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
Third Quarter 1990
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Nicholas A. Walraven and
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources
Page
Farm debt outstanding, major lending institutions
3
Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks
6
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
T o h n Rocinr*
15
25
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 third quarter of 1990; the other data generally were available only through the second quarter of
1990.
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 substantive questions may be addressed to Nicholas Walraven
or John Rosine at the address shown on the cover.
The Databook is furnished on a complimentary basis to college and university teachers, libraries of
educational institutions, government departments and agencies, and public libraries. Others should enclose
the annual subscription fee of $5.00.
New subscriptions to the Databook
(including zip code) to:
(Statistical Release E.15) may be entered by sending a mailing address
Publications Services, Mail Stop 138
Federal Reserve Board
Washington, D.C. 20551
Notice of change of address also should be sent to Publications Services.
the old address should be included.
A copy of the back cover showing
SECTION I:
FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING (including farm households)
TABLES:
Debt held by institutional lenders
I.A
Quarterly estimates
Page
4
SOURCES OF DATA:
The sources of the data in this section are: quarterly reports of condition, all insured commercial banks;
the quarterly information statements of the Farm Credit System; "Gross Flow of Mortgage Loans in the United
States," American Council of Life Insurance; and "Report 616," Farmers Home Administration, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. The farm debt series on a USDA basis is from the Economic Research Service. The data are not
seasonally adjusted.
The quarterly data shown here for commercial banks, life insurance companies, and the Farmers Home
Administration are virtually the same as those reported annually in the USDA accounts that include the debt of
farm households (as well as the debt of farm businesses). By contrast, the numbers shown here for the Farm
Credit System differ somewhat from those shown in the USDA accounts, owing to adjustments by the USDA to allow
for loans that are not for agricultural purposes.
Recent developments:
The volume of outstanding farm loans held by the major institutional lenders continued to trend
gradually lower in the second quarter of 1990; in total, these loans were down about 1-1/4 percent from the
level of a year earlier, a slightly smaller year-to-year rate of decline than was observed over the preceding
three quarters. The reduction in outstanding loans from mid—1989 to mid-1990 was concentrated in the loans
held by the Farmers Home Administration, which has been resolving loan problems that had accumulated through
the 1980s. The outstanding volume of farm loans held by other institutional lenders in mid-1990 was up about
2 percent from a year earlier.
In the second quarter, commercial banks and the institutions of the Farm
Credit System recorded seasonal increases in the volume of nonreal estate loans that were a bit stronger than
those seen in the second quarter of the two previous years. In addition, the volume of farm real estate loans
held by commercial banks continued to trend upward, and the farm real estate loans held by life insurance
companies rose for the fourth consecutive quarter. The farm real estate loans of the Farm Credit System
continued on a course of moderate decline.
#
#
#
<
#
*
#
#
#
#
#
#
m
#
x
TABLE I.B
FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING:
DATA REPORTED BY THE MAJOR FARM LENDING INSTITUTIONS
REAL ESTATE DEBT
TOTAL
TOTAL
I.B1
1987 Q4..
INSURED
COMMERCIAL
BANKS
FARM
CREDIT
SYSTEM
FARMERS
HOME
ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL
INSURED
COMMERCIAL
BANKS
FARM
CREDIT
SYSTEM
MEMO:
FARM DEBT
HELD BY MAJOR
FARM LENDING
INSTITUTIONS,
USDA BASIS
FARMERS
HOME
ADMINISTRATION
PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS QUARTER
1
-2 .4
1
-o . 9
2. 4
-2 2
1988 Ql..
Q2. .
Q3 . .
04. .
1
1
|
I
-2 . 1
2 .3
0.0
-2 . 9
1
|
1
I
-1 .2
-0.3
o. 1
-1 . 4
1. 9
3 .0
1 .2
0 .5
-2
-1
-0
-2
3
5
0
6
1989 Ql..
Q2 . .
03. .
04. .
I
1
1
1
-2 .0
2 .5
0 7
-3 . 0
1
1
I
1
-1 .4
-0 . 1
-0 . 1
-1 . 0
2 .7
3 .0
1 .2
0. 9
1990 Ql..
02..
I
1
-1 .8
2. 9
1
1
-0 .2
o .3
0. 7
2 .2
I.B2
LIFE
INSURANCE
COMPANIES
NONREAL ESTATE DEBT
-1 .8
0 .0
I
-4.1
-5.2
-5. 6
-1.1
|
-2 .4
-0 . 8
0. 1
0. 8
-1. 1
-0. 4
-1. 0
-2 .5
I
|
I
I
-2.9
5.6
-0.1
-4.6
-3.2
7.6
1.7
-3.1
-4 .5
6. 8
-3 .1
-5. 7
-1.4
1.1
-1.5
-6.9
|
|
|
|
-3.5
-1. 4
-0 .5
-0 .8
-1 .7
0 .0
0 .2
0. 9
-0 .4
-1. 2
-1. 2
-6 .8
I
I
1
1
-2.8
5.8
1.6
-5.3
-4.7
8.2
2.5
-2.2
0 .3
7 .5
2. 6
-2. 1
-0.7
-0.0
-1.0
-14.4
|
|
|
|
-1. 1
-1. 1
1. 8
3 .0
-0 .9
-1. 9
I
I
-3.7
6.2
-4.7
8.7
-3 .2
8 .7
-1.8
-1.7
|
|
***
***
***
PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM SAME QUARTER OF PREVIOUS YEAR
1987 Q4...
1
-6..5
1
"6. 2
13 . 9
-12 . 6
-9. 9
-2 .7
|
-7.0
-6.9
-14 .1
-2.1
|
-6.4
1988 Ql...
02...
03...
04 ..
1
1
1
|
"4 .3
-3 .1
-2.1
-2 .6
I
|
1
1
-4 .7
-3 .
8
-2 .3
-2 .8
12 .1
9. 6
8 .6
6. 7
-10 .4
-8 .2
-5 .9
-6 .3
-7 .4
-7. 4
-4 .8
-2.3
-3 .0
-2 .6
-2 .3
-4 .7
|
I
|
I
-3.8
-2.2
-1.8
-2.4
-2.3
-0.5
0.4
2.6
-9 .1
-4 .9
-6 .7
-6 .8
-3.1
-3 . 6
-2.9
-8.6
|
1
|
|
-2.8
1989 Ql..
02...
03...
04.. .
I
1
1
I
-2 .6
-2 .4
-1.8
-1.9
1
1
1
I
-2
-2
-2
-2
.9
.7
.9
.5
7 .5
7 .6
7 .6
8 .0
-7 .5
-7 .3
-7 .8
-6 .0
-1. 6
-0. 8
-0 .7
-0. 6
-4 .1
-4 .9
-5 .1
-9 .3
|
I
I
1
-2.2
-2.0
-0.4
-1.1
1.0
1.5
2.4
3.3
-2 .0
-1 .5
4 .4
8 .3
1990 Ql...
02...
1
1
-1 •7
-1 -3
I
1
-1 .3
-1 •0
5 .9
5. 1
-3 . 6
-3 .4
2 .9
6. 0
-9 .8
-10 .5
I
|
-2.1
-1.6
3.4
3.9
4 .5
5. 6
-8.0
-9.0
-8.6
-15.9
1
|
|
;
-16.9
-18.3
|
|
***
***
***
-1.8
5
4
TABLE I.A
FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING:
DATA REPORTED BY THE MAJOR FARM LENDING INSTITUTIONS
(END OF QUARTER)
TOTAL
I.A1
TOTAL
INSURED
COMMERCIAL
BANKS
FARM
CREDIT
SYSTEM
LIFE
INSURANCE
COMPANIES
FARMERS
HOME
ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL
INSURED
COMMERCIAL
BANKS
FARM
CREDIT
SYSTEM
FARMERS
HOME
ADMINISTRATION
AMOUNT, END OF QUARTER, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
9..9
16. 1
1
122.0
28 .
.1
30..3
30 .
.8
29 .8
9..5
10..1
9..8
9,.3
15..9
16..0
15..8
.7
14 .
|
|
|
|
118.5
52,.3
55..3
56..2
53..2
28 .
.4
30 .7
31 .5
30 . 8
9..3
10..0
10..2
.0
10 .
14.• 6
14,. 6
14..4
12 . 4
|
|
|
|
116.5
51 .2
54,.4
29 .3
31 .9
9 .7
10,.5
12 .1
11 .9
|
|
1987 Q4 . . .
|
123 . 0
|
68 . 8
14 . 5
.3
34 ,
9 .9
.
10 .
.1
1
55. 1
29 . 0
1988 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
04.. .
|
I
121 . 4
124 . 1
|
1 2 4 .2
.
|
120 .
.
6
|
|
|
|
67 .9
67 . 7
67 .8
.
66 . 9
14 . 7
15 .
.2
.3
15 .
15 .
.4
33 .
.6
33 .0
33 ,
.0
32 .
.2
9..7
9..6
9..6
9,.7
10..0
9..9
9..8
9..6
|
|
|
|
53.,4
56..4
56.. 4
53 .8
1989 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
04...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 .9
65 . 9
65 . 8
65 .2
15 . 8
16..3
.5
16 ,
31 .1
30 .
.6
30 .5
|
1 1 8 .2
.
1 2 1 ..2
122 .
.0
118 .. 4
16 . 6
3 0 .2
9 .5
9..5
9..5
9 .. 6
9..6
9..4
9 .3
8 .7
.
|
|
|
|
1990 Ql...
02...
|
|
116..3
119.. 6
|
|
65 .1
65 .2
.
16 .
.8
17 . 1
29 . 9
29 . 6
9 .8
10 .1
8 .6
.
8 .5
.
|
|
I.A2
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SPECIFIED DEBT, END OF QUARTER
1987 Q4.
100.0
21.0
49 . 9
14 . 4
14.6
100.0
52.7
18.0
29.2
1988 Ql.
Q2.
03.
04.
100 .0
100.0
100.0
100.0
21
22
23
49.4
48 . 8
48.7
48 .1
14.2
14 .1
14.1
14.5
14 .7
14.7
14.5
14 . 4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
52 .
53 .
54 .
