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 9§CJ9AC SUIAOUI jaucrib 08 06 001 Oil Oc I oei 01 suco[ uligj 9iciS9-[G9J-uou jo lunoiuv 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| UJJCJ 31C1S9-(G9J-U0U JO 9ZIS 3^GJ9AV 5t? OS SJB[[0P JO spuBsnoqx 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> SUGOj ULIGJ 91GlS9-[G9J-UOU JO J9qiUn^j 05 91GJ [Gnuuy 'suojwjaI 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 aoCJPAC SuiAOiu jaucnb jnoj -- oi OP 05 09 OZ. 08 06 31CJ 1S3J91UI Sunnoy c qij.w SUGO( uuuj jo 3JGqs 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 SUGOJ U1IGJ 3JGJS3-JG3J-UOU UO 3JGJ JS3J3JUI 3AU33JJ3 3§GJ3Ay 81 OZ JU3DJ3J 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 SiHAOUi jnucrib jrio:j P\ 91 L SUGOj UUCJ 31G1S3-(G3J-U0U JO XlUrilClU 3§GJ3AV: sqiuoysj s j s u u e j oj o u i p u a q >jucg jo suuaj^ jo X3Ajn§ : UCIQ 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 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 0.,33 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 BY 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 2 .23 2 .20 , 10 2. 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 0..28 0..26 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 1..39 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 1..67 1. 65 1.. 55 1..45 1..33 1..32 1..20 1..09 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 . 93 2 . 37 2 . 05 1.49 1 .91 .27 I 2 1 1 2 | | | o . 19 0 . 12 0 .10 0.17 0. 20 0.,22 0..16 0..14 1..29 1..72 1..50 1,.05 0..18 0..22 0..15 0..14 0..22 0..24 0..20 0..20 1,.07 1,.44 1..36 0..94 0. 47 0. 58 0. 41 0. 36 0..38 0..37 0..26 0,.30 0. 16 0. 12 0. 09 0. 11 1 1 1 1 0..38 •.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 0,.13 0.. 15 1 .17 1 .77 1 .47 0 .88 0..17 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 0.,36 0,.36 0 .34 0 .29 0 .29 0.,15 0..10 0..08 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 FEEDER ALL LIVE- LOANS CURRENT MACHINERY LIVESTOCK OPERATING AND EXPENSES ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS OF ($1,000s) BY SIZE OF BANK FARM OTHER STOCK SIZE LOAN LOAN OTHER 1 10 25 100 to to to and 9 24 99 over LARGE 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 1998 1999 OF DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE 23 . 3 39,. 6 1 3 0 ..7 | 3 .8 15.. 1 45.. 8 320,.2 100.. 3 24 . 2 21 .0 17 . 2 2 4 ., 5 1 0 7 ,,4 | 3 .7 1 4 ,. 4 46 . 6 335.. 7 1 6 ,. 0 | 30 . 4 17 . 9 1 4 ,. 4 2 0 ..9 115,. 8 j 3 . 5 1 4 ,. 6 44 .0 366..8 80 . 3 8 5 ,. 7 j 50 . 7 29 .3 18.. 9 26,.9 161.,7 | 3 .9 15..3 44 . 6 424 .7 120 . 7 2 1 ,. 0 26 . 9 25.. 6 21.. 9 2 1 9 ..2 1 3 .7 15 . 5 47 .9 4 1 2 ,. 6 1 3 7 ,. 6 23 . 4 21 .2 20 . 5 52..4 66 . 3 3 . 8 14 . 5 46 .4 314 . 6 63 .4 1 7 ,. 4 25 . 1 1 7 ,. 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 5 4 ,. 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 2 5 .• 6 40.• 4 Ql 46 • 6 | 32 . 7 02 26 • 1 2 1 .• 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 29 . 6 03 04 31 • 5 MADE 3 3 7 ,. 7 3 7 .. 9 2 8 .• o 04 LOANS 3 43 .4 Q1 Q2 03 2000 SIZE 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 ($1,000s) BY SIZE OF BANK FARM OTHER STOCK SIZE LOAN OTHER 1 10 25 100 to to to and 9 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'/ AMOUNT 1998 1999 2000 OF 3 4 ., 3 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 5,. 4 8 .. 4 17..4 39..2 j 3 7 .. 7 3 2 ,. 6 Q3... 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 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 1 7 ,. 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 1 9 ,. 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 2 7 ,. 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 . . . | Ql... | Q2... 61.. 85 Q3... 4 3 .• 9 1 | Q4.. . | 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 6 ,. 4 1989 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 2000 8 .1 10.4 7 .8 9.6 8 . 3 9 . 8 ., 3 8 .8 12.0 Q4 11 . 5 Q1 Q2 11 . OF 7 .2 Q1 Q2 Q3 14 . 11 . 8..3 6 .9 7 .7 9 .0 9 ,. 7 19,.8 18,.7 1 0 ..9 1 1 ..8 1 7 1 7 21,.9 6..4 7 ., 2 8.. 6 24,.6 20.. 1 5..3 1 1 1 7 8 ,. 5 ,. 5 ,. 6 .8 .9 11.. 3 11..0 10,.3 11,.0 8 .0 10.6 8.. 5 7.. 2 7 ., 5 9 9 9 9 1 3 6 7 MATURITY 4 ,. 7 7 ,. 4 8.. 8 8.. 8.. 8.. 7 . 10,. 3 6 5 30,.4 36..6 26,. 5 6 7 29 .4 30.. 6 2 7 ,. 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 1 3 ,. 