The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
2.15(125) AGRICULTURAL FINANCE DATABOOK Third Quarter 1993 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, Michael Ott, John Rosine and Michele Ricci 17 28 2 General Information The Agricultural Finance Databook is a compilation of various data on current developments in agricultural finance. Large portions of the data come from regular surveys conducted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or Federal Reserve Banks. Other portions of the data come from the quarterly call report data of commercial banks or from the reports of other financial institutions involved in agricultural lending. When the current issue went to press, data from the survey of terms of bank lending were available for the second quarter of 1993; the other data generally were available only through the first quarter. Parts or all of the Agricultural Finance Databook may be copied and distributed freely. Any redistribution of selected parts of the Databook should be accompanied by the "contents" pages at the beginning of the corresponding section, together with the front cover identifying the Databook and date of issue, and this page providing subscription information. Remaining questions may be addressed to Nicholas Walraven, Michael Ott, Michele Ricci, 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 $5.00. New subscriptions to the Databook (Statistical Release E.15) may be entered by sending a mailing address (including zip code) to: Publications Services, Mail Stop 138 Federal Reserve Board Washington, D.C. 20551 Notice of change of address also should be sent to Publications Services. the old address should be included. A copy of the back cover showing SECTION I: AMOUNT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM LOANS MADE BY COMMERCIAL BANKS Estimates—from th$ quarterly survey of nonreal estate farm loans Summary charts Page ^ Tables: I.A I.B I. C I. D I.E ^ 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 o q 10 11 12 13 ^4 ! . ! . . . ! ! . . . 16 SOURCES OF DATA: L= shown ? " t h e f o i " ^ g 0 tabiL" m P "" "Panded int ° " ^ i o n a ! " t i m a t . s for all commercial banks, which abou"!50"y;La!?ySr«portedSI^ I ' L s ^ o ^ S r E ^ o i ^ " f o r l ^ o S ^ Z L ^ e g ^ d ^ r a g r L i l ™ " " ! S „ d i ' s ° P a n / f 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 11 . 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 May, 1993, 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 has never been stratified by region. Consequently, the survey results are less precise for each region than for the totals for the nation. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: The number of nonreal estate farm loans made by banks edged down in the third quarter of 1993; however, the level still is in the same range as we have seen for the past year. The average size of loans edged down as well: the average for the first full week of August 1993 was about $30 thousand dollars per loan. As in the past several years, the pattern of variation in loan size has tended to dominate the related series on the amount of loans made, which also turned down in the third quarter. The average effective interest rate on nonreal estate farm loans was unchanged in the August, as a slight decline in rates for livestock loans offset increases for loans of other purposes. The average effective rate of interest has remained stable at about 7-1/2 percent for the past year. In the August survey, a bit more than 79 percent of loans were made with a rate of interest that floats, only a touch below the record for the series that was established last quarter. The overall weighted average rate of interest including real estate loans was about unchanged in the third quarter. While changes in the average in particular regions were small and the pattern of changes varied across regions, the estimated variability of rates for farm loans rose in all areas except the Cornbelt and Mountain States. Chart 1 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Millions, Annual Rate Number of nonreal estate farm loans 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 - Four quarter moving average 1.5 1.0 1978 ' 1979 ' 1980 ' 1981 ' 1982 ' 1983 ' 1984 ' 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Thousands of dollars 45 Average size of nonreal estate farm loans 40 35 30 Four quarter moving average 25 20 15 10 '1978 ' 1979 ' 1980 ' 1981 ' 1982 ' 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Billions of Dollars, Annual Rate 100 Amount of nonreal estate farm loans 90 80 -- Four quarter moving average 70 60 50 40 30 1978 ' 1979 ' 1980 ' 1981 ' 1982 ' 1983 ' 1984 ' 1985 ' 1986 ' 1987 ' 1988 ' 1989 ' 1990 ' 1991 ' 1992 ' 1993 lO Chart 2 Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers Months Average maturity of nonreal estate farm loans 14 12 — Four quarter moving average 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 10 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Percent 20 18 Average effective interest rate on nonreal estate farm loans 16 14 12 10 8 1978 1979 1980 i ... i ... i ... i ... i 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 6 1986 I« i t I • • • I • . i I . • • i • • . 1 i i 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Percent Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 — Four quarter moving average 30 20 10 1978 Ii i i I i . i I 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 i• • . i • • • t 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 0 E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF BANK N O N R E A L ESTATE LOANS TO F A R M E R S T A B L E I.A NUMBER OF LOANS M A D E (MILLIONS; BY SIZE OF L O A N ($l,000s) JY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER 1 to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i i ! 1 I 0..17 0 .22 0 .20 0 .18 0 .18 . 0,.20 0..20 o .23 o .36 0,.44 0..50 0..51 3 .21 . 3 .08 3 .21 , 3. 26 2..78 2.. 34 2., 18 1..99 2 . 23 2 .20 , 2,. 10 2,. 