55.
17.7
17.9
17.4
17.2
29.7
28.4
28.0
27.3
1989 Ql.
02.
Q3.
04.
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.0
24 .7
25 .1
25 .5
47.1
46.5
46.3
46.4
14 .4
14.4
14.5
14.7
14.5
14.3
14.2
13.3
100.0
100 .0
100.0
100 .0
54 .
55 .
56.
57 .
17.8
18.1
18.2
18.8
27.
25.
23.
1990 Ql.
02.
100
100
25.8
26.3
46.0
45.4
15.0
15 .4
13.2
13 . 0
100.0
100.0
57.3
58.7
19.0
19.4
23.7
21.9
MEMO :
FARM DEBT
HELD BY MAJOR
FARM LENDING
INSTITUTIONS,
USDA BASIS
NONREAL ESTATE DEBT
REAL ESTATE DEBT
22
26.
SECTION II:
AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLES:
Estimates from the quarterly survey of nonreal estate farm loans
II. A
II. B
II.C
II.D
II.E
II.F
II.G
Amount
Number
Average size
Average maturity
Average effective interest rate
Percentage of loans with a floating interest rate
Distribution of farm loans by effective interest rate
Page
®
9
H
12
13
14
SOURCES OF DATA;
These data on the farm loans 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
340 commercial banks. A subset of 250 banks was asked for information regarding agricultural lending, and
about 150 typically reported at least one farm loan.
Beginning in August of 1989, the data are being drawn from a new, redesigned sample of 250 banks that is no
longer part of the broader survey. In choosing the new sample, banks are stratified according to their volume
of farm lending; previously, they had been stratified according to the volume of total loans. As before,
however, the sample data are being expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks. In the August
1990 survey, about 210 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled about
5000, more than twice the number typically reported in the quarterly surveys that were done before the sample
was redesigned.
The new panel of farm banks also was chosen so that the regional mix of sample banks corresponds roughly to
the geographic distribution of outstanding farm loans; over time, as more experience is gained with the new
sample, it may become possible to examine regional differences in the terms of agricultural lending.
In both the previous survey and the new one, the national estimates exhibit variability due to sampling error.
This variability is particularly evident in data on average maturity, which are greatly affected by the
SECTION II:
(CONTINUED;
occasional appearance of loans with a maturity of about 20 years.
In addition, the breakdown of national
estimates into those for large banks and small banks may be affected somewhat by the new sampling procedures
that were implemented in August 1989; apparent shifts in the data as of that date therefore should be treated
with caution.
More detailed results from each quarterly survey are published in Table 5 of Statistical Release E.2, "Survey
of Terms of Bank Lending," for which a mailing list is maintained by Publications Services, Mail Stop 138,
Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C., 20551.
Starting with the August 1986 survey, farm loans secured by
real estate are included in the data shown in Statistical Release E.2, whereas such loans are excluded from
the tabulations presented here.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
Results from the quarterly survey that was conducted in August 1990 were heavily influenced by the terms of
lending on some unusually large farm loans. Apart from these loans (which, by purpose of loan, show up mainly
in the "other" category), the terms of lending appeared to be little changed from those of previous quarters.
The estimated number of loans made by all commercial banks was 2.59 million at an annual rate, around the
middle of the ranoe of recent quarters. For the first three quarters of 1990, the estimated number of loans
made did not differ greatly from the number made over a similar period of 1989, both in total and for the
various categories of loans. The estimated volume of new lending (Table II.A) in the first three quarters of
1990 was up £z< • .he level of a year earlier; by purpose of loan, the categories showing the largest gains
relative to a \ ir earlier were the loans made for feeder livestock and the residual "other" category of farm
loans.
The interest , . t - on nonreal estate farm loans (Table II.E) were little changed for most categories of loans
from mid-May to mid-August, although the average rate, overall, was pulled down sharply, to 10.9 percent, by
the relatively low rates on the aforementioned large loans. As shown in the last column of Table II.G, almost
three-fourths of the loans made in the mid-August survey week carried an effective interest rate between 11.0
percent and 12.9 percent; a similar proportion of loans had fallen in this same range in the May 1990 survey.
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE 11. A
AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
BY SIZE
OF BANK
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
1
to
9
10
to
24
8.4
8.7
8.5
8.3
7.9
8.4
8.9
7.2
6.0
5.7
5.2
6.1
8. 9
8. 5
9. 7
9. 5
9. 8
9. 0
7 .8
7 .4
6 .9
6. 8
6. 4
7..7
25
to
99
100
and
over
13.6
17.3
18.1
18.0
18.2
17.5
17.6
13.5
13.2
12.6
12.9
14.4
15.7
18.2
23.8
25.3
30.0
32.4
26.5
24.0
22.3
24.5
23.7
23.4
LARGE
OTHER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.3
11.1
11.9
12.8
21.7
18.6
15.8
14.9
12.6
17.1
15.9
19.6
34.2
41.6
48.1
48.3
44.3
48.7
45.0
37.3
35.9
32.5
32.3
32.0
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE
46.
52.
60.
1978.
1979.
1980.
1981.
1982.
1983.
1984 .
1985.
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989.
61.
66.
67.
60.8
52.1
48.5
49.6
48.2
51.6
13.4
16.8
16.1
12.7
13.6
12.1
10.7
8.6
10
13
10
12
3.9
4.9
4.6
4.3
4.5
5.9
6.5
5.2
4.5
3.4
4.6
6.0
16.9
18 .7
24 ,1
27.3
28.1
31.1
26.5
22.n
23.2
22.5
24 .3
24.3
4 .2
4.2
4 .8
4.7
5.4
6 .1
4.4
4.4
2.4
2 .3
1. 9
2.0
7. 6
8. 0
10. 1
11. 4
13. 4
11. 9
12. 2
11. 3
8. 0
8.,3
7..4
6.,4
1
1
1
i
i
I
|
!
1
1
1
fEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1988 Q3.
Q4.
53.6
38.1
7.2
10.7
4.7
5.4
32.1
14 .7
1. 9
1.1
7 .7
6. 1
|
1
5.4
3.7
7 .7
4 .9
13.3
10.8
27.2
18.7
|
|
15.9
14.1
37.7
24.0
1989 Ql.
41.2
62.7
47.7
54.8
11.7
11.8
11.4
16.8
3.
5.
5.
19.1
35.8
22 .3
20.0
1.8
1. 8
2.5
1.7
5 .4
8 .1
5 .8
6 .3
1
1
1
1
4.8
7.4
6.7
5.6
5 .6
9 .3
8 .0
7 .6
10.0
15.6
14.8
17.2
20.7
30.4
18.2
24.4
|
|
|
|
17.0
18.8
18.4
24.2
24.2
43.9
29.4
30.6
62.1
59.9
81.4
18 .4
15.9
20.6
24 .6
23.9
32.8
3.3
2.2
1.3
8 .5
14 .4
23 . 1
1
I
I
5.3
6.8
6.0
6 .5
8 .1
7 .1
16.9
13.6
12.8
33.3
31.4
55.5
|
|
|
29.4
33.2
54.8
32.6
26.7
26.6
02.
Q3.
04.
1990 Ql.
02.
03.
10.
7.
3.
3.6
SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NUNREAL ESTATE L -ANS TO FARMERS
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUART.?
TABLE II.B
NUMBER Of LOANS MADE (MILLIONS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FEEDER
LIVE
STOCK
ALL
LOAMS
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
BY SIZE
OF BANK
1
to
9
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
2.36
2.37
2.23
2.23
2.14
2.32
2.42
2.06
1.71
1.57
1.42
1.67
0.60
0.59
0.66
0.65
0.67
0.60
0.53
0.51
0.46
0.46
0.43
0.52
0.33
0.37
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.38
0.40
0.30
0.29
0.27
0.28
0.31
0..06
0..08
0..10
0..10
0..09
0..11
0..09
LARGE
ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MaDE
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1
|
1
1
1
1
1
1
|
1
1
1
3 .35
3 .42
3 .40
3 .39
3 .30
.
3 .41
.
3 .44
.
2 .96
.
2 .55
.
.38
2.
.21
2.
.60
2.
. 60
0 . 52
0 . 50
0..39
0.-33
0 .37
.
0 . 34
0.
,34
0.,30
0.
,39
0.
.29
0., 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 32
,
.31
,
.29
,
.26
.
.26
. 32
.29
.23
,
0 ,17
.
0 .
.13
0.
.11
0.
.20
1.. 60
1,. 7 5
1,.76
2.. 0 i
2..06
2..00
.06
2.
1 . •7
1., 66
1..54
1..45
1..73
0.43
0 . 43
0.39
0.41
0.45
o.:8
0.39
0.^0
0.39
0.35
0.34
0.32
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.27
0.17
0.24
0.19
0 .14
0.14
0.16
0.21
0.20
I
|
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0..09
0..08
0..08
0..07
0..09
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.36
3.15
3.24
3.22
3.21
3.08
3.21
3.26
2.78
2.34
2.18
1.99
2.23
NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1988 03...
04...
I
1989 01...
02...
03...
04...
1990 01...
02...
03...
2 .37
1 .64
1
1
o,.28
o.. 33
0 .11
0 .09
1 .60
I .00
,
0.13
0.09
|
2
1
1
3 . 13
2 .78
0
0
0
0
1..31
2 .25
1 .95
0.16
0 .15
0.19
0.15
0.17
0.24
2 .47
,
o..24
o..28
o..26
0..44
.12
.22
|
i
i
1
!
1
1
2 .37
.
2 .81
,
2 .59
.
1
0.. 30
0.
.26
0..25
0 .23
,
0 .26
,
0 .16
,
0.25
0.20
0.21
0.13
0.19
0.18
1
1
|
1
.19
.
