8
(65)

9.0
019)

8.5
023)

Nov.

1999

Feb.

2000

May

2000

9.1
(.67)
9.4
(.49)
10.7
(.5)

9.2
067)
9.2
Oil)
9.5
016)

8.8
(.29)
9.2
(.28)
9.7
(.09)

9.4
015)
9.6
010)
9.7
017)

8.3
031)
8.4
015)
9.1
(.17)

8.8
050)
9.8
032)
9.1
(1.15)

9.8
037)
9.3
(06)
10.5
02)

9.0
037)
10.0
049)
10.0
028)

9.5
(.16)
9.8
021)
10.1
022)

8.8
028)
8.4
(66)
9.5
024)

h - * NE 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 the more recent estimates. Standard errors are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure
(resampling of banks) in each region.




22
SECTION D: SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL B A N K S
TABLES:

Eage

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

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

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

SOI IRCES OF DATA:
The data in tables IIA 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 charge-offs 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 HE, 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 2000.
Information on failed banks (table H 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: In the first quarter of 2000, the total volume of farm loans fell almost 6 percent, a considerably larger decline than the typical seasonal
pattern would suggest. Indeed, compared with the same period of the previous year, total farm loans declined 1.6 percent, the first year-on-year
decline since 1987. The volume of non-real-estate farm loans, fell about 6-1/2 percent from the previous year, continuing the slowdown that began
for these loans in 1998. The yearly growth in the volume outstanding of farm real estate loans, which had largely been offsetting slow growth of
non-real-estate loans for the past year or two, was 5-1/2 percent, the slowest growth for this type of loan since early 1997. The reduction in the total
volume of farm loans outstanding likely reflects some caution on the part of farm borrowers and lenders in the face of low prices for many
agricultural commodities.
Problem loans: Relative to one year earlier, the rate of delinquency on both farm non-real-estate loans and loans secured by farm real estate continued to
decline in the first quarter of 2000. In addition, banks saw net recoveries on loans that they previously charged off, perhaps reflecting some new
vigor in the sector as government payments surged into farming areas. Reflecting this improvement in the balance sheets of agricultural banks, only
3-1/2 percent of these institutions reported a level of nonperforming loans that was greater than 5 percent of total loans, far below the 5 percent in
such a condition early in 1999.
Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks was 1.2 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter of 2000,
the same rate of profitability as has been seen for most of the past decade. The capital ratio for agricultural banks remained low relative to one year
earlier-a situation that has been evident since early 1999. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks increased from the previous year, and
remains considerably higher than historical norms.
Failures of agricultural banks: Despite the hints of financial stress at some agricultural banks, only one failed in 1999, and no agricultural bank failed in
the first half of 2000. Given the substantial capital positions and low, declining levels of problem loans of most agricultural banks, the number of
failures seems likely to remain fairly small in coming quarters.




23

TABLE II.A

FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END

LOAN VOLUME,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS QUARTER

QUARTER

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

33
35
36
34

-2.1
6.2
1.9
-2.9

2.7
3.3
1.9
-0.2

-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

20.0
20.6
20.8
20.9

32.8
35.4
37.1
36.8

-3.2
6.0
3.5
-0.5

0.5
3.1
1.2
0.1

-5.3
7.8
4.9
-0.8

1.7
1.6
3.2
5.8

5.6
5.4
4.7
5.0

-0.5
— 0.6
2.4
6.2

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

8.3
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

-4.6

8.0

0.4

3.9
-4.1

5.4
4.0
3.7
3.9

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

1999 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

72.7
75 . 8
76.8
76.0

29.7
30.8
31.4
31.8

42.9
45.1
45.5
44.2

-2.8
4.4
1.3
-1.0

1.7
3.5
1.9
1.5

-5.6
5.0
0.9
-2.8

3.7
1.1
0.7
1.7

7.6
8.0
8.6
8.8

-3.1
-4.1
-2.8

2000 Ql.

71. 5

31.4

40.1

-5.9

-1.4

-9.2

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

1992 Ql.
02.
Q3.

Q4.

51.9
55.1
56.2
54.5

18.9
19.5
19.9
19.9

1993 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

52.8
56.0
58.0
57.7

1994 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.




NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

1.1

8.2

8.2

0.2

1.1

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

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION

NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONPERFORMING

NONACCRUAL

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

December 31 of year indicated|

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

1
1

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

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

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

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

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

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

.2
3.
.8
2.
.2
2.
.0
2.
.1
2.
.4
2,
.0
2.
.2
2.
.1
2.

1.
.3
1.
.0
.8
0.
0.
.9
0.
.9
1.
.2
.9
0.
.0
1.
.8
0.