17 A N N U A L NUMBER OF LOANS M A D E 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1*989 1990 1991 1992 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 39 3 30 3 41 3 44 2 .96 2 55 2..38 2,.21 2. , 60 2,. 63 2 .60 , 2 . 68 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 .39 0 .33 0 .37 0 .34 0 .34 0 .30 0 .39 0 .29 0 .30 0 .32 0 .35 0 .35 0. 26 0 26 0 32 0 29 0 23 0 17 c. 13 0 .11 0 .20 0. 24 0 .23 0 .25 2 .01 2 .06 2 .00 2 .06 1 .77 1. 66 1 .54 1 .45 1 .73 1 .69 . 1 ,64 , 1 .67 . 0 .38 , 0,.30 0..39 0,.35 0,.36 0..17 0., 14 0 . 14 0.. 16 0,. 19 0..17 0., 18 0 . 34 0..35 0,.32 , 0, .35 0..27 0..24 0 , 19 0..21 0.. 2 0 0 .19 , 0 .21 , 0,. 2.4 2 .23 0 .65 , 0 .41 , 0 .67 . 2 .14 0 .40 , 0 . 60 0 .38 2 .32 , 2 . 4.2 0 ,53 . 0..40 0 .51 . 2 .06 0 .30 , 1 .71 0 .46 . 0..29 1 .57 . 0 .46 0 .27 . 0 .43 1 .42 0,.28 0 .52 1 .67 0 .3 1 0 .49 0 .35 . 1 .70 . 1 . 6 6 0 .51 0 .32 0 ,54 . 0 .36 , 1 .67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .10 .09 .11 .09 .09 .08 .08 .07 .09 .09 . 10 . 11 N U M B E R OF L O A N S M A D E DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF S E C O N D M O N T H OF QUARTER,, A N N U A L R A T E 1991 0 3 . . . Q4... 1 1 2..66 2..49 1 1 0 .28 0 .42 0. 19 0. 28 1 .81 , 1..43 0., 16 0.,15 0,.23 0.. 20 1 .77 1 .48 0 .52 , 0 .52 . 0-.29 0,.36 0 .08 0 .12 1 1 0 .54 0,.47 . 13 2, .01 2, 1992 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 .45 2. 2.,88 2.,76 2 . 64 1 1 1 1 0 .35 0 .28 0 .32 0 .43 0. 24 0. 27 0. 17 0. 30 1..43 1..95 .78 1. 1 .52 . 0., 19 0.,15 0.,20 0,.,19 0.. 24 0,.23 0..29 0., 20 1 .47 1 .80 1 .82 1 .57 0 0 0 0 .50 . , .61 , .51 . .53 0..36 0,.37 0 .34 . 0..40 0 0 0 0 I 1 1 1 0,.45 0..53 0..58 0..48 2 2 2 2 1993 Ql. . . 02... 03... 1 1 1 .74 2. 2..90 ,68 2. 1 1 1 0 .39 0 .34 0 .28 0. 27 0 .28 0 .20 1 , 62 1.,86 1.,70 0.,23 0.. 19 0.. 16 0., 23 0..22 0, . 34 1 .62 1 .89 1 .68 0 .55 , 0 ,58 . 0 .57 . 0,.42 0,.32 0..33 0 .14 0 .10 0 .11 1 1 I 0 .48 0,.53 0..63 .26 2, .37 2, 2 .05 , . 12 . 10 .09 .13 .01 , . 35 , . 17 , . 16 7 E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF B A N K N O N R E A L ESTATE L O A N S TO F A R M E R S T A B L E I.B A V E R A G E SIZE OF L O A N S M A D E (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) BY SIZE BY P U R P O S E OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES LOAN FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER OF BY SIZE OF B A N K ($1,000s) 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 and over LARGE OTHER I | | | | ! 1 | I | | I 73 97 92 88 82 62 85 70 53 100 107 97 15 . 0 14 .4 15 .2 13 .8 13 . 4 15 . 3 14 ,9 16 .3 14 . 4 13 . 9 13 . 9 15 .8 A N N U A L A V E R A G E SIZE OF L O A N S M A D E 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 .0 20 .0 19 .7 17 .7 17 .6 19 .0 20 .8 21 .8 19 .9 28 .4 31 .9 31 .2 | I | | | I | I I | | I 32 . 6 41 .5 32 . 5 31 8 25 .7 3 5 .0 33 . 8 34 . 1 42 .7 69 .7 61..0 68,. 3 16 . 6 17 .5 18 .2 21 .9 22 .5 25 .8 26 .3 40 .6 29 .5 22 .7 25 .2 26 .9 13 13 15 12 12 14 14 16 14 15 15 14 .6 .6 .5 .9 .8 .0 .6 .7 .1 .7 , . 6 , ,7 12 .3 17 . 6 15 . 6 12 .5 12 .4 13 . 6 16 .1 13 .9 12 . 1. 11 .9 15 .1 16 .0 33 .8 38 .9 37 . 1 34 .8 42 . 