.29
1,.40
1 .38
,
1..90
1..87
0.25
0.12
0.20
0.19
|
I
1.49
1.02
0.51
0.33
0.31
0.22
0.06
0.06
|
|
0.26
0.18
2.11
1.46
|
|
I
I
1.33
2.06
1.84
1.47
0.38
0.64
0.55
0.52
0.23
0.32
0.32
0.39
0.07
0.11
0.07
0.09
|
|
|
|
0.21
0.33
0.48
0.45
1.80
2.80
2.30
2.02
I
|
I
1.48
1.86
1.73
0.42
0.56
0.48
0.36
0.31
0.29
0.10
0.08
0.09
|
|
|
0.40
0.52
0.42
1.97
2.29
2.17
10
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.C
AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
BY SIZE
OF BANK
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
1
to
9
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.6
14.9
14.4
14.7
14.7
14.6
14 .8
14.7
14.4
14 .9
14.7
14.8
14.7
41.4
46.7
43.9
43.5
46.1
46.3
43.8
45.5
44.9
46.5
45.2
45.9
246
220
239
255
326
294
291
255
280
320
320
272
LARGE
OTHER
|
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
63.4
61.5
66.3
73.0
97.8
92.0
88.1
82.0
62.0
85.5
70.0
53.7
10.9
12.8
14.9
15.0
14.4
15.2
13.8
13.4
15.3
14.9
16.3
14.4
ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE
13.9
15.4
17.7
18.0
20 .0
19.7
17 . 7
17.6
19.0
20.8
21. 8
19.9
1978.
1979.
1980.
1981.
1982.
1983.
1984.
1985.
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989.
22.3
32.4
32.3
32.6
41.5
32.5
31.8
25.7
35.0
33.8
34.1
42.7
12.4
15.9
15.8
16.6
17.5
18.2
21.9
22.5
25.8
26.3
40.6
29.5
10.6
10.7
13.7
13.6
13.6
15.5
12.9
12.8
14.0
14.6
16.7
14.1
9.8
9.8
10.7
12.3
17.6
15.6
12.5
12.4
13.6
16.1
13.9
12.1
19. 6
19.,4
25.,8
33..8
38..9
37.. 1
34..8
42..1
32..9
44..6
34 .7
32 .2
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1988 Q3.
Q4.
22
23
25.8
32.6
44 .1
59.3
20.1
14 .6
14 .4
.
12..3
30.6
50.0
3.7
3.6
15.1
14.5
42.3
48.7
454
288
|
|
61.2
80.0
17.9
16.4
1989 Ql.
Q2.
03.
04.
20
20
17
22
49.1
42.7
44 .2
38.3
25.5
24.4
30.0
34.5
14.5
15.9
11.4
14 .3
11..0
12..3
13..6
11..0
32.0
34 .0
29.2
33.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.8
15.1
14.6
14.5
14 .8
43.4
48.5
46.5
44.5
296
275
252
266
|
|
|
|
80.9
57.8
38.5
54.0
13.5
15.7
12.7
15.2
1990 Ql.
26.2
21.3
31.5
61.2
62.0
82.0
32.0
13.8
22.1
17.7
12.6
17.6
13,.0
10,.5
10 .2
42.0
77.5
128.3
3.6
3.6
3.5
15.3
14.3
14 .7
47.5
44 .3
44.0
324
409
651
|
|
|
73.8
63.6
130.3
16.6
11.7
12.3
02.
03.
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.D
AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE (MONTHS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN <$l,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
BY SIZE
OF BANK
1
to
9
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
LARGE
OTHER
7.9
7.7
6.8
6.2
6.0
7.0
7.0
6.7
6.8
7.5
7.1
7.4
8 .6
8 .3
7 .0
6 .4
7 .0
8 .1
7 .5
7 .7
8 .0
8 .1
9 .2
8 .3
9 .2
7 .8
7 .1
6 .0
6 .6
8 .1
7 .7
9 .1
9 .8
9 .3
10 .2
9 .3
7 .6
5 .5
7 .6
5 .8
6 .4
10 .0
8 .0
7 .9
7 .1
8 .3
7 .7
7,.1
7.0
5.3
6.6
5.4
6.0
6.1
7.0
6.9
5.5
5.9
8.1
7.8
8.7
7.6
7.3
6.2
6.7
9.9
7.9
8.4
8.8
9.3
8.8
8.2
ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
|
1
1
1
|
1
1
I
1
|
1
I
8.3
7 .1
7 .2
6 .0
6.5
8 .9
7 .7
8 .0
8 .0
8.4
8 .7
8 .1
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
|
5.9
5.9
6.2
5.5
5.1
5.5
5.0
6.1
5.8
5.5
6.4
6.8
6 .4
6 .8
7. 1
6 .5
7 .0
8. 1
6 .6
7 .8
6 .3
7 .7
4 .7
7,.4
6.8
6.0
6.6
5.6
7.1
10.4
7.8
7.3
7.6
7.6
8.5
7.2
18 .1
14 .2
13 .5
11 .1
8 .4
10 .6
12 . 6
13 .4
21 .0
22 .8
19 .8
18 .7
10 .5
8 .7
6 .7
5 .2
5 .4
7 .8
8 .1
8 .8
8,.8
12..1
10,.9
11..8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1988 03...
Q4...
|
1
7.
.0
7 .2
-
1
I
7.2
6.2
3..7
3., 9
6.4
7.0
8 .8
32 .4
11..2
7.,4
|
|
6.1
6.1
6..4
8.
,0
7 .3
,
9..5
7 .2
,
5,.5
7.0
5.1
7.0
8.0
1989 oi...
02...
03...
04...
1
1
1
1
9..7
7..9
7..9
7.,5
1
|
|
I
7.4
6.2
6.5
7.0
6., 6
6. 8
8. 3
7. 4
8.7
7.3
6.1
6.8
21,.4
18,.5
17..8
17..4
15. 7
11. 2
13. 3
8. 1
|
|
|
|
8.4
8.0
6.5
6.8
10 ..4
8.
,8
7.
,7
6.,8
12 .3
.
9..5
8.
.1
8.
.5
7.
.0
6.,3
8..5
7.
,1
6.8
8.8
8.3
7.2
10.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
1990 oi...
02...
03...
I
|
1
10.8
10.0
5.4
1
j
I
6.3
6.2
5.0
11.6
9.7
4 .5
23..7
19..2
25., 1
11. 9
11. 8
4 .7
I
|
I
8.3
8.7
6.6
10 .2
10 .7
7. 5
16.,3
12 .,6
9. 2
7.,6
8.
,3
3.,0
6.8
8.2
2.9
13.0
11.3
8.3
8. 5
10. 6
9. 2
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.E
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,OOOs)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
BY SIZE
OF BANK
1
to
9
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
9.4
11.1
14.7
18.0
17.0
14 .2
14.6
13.7
12.4
11.6
11.7
12.8
9.4
11.4
14.7
18.2
16.8
14.1
14 .3
13.2
12.0
11.3
11.6
12.7
9.5
11.5
14.9
18.2
17.0
14.0
14 .3
13.2
11.8
11.1
11.4
12.7
9.9
12.8
15.9
18.9
16.4
13.0
13.7
12.1
10.8
9.9
10.8
12.2
LARGE
OTHER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I
10.2
13.6
16.2
19.8
16.1
12.1
13.1
11.2
9.6
9.2
10.2
12.1
9.4
11.4
15.0
18.1
17.0
14.1
14.4
13.4
12.1
11.3
11.6
12.7
ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE
1978
1979
1980
1981,
1982,
1983,
1984 ,
1985,
1986
1987,
1988,
1989
I
1
1
I
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
I
9 6
11 9
15 2
18..5
16..7
13..5
14..1
12..8
11..5
10..6
11..2
12..5
1
|
|
I
1
|
|
1
I
|
I
I
9 .7
12.1
15.6
18 .6
15 .9
13.6
13.7
12 .5
11 .1
10.7
10 .9
12 .3
9 .8
11 .7
14 .6
18 .4
16 .3
13 .8
14 .3
12 .7
11 .9
10 .2
11 .9
12 .4
9 .5
11 .8
15 .3
18 .4
16 .9
13 .5
14 .2
13 .0
11 .5
10 .8
11 .2
12 .6
9.6
11.2
14.4
17.9
17.1
14.3
14.6
13.7
12.2
11.5
11.7
12.8
9.7
12.1
15.3
18.6
16.9
12.8
14.0
12.1
11.2
9.5
10.7
12.3
AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1988 Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
I
11..5
11..6
1
1
11 .2
11 .6
12 .3
11 .7
11 .5
11 .6
11.6
12.1
11.0
11.3
11.8
12.1
11.6
11.9
11.6
12.0
11.3
11.1
I
|
10.7
11.1
11.8
11.8
1989 Ql. .
Q2. .
Q3. .
Q4. .
.
.
.
I
|
I
1
12..3
12..9
12..5
12..1
|
I
|
1
12.2
12 .9
12.0
12 .2
12 .2
12 .8
12 .6
12 .2
12 .4
12 .9
12 .7
12 .0
12.5
13.2
12.9
12.4
12.1
12.8
12.2
12.1
12.5
13.1
13.0
12.7
12.3
12.9
12.9
12.5
12.6
13.2
12.6
12.3
12.1
12.7
12.0
11.8
|
|
|
|
12.1
12.8
12.0
11.6
12.4
13.0
12.8
12.5
1990 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
1
I
I
11..8
11..8
10..9
|
|
|
11.4
11.6
11.5
11 .7
12 .2
12 .4
12 .1
12 .0
11 .1
12.2
12.4
12.4
11.5
11.5
9.8
12.6
12.5
12.6
12.4
12.3
12.4
12.2
12.1
12.1
11.3
11.4
10.3
|
|
|
11.2
11.4
10.2
12.3
12.3
12.3
ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NONR2AL ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE II.F
PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)
BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS
FEEDER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
LIVESTOCK
OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES
FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT
BY SIZE
OF BANK
1
to
9
10
to
24
25
to
99
100
and
over
1 .6
3.1
6 .9
15 .5
24 .3
25 .6
23 .8
27 .6
40 .6
48 .5
49 .3
50 .4
3.1
6.2
12.1
17.7
25.6
29.1
31.3
31.5
41.8
45.6
51.5
49.6
7.8
9.7
12.9
21.7
29.7
34.9
29.0
42.0
48.2
54.4
60.8
58.5
41.9
34.7
37.2
42.9
53.4
55.9
52.7
56.6
63.7
68.5
67.0
69.1
OTHER
LARGE
OTHER
I
|
I
I
I
|
I
|
I
I
I
I
62.2
66.4
74.6
80.0
65.6
77.7
71.1
77.1
71.9
77.6
79.1
83.6
1.1
3.4
8.4
15.5
26.3
29.9
27.6
32.6
47.0
49.9
52.6
47.2
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
I
\
I
I
|
I
I
|
|
I
1
I
17.3
16.7
21.5
29.0
39.2
43.1
38.9
45.3
53.4
59.5
61.4
61.0
|
j
|
|
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
j
18.9
16.5
19.8
33.3
47.8
47.8
41.2
61.4
60.5
51.6
65.3
71.4
19.7
17.1
17.7
21.6
30.2
28.7
32.3
44.9
34.8
69.6
39.5
40.0
14 .4
15 .8
21 .0
31 .5
43 .0
48 ,
.1
41 .