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

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

.6
1.
.5
1.
1.
.2
0.
.9
0.
.9
.0
1.
0.
.9
0.
.9
1. 1
.

End of quarter

0.9
0.9

1998 Q1

1. 3

02
Q3
Q4

1.0

1.1
1. 0
1. 0

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

1.7
1.0
0.7
0.9

0.8
0.5
0.4
0.5

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

1.8
1.1
0.8
1.0

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

3.7
2.8
2.2
2.1

2.1
1.2
0.8
0.8

1.5
1.6
1.4
1.3

0.6

0.2

3.0

1.5

1.5

1999 Q1

Q2
Q3
Q4

2000 Ql.

1 . 2

1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9

1. 5
1.4
1.3

0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6

1. 3

1997 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

0.6

0.4

1.1

1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.4

1.1

~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*
CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUAL
TOTAL

2000.

54
69
51
95
93
87
126

Q2

Q3

7
10
-2
16
6
4
18
-35

16
11
14
27
19
15
37

5
15
13
24
19
24
35

26
33
25
30
50
45
36

ANNUAL
TOTAL

Q4
|

|

in
tH
O

1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.
1998.
1999.

Q1

0.19
0.13
0.24
0.23
0.20
0.28

Q1

Q2

Q3

0.
.02
0.
.03
-0.
.00
0.
.04
.01
0.
.01
0.
.04
0.
.08
-0.

0.
.05
0.
.03
0.
.04
.07
0.
0.
.05
0.
.04
0.
.09

0.
.01
0.
.04
0.
.03
0.
.06
0,
.05
0,
.05
0,
.08

Q4
.07
0.
0.
.08
.06
0.
0.
.07
0. 11
.
0.
.09
0.
.08

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




TABLE II.D

DELINQUENT FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING
FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS

NONPERFORMING

NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
3 0 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-

I

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

1

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

5
6
7
7
8
6

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

.4
2,
.4
2,
2. 8
,
2 .6
,
.9
2,
2 .0
,

.0
1.
.0
1.
1. 1
.
.
1. 1
.2
1,
.8
0.

1.
.4
.4
1.
.7
1.
1. 5
.
.7
1,
.3
1,

0.
,5
0.
.5
0.
,7
0. 6
,
0.
.8
0.
.5

0.
.9
.
0. 9
1.
.0
.9
0.
.0
1,
0,
.7

0.2

2.8

1.1

1.7

0.7

1.0

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2

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

3.2
2.8
2.3
2.6

1.4
1.0
0.8
1.1

1.8
1.8
1.4
1.5

0.8
0.8

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3

3. 5
2.6
2.5
2.9

1.6
1.0
0.9
1.2

1.9
1.6
1.6
1.7

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8

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

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

1
1
1

1
1
1

End of quarter

1996 04.

0.7

0.3

1997 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7

0.4

0.2

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3

1998 01

02
03
04

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

02
03
04

0.2

2000 01.

0.2

1. 0

0.4

0.6

0.3

1. 0

1.6
1.0
0.8
0.8

0.3
0.2

1999 01

1.0
0.8
0.9

0.3

3.2

1.3

1.0

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




27

NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*

1 9 9 3

|

2 4

2

1 9 9 4

|

1 0

1

1 9 9 5

|

1 2

- 0

3

1 9 9 6

|

7

0

1

|

1 6

- 1

- 0

1 9 9 1 . . . . .

.

1 9 9 8
1 9 9 9 ^ X

|
X .

2 0 0 0

6

-

|

1 5

-

I

* *

- 1 2

4

7

1

1 1

|

0 . 1 2

0 . 0 1 0

0 . 0 1 8

0 . 0 3 5

0 . 0 5 4

6

j

0 . 0 5

0 . 0 0 3

0 . 0 0 3

0 . 0 1 3

0 . 0 2 6

6

4

j

0 . 0 5

- 0 . 0 0 1

0 . 0 1 1

0 . 0 2 7

0 . 0 1 6

2

4

j

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 0 0

0 . 0 0 3

0 . 0 0 9

0 . 0 1 7

3

1

1 4

j

0 . 0 6

- 0 . 0 0 3

- 0 . 0 0 1

0 . 0 1 0

0 . 0 5 4

3

3

-

0

3
* *

0

5
5
* *

* *

* All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




j

0 . 0 2

- 0 . 0 0 4

0 . 0 0 9

- 0 . 0 0 0

0 . 0 1 6

j

7

0 . 0 5

- 0 . 0 0 1

0 . 0 1 1

0 . 0 1 5

0 . 0 2 2

|

* *

- 0 . 0 3 8

* *

* *

* *

•

•
TABLE

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

II.F

DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY THE SHARE OF THEIR LOANS THAT ARE NONPERFORMING*

NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS

TOTAL

UNDER
2.0

2.0
TO
4.9

5.0
TO
9.9

10.0
TO
14.9

15.0
TO
19.9

20.0
AND
OVER

Percentage distribution, December 31 of year indicated
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

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

.8
70.
76 ,
.2
.7
80,
85 ,
.5
83 ,
.4
81.
.9
.5
84.
.7
81.
.8
84.