1 32 .9 44 . 6 34 . 7 32 . 2 94 . .3 129,.7 108,. 8 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 3 .7 3 .7 3. 6 3 .7 3 .5 3. 5 3 .6 3 .7 3. 6 3 .6 3. 6 3 .7 14 .7 14 .6 14 .8 14 .7 14 . 4 14 . 9 14 . 7 14 . 8 14 . 7 .8 14 , 14.. 9 14 .8 43 .5 255 46 .1 326 46 . 3 294 43 .8 291 45 .5 255 44 .9 280 46 .5 320 45,.2 320 45,.9 272 46,. 1 488 46,. 6 540 45.. 9 468 O 00 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1.991 *1992 .0 .1 .0 ,0 .5 .0 ,7 .7 .0 .0 A V E R A G E SIZE OF L O A N S M A D E D U R I N G F I R S T FULL W E E K OF S E C O N D M O N T H OF QUARTER , A N N U A L R A T E 1991 Q 3 . . . 04... 1 1 24 > .6 32 . .4 | I 63 ..0 56.,2 18 , .4 22 , .2 14 .,1 14 .,9 17 . .8 15,.1 70 .,7 134.,7 1 I 3. 5 3. 6 14 .,8 15,,3 44.,5 47 .,4 457 410 1 1 77 . .2 106,,9 11,.2 14 , .9 1992 0 1 . . . 02. .. 03 . . . 04... 1 1 1 1 36.,8 26. 6 25 .2 37 . .3 | | I 1 68.,0 63 .. 1 70. 5 70. 1 24 23 20 36 17 12 12 17 14 24 12 14 . .4 . .3 ..9 ..1 137 .,8 104..0 63 .8 143 .5 1 1 1 1 3 .8 3 .6 3 .5 4 .0 15..0 14 .7 14 .7 14. 9 48.,3 45. 6 45. 0 44. 6 482 440 432 503 I | I I 121 . 6 83 .,0 72 ., 1 120,,1 18 .,0 13 .,8 12 ., 6 19.,0 1993 o i . . . 02... 03... 1 1 I 35 .1 31 .0 30 .3 | I 1 77 .4 73 .9 88. 3 16 .,4 18 ..8 24 .9 15 .2 12 .8 14 .7 120 .2 138 .6 82 .3 1 1 I 3 .7 , 3 .9 . 3 ,5 , 15. 3 14 .8 14 .9 45. 5 44. 8 46. 8 441 577 476 I I I 111 ..7 112 .. 6 83 .7 19 .,0 12 ., 8 13 ..8 . .4 ..4 .,4 .,0 .,4 ., 8 ..6 .2 18. 8 13 .9 12 .5 E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE L O A M S TO F A R M E R S T A B L E I.C A M O U N T OF LOANS M A D E (BILLIONS OF D O L L A R S ) BY SIZE OF L O A M ($1 ,000s) BY PURPOSE OF LOAN ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY S I Z E OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 48 ., 3 ,3 44 . .7 48 , A N N U A L A M O U N T OF LOAMS M A D E 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 7 4 3 2 7 3 4 ., 7 11 . 4 8 ., 3 9 ,. 5 1 8 . 0 2 5 . 3 1 I 6 6 0 1 1 3 6 4 5 28 1 5 .. 4 13 . 4 ,9 7 _ 9 . 8 1 8 . 2 3 0 . 0 1 12 .8 21 .7 1 67 3 1 1 2 1 5 9 3 1 1 6 ., 1 1 1 . 9 8 ., 4 9 . 0 1 7 . 5 1 8 .. 6 6 0 8 1 1 0 7 6 5 4 .. 4 12 . 2 8 ., 9 7 ,. 8 17 . 6 I 5 2 1 1 8 6 5 . 2 4 .. 4 1 1 . 3 7 ., 2 7 ,. 4 13 .5 I 1 I 48,. 5 49 ..6 48,. 2 1 1 0 ., 4 2 ., 4 8 . 0 6 .,0 . 2 3 . 4 26 .5 22 6 23 .2 22 .5 32 .4 26. 5 24 .0 22 ., 3 1 I 8 ., 3 5 . 7 6 . 8 12 . 6 2 4 4 . 6 2 4 . 3 1 . 9 7 ., 4 5 6 . 4 12 . 9 2 3 . 4 2 3 1 1 3 ,2 1 1 0 . . 9 , 0 2 , 3 , (. 2 6 ,. 9 13 6 . 0 2 4 . 3 2 .. 0 6 ., 4 6 ,. 1 7 .7 1 4 0 5 . 5 2 6 . 6 2 ,. 3 18 ., 3 6 , 1 7 .3 1 5 . 9 ., 4 5 . 8 25 .5 2 4 ..6 2 ,. 5 2 7 .. 6 6 ,. 1 7 . 6 1 5 2 . 9 26 ., 0 6 ,. 2 8 .0 1 6 , 7 1 5 1 ., 6 I 1 2 1 7 4 ., 7 22,. 1 I 82,. 8 83,. 7 1 1 1 2 1 4 . 5 23,. 6 6 . 6 , 1 1 1 5 .. 8 1 1 4 ., 9 I 1 . 2 .. 6 ., 5 1 17 ., 7 1 .. 1 15., 9 4 5 ,. 0 37 35 32 32 32 .3 , , ,9 .5 , . 3 , 0 , ,. 5 =, 4 1 19 . 6 4 5 . , 3 1 4 4 ., 2 3 0 54 ..0 1 5 3 ., 7 2 9 1 49., 4 1 4 1 ,. 6 1 5 0 ,. 6 23 .9 29 .9 i 5 4 , 40,. 4 66 . 5 1 1 1 .2 44,. 