.7
43 ,
.0
57,.2
62 .1
63 .
.8
59..7
2.1
7.3
11.2
14.9
15.5
17.6
24.3
19.6
30.9
55.5
54.9
32.9
28.4
23.8
32.7
28.5
31.4
44.3
39.5
47.3
50.6
62.1
63.2
73.6
I
|
1
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER
1988 Q3...
04...
1
1
62.2
62.9
|
|
64.8
61.8
64.4
17.4
62.,3
78 .,4
36.5
68.1
64.5
66.8
I
I
42 .6
51 .3
47.0
53.2
49.1
60.5
76.9
69.1
I
I
80.6
74.8
54.5
55.9
1989 Ql...
02...
03...
04...
1
1
I
1
68.8
51.6
65.7
61.8
|
|
|
|
82.9
66.0
69.5
68.5
30.0
18.2
4 6.2
51.0
67. 4
49. 7
69. 5
59.
40.1
26.9
30.7
35.1
75.6
66.0
78.3
77.2
|
|
j
I
45,.8
56..3
51,.9
44 .5
,
52.4
45.9
58.2
42.9
69.4
50.6
63.9
54.6
78.3
52.7
75.6
76.8
I
I
I
I
88.6
80.3
87.1
80.1
55.0
39.3
52.3
47.4
1990 01...
02...
03...
1
1
1
71.6
74.6
61.5
S
|
|
78 .3
77.5
72.4
47.5
50.4
76.3
73. 0
73. 0
60 .3
41.7
47.1
46.3
85.3
84.2
52.0
I
I
I
50,.2
55..7
53..9
57.8
63.2
66.2
69.6
65.2
73.9
78.8
85.7
58.9
I
I
|
85.0
88.0
60.6
59.5
58.0
63.4
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
#
#
Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis
#
#
#
#
e
e
#
#
*
Table II.G
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS, 1
BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE
Effective
interest
rate
(percent)
August
| 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
All loan<5
Under 6. 0
6.0 to 6 .9
7.0 to 7 .9
8.0 to 8 .9
9.0 to 9 . 9
10.0 to 10. 9. . .
11.0 to 11. 9. . .
12.0 to 12. 9. . .
13.0 to 13. 9. . .
14.0 to 14. 9. . .
15.0 to 15. 9. . .
16.0 to 16. 9. . .
17.0 to 17. 9. . .
18.0 to 18. 9. . .
19.0 to 19. 9. . .
20.0 to 20. 9. . .
21.0 to 21. 9. . .
22.0 to 22. 9. . .
23.0 to 23. 9...
24.0 to 24. 9. . .
25.0 and1 over..
100
100
-
100
100
100
__
_
_
2
11
29
33
14
7
5
1
100
1
10
17
43
19
9
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
1
-
1
2
5
14
16
28
11
7
6
3
3
3
-
1
7
1
2
11
23
30
21
2
1
4
8
22
20
35
8
1
-
4
16
32
42
5
100
3
9
12
13
18
36
6
1
1
100
100
100
1
11
15
12
16
25
16
3
1
3
17
14
34
18
12
2
2
7
21
39
22
8
100
1
6
27
36
21
8
1
Memo:
Percentage
Distribution
of Number of
Loans, 1990
May
August
100
100
26
4
16
19
28
6
1
1
9
33
39
15
2
100
*
1
8
33
39
14
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1. Percentage distribution of the total dollar amount of nonreal estate farm loans of
$1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks during the week covered by the survey,
which is the first full business week of the month specified.
Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve survey of terms of bank lending to farmers.
Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.
* In the August 1990 survey, the number of loans made at interest rates between 8.0 and
8.9 percent were less than 0.5 percent of total loans made.
-
SECTION III:
SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLES:
Page
Commercial banks:
III.A
III.B
Estimated delinquent nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
Estimated net charge-offs of nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
17
18
Agricultural banks:
III.C
III .D
III .E
III .F
III.G
III.H
Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans
Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of net charge-offs to total loans
Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total capital
Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity
Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks
Failures of agricultural banks
19
20
21
22
23
24
SOURCES OF DATA:
The data in tables III.A through III.G are prepared using data from the quarterly reports of condition and
income for commercial banks. Delinquencies and charge-offs of nonreal estate farm loans for the nation as a
whole (table III.A and table III.B) are estimated from reports of banks that hold more than 90 percent of
total nonreal estate farm loans. Banks that do not report delinquencies of agricultural loans are assumed to
have the same delinquency rates as those that report.
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 III.C through table III.H 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 16.08 percent in June of 1990.
Failures of banks (table III.H) are obtained from news releases of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
with agricultural banks defined, as above, by the amount of farm loans relative to total loans that they hold.
SECTION III: (continued)
Recent Developments:
The volume of delinquent farm nonreal estate loans fell in the second quarter of 1990, reflecting a decline
in loans past due 30 to 89 days (table III.A). The volume of nonaccrual loans remained low, amounting to
1.8 percent of total farm nonreal estate loans; this level probably is roughly in line with normal business
operations. By comparison, nonaccrual loans of all types at commercial banks amounted to 2.7 percent of total
loan volume. Total net charge-offs (table III.B) were very small for the nation through the first half of
1990, largely reflecting net recoveries in a number of states, including California, Nebraska, South Dakota,
and Iowa that mostly offset continued chargeoffs in Texas, Washington, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. Most other
states had small positive net chargeoffs.
According to a variety of indicators, the financial performance of agricultural banks improved
further during the first half of 1990. Only about one in ten agricultural banks had nonperforming loans that
amounted to more than 5 percent of total loans (table III.C), and the proportion of banks that had large
amounts of net charge-offs fell compared to a year earlier (table III.D). Data through the first half suggest
that agricultural banks are earning returns at about the same rate as in the first half of the past several
years (table III.F). Also, agricultural banks have continued to earn slightly better returns than nonagricultural banks of a similar size. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks (table III.G)
remains at a relatively low level, indicating that agricultural banks, on average, have had ample funds to
lend to farmers. Fewer agricultural banks have failed thus far in 1990 than in the comparable period of any
year since 1983 (table III.H).
TABLE III.A
ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS
JUNE 30
TOTAL
PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS
NONPERFORMING
NONPERFORMING
TOTAL
PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING
NONACCRUAL
MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE
TOTAL
PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING
PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING
NONACCRUAL
MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE
198 4
198 5
198 6
198 7
198 8
198 9
199 0
I
I
I
|
!
I
|
2.6
3.4
3.5
2.5
1 .7
1 -4
1.1
0. 6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
2.0
2.7
2.9
2.0
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.4
2.1
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.8
0.6
NA
NA
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.5
8.6
10.3
8.1
5.5
4.4
3.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.2
5.0
7.0
8.6
6.7
4.5
3.2
2.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
3.5
5.3
6.8
5.4
3.7
2.5
1.8
NA
NA
1.1
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.2
1987 02...
03...
04...
1
1
1
2 .5
2 .1
1 .9
0.. 4
0..3
0.. 5
2 .0
1..8
1..4
0,. 4
0,.3
0,.2
1 .6
1,.5
1,.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
8.1
6.7
6.5
1.3
1.0
1.7
6.7
5.7
4.8
1..3
0..9
0..7
5.4
4.8
4.2
1.6
1.6
1.7
1988 01...
02...
03. . .
04. . .
1
1
1
1
2 .0
1 .7
1 .5
1 .•4
0.. 5
0..3
0.. 3
0.. 4
1..5
1..3
1,.2
1..0
0..3
0..2
0..2
0..1
1..2
1,.1
1,.0
0,.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
I
1
1
I
7.1
5.5
4.9
4.5
2.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
5.2
4.5
4.0
3.3
1..0
0..7
0..6
0..5
4.2
3.7
3.4
2.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1989 01. . .
02...
03...
04. . .
1
1
1
1
1..6
1 .4
.
1 .2
,
1..1
0..5
0.. 4
0. 3
0. 4
1..0
1..0
0.,9
0.,7
0,.2
0.,2
0..2
0.,1
0..8
0..8
0..7
0..6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
1
1
1
1
5.5
4.4
3.8
3.7
1.9
1.3
1.1
1.3
3.5
3.2
2.7
2.3
0..6
0..6
0..5
0..5
2.9
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1990 01...
02...
i
1
i.. 4
.1
0. 6
0 4
0.,8
0. 8
0., 2
0. 2
0,,6
0.,6
0.4
0.4
I
1
4.8
3.5
2.1
1.2
2.7
2.4
0..7
0. 5
2.0
1.8
1.3
1.2
•
Data are estimates of the national totals for farm nonreal 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 leans are based on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks.
18
TABLE III.B
ESTIMATED NZT OIARGE-OFFS OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
ESTIMATED &M0UHT
MILLIONS OF DOU.ARS
CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING
ANKUM,
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
|
I
|
I
I
1300
IL95
503
1.28
91
01-
U/
CO
U4
0J
235
173
:.