.3
22.
.8
18.
15.
.8
12 .
.3
.0
14.
15.
.4
12 .
.9
15. 1
.
.6
12 .

5,
.8
3,
.9
.8
2,
1,
.9
2.
.1
2,
.3
.5
2,
.8
2,
2,
.4

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

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

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

Percentage distribution, end of quarter

1997 Q2.
03.
04.

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

.5
80.
.8
81.
.5
84.

15.
.8
15.
.2
12 .
.9

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

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

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

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

1998 01.
02.
03.
04.

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

80.
.6
.8
80.
.3
80.
.7
81,

16.
.3
.9
15.
16.
.2
15.
.1

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

0.
.1
0.
.3
.3
0.
0.
.3

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

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

1999 01.
02.
03.
04.

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

77 ,
.2
.7
78 .
80 .
.4
84 . 8

17 ,
.8
16,
.9
15 .9
12 ,
.6

.5
4,
3 .8
,
,
3 .4
,
2 .4

0.
.5
0.
.6
0,
.3
0,
.3

.0
0.
.0
0.
0, 0
.
0.
.0

.0
0.
0,
.0
0,
.0
0,
.0

2000 01...

100 .0

81 .7

14 .8

3 .0

0 .4

0,
.1

0 .0

* 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 0 7 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL A N D 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

15
TO
19

20
TO
24

13,.3
.6
19.
18.
.4
.9
16.
13,.4
14,.2
14,.2
13,.4
14,.2

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

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

NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

10.
.9
12.
.5
12.
.3
11.
.8
11.
.2
11.
.4
11.
.4
.3
11.
.8
11.

8.
.8
11.
.3
12.
.3
12.
.5
.1
12.
12.
.3
12.
.3
11.
.7
11.
.9

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

.7
0.
1.
.0
1.
.1
1.
.1
1.
.2
1.
.2
1.
.2
1.
.2
1.
.1

,0
6.
9.
.0
11.
,4

6.
.4
9.
.6
.3
12.

,6
0.
.0
1.
1.
.2

0.6
1.0
1.2

3.
.0
6.
.1
8.
.9
.3
11.

.3
3.
6.
.4
9.
.1
11,.7

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

.9
2.
.0
6.
.1
9,
11,.8

25
AND
OVER

10
TO
14

RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS

3,
.0
6,
.1
8 .9
11 .9

3 .2

3 .1

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

0.
.8
.7
0.
0.
.4
0.
.3
0.
.3
0.
.3
0.
.3
0.
.3
0.
.3

10.
.1
10.
.4
10.
.8
10.
.7
11.
.2
10.
.9
11.
.0
10.
.9
10.
.5

9.
.2
.5
9.
9.
.9
9.
.9
10..4
10..4
10..5
10..5
10. 3

0.
.1
0. 2
0. 2

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

11..2
11.
.3
.0
11.

10.
.6
.7
10.
10..5

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2

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

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

11.
.2
11.
.2
11.
.4
10.
.9

10..5
.7
10.
.8
10.
10.
.5

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

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1

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

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

11.
.0
.8
10.
.8
10.
10,.5

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

0,
.3

0.3

-0,
.0

0 .1

10,.5

10,.2

-percentage distribution1991.
1992.
1993 .
1994 .
1995.
1996.
1997 .
1998.
1999 .

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

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

.6
7.
5.
.3
.9
5.
5.
.9
.7
5.
.6
5.
5.
.9
8.
,7
7.
.9

32.
.2
25.
.3
.8
27 .
31.
.4
37.
.1
33.
.4
.5
34.
.6
35.
.8
34.

39..2
41..1
40..4
40..1
39..6
41..6
39..7
35..5
33..3

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

j

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3

QUARTERLY

1997 Q2
03
Q4
1998 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
1999 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2000 Q1..

I

* 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.




TABLE II.H

AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*

DECEMBER 31

U.S.

CHICAGO

ATLANTA

CLEVELAND

KANSAS
CITY

MINNEAPOLIS

ST. LOUIS

DALLAS

SAN
FRANCISCO

MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO

NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

3530
3352
3239
3101
2968
2866

0 .626
,
0 .639
0 .656
.
0 .685
.
0 .683
,
0 .718

56
53
49
45
40
41

0 .707
,
0 .720
0 .771
,
0 .747
,
0 .763
.
0 .849

124
118
113
113
99
93

0 . 644
0 . 657
0 . 684
0 .704
.
0 .709
.
0 .738
.