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 OTHER 1 to 10 25 100 to to 9 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 1 0 ,. 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 10 9.2 9.2 10 . 8 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 ANNUAL RATE 9 .2 9.7 9.5 9.7 12 . 1 10 . 7 10., 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 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.3 9.9 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 8.2 9.9 8.5 8.5 7 . 9 9 .9 9.9 7.4 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 100 Under 5 percent - 5.0 to 5.9 - 6.0 to 6.9 100 100 - - 100 100 100 - 4 — - 100 100 100 100 Feb 0 0 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 . . . - - - - - - - - — — — — 19 0 to 1 9 . 9 . . . - - - - - - - - — — — 20.0 to 20.9 . . . - - - - - - - - — — — — 21.0 to 2 1 . 9 . . . - - - - - - - - — — — — 22.0 to 22.9 . . . - - - - - - - - — — — — 23.0 to 2 3 . 9 . . . - - — - - - - - - — — — 24.0 to 24.9 . . . - - - - - - — - - — — — * * — — 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 11,'462 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 67..60 74..26 24..53 0..86 55.,12 72.,13 25,,55 0..22 56.,18 69..30 25..76 0..13 63.,34 73.,80 30,,14 0..34 57..97 68..52 22 . .35 0..49 62 . .96 68..04 32,.19 1..36 86.,21 85,, 16 16.,32 1..32 7..95 6,.39 52,.23 6 .21 7 .98 19 .23 4..62 7..77 70.. 01 8..40 1..95 7,.26 4..80 7,.82 66,.39 7 .72 2 .69 10,.58 8..64 8..90 62..13 7..50 1,.76 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 , 53 2. 39.,61 5., 19 10..33 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 22,:191 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 1/!505 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 9.,69 10.,89 9.,51 10. 85 9.,65 10.,51 9.,25 10.,24 8..77 9. 11 9. 00 9.,55 10.,46 9..95 10..07 9..09 9..93 10..19 10.,67 10..20 10..45 10..30 10..32 9.,90 10..23 10 ..13 10..29 10..77 9..75 9.,68 10..87 10..22 9..20 9..83 10.,59 9.,75 9.,98 10..56 8..69 9..68 9..09 10..40 9..73 9..36 9..06 10..26 47..81 55..34 27..75 0,.03 .06 42 . 59..20 .95 23 . 0..28 41..04 .26 53 . 21..09 52..30 58..76 29..78 49..22 56..08 16..43 49,.19 56 .71 37 .31 11,.23 7 .19 , 58 .02 6 .99 10 .55 19 .23 4,.88 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 61..54 31..40 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 17..77 .16 7. 2..93 126,633 5,842 19 .69 14 .17 1 .00 194,1381 9,:321 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 10.,60 0.,78 5.,00 38,1534 1,389 21 .56 16 .60 157,013 6,256 26.59 13.06 9..69 0..14 9 .46 0 .19 9 .65 0 .07 9 .64 0 .25 9 .83 0 .16 9..88 0..35 9 .87 0 .24 9.77 0.28 10,.47 9,.00 10 .24 8 .68 10 .25 9 .25 10 .47 8 .61 10 .47 9 .31 10..73 8..62 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 9,.67 10,.09 10,.09 11,.18 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 75..23 26..65 2..82 71..26 76..49 22 . .14 0..62 84.,62 84..24 18..76 0..28 90..79 80.,86 8..29 0..28 58.,87 65..32 .54 2. 57.,86 58.,01 .72 33 . '•^ ° ^ c oi 6.21 o? 19.23 ?"?c cc'i? i aq 1.48 3.30 .55 12 , 13,.77 60,.95 3 .71 , 3 .45 5 .55 5,.78 5,.83 50 .03 6 .30 8 .27 23 .80 3..49 2,.51 56,.50 9,.22 4 .09 24 .20 4,.70 0..99 55,.81 6 .69 1 .21 30 .61 0,.93 21,.40 24 .75 7 .67 0 .75 44 .50 9,.36 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 3..67 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 9..59 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 9,.57 9..39 9..87 10..08 9..27 9,.10 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 . 1,.39 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 5..87 5..89 48..55 5,.72 6..36 19,.23 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 16,.71 .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 10.,52 9.,11 10..24 8.,68 10.,51 9.,31 11.,06 9.,72 11. 20 8. 77 9.,89 8.,62 10. 75 9. 96 10..50 8., 84 9.,55 10..46 9..95 10,.07 9,.09 9,.93 8..92 9..03 10..00 9..70 8..75 9..16 10.,21 9.,85 9.,93 8.,74 9.,45 9.,84 11.,08 10.,30 10.,19 9..83 9.,97 10.,51 9.,58 9.,91 10.,96 6. 11 10. 54 10. 18 9.,20 9..73 10.,28 9..60 9.,93 9., 04 9..72 47,.81 55,.34 27 .75 0..03 40..46 57..62 48,.24 0,.18 42..90 59..94 21..23 51..86 52..29 20..10 65.,39 53..37 60..96 11..23 7 .19 58,.02 6 .99 10 .55 19 .23 21,.47 0,.77 53,.62 1,.77 21,.05 3,.30 14..11 12..81 58..69 3..42 4,.52 5,.55 5..79 7..23 65..14 10..36 10..12 23,.80 1..46 2..03 83..90 9..11 37..35 24,.20 5..50 84..07 100,.00 51,.71 30,.61 44,.50 15,.14 18 .69 76 .94 24 .53 71 .81 8,.84 87 .26 16,.36 80,.94 0,.54 98 .12 16,.84 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 - - - - - 9.,14 - - - 10.,56 10.,50 81..23 81..67 16..84 39.,65 53.,03 84..63 47,.67 52,.78 - - - 56..54 36..62 34..09 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 0..8 0..8 0.. 