.60
133
255
230
57
24
15
525
370
140
-5
13
37
30
ANNUAL
TOTAL
1
i
1
1
1
1
3.28
3.38
1.61
0.44
0.29
**
01
0 . 51
0.66
0.55
0.10
0.03
-0.02
02
03
04
0.84
1.07
0.46
0.14
0.09
0.06
64
67
19
10
05
**
1.34
1.10
0.46
0.12
0.13
*Data are e s t i m a t e s of i.htt n a t i o n a l c h a r g e - o f f s of farm n o n r e a i e s t a t e l o a n s b a s e d on r e p o r t s f r o m b a n k s t h a t h o l d m o r e t h a n
90 p e r c e n t of t h e o u t s t a n d i n g n a t i o n a l v o l u m e or yucu l o a n s .
A d d i t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e e s t i m a t e s a r i s e s b e c a u s e s m a l l
banks report only charge-offs of ' .Agricultural' loans ac defined by each bank for its internal purposes. Banks first reported
t h e s e d a t a on t h e M a r c h 198 4 Report
of Income.
TABLE III.C
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RELATIVE NONPERFORMING LOANS*
NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION, JUNE 30
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1987 Q 2 . . .
Q 3 . ..
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1989 Q l . . .
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1990 Q l . . .
Q2...
10.0
TO
14.9
15.0
TO
19.9
20.0
AND
OVER
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100 .0
100 .0
100 .0
100 .0
100 .0
100 .0
100 .0
47.4
38.8
32.4
39.6
51.7
60.2
65.4
33.2
33.4
33.5
33.5
31.9
29.3
25.0
15.4
20.0
23.3
19.3
13.1
8.3
8.0
2.8
5.5
6.6
5.1
2.4
1.5
1.3
0.7
1.4
2.6
1.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.6
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
100 .0
100 .0
100 .0
39.6
43 .0
50.3
33.5
33.0
30.6
19.3
17.0
14.4
5.1
4.9
3.3
1.7
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.3
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
100 .0
100 .0
100 .
.0
100,.0
49.1
51.7
54 .0
59.0
30.8
31.9
31.3
28.9
15.7
13.1
12.0
9.7
3.2
2.4
2.1
1.9
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
|
|
;
|
I
|
|
|
100,.0
100 .
.0
100..0
100 .
.0
57.6
60.2
61.7
65.8
29.3
29.3
27.6
25.1
10.6
8.3
8.5
7.6
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
|
|
j
|
|
|
100..0
100 .,0
61.9
65.4
26.8
25.0
9.2
8.0
1.5
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
J
wonperiorming loans are loans
in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e m o d i f i e d
section III.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
#>
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5.0
TO
9.9
TOTAL
Q4. . .
1988 Q l . ..
2.0
TO
4.9
UNDER
2.0
•
s
;
in nonaccrual status or past due 90 days or more. Renegotiated
or restructured loans
terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to
•
•
#
e
#
#
20
TABLE III.D
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RELATIVE NET CHARGE-OFFS*
NET CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
198 4
198 5
198 6
198 7
198 8
198 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
UNDER
0.10
0.10
TO
0.49
0.50
TO
0.99
1.00
TO
2.49
2.50
TO
4 .99
5 .00
AND
OVER
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
18.5
10.6
9.7
19.4
31.8
36.0
23.6
14.5
13.4
20.6
25.7
28.1
20.0
18.0
15.5
18.5
17.2
16.5
23.9
30.2
30.7
25.4
17.3
14.1
9.2
16.1
18.0
11.0
5.8
3.9
4.8
10.5
12.6
5.1
2.2
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
j
YEAR--TO-DATE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
1988 Q2...
03...
04...
|
|
|
100.0
100.0
100.0
55.2
46.0
31.8
23.6
25.3
25.7
10.7
13.3
17.2
7.8
10.7
17.3
2.1
3.6
5.8
0.7
1.3
2.2
j
|
|
1989 01...
02...
03...
04...
|
I
|
|
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
75.6
59.9
50.6
36.0
17.3
24.7
26.0
28.1
3.7
8.0
12.0
16.5
2.9
5.6
8.7
14.1
0.4
1.5
2.1
3.9
0.2
0.4
0.7
1.4
|
|
|
|
1990 01...
02...
|
|
100.0
100.0
77.2
61.8
16.3
24.2
3.8
7.9
2.2
4.9
0.4
1.0
0.1
0.3
|
|
.
, .
indicated.
.
^
^11 ayij.v>uxli
Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section III.
TABLE III.E
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RATIO OF NONPERFORMING LOANS TO TOTAL CAPITAL*
NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CAPITAL
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION, JUNE 30
50
UNDER
ALL BANKS
25
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
76.3
8H.6
:>o . i
|
100.0
Qi.i
I
100.0
8::.
1984 .
1985.
1986.
1987.
1988 .
1989.
1990 .
1988 02...
Q3 . - .
04 . . 1989
Ql...
Q 2
''*
I
i
03 . . .
Q 4
' • '
4.4
6.1
6.8
150
TO
174
175
TO
199
200
AND
OVER***
0.6
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
oil
1.7
1 .5
2.8
1.0
8.4
A
2.4
2.1
90.1
7.6
1.1
0.6
0.1
y
7.4
1.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
**
0.1
8.5
2.2
0.7
7.9
1.7
0.6
100.0
89.2
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
8/.0
88.6
i
0.3
3.0
0.7
100.0
1O0.0
I
125
TO
149
7. 9
4
? -S
5
7.6
1.6
1990 Ql...
02^.
100
TO
124
7.4
I 6 . <
in
10.0
' - 5
74
75
TO
99
1.6
2.3
3.0
2.1
1.0
0.6
0.4
10.5
4
TO
100.0
I
1
16.3
19.6
19.4
69.0
60.6
100.0
1
TO
49
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
* Total primary and secondary capi',i i/ems Chat are available at the end of the period specified.
are defined m the introduction to section III.
** Less than 0.05 percent.
*** Includes banks with negative capital.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
•
#
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural banks
21
#
•
s
s
•
e
#
•
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
22
TABLE III.F
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RATE OF RETURN TO EQUITY*
NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE
OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT BANK
(PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION)
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|
|
I
I
ALL BANKS
NEGATIVE
0
TO
4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
1
2
4
7
13
18
19
13
9
5
2
2
3
5
7
9
11
14
13
9
7
AVERAGE RATE
OF RETURN
TO EQUITY
5
TO
9
10
TO
14
15
TO
19
20
TO
24
8
9
12
15
18
23
22
27
31
30
29
36
33
33
33
36
36
33
28
31
36
38
38
35
32
28
24
15
13
9
9
12
14
12
14
13
11
7
3
3
2
2
3
4
25
AND
OVER
3
5
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
|
|
|
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
15
16
15
14
11
8
6
5
8
10
11
14
14
13
12
12
12
11
8
8
9
10
RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.0
NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)**
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.2
2.1
2.3
1.3
0.7
0.6
0. 3
0. 4
0. 4
0. 6
0. 7
0. 6
0. 8
1. 1
0. 9
0. 7
0. 7
9.0
9.2
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.5
9.8
9.9
10.1
8.5
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.8
8.8
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUARTERLY
YEAR TO DATE * * * —
1988 02...
03...
04...
I
I
I
100
100
100
1989 01...
02...
03...
04...
!
1
1
I
100
100
100
100
1990 01. . .
02...
I
I
100
100
**
* *
**
•*
**
**
**
* *
**
**
* *
**
**
**
* *
* *
**
**
**
**
**
**
5
8
10
5
7
9
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.7
0. 5
0. 5
0. 7
10.1
10.3
9.9
8.8
8.9
8.8
|
|
|
3
6
9
11
3
6
8
10
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.6
0. 1
0. 3
0. 4
0. 7
10.2
10.4
10.4
10.1
8.9
9.1
9.1
9.0
|
|
|
|
3
6
3
5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2
0. 1
0. 3
10.2
10.2
9.0
9.0
|
|
•Agricultural banks are defined In the Introduction to section III.
**Total primary and secondary capital (items that are available at the end of the period specified) as a percentage of total assets.
***Data 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 III .G
AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*
JUNE 30
AVERAGE
CLEVELAND
LOANS
TO
DEPOSITS
ATLANTA
CHICAGO
ST. LOUIS
MINNE-
KANSAS
APOLIS
CITY
SAN
DALLAS
NUMBER
OF
LOANS
TO
NUMBER
OF
LOANS
TO
NUMBER
OF
LOANS
TO
NUMBER
OF
LOANS
TO
NUMBER
OF
LOANS
TO
NUMBER
OF
LOANS
TO
NUMBER
OF
BANKS
DEPOSITS
BANKS
DEPOSITS
BANKS
DEPOSITS
BANKS
DEPOSITS
BANKS
DEPOSITS
BANKS
DEPOSITS
BANKS
FARM LOAN
FRANCISCO
LOANS
TO
DEPOSITS
NUMBER
OF
LOANS
TO
BANKS
DEPOSITS
RATIO
1985
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989,
1990.
4963
4835
4647
4474
4321
4196
0. 597
0. 556
0..534
0.,541
0..557
0..553
|
|
|
|
|
|
140
125
121
101
94
85
0. 604
0. 589
0. 620
0. 651
0.,665
0.,672
|
|
|
|
|
|
217
200
174
162
161
161
0. 593
0. 597
0. 598
0. 607
0..604
0.,612
1278
1231
1191
1147
1085
1033
0. 579
0. 519
0. 511
0.,526
0. 555
0.,554
|
|
|
|
|
|
608
592
564
533
499
495
0.562
0.538
0.530
0.546
0.569
0.569
|
|
|
|
|
|
888
863
837
801
778
755
0.,639
0.,591
0..548
0..552
0..575
0 .583
.
1376
1351
1299
1257
1223
1183
0. 591
0. 533
0. 500
0.,503
0.,514
0..506
|
|
|
|
|
|
341
359
366
380
391
401
0. 591
0. 567
0. 536
0.,519
0.,495
0..468
I
|
|
|
|
60
63
57
61
62
60
0. 726
0. 709
0..694
0,.669
0..682
0..714
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.93
16.21
16.00
16.04
16.00
16.08
1988 02...
Q3...
04...