857
816
795
759
733
715

0 . 642
.
0 . 652
.
0 . 680
.
0 .719
.
0 .711
,
0 .750
,

398
375
363
346
321
300

.
0, 627
0.
.651
0.
.663
0,
.698
0 .693
.
.718
0,

656
619
609
574
558
538

.675
0,
0 .682
0 .699
0 .725
0 .715
,
0 .738

1012
959
928
890
868
838

0 . 618
,
0 . 634
0 .643
0 .680
,
0 . 681
.
0 .715

360
344
313
312
289
277

.476
0.
0 .489
.
0 .491
.
0,
.523
0 . 529
,
0 .564
.

52
53
52
49
48
48

.784
0.
0 , 740
0 .735
.
0 . 661
0 . 660
,
0 .724
,

17 . 10
16 . 83
.45
16 ,
16 .44
.
16 .34
.
15 , 67

1997 Q2...
03...
Q4...

3202
3161
3101

0 .690
0 .702
.
0 .685

50
51
45

0 .802
0 . 801
0 .747

129
128
113

0 . 727
0 .735
.
0 .704
.

772
771
759

0 .710
.
0 . 729
,
0 .719
,

359
355
346

0 .699
,
.717
0.
.698
0.

591
583
574

0 .739
0 .749
0 .725

910
898
890

0 . 677
0 . 688
0 .680

321
308
312

.
0. 535
0 .543
.
0 .523
,

49
49
49

.705
0.
.
0, 674
.661
0,

16 . 63
16 .70
,
16 .44
.

199% Q1

Q3
04

3058
3065
3036
2968

0 . 686
0 .717
0 .724
0 .683

45
46
46
40

0 ,761
,
0 .769
,
0 .786
.
0 .763

109
110
109
99

.713
0,
0 .736
,
.751
0,
0 .709

740
737
733
733

0 .724
,
0 .746
0.
.750
0 .711

328
341
341
321

0. 691
.
0.
.725
0.
.734
0 .693
.

570
570
569
558

0 .727
0 .769
0 .768
0 .715

886
889
880
868

0.
.683
0.
.713
0.
.721
0.
.681

314
306
294
289

0.
.511
0,
.540
0 .549
0,
.529

50
49
49
48

0 .662
.
0 .709
.
0 .704
0 .660

16 ,
.32
16 , 81
.
16 .78
,
16 .34

1999 Q1
02
03
Q4

2957
2872
2918
2866

0 . 689
0 .718
o . 735
0 .718

42
41
44
41

0 .793
.
0 .849
.
0 . 844
0 . 849

100
93
106
93

0 .719
.
0 .738
.
0 .746
.
0 .738
.

720
716
716
715

.719
0.
.750
0.
.765
0,
0 .750
.

317
302
319
300

0,
.688
0 .719
0 .745
0 .718

550
539
547
538

0,
.723
.738
0,
0 .775
0 .738

868
838
846
838

0 .684
0 .715
0 .721
0 .715

297
279
275
277

,532
0.
,566
0.
0.
,567
.564
0.

48
48
51
48

0 .692
0 .724
0 .737
0 .724

16
16
16
15

2000

2838

0.726

41

0 . 865

97

0.747

704

0 .756

287

0.713

536

0.757

830

0 .719

277

0.572

50

0.743

15.32

Q2

Ql.

* 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.




.04
.26
.
.23
. 67

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

1989
1990
199 1
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

Q2

Q3

Q4

5
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

7
5

5
6
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0

5
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

to

Q1

1
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0

ANNUAL
TOTAL

22
17
8
7
5
0
0
2
1
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 A N D FARM L A N D VALUES
TABLES:
III. A Nonreal estate lending experience
III.B Expected change in non-real-estate loan volume and repayment conditions...
III.C Average loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availability
HI D Interest rates
III.E Trends in real estate values and loan volume

Page
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 original sample chosen in 1976 had 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

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 in the first quarter was on a par with that seen of the past few years. Survey
respondents also reported that rates of loan repayment in early 2000 had improved relative to year-earlier readings. All districts except Richmond noted
substantial improvement in the incidence of renewals and extensions of loans. In addition, the proportion of bankers that reported higher collateral
requirements was near the norm of recent years, suggesting a bit of an easing of concerns about repayment prospects that had been evident through much of
1999.