0 42 .1 57 .4 36 32 27 41 5 2 ., 8 .1 34 .3 ] A M O U N T OF L O A N S M A D E ]DURING FIRST FULL W E E K OF S E C O N D M O N T H OF QUARTER,, A N N U A L RATE 1991 0 3 . . . 04... 1992 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1993 oi... 02... 03... I 6 5 . 5 1 1 7 ., 7 3 . 4 2 5 ., 6 2 . 8 I 80 . 5 1 2 3 ., 8 6 . 2 2 1 ., 4 2 . 2 .,0 1 5 ..9 ,9 26 , 6 . 2 7 . 6 13 . 0 5 . 4 8 . 0 17 . . 5 1 I 90,.3 1 2 3 . 9 5 . 9 2 5 2 . 7 32 ,. 9 5 . 5 7 I 7 6 . 4 1 1 7 ., 6 6 . 4 3 . 6 23 ,. 9 6 . 4 9 . 0 17 .2 16. 7 1 I 69 ..4 98 . 6 1 25..0 22 ., 3 26 ., 2 2 . 5 .2 18 , .9 28 , 6.4 7 . 4 1 5 . 1 2 . 7 6 . 2 8 . 0 17 . 9 1 I 96 89 . 0 1 30 .6 27 , 5 . 9 1 2 5 ,. 5 5 . 3 30., 5 25,, 8 3 . 5 . 8 3 0 7 I 8 1 . 3 1 24 .,5 4 . 9 2 1 .. 3 2 . 4 1 22,. 8 . . 1 3 0 .0 3 . 6 1 0 . 7 4 . 4 2 . 4 ,. 8 . 2 28 , . 3 5 . 8 38,. 6 50,. 0 6 0 , , 1 4 4 . . 3 8 . 5 19. 2 6 2 . 4 I 5 3 8 . 6 14 . 5 5 9 . 3 1 5 9 8 . 5 1 5 . 2 5 1 . 7 1 5 3 . 2 . 4 . 1 . 1 .4 .4 .2 42 .8 3 0 .4 28 .2 9 10 E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF BANK NONR AL ESTATE L O A N S TO F A R M E R S T A B L E I.D A V E R A G E M A T U R I T Y OF L O A N S M A D E (MONTHS) BY SIZE OF LOAN ($1,000s) BY PURPOSE OF L O A N ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER 1 to 9 10 to 24 . ,2 . ,0 ,0 . .0 . . ,7 .8 . .5 . < . 1 . ,4 . .4 , ,7 .3 , 6.. 4 .0 7. 8. .1 7. , 5 7. ,7 8. , 0 8. , 1 9 .2 . 8. 3 9.,2 8.. 3 9 .7 , 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 6 0 6 5 8 9 7 7 8 0 8 .0 , 8 .4 , 8 .7 . 8 .1 , 7 .5 , 7. ,3 8. 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 5 5 5. 1 5 5 5 0 6 1 5. 8 5. 5 6 .4 6 .8 6 .0 6 .7 6 .1 5 0 1 6 8 .3 . .7 . .7 7 .4 8 .8 , 8.5 9 .5 . 6 7 8 6 7 6 7 4 5 7 10 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 8 6 1 4 8 3 ,6 .6 .5 .2 .5 .2 .6 11 8 10 12 13 21 22 19 18 21 24 20 .1 .4 .6 .6 .4 ..0 ..8 .,8 .,7 .,9 .,6 .. 1 5. 2 5,. 4 ,8 7. 8. 1 8. 8 8. ,8 12 . 1 10 ., 9 ,8 11 . . 6 ,4 5. 3 9, 4 6 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 6 6 8 7 9 9 9 10 9 11 10 11 .0 . , 6 . . 1 . ,1 . .8 . ,3 , . ,2 , .3 .9 . < >6 , 1 . | | | | i I ! I I i I 1 5.,4 6.,0 6..1 .0 7, 6. ,9 5. .5 5. ,9 8,. 1 ,8 7, 4. ,7 5,,2 6,,4 9,. 3 4. 3 I I 6,.9 . 4 .6 8. 7. 7. 6. 0 5 7 0 | 1 ! I 7 .5 7 .0 , 6,.8 4 .5 10 10 9 9 7. 5 7. 9 9.7 1 1 1 5. 9 5 .9 9 .7 10 .8 11 .4 9 .9 5, • 8 6. 4 10,. 0 8. .0 , 9 , 1 8. 3 7 .7 7, . 1 4 .9 , 5< . 8 7, . 2 6 6 9 7 8 8 9 8 8 10 9 10 . .2 . ,7 . .9 ,9 . . ,4 « ,8 .3 , .8 . . ,2 . .2 . ,6 , .1 M A T U R I T Y OF L O A N S M A D E DURING F I R S T FULL WEEK OF SECOND M O N T H OF QUARTER, A N N U A L R A T E 8 .5 9 .2 1991 0 3 . . . 04... 1 I 8 .4 , 6. 7 1 1 .3 7. .9 6. 1992 Ql. . . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 9 .9 , 9 .5 . 8 .8 7 .7 1 1 I 1 6.,1 ,2 7. 5.,1 6.,3 6 9 12 9 1993 01... 02... 03... 1 1 1 9 .9 10 .1 9 .8 1 1 1 6.,8 6.,5 9..2 11 .4 8 .8 8 .2 .5 .9 .5 .9 6 .2 6 .7 10 .0 9. 2 7 .0 7 .8 8..9 8.,7 8., 1 33 . .0 ,7 21 . 22 18 19 19 .6 . .8 . .7 , .5 . .5 32 , .0 34 . .5 24 . 6..9 4.. 1 7 .5 , 6 .5 12 .0 8 .2 . .3 14 . 4,.4 10 . 1 8,.6 7 .5 7 .1 8 .0 15 . 6 11 .0 8 .6 9 .7 7 .3 8,.2 7. ,6 10 10 9 8 . 