8 1..0 0..9 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 0..6 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 3..2 2..8 2..2 2..0 2..1 2,.4 2..0 2..2 2..1 1..3 1..0 0..8 0..9 0..9 1..2 0..9 1..0 0..8 1..9 1..8 1..4 1,.1 1..1 1,.3 1.. 1 1..2 1.. 3 0..3 0..3 0.,2 0.,2 0..3 0.,3 0. 2 0.,3 0.,2 ' 1..6 1..5 1..2 0..9 0..9 1..0 0..9 0..9 1.. 1 End of quarter 1. 3 1997 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 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 1. 5 1.4 1.3 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 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 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 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 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 Q4 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 | | 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 0..01 0..01 0..04 -0..08 0..05 0..03 0..04 0..07 0..05 0..04 0..09 0..01 0..04 0..03 0..06 0,.05 0,.05 0,.08 Q4 0..07 0..08 0..06 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 0..2 0..3 0,. 3 0,. 3 0..2 0..3 0.. 3 0..4 0..4 0., 5 0..4 2,.4 2,.4 2 ., 8 2 .6 , 2,.9 2 .0 , 1..0 1..0 1.. 1 1.. 1 1,.2 0..8 1..4 1..4 1..7 1.. 5 1,.7 1,.3 0.,5 0..5 0.,7 0., 6 0..8 0..5 0..9 0.. 9 1..0 0..9 1,.0 0,.7 0.2 2.8 1.1 1.7 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 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 0,.3 0..2 0.. 1 0.. 1 0..2 0,, 2 0..2 0..2 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 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 1998 01 02 03 04 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 02 0.3 0.2 03 04 0.2 1999 01 2000 01. 0.4 0.6 0.3 1. 0 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.2 1. 0 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 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 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 * * 7 * * * 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 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,.0 100..0 100,.0 100..0 100,.0 100..0 100..0 70..8 76 , .2 80,.7 85 , .5 83 , .4 81..9 84..5 81..7 84..8 22..3 18..8 15..8 12 . .3 14..0 15..4 12 . .9 15.. 1 .6 12 . 5,.8 3,.9 2,.8 1,.9 2..1 2,.3 2,.5 2,.8 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,.0 100..0 100,.0 80..5 81..8 84..5 15..8 15..2 12 . .9 3..2 2..7 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,.0 100,.0 100,.0 80..6 80..8 80..3 81,.7 16..3 15..9 16..2 15..1 .8 2. .9 2, 3..1 2..8 0..1 0..3 0..3 0..3 0.. 1 0..1 0.. 1 0..0 0..1 0..0 0..0 0.. 1 1999 01. 02. 03. 04. 100..0 100 .0 100 .0 100 . 0 77 , .2 .7 78 . 80 . .4 84 . 8 17 , .8 16,.9 15 .9 12 , .6 4,.5 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 25 AND OVER 13,.3 19..6 18..4 16..9 13,.4 14,.2 14,.2 13,.4 14,.2 2,.5 5,.1 4..6 3,.3 2..3 2,.6 3..1 3..5 4,.9 0..9 1,.6 1. 3 0..9 0..6 0..5 1..1 1..3 1,.9 10 TO 14 RATE OF RETURN TO ASSETS 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 11..3 11..8 8..8 11..3 12..3 12..5 12..1 12..3 12..3 11..7 11..9 1..0 1..2 1..2 1..2 1..2 1..2 1..2 1..2 1..2 0..7 1..0 1..1 1..1 1..2 1..2 1..2 1..2 1..1 6.,0 9..0 11.,4 6..4 9..6 12..3 0.,6 1..0 1..2 0.6 1.0 1.2 3..0 6..1 8..9 11..3 3..3 6..4 9..1 11,.7 0..3 0..6 1..0 1.,2 2..9 6..0 9,.1 11,.8 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 0..7 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 9..5 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 11..0 10..6 10..7 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 10..7 10..8 10..5 0..3 0..6 0..9 1..2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 0..0 0..1 0..2 0..3 0..1 0..1 0..2 0,.3 11..0 10..8 10..8 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 1..6 1,.5 1,.4 2 .1 1,.6 2,.0 2..9 7..6 5..3 5..9 5..9 5..7 5..6 5..9 8.,7 7. .9 32..2 25..3 .8 27 . 31..4 37..1 33..4 34..5 35..6 34..8 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 . 0,.718 656 619 609 574 558 538 0,.675 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 0..476 0 .489 . 0 .491 . 0,.523 0. , 529 0 .564 . 52 53 52 49 48 48 0..784 0 , 740 0 .735 . 