4474
4474
4344
0,.541
0,.541
0,.538
|
I
|
101
97
96
0..651
0..660
0..637
|
|
|
162
162
144
0,.607
0,.607
0,.585
1147
1147
1111
0,.526
0,.526
0 .529
|
|
|
533
533
500
0.546
0.546
0.549
|
|
|
801
801
778
0 .552
0 .552
0 .532
1257
1257
1239
0..503
0,.503
0,.512
|
|
|
380
380
392
0..519
0..519
0,.506
|
|
|
61
61
62
0,.669
0,.669
0 .637
|
|
|
16.04
16.12
15.72
1989 oi...
02...
03...
04...
4317
4321
4321
4181
0 .537
0 .557
0 .557
0 .544
|
|
|
|
92
94
94
84
0,.648
0..665
0 .665
0 .641
I
|
|
|
149
161
161
138
0,.600
0 .604
0 .604
0 .588
1100
1085
1085
1055
0 .535
0 .555
0 .555
0 .548
|
|
|
|
773
499
499
477
0.548
0.569
0.569
0.558
I
|
|
|
773
778
778
758
0 .540
0 .575
0 .575
0 .552
1229
1223
1223
1196
0 .508
0 .514
0 .514
0 .511
|
|
|
|
396
391
391
393
0 .479
0 .495
0 .495
0 .481
|
|
|
|
62
62
62
57
0 .624
0 .682
0 .682
0 .637
|
|
|
|
15.47
16.00
16.17
15.87
1990 oi...
02...
4177
4196
0 .536
0 .553
|
|
81
85
0 .648
0 .672
|
|
151
161
0 .592
0 .612
1037
1033
0 .541
0 .554
|
|
487
495
0.549
0.569
|
|
756
755
0 .557
0 .583
1191
1183
0 .497
0 .506
|
|
398
401
0 .468
0 .468
|
|
54
60
0 .622
|
|
15.63
16.08
*The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total deposits.
Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section III.
|
0 .714
TABLE III.H
FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS*
SEPTEMBER 30
NUMBER OF FAILURES
1982
1983
1984 ,,,
1985...,
1986 ..
1987,.,,
1988
1989,,.
1990,,,.
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
ANNUAL
TOTAL
2
1
3
12
14
22
11
5
3
3
1
7
21
14
19
6
7
5
3
2
10
17
21
12
12
5
6
3
3
12
18
16
16
7
5
11
7
32
68
65
69
36
22
* *
**
*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 III.
SECTION IV:
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS AND FARM LAND VALUES
Page
TABLES:
IV.A
IV.B
IV.C
IV.D
IV.E
Nonreal estate lending experience
Expected change in non-real-estate loan volume and repayment conditions
Average loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availability
Interest rates
,
Trends in real estate values and loan volume
28
30
32
34
36
SOURCES OF DATA:
Data are from quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks conducted at the end of
each quarter by five Federal Reserve Banks. Each of these banks issues a more detailed quarterly report on
its survey results, available from its Research Department at the address given below. 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. Important
differences in the type of banks surveyed are noted 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 and has included roughly 900 banks in recent quarters.
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198
The sample chosen originally in 1976 consisted of 188 banks selected from among banks at which farm loans
constituted 50 percent or more of total loans, with appropriate representation of all farm areas. In recent
quarters, the sample has included about 150 banks.
26
Section IV: (continued)
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. Currently the sample includes 325 banks and in recent quarters the rate of responses has averaged
roughly 50 percent.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Station K, Dallas, Texas 75222
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. About 300 banks have been responding to the survey in
recent quarters.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23261
The sample selected in 1975 consisted of 43 banks of all sizes.
loans were sampled more heavily.
Banks with the larger amounts of farm
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
The Reserve Banks' surveys of agricultural credit conditions that were conducted around the end of the second
quarter of 1990 showed little change from the trends evident in previous quarters. In most districts, the
number of banks reporting an increased demand for farm loans outnumbered those reporting decreases, by roughly
the same margin as in the preceding quarter (Tables IV.A). Looking ahead to the third quarter, respondents to
the surveys generally were anticipating increased demand for farm loans to finance operating expenses and the
purchase of machinery; the demand for loans for other purposes was expected to be sluggish, however.
Little change was evident in the second quarter in banks' availability of funds for farm lending. Loan-todeposit ratios in the second quarter edged up seasonally in several of the districts, but were little
different from those reported a year earlier. The number of respondents who characterized their ratios as
being lower-than-desired continued to greatly outnumber those who viewed their loan-to-deposit ratios as being
too high.
Section IV: (continued)
Repayment problems on farm loans were not widely evident as of mid-1990. As shown in Table IV.A, the
percentage of banks reporting that loan repayment rates were slower than normal declined in all of the
districts in the second quarter; in several districts, these percentages were around the lows of recent
years.
The Reserve Bank surveys indicate that the interest rates on farm loans (Table IV.D) changed little in the
second quarter and generally were about 1/2 percentage point below the rates of a year earlier.
Land prices, on average, still appeared to be trending up at mid-year, according to the Reserve Bank surveys.
In most districts, the year-to-year gains were in a range of 5 to 8 percent. In the Dallas district, however,
the prices of ranchland still were declining at mid-year, and the gains for other types of farm land in that
district were little changed from the levels of a year earlier.
28
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE IV.A
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
LOWER
IV. Al
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
(CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
SEVENTH
RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS
LOAN REPAYMENT RATE
FUND AVAILABILITY
DEMAND FOR LOANS
SAME
HIGHER
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
COLLATERAL REQUIRED
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
( IL*, IN*, 10, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1988 02.
03.
04.
21
18
15
45
45
43
34
37
42
1
|
|
7
9
5
60
66
67
34
24
28
1
|
|
11
22
29
64
68
54
25
10
17
1
1
1
25
14
14
64
63
57
11
23
28
0
0
1
74
77
78
25
22
22
1989 01.
11
11
13
17
39
41
50
48
50
49
37
35
|
|
|
1
11
15
13
6
63
63
65
64
26
22
22
30
|
|
I
1
27
18
12
11
62
72
70
54
11
10
18
34
|
|
|
|
11
11
15
28
61
68
70
59
28
21
15
12
0
1
0
1
73
79
81
83
26
20
18
16
15
18
45
46
40
36
1
1
6
5
63
65
31
30
|
|
10
5
59
71
31
24
|
|
29
22
61
72
11
6
1
0
81
87
18
12
02.
03.
04.
1990 01.
02.
IV.A2
TENTH
(KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1988 02.
03.
04.
22
22
22
61
60
52
17
18
26
|
|
1
7
9
5
57
59
60
36
32
36
1
|
|
5
5
4
64
63
60
30
32
36
|
|
|
29
26
27
67
66
67
4
7
6
0
1
1
66
69
75
34
29
25
1989 01.
02.
03.
04.
17
15
11
11
56
56
53
53
27
28
36
36
1
1
|
|
4
10
10
9
63
63
64
63
33
27
26
28
|
|
|
|
3
9
14
21
67
71
70
63
29
20
16
16
|
|
|
1
25
13
11
11
71
78
78
65
4
9
11
24
1
0
0
1
72
75
80
82
27
25
20
16
1990 01.
13
17
55
53
32
31
|
|
7
8
66
59
27
34
|
|
14
5
67
75
19
20
|
|
13
17
72
78
15
5
1
2
80
82
19
17
02.
IV.A3
ELEVENTH
(DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
( LA*, NM*, TX
1988 02..
03. .
04. .
27
21
21
50
46
49
23
32
30
1
1
1
6
12
8
55
55
50
39
33
42
|
|
|
10
13
11
62
61
60
28
26
30
30
27
31
55
58
56
15
15
13
0
0
0
43
46
51
57
54
49
1989 Ql..
02. .
03. .
04. .
25
28
20
20
47
47
52
54
27
26
28
26
1
1
|
1
5
8
10
5
51
55
57
61
44
37
33
33
1
I
|
|
10
15
15
23
68
68
71
61
22
17
14
16
27
18
17
16
64
66
65
61
9
16
18
23
0
0
0
0
54
56
61
57
46
44
39
43
1990 Ql..
02. .
16
18
54
56
30
25
|
|
7
8
60
61
33
31
|
|
22
17
68
73
10
10
13
13
65
73
22
14
0
1
59
62
41
37
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF A G R I C U L T U R A L C R E D I T CONDITIONS AT C O M M E R C I A L BANKS
F A R M NONREAL E S T A T E LENDING EXPERIENCE C O M P A R E D WITH N O R M A L C O N D I T I O N S
(PERCENTAGE OF B A N K S REPORTING)
LOWER
IV. A 4
NINTH
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
(MINNEAPOLIS) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T
16
12
18
66
67
69
18
21
12
|
|
|
* **
***
|
j
*x*
|
1989 01.
02.
03.
04.
.
.
.
.
14
4
6
5
64
70
75
85
22
26
20
10
|
|
|
|
* "X *
j
* X*
j
* **
* **
1
j
1990 01. 02. .
4
7
78
78
18
15
|
|
***
j
* **
1
FIFTH
(RICHMOND) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
LOWER
HIGHER
SAME
( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI* )
1988 02...
Q3..
04. .
IV . A5
SAME
COLLATERAL REQUIRED
R E N E W A L S OR E X T E N S I O N S
LOAN R E P A Y M E N T RATE
FUND A V A I L A B I L I T Y
D E M A N D FOR LOANS
5
29
19
81
61
65
14
10
16
1
1
|
10
8
13
83
81
77
8
11
10
13
17
16
22
75
82
80
70
12
1
5
8
1
|
|
|
16
20
12
9
71
71
81
80
25
10
70
5
8
|
|
12
16
82
***
j
|
***
***
***
***
***
13
9
7
11
|
***
***
***
|
***
***
***
|
***
68
70
20
14
|
***
***
***
|
***
***
***
***
{ MOD, NC, SC, VA, W V * )
1988 02. .
03. .
04. .
18
18
21
71
64
68
11
18
11
|
|
|
4
0
4
75
77
82
21
23
14
|
|
|
0
5
4
93
82
71
7
14
25
|
|
1
11
18
21
89
77
75
0
5
4
1
1
1
o
5
o
62
68
75
39
27
25
1989 01.
02.
03.
04.
.
.
.
.