4 .3 .3 .7 10 .8 10 .0 10 .6 8 ,0 , 10 ,0 11 11 10 10 . 6 .8 .2 .6 11 .9 12 .6 9 .8 9 .5 8 .7 .9 .6 .8 .1 E S T I M A T E S FROM T H E Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF BANK NONREAL ESTATE L O A N S TO F A R M E R S T A B L E I.E A V E R A G E EFFECTIVE I N T E R E S T RATE ON L O A N S M A D E BY SIZE OF BANK BY S I Z E OF LOAN ($l,000s) BY PURPOSE OF L O A N ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 10 25 to to 24 99 18,.0 1 17 .0 I | 14 . .2 .6' 14 , 1 1 • 13 .7 12 .4 I 11 .6 I | 11 , .7 | .8 12 , .5 12 , I .5 11 , I | 9 .7 , 18 , .2 16,.8 14 , . 1 .3 14 , 13 , .2 .0 12 , 11,.3 . 6 11 , 12 , .7 12 , . 4 11,.2 9,.3 OTHER 100 and over LARGE OTHER A N N U A L A V E R A G E INTEREST R A T E 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 .5 16 .7 13 .5 14 .1 12 .8 11 .5 "10 .6' 11 .2 12 .5 11 .4 9 .8 7 .8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 6 15 .9 13 6 13 .7 12 .5 11 1 10 .7 10,.9 12 . ,3 11 . ,5 10,.2 8,.2 18 4 16 3 13 8 14 3 12 7 11 9 ' 10,.2 .9 11 , 12 , .4 .0 12 , .0 11 , 8 .6 , 18 4 16 9 13 5 14 2 13 0 11 5 .8 10 , 11,.2 12 . 6 11,.7 10,.4 8,.8 17 .9 17 .1 14 .3 14 .6 13 .7 12 .2 11 .5 11 .7 12 .8 12 .3 11. 3 9 .3 18 .6 . 16 .9 12 .8 14 .0 12 . 1 11 .2 9. 5 10 .7 12 . 3 10 .7 8. 6 6 .3 18 17 14 14 13 11 11 11 12 12 10 8 , .2 .0 .0 , .3 , , .2 .8 , .1 , .4 , .7 .1 , .7 .8 , 18..9 16..4 13 . .0 13 ..7 12 . 1 10..8 9..9 10..8 12 . .2 10..9 9..2 7 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19.,8 16., 1 12.,1 13., 1 11.,2 9..6 9,.2 10.,2 12..1 10..9 9..0 6..8 18 , . 1 .0 17 , 14 , .1 14 , .4 13 , .4 12 . 1 .3 11 , .6 11 , 12 , .7 -12 .3 , 11..3 9 .4 , 1 1 9,.4 8..1 11 .5 10 , .7 1 1 1 1 "" 6,.8 7,.2 6,.8 6,.3 9 9 9 8 1 1 1 6,.6 6,.7 7,.0 8 .8 A V E R A G E R A T E ON L O A N S M A D E DURING FIRST FULL W E E K OF S E C O N D M O N T H OF Q U A R T E R , A N N U A L R A T E 1991 0 3 . . . Q4... 1 1 1992 o f . . r 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 * 1 1993 Ql. . . 02... 03... 1 1 1 10 :i 9 .0 1 1 10,.3 9,.5 8,.0 8 .3 , 7 .8 , "" 7.4 , 1 1 1 I 8.,7 8,. 3 8..0 8,, 0 8 .4 , 9 .1 , 8 .4 . 8..0 9,. 1 9,.1 8,. 6 8,.4 '7 .6 , 7 .5 , 7 .5 , 1 1 1 7..9 8..1 8.,0 8,.9 8,;2 7 . .9 8,.3 8,. 1 8,.2 .3 11 , 10 , .6 10,.5 9,.8 11 .0 10 .6 9 .1 ' 7 .'5 1 I .5 11 , .0 11 , 9 .9 9 .5 9 .2 8. 7 6 .4 6 .8 6 .4 5..5 | I I | 10 9 9 9 8 .8 8. 6 9 .0' 6. 1 6 .2 6 .4 1 I | , .0 .9 , .5 , , .4 9 .2 , 9 .0 9 .0 , 11,.2 10,. 6 10 , .8 10 , .1 9..5 8..2 9,.5 9,.6 9,.0 9,. 0 9 .2 9 .1 8 .6 8 .5 , 7 .2 , 7,.5 7 .1 , ' 6,.1 8,.8 8,.8 8,.6 8 .4 8 .4 8 .1 7 .0 , 6,.9 7 .0 , 11 .7 .7 .4 , .9 8 .9 8 .6 12 E S T I M A T E S FROM THE Q U A R T E R L Y S A M P L E S U R V E Y OF B A N K N O N R E A L ESTATE L O A N S TO FARMERS T A B L E I.F P E R C E N T A G E OF L O A N S M A D E W I T H A FLOATING INTEREST R A T E BY SIZE OF L O A N ($1/0008) BY P U R P O S E OF L O A N ALL LOANS FEEDER LIVESTOCK OTHER LIVESTOCK OTHER CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1 to 9 OTHER 10 to 24 25 to 99 BY SIZE OF BANK 100 and over LARGE OTHER 80.,0 65.,6 77 .7 . 71.. 1 77.. 1 71,,9 77