Scanning through reported expectations for the second quarter of 2000, loans for farm machinery are anticipated to remain quite weak in all districts that
report these data, likely reflecting cautious equipment spending by farmers in the face of low prices for crops. In contrast, bankers in all the districts that
report these data anticipate a pick up in loans for feeder cattle. Despite the high level of the ratio of loans to deposits, which also was noted in section II,
few bankers noted that the ratio was higher than desired.
Rates of interest reported in all of these Reserve bank surveys moved up during the first quarter. As discussed in section I of the Databook, estimated rates
increased some more in the second quarter of 2000, suggesting that coming Reserve bank surveys should show a tendency to increase as well.
Relative to one year earlier, nominal prices of farmland in all the districts except Richmond moved up early in 2000. The increases were largest for ranch
land in the Dallas and Kansas City districts (7 percent in each), likely reflecting the improved outlook for returns to cattle producers.




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.A1

SAME

FUND AVAILABILITY
LOWER

HIGHER

1

1999 Ql. . •
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
04...

1

j

|

2000 Ql.

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
64
71
75
66

24
16
14
28

|
|
|
|

27
31
43
51

64
65
53
42

9
4
3
7

10
17
12

65
72
71
71

27
18
12
17

|
j

63
52
41
39

35
45
55
51

20

66

14

33

57

64
64
56
45

29
33
41
48

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
o

89
86
80
75

11
14
19
25

39
44
53
54

57
53
44
39

1
1
1
1

o
o
0
0

69
70
74
75

31
30
26
25

57

34

78

22

91

9

1
1

79
80

20
19

2
1
1
1

79
86
86
84

19
13
13
15

o

87

13

1
0

86
82
73
69

13
18
26
31

0
0
1
0

66
74
73
75

34
26
27
25

1

75

24

10

49
44
46
47

42
42
35
34

1

12
13
10

1

6

19
21
22
22

42
44
46
50

39
36
32
28

1

52

34

|

8
3
3
7
4
3
3
7

2
3
4
10

8
15
19
20

14

1998 Ql. . •
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

8

j

1
1
1
1

Ill,. A2 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO*, NB, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
12
16
16
9

68
69
69
73

20
15
15
18

1
j
|
j

15
25
44
47

76
72
55
51

9
3
2
2

1
I
I
1

6
4
2
3

79
74
60
56

15
22
38
41

j

9
10
22
16

68
73
66
69

22
17
12
15

1
j
j
j

46
31
29
24

53
66
68
66

1
3
3
10

1
I
|
|

3
3
3
8

52
67
69
70

45
30
28
22

1

20

65

15

1

16

75

8

1

9

75

16

1

16
29
52
52

71
64
45
42

13
8
3
7

|
1
1
I
1
1
I

14
9
3
3

69
64
51
44

16
26
46
52

1
I
|
|
1
|
1

48
63
62
52

4
12
11
24

4
8
10
22

43
61
64
52

52
31
27
26

67

18

19

64

18

1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

|
|
|
1

5
7
14
13

69
63
59
66

25
30
26
20

1999 Ql. . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

|
|
|
1

15
14
18
17

66
66
60
67

20
20
22
17

I

2000 Ql. . .

1

12

69

19

III .A3

1
|

62
49
50
54

24
27
22
30

1
j
j
|

49
63
52
55

25
15
19
18

1
1

1

27
22
29
27

j

1

19

60

21

1

|
|
j

1999 Ql. .
Q2 . .
Q3. .
04. .

|
j
j

2000 Ql. . .

1




o
***

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

14
24
28
17

1998 Ql. .
Q2 . .
Q3. .
04..

|
|
|
|

3
4
5
2

76
70
71
77

21
26
24
22

1
j

5

22
24
15
21

1

5
4

72
74
80
75

j
1

48
25
27
24

7

73

20

1

15

2

j

1
I

i
1

2

°

35

36
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

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

FUND AVAILABILITY

DEMAND FOR LOANS

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1998 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

13
15
27
12

59
66
56
63

28
19
17
24

35
44
52
45

54
52
42
46

11
4
6
8

64
61
57
59

32
36
38
39

0
2
0
0

77
70
73
75

23
28
27
25

1999 Ql.
02.
03.
04.

8
11
14
10

71
64
71
67

21
25
15
23

56
52
59
26

34
41
39
62

10
7
2
12

47
47
44
70

45
49
48
22

0
0
0
0

74
68
66
80

26
32
33
20

69

23

24

46

30

17

63

20

82

18

80
74
75

13
19
18

|
|
|

3
0
0

85
81

13

55

35

1

o

21

1

0

I

2000 Ql.
III.AS

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...
04...

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

j

29

1

19

73
73
64
68

41

59

19

81

1
1

1999 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...
Q4. . .