21
14
19
19
66
69
67
69
14
17
15
12
|
|
|
|
14
10
12
4
72
76
65
64
14
14
23
32
|
|
|
|
3
0
4
4
83
89
82
77
14
11
15
19
|
1
|
|
28
14
19
15
69
82
78
81
3
4
4
4
1
|
|
|
o
0
4
4
69
71
85
84
31
29
12
12
1990 oi..
02. .
21
25
Sh
11
7
1
|
11
7
68
82
21
11
|
1
11
7
79
93
11
|
1
18
7
79
86
4
7
1
|
4
1
74
62
22
37
6 -
0
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
*
#
#
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE IV.B
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS M A D E A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
TOTAL
FEEDER CATTLE
DAIRY
LOWER SAME HIGHER
LOWER SAME HIGHER
LOWER SAME HIGHER
IV B1
SEVENTH
CROP STORAGE
OPERATING
F A R M MACHINERY
LOWER SAME HIGHER
LOWER SAME HIGHER
LOWER SAME HIGHER
(CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE D 15J TP IC f. (IL*, IN*, IO, MI*, WI*; AGP TCULTURAL BANKS
1988 02...
03...
04...
1
1
1
28
18
8
48
48
45
24
34
47
|
|
!
46
30
16
46
56
70
8
14
13
|
i
|
30
18
14
64
76
77
6
6
9
i
1
|
51
42
33
41
43
57
8
15
10
|
|
|
20
13
5
47
42
31
33
44
64
|
|
1
52
37
17
39
45
50
9
18
33
1989 oi...
02...
03...
04.. .
!
1
1
1
9
10
16
12
40
53
57
51
51
37
27
37
|
|
|
1
25
22
21
13
62
69
67
70
13
9
12
17
|
|
|
!
15
13
14
11
78
80
78
77
7
7
8
11
|
|
|
I
33
28
19
25
59
65
62
63
8
6
20
11
|
I
|
1
6
9
20
13
28
46
57
45
66
45
24
43
1
1
1
1
14
15
9
8
49
58
45
38
37
27
46
54
1990 oi...
02...
1
1
12
15
50
58
38
27
|
|
20
20
60
70
20
10
|
!
13
12
77
81
11
7
|
!
23
21
71
72
6
7
|
|
13
17
46
56
41
27
1
1
6
8
41
51
53
40
IV .B2
ELEVENTH
(DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
(LA*, NM*, TX)
1988 02...
03...
04...
1
1
1
20
20
15
62
61
66
18
19
20
|
1
|
26
24
23
58
54
57
16
22
20
|
|
|
22
21
16
72
72
79
7
6
5
|
|
|
31
18
15
60
71
76
9
11
9
|
|
|
16
20
14
56
50
52
28
30
33
I
|
1
25
28
19
52
51
58
23
22
23
1989 oi...
02...
03...
04...
1
1
1
1
22
24
18
15
55
52
66
59
23
24
16
25
|
1
|
|
29
31
23
23
53
55
59
65
17
14
18
12
|
|
1
|
16
18
20
12
80
76
75
82
4
5
5
6
1
|
|
1
19
24
21
17
76
71
70
76
5
5
9
7
|
|
|
|
16
16
15
12
54
54
63
54
31
30
22
34
|
|
I
1
19
25
22
24
61
58
64
63
20
17
14
13
1990 01...
02...
1
1
17
18
59
61
25
22
|
|
22
25
62
64
16
12
|
|
19
15
76
79
5
6
1
I
17
22
80
70
3
8
|
|
11
15
58
61
31
24
|
|
20
27
62
63
17
10
IV. B3
FIFTH
(RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
(MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
1988 02...
03...
04...
1
1
1
22
15
10
74
70
80
4
15
10
1
|
|
15
6
9
81
89
87
4
6
4
1
|
I
30
21
32
67
68
68
4
11
0
|
|
|
30
25
24
59
60
68
11
15
8
|
|
|
11
10
11
75
67
71
14
24
18
I
1
1
21
18
14
64
55
68
14
27
18
1989 01...
02...
03...
04...
1
1
1
1
8
17
24
12
77
62
64
64
15
21
12
24
|
|
|
|
21
12
17
9
79
85
83
87
0
4
0
4
|
|
|
|
26
24
44
21
74
76
57
79
0
0
0
0
I
|
|
|
23
24
20
17
77
76
64
83
0
0
16
0
|
|
|
j
10
3
11
8
69
72
70
65
21
24
19
27
|
|
I
|
10
10
26
15
66
69
63
62
24
21
11
23
1990 oi...
02...
1
1
23
11
65
85
12
4
|
|
20
12
80
85
0
4
|
I
28
26
72
70
0
4
|
1
24
27
72
65
4
8
1
|
15
7
67
82
19
11
|
|
19
11
67
71
15
18
FEDERAL reserve bank QUARTERLY surveys
TABLE
tv.b
of a g r i c u l t u r a l c r e d i t
(continued)
expected
demand
conditions at c o m m e r c i a l banks
for farm loans during next quarter,
compared with normal demand
(percentage of banks r e p o r t i n g )
iv. b4
short-term
nonreal estate loans
intermediate-term
nonreal estate loans
lower
lower
ninth
( mi*,
mn,
same
mt,
sd, W I * )
9
6
9
7
7
80
61
68
82
6
26
25
11
i
1
1
1
10
11
7
2
82
83
81
88
9
6
12
10
1
1
5
12
81
80
13
8
13
10
i
1
14
18
74
65
69
56
13
24
18
32
14
21
24
12
75
65
69
80
12
is
7
8
1
j
15
12
1
j
3
7
3
64
82
81
82
30
16
13
16
5
11
10
7
80
82
80
78
14
7
10
16
o
4
80
86
19
10
4
4
86
83
10
12
19
13
11
13
11
1989 01..-
1
6
02...
03...
04..
1
1
1
1990 01..02...
1
1
5
6
ndz
higher
78
80
73
|
0 3 ..
04...
f e d e r a l reserve* district
lower
3
8
9
1
1
1
1
02...
higher
71
72
74
1
1988 01...
same
25
20
17
23
23
Q3. . .
Q4 . . .
higher
(minneapolis)
72
71
70
|
|
1987 q2...
same
debt extension
or refinancing
32
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE IV.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
IV.CI
REFUSED OR
REDUCED A
F A R M LOAN
BECAUSE OF
A SHORTAGE
OF LOANABLE
FUNDS
LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL
SEVENTH
HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED
(CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
1988 04. .
1
53
1
72
20
8
1
1989 01.
02.
03.
04.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
54
56
57
56
|
|
1
1
68
66
62
65
22
22
28
26
11
12
10
9
1
|
1
1
1990 Ql. .
02. .
1
1
55
56
1
|
67
68
25
25
7
7
I
!
IV . C2
TENTH
NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS
NONBANK AGENCIES
CORRESPONDENT BANKS
NONE
COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER
SAME HIGHER
NONE
COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME HIGHER
( IL*, IN*, 10, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
***
***
** *
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
***
***
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
1
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
1
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
(KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
|
***
***
|
|
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
( CO, KS,, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
1988 04..
1
49
1
79
10
10
|
3
67
|
72
20
72
7
I
1
66
17
75
8
1989 01..
02..
03..
04..
1
1
1
1
49
51
51
51
1
|
1
1
81
82
79
79
12
7
7
7
8
11
14
14
1
1
1
1
3
2
4
5
71
69
70
67
I
|
|
|
75
78
78
76
23
25
21
18
70
75
75
76
7
1
4
6
1
1
1
1
I
65
65
74
72
21
21
21
19
67
75
73
75
11
1990 01...
02 .. .
1
1
50
51
1
I
81
82
9
7
10
11
1
1
4
2
71
68
I
|
74
77
15
13
78
83
7
4
1
1
67
68
15
12
74
79
11
9
***
|
***
21
71
8
|
1
***
25
68
8
***
***
|
|
***
j
79
75
72
74
8
7
12
10
|
1
1
|
|
***
***
12
18
16
16
***
***
***
15
18
11
17
75
75
80
68
9
6
9
15
***
***
I
|
19
21
76
72
|
|
***
***
15
19
75
75
10
6
IV.,C3
ELEVENTH
(DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
1988 04...
1
49
|
***
1989 01...
02...
03...
04...
1
1
1
1
46
48
49
47
|
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
1990 Ql...
Q2. . .
|
|
45
45
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
|
4
***
|
j
***
j
1
3
4
2
***
***
|
|
2
3
|
6
6
( LA, NM*, TX)
***
***
4
***
|
***
***
5
8
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K Q U A R T E R L Y SURVEYS OF A G R I C U L T U R A L C R E D I T CONDITIONS AT C O M M E R C I A L B A N K S
T A B L E IV.C
A V E R A G E L O A N - T O - D E P O S I T R A T I O A N D O T H E R INDICATORS OF R E L A T I V E C R E D I T A V A I L A B I L I T Y (PERCENTAGE OF B A N K S R E P O R T I N G )
AVERAGE
LOAN-TODEPOSIT
RATIO,
E N D OF
QUARTER
PERCENT
IV. C4
NINTH
R E F U S E D OR
REDUCED A
F A R M LOAN
B E C A U S E OF
A SHORTAGE
OF L O A N A B L E
FUNDS
LOAN/DEPO S I T R A T I O IS
LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED
LEVEL
HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED
(MINNEAPOLIS) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T
N U M B E R OF F A R M LOAN R E F E R R A L S TO
ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS
( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD,
NONE
6
61
0
1
34
5
57
3
34
35
34
34
10
55
59
59
60
1
0
2
1
I
1
|
34
31
32
29
8
6
6
3
56
61
57
63
2
2
5
5
32
34
3
63
56
2
3
1
1
30
35
2
7
8
63
52
4
4
|
78
0
22
0
I
60
0
40
0
4
4
4
4
19
15
12
23
0
0
0
0
I
1
0
1
60
64
71
62
4
8
12
36
32
21
27
4
0
0
0
4
0
12
16
0
0
1
1
65
67
8
4
27
29
0
0
51
I
57
39
4
I
3
* * *
|
1989
1
1
1
1
50
53
55
55
|
!