0 . 661 0. , 660 0 .724 , 17 . 10 16 . 83 .45 16 , 16 .44 . 16 .34 . 67 15 , 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 , 0..717 0..698 591 583 574 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 0..705 0,. 674 0,.661 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 0,.713 0 .736 , 0,.751 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 0..719 0..750 0,.765 0 .750 . 317 302 319 300 0,.688 0 .719 0 .745 0 .718 550 539 547 538 0,.723 0,.738 0 .775 0 .738 868 838 846 838 0 .684 0 .715 0 .721 0 .715 297 279 275 277 0.,532 0.,566 0.,567 0..564 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 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 1989 1990 199 1 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 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 1998 Ql. . • Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1999 Ql. . • Q2. . . Q3. . . 04... 1 j | 2000 Ql. SAME FUND AVAILABILITY LOWER HIGHER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS LOAN REPAYMENT RATE LOWER HIGHER SAME HIGHER LOWER 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 2 3 4 10 20 66 14 33 57 10 8 15 19 20 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 14 52 34 | 8 j 1 1 1 1 8 3 3 7 64 64 56 45 29 33 41 48 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 89 86 80 75 11 14 19 25 4 3 3 7 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 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 HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 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 18 17 15 16 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 LOWER SAME HIGHER 1997 Q3. . . Q4. . . 18 FARM MACHINERY OTHER OPERATING FARM REAL ESTATE OTHER INTERMEDIATE FEEDER LIVESTOCK 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 |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 NONBANK AGENCIES CORRESPONDENT BANKS NONE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER HIGHER LOWER SAME NONE 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 | 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 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. . III ,C2 NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS 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 LOWER AT THAN DESIRED DESIRED LEVEL HIGHER THAN DESIRED NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS 73 74 74 71 1999 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. 2000 Ql. NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER 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 REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS 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 . . . . 1 1999 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1998 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . | | 2000 Ql. III.D2 1998 Ql... Q2 . . . Q3... Q4... OTHER OPERATING LOANS INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.1 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.1 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.1 9.0 9.1 9.3 9.4 9.0 9.1 9.3 9.4 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.6 9.7 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. . . I | | 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 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 RANCHLAND ALL 1 2 0 -1 0 j j 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 *** 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 HIGHER 41 45 33 22 4 1999 Ql... Q2. . . 03... Q4. . . SAME 26 14 8 16 1 Q3 . . . Q4. . . LOWER 57 61 47 53 2 Q2. . . UP 17 25 45 31 1 1998 Ql... STABLE 15 16 9 8 j j III.E3 DOWN 76 67 40 50 1 1 j RANCHLAND 10 17 51 43 0 0 2 1 1 IRRIGATED io 8 4 1 1 III.E2 DRYLAND SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 0 1 0 2 1 TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER 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 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 | III.E5 1999 Ql... Q2 . . . Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 SAME HIGHER i 56 58 52 57 18 17 15 16 1 NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1998 Ql... Q2. . . Q3 . . . Q4. . . 2000 Ql. . - LOWER UP TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) 1998 Ql... Q2 . . . Q3 . . . Q4. . . 2000 Ql... STABLE *** 1 7 5 3 3 6 3 2 -0 7 5 3 4 6 5 -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 : |
@FedFRASER