1
1
1
1

2000 Ql. . .

1




8
13

20
13
7

|
|

0
6
0

13

1

3

1

3
4

26

63

0
0
11

25

61

14

1

30

57

14

1

11
19

16

3
6
7
10

1
1
1

8
6
7
io

76

0

26

93
71

1
1
1

7
4
3

72
89
71

31

67

4
3
3

1

8

58

26
33

27

70

3

1

14

57

30

io
16
21

88
77
71

1

35

55

24
4

11

1
1
1
1

8

|

73
71
75
65

28
23
25

1
1

32

69

28

67
66
69

30
23

76

1

7

1
1

o
o

1

0

1

o

71
71

19
29
29

77
69

32
19
23
31

73

27

68
81

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B
FARM NONRBAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
TOTAL
LOWER SAME
Ill Bl

FEEDER CATTLE
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

DAIRY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

CROP STORAGE
HIGHER

LOWER SAME

OPERATING

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

FARM MACHINERY
LOWER SAME

HIGHER

HIGHER

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

1998 Ql. . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

1
1
1
1

11
14
21
12

51
59
39
48

38
26
40
40

|
j
j
j

33
38
38
31

61
59
52
65

6
3
10
4

|
j
j
j

22
24
20
14

67
68
71
76

11
8
9
10

1999 01...
Q2...
03...
Q4...

1
1
I
1

17
22
19
15

43
50
50
55

39
28
31
31

|
j
j
j

27
29
22
18

65
65
60
58

8
6
18
24

|
j
j
j

20
19
15
21

70
73
75
68

10
9
10
11

2000 Ql...

1

14

55

31

1

19

60

21

|

20

69

11

13
12
12
32

64
64
33
59

35
36
22
29

58
51
57
62

13
21
8

1

25

58

1
1
1
I
|
1

23
24
55

1

17
33
68
55

56
56
27
36

27
11
5
9

j

63
65
62
53

31
30
33
39

6
5
5
9

45

|

46

46

8

64
53
46
49

21
23
30
28

I
j
j
j

21
32
41
40

59
58
54
50

20
10
5
10

7
7
9
9

43
51
39
34

50
42
52
57

j

11
11
13
8

33
43
46
46

56
46
41
46

17

|

8

47

|

9

j

7

I

1
j
1

III,. B2 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)

|

1998 Ql. . .
02...
03...
Q4. . .

|
|
1

16
30
32
26

63
51
48
49

20
19
20
25

|
j
j
j

25
34
37
34

68
58
56
53

7
8
7
13

|
j
j
j

17
20
19
15

71
79
78
78

7
o
3
6

1
I
1
1
I
1

17
io
21
17

78
76
58
68

6
15
21
14

j
j

15
23
24
23

1999 Ql...
Q2...
03...
Q4...

|
|
|
1

29
24
23
25

50
61
60
58

21
16
17
17

|
j
j
j

21
20
24
24

64
64
58
56

14
16
17
21

|
j
j
j

15
17
23
13

79
71
76
82

5
6
1
5

1
I
1
1
1
I

15
15
24
15

76
68
61
72

9
17
14
13

|
|
|
j

23
19
20
19

50
56
56
63

26
25
24
17

|
j
j
j

43
26
34
30

49
61
58
60

8
13
8
10

2000 Ql. . .

1

22

58

20

|

26

53

22

|

17

78

4

1

16

81

3

I

22

54

24

|

26

58

16

70
58
46
60

13
13
11
0

III,. B3 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC

sc, VA, WV*)

1998 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

|
|
|
1

8
18
15
27

75
79
69
65

17
4
15
8

|
j
|
|

20
27
0
18

76
68
95
82

4
5
5
0

|
j
j
j

9
15
21
5

87
80
79
95

4
5
o
0

1
1
I
1
1

13
17
19
19

81
70
62
65

6
13
19
15

|
j
|
|

8
10
11
13

74
77
71
80

18
13
18

|
j
j

7

I

18
29
43
40

1999 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4 . . .