1
1
56
54
43
43
41
45
52
48
3
1
5
9
I
1
1
1
6
3
3
3
* * *
|
* * *
|
**-*
|
* * *
|
1
1
52
55
j
|
49
43
47
51
4
6
1
1
3
* * *
|
6
* * *
|
1990
oi..
02..
TV.C5
FIFTH
(RICHMOND) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T
( MD,r
1988 04...
1
78
!
11
61
29
|
1989
1
1
1
1
80
79
1
1
|
1
14
02...
Q3...
04..
10
22
32
50
62
56
56
36
28
22
12
|
|
1
|
1990 oi..
02. .
1
1
76
77
32
19
57
74
11
7
!
1
oi..
80
76
NONE
COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
SAME
HIGHER
LOWER
33
1
Q2...
Q3. . .
04...
COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER
SAME HIGHER
WI*)
1988 Q4. . .
oi...
NONBANK AGENCIES
CORRESPONDENT BANKS
5
5
4
3
NC, SC, VA, WV*)
4
67
7
55
|
3
66
|
4
63
69
I
I
77
82
84
73
68
75
|
|
84
84
0
0
4
1
33
•
•
•
•
'
<
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
i
34
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K Q U A R T E R L Y SURVEYS OF A G R I C U L T U R A L C R E D I T CONDITIONS AT C O M M E R C I A L BANKS
TABLE IV.D
INTEREST R A T E S ON F A R M LOANS
M O S T C O M M O N INTEREST R A T E ON F A R M LOANS
(AVERAGE, PERCENT)
FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
IV .01
SEVENTH
1988 Q4 . . .
1
11 . 9
1989 Ql. . .
02...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
1990 Ql...
Q2. . .
1
1
11 . 9
11 . 9
IV. D2
OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS
.5
. 4
. 1
. 0
TENTH
INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE
LONG -TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
(CHICAGO) FEDERAL R E S E R V E DISTRICT
12 .0
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11 . 9
11 . 9
.7
.5
.3
.1
11..1
11..1
(KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL R E S E R V E DISTRICT
1
12 .2
12 ., 1
1989 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1
1
1
1
12. 6
12 .5
12. 4
12. 3
12
12
12
12
1990 Ql...
Q2 . . .
1
1
12 .2
12 .1
12 .1
12 .0
.6
.4
.3
.1
SHORT-TERM
N O N R E A L E S T A T E LOANS
INTERMEDIATE -TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
SAME
LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
HIGHER
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
(IL*, IN*, IO, M I * , WI*) A G R I C U L T U R A L B A N K S
11 .3
.5
.4
.2
.0
1988 Q4 . . .
SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE
A V E R A G E INTEREST R A T E E X P E C T E D DURING THE NEXT Q U A R T E R
C O M P A R E D W I T H A V E R A G E R A T E S IN THE CURRENT Q U A R T E R
(PERCENTAGE OF B A N K S REPORTING)
1
***
|
***
***
|
***
***
1
1
1
1
***
***
***
***
|
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
j
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
1
1
* **
***
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
***
j
(CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK) A G R I C U L T U R A L B A N K S
12.2
11 .6
1
***
|
***
|
12 . 6
12.5
12.4
12.2
12
11
11
11
.0
.9
.7
.6
1
1
1
1
***
***
***
***
|
j
|
|
***
***
***
***
j
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
12.1
12.1
11 .5
11 .4
1
1
***
** *
|
|
***
***
|
j
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K Q U A R T E R L Y S U R V E Y S OF A G R I C U L T U R A L C R E D I T C O N D I T I O N S A T C O M M E R C I A L B A N K S
T A B L E IV.D
I N T E R E S T R A T E S ON F A R M L O A N S
AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER
C O M P A R E D W I T H A V E R A G E R A T E S IN T H E C U R R E N T Q U A R T E R
(PERCENTAGE OF B A N K S R E P O R T I N G )
M O S T C O M M O N I N T E R E S T R A T E ON F A R M L O A N S
(AVERAGE, P E R C E N T )
FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
IV.D3
NINTH
OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS
SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE
INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE
LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS
(MINNEAPOLIS) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T
SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER
LOWER
SAME
(MI*, MN, MT, ND,
HIGHER
SAME
LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
HIGHER
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
SD, W I * )
1988 Q 4 . . .
I
***
***
12.2
12.4
11.7
|
1
34
66
|
1
33
66
|
1
37
62
1989 Q l . . .
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...
|
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
12.8
12.7
12.5
12.4
12.9
12.9
12.5
12.3
12.2
12.1
11.9
11.7
|
|
|
|
7
43
30
49
29
55
68
50
63
2
2
1
|
|
|
|
7
42
28
44
31
54
70
56
62
3
2
1
|
|
|
|
8
42
29
46
36
56
69
54
56
1
2
0
1990 Q l . . .
Q2...
|
|
***
***
***
***
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
11.5
11.6
I
|
8
18
83
79
9
3
|
|
8
17
80
81
12
3
|
|
8
17
80
80
11
4
IV.D4
ELEVENTH
(DALLAS) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T
1988 Q 4 . . .
12.6
12.8
12 .8
12.5
1989 Q l . . .
Q2 . . .
Q3 . . .
Q4 . . .
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
12
13.6
13.3
13.1
12.9
12
12
12
1990 Q l . . .
Q2 . . .
12
12
12 . i
12 A
12 . 9
12.8
12 .
12 .
IV. D5
FIFTH
(LA*, NM*,
TX)
***
13
(RICHMOND) F E D E R A L R E S E R V E D I S T R I C T
***
***
***
***
***
***
(MD, NC,
SC, V A , W V * )
1988 Q 4 . . .
|
12.1
12.0
***
12.3
12.1
j
***
***
***
|
***
***
***
|
***
***
***
1989 Q l . . .
Q2. . .
Q3 . . .
Q4..
|
|
|
|
12.8
12.6
11.9
12.2
12.7
12.5
12.3
12.1
***
***
***
***
12.9
12.6
12.4
12.2
12.7
12.5
12.3
11.8
|
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
1990 Q l . . .
Q2...
|
|
12.0
12.2
12.0
12.0
***
***
12.1
12.0
12.0
11.9
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
***
***
***
36
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE IV.E
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
ALL
rv.El
04...
1
SEVENTH
***
***
***
***
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
01...
02...
1
1
3
1
IV.E2
04. .
01.
02.
03.
04.
1
FIFTH
***
***
***
***
|
1
***
***
***
***
***
***
3
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
1
1
1
1
6
-o
11
-4
***
01...
02...
j
1
14
-11
***
***
DOWN
STABLE
UP
LOWER
SAME
HIGHER
12
***
|
1
|1
|
|
10
9
8
6
***
***
***
***
|
|
5
6
***
***
***
j
2
69
29
1
14
60
25
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
j
|
j
|
4
3
1
2
73
77
67
70
24
20
32
29
1
1
1
1
15
17
11
11
56
63
65
60
30
19
24
29
***
***
***
***
j
|
2
0
71
75
28
25
1
1
6
12
66
66
28
22
5
***
***
|
0
75
25
1
19
78
4
1
1
1
1
16
11
21
13
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
j
j
j
0
0
0
0
69
69
93
73
31
31
7
27
1
1
1
1
22
21
28
16
70
72
64
76
7
7
8
8
1
1
21
8
***
***
***
***
***
|
|
4
7
68
86
29
7
1
I
23
22
69
70
8
7
***
***
***
|
23
61
16
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
|
|
|
25
32
28
26
65
61
61
65
10
7
10
9
***
***
***
***
***
***
|
|
25
34
64
56
11
10
1
ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
1988 Q4...
|
***
-1
1989 Ql.. .
02 .. .
03.. .
04 .. .
|
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
-
1 2 - 2
0
2
l
-0
4
0
0 - 3
-1
1990 01..
02.. .
|
|
***
***
-0
1
DRY- IRRI- RANCHLAND GATED LAND
(RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
.
.
.
.
IV. E3
ALL
(CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*Z IN*, 10, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
3
01...
02...
03...
04...
TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER
DRY- IRRI- RANCHLAND GATED LAND
EXPECTED TREND IN FARM
REAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)
-3
-4
-2
1
-
-3
1
|
***
|
***
***
***
***
|
|
|
|
|
***
***
1
6
-2
- 3
-3
- 1
0
1
5
3
5
5
-
9
-
|
|
7
|
4
-
-
|
8
-
2
0
8
|
5
5
|
|
federal reserve bank
quarterly
surveys
of a g r i c u l t u r a l
trends
market
credit
conditions at
commercial banks
in f a r m r e a l e s t a t e v a l u e s a n d
value
of
good
loan volume
trend
percentage
during
all
IV.E4
dryland
TENTH
percentage
change
a
quarter
irrigated
ranchland
(KANSAS CITY)
all
FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
1988 Q4...
1989 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3. . .
Q4. .
j
|
***
***
j
j
***
***
1990
Ql..
j
***
02..
j
***
IV.E5
NINTH
4
1
0
2
2
3
irrigated
ranchland
(CO,
KS,
10
11
11
|
***
2
1
4
2
-0
5
j
|
|
***
***
***
11
10
8
8
14
11
11
9
10
10
8
1
-0
|
***
5
5
2
4
|
***
7
6
7
8
5
1
(MINNEAPOLIS)
FEDERAL RESERVE
DISTRICT
down
MO*,
11
(MI*,
MN,
expected
during
the next quarter
(percentage of banks)
change from
year earlier
dryland
expected demand for
farm real estate loans
during the next quarter,
compared with normal
(percentage of banks)
farmland
MT,
NE,
NM*,
stable
OK,
lower
up
same
higher
WY)
|
|
***
***
***
***
|
|
|
|
***
***
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
***
|
***
***
***
***
|
|
***
***
***
j
13
70
18
15
ND,
SC,
***
***
***
***
***
WI*)
1988 04...
-2
-5
1989 01..-
8
10
***
***
2
***
**•
10
9
03. . .
4
-4
-1
**•
***
4
74
85
75
04...
-2
-5
***
***
12
75
6
21
13
1990 0 1 . .
7
5
***
3
10
84
83
13
7
02...
02. . .
***
@FedFRASER