|
|
|
1

30
39
42
23

65
57
45
61

4
4
13
16

|
j
|
j

13
20
26
22

87
80
74
74

0
0
0
4

|
j
j
j

25
37
35
42

75
53
65
58

0
11
0
0

1
1
|
1
1

26
30
40
34

65
60
48
66

9
10
12
0

|
j
|
j

33
44
29
23

56
52
56
57

11
4
15
20

|
j
|
j

45
44
49
40

55
52
49
57

0
4
3
3

2000 Ql. . .

1

34

53

13

I

25

58

17

I

38

62

0

1

31

69

o

I

17

61

22

|

50

42

8




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

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

1
|

28
31

62
63

10
7

|
|

18
18

73
75

10
7

|
1

28
24

58
60

14
16

1998 Ql. . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

1
j
|
|

38
32
38
28

58
67
50
66

4
1
13
7

|
|
|

18
13
37
28

72
80
55
64

9
7
9
9

|
1
|
j

26
25
33
27

56
58
52
57

HIGHER

1999 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

|
1
|

20
26
39

1

18

76
64
58
72

3
9
3
10

|
|
|
|

25
36
44
30

67
51
50
65

8
13
6
5

|
j
j
j

32
32
40
33

55
49
48
57

13
19
12
11

2000 Ql...

1

61

21

1

27

68

5

1

42

44

14

7
7

67
74

27
19

1
j

25
24

58
63

17
14

8
8
9
6

65
65
58
70

27
27
34
24

|
j
j
j

22
36
59
46

63
58
37
52

15
7
4
2

|
1
|
1
|
1
1

4
11
15
12

68
57
56
67

28
32
29
22

1
j
j
j

51
61
65
56

46
33
33
41

3
5
2
3

|
1

5

82

13

1

42

56

1

18
17
15
16




LOWER SAME

HIGHER

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

1997 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

18

FARM MACHINERY

OTHER OPERATING

FARM REAL ESTATE

OTHER INTERMEDIATE

FEEDER LIVESTOCK

|
1
|
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
Ill CI

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
AT
LOWER
DESIRED
THAN
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

NONBANK AGENCIES

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME

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

1998 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q3. .
Q4. .

1
1
1
1

69
73
72
70

1
1
|
|

43
43
39
50

39
34
38
34

18
22
22
16

|
j
j
j

1999 Ql. .
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

70
72
73
73

1
j
1
1

58
49
42
47

27
35
33
32

14
15
25
21

|
j
j
j

2000 Ql. . .

1

73

|

44

35

21

|

III ,C2

1

1

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

1998 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

66
68
68
67

|
1
1
1

54
54
53
56

8
8
8
11

27
31
32
27

|
j
|
j

1
2
3
2

70
66
63
65

|
j
j
j

78
78
79
79

7

89

4

7
7

88
89

5
5

1
1
!
1
|
I

1999 Ql. . .
Q2...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

66
66
68
68

1
|
1
1

61
63
59
58

7
9
10
9

26
27
32
32

|
|
j
j

2
1
3
4

66
74
72
69

|
j
j
j

79
80
80
81

5
7
6
5

91
88
90
90

4
5
4
5

1
!
1
I
1
I

2000 Ql. .•.

1

67

1

64

6

29

|

1

73

1

82

9

86

6

|

III .C3

8

82

10

6
6

80
80

13
14

76

4
8
7
9

81
79
84
83

15
13
9
8

77

9

82

9

3
72
s

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

1998 Ql. .•.
Q2..,•
03.. •
Q4. . •

1
1
1
1

49
53
53
51

0
4
1
1

18
8
9
12

75
85
86
79

8
6
4
8

17
8
6
8

69
81
81
74

14
11
13
18

1999 Ql.. •
Q2. . •
,
03.. •
04.. •

1
1
1
1

51
51
53
52

0
1
1
1

8
8
12
6

81
84
78
79

11
8
10
15

1
1

8
7
9
7

72
75
78
77

20
18
13
16

2000 Ql. . .

1

51

15

80

5

1

16

79

5




:::

1

|

i

1

1

Hi

39

40
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.C (CONTINUED)
AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO A N D OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
AVERAGE
LOAN-TODEPOSIT
RATIO,
END OF
QUARTER
PERCENT
III.C4

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS

LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

73
74
74
71

1999 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

NONE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

NONE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

2000 Ql.

7
12
10
9

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
6
7
10

91
88
85
82

6
6
8
8

3
4
7
9

68
78
80
84

28
18
13
7

10

87

4

1

9

82

10

56

15

29

69
70
70
71

68
73
63
64

9
11
11
10

24
16
26
26

|
|
|
|

10
4
5
3

70

70

5

25

|

1

1

|

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

|

78
88
88
88

4
8
3
3

15
4
9
6

4
0
0
3

1
1
1
|

74
84
76
77

4
8
3
3

19
8
12
13

4
0
9
6

1

94

0

6

0

o
00

0

9

11

1998 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

72
73
72
73

46
48
62
63

41
48
35
30

14
3
4
7

0
0
0
0

78
81
70
71

|

1999 Ql.
Q2.
Q3 .
Q4.

74
73
74
75

62
54
46
38

28
42
46
44

10
4
9
18

0
0
0
0

64
74
66
63

1
|

2000 Ql.

74

42

44

14

0

68




NONBANK AGENCIES

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

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

1998 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

III.C5

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

1

|




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

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D1

1999 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

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

|

|

2000 Ql.
III.D2

9.5
9.5
9.4
9.1

8.4
8.5
8.3
8.1

9.0
9.1
9.3
9.4

1

1998 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3...
Q4...

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

9.5
9.5
9.4
9.1

1

.
.
.
.

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

9.0
9.1
9.3
9.4

8.1
8.2
8.4
8.6

9.7

.
.
.
.

1998 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

9.8

8.9

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

|

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
8.8

|

9.5
9.7
9.8
9.9

9.3
9.5
9.6
9.7

8.7
8.9
9.1
9.2

10.2

10.0

9.5

|
|
|

1999 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3...
Q4...

|
|
|

9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7

2000 Ql...

|

10.0

41




42
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
Ill D3

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

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

1998 Ql. . .
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
I
1
1

9.9
9.9
9.8
9.6

9.8
9.8
9.7
9.5

9.4
9.7
9.6
8.8

1999 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...

1
1
1
1

9.5
9.5
9.5
9.7

9.4
9.4
9.4
9.7

8.6
8.7
8.7
9.0

2000 Ql. . .

1

9.9

9.9

9.2

III . D4 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)

1998 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

|
1

1999 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
2000 Ql.

I
III.D5

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
10.2
10.4

I
|

10.0
10.0
10.2

9.8
9.8

10.5

10.1
10.1

9.2
9.3
9.5
9.6

10.6

10.6

10.5

9.9

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

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.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

9.2
9.4
9.4
9.6

9.0
9.3
9.5
9.6

8.9
8.9
9.3
9.5

8.6
8.6
9.1
9.2

2000 Ql.

10.0

10.2

10.0

9.6

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

ALL
III.El

1998 Ql. .
Q2...
03. .
04...
1999 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...
2000 Ql...

1

1

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

DOWN

1

2
0
-1
0

j
j

17
25
45
31

57
61
47
53

26
14
8
16

41
45
33
22

50
47
61
71

9
8
7
8

30
36
34
28

54
54
54
59

17
9
12
13

13

75

12

|
1

26

61

14

19
20
-4
-3

3
10
7
13

74
81
89
81

23
10
6

|
1
|
1
|
1
I
1

16
20
29
34

70
67
61
66

14
13
11
0

1

3
4
14
9

83
78
66
74

14
19
20
17

|
I
|
1
|
1
|
1

36
31
32
33

64
65
62
58

0
4
6
9

0

84

16

|

29

60

11

2
7
16
21

12
23
27
26

73
67
66
60

15
10
7
13

17
8

28
20
26
27

61
63
66
62

10
17
8
11

1

2

1

4

***

j

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

1

1998 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
04...

1
1

1999 Ql. . •
Q2...
Q3...
Q4. . .

1

1

7

j

-13
-12

2000 Ql. . .

1

-3

1

"17

1998 Ql...

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

1999 Ql...
Q2. . .
03...
Q4. . .




HIGHER

15
16
9
8

j
j

III.E3

SAME

76
67
40
50

1
1

j

LOWER

10
17
51
43

0
0
2
1

1

UP

io
8
4
1

1

III.E2

STABLE

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

0
1
0
2

1

EXPECTED TREND IN FARM
REAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

-1
3
-10

j

6

|

2
5
-24

2

***

|

4

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

-1
1
-2

1
1
-0
2
2

-1
2

0
5

-2

-3

-1
-1

-0

1

2

0
-0

2
3
6

1
-0

-0

3
4

4

-2
-8

0
-0

44
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.E (CONTINUED)
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR
FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED WITH NORMAL
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND

ALL
III.E4

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

LOWER

UP

SAME

HIGHER

56
58
52
57

18
17
15
16

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

1998 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

2
0
-1
-1

3
0
-1
-1

3
3
-2
0

|
|
|
|

6
6
4
1

7
5
3
1

7
9
5
5

|
j
j
j

1999 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

0
0
-0
1

0
1
-1
1

-0
0
1
3

|
|
j
|

-1
-1
-0
1

-1
-1
-0
2

1

|

4

|
j

1

2

3

1

2

3

7

1

2000 Ql...

|
III.E5

7
5
3
3




***

1

6
3
2
-0

7
5

3
4
6
5

1999 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1

1

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

1998 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3 . . .
Q4. . .

2000 Ql. . -

i

-1
2
1
2

1
4
2
2

4

3

4

|

26

!

g

|
j
j
j

1
j
j

:
40
33

55
49
48
57

13
19
12
11

1

1

42

44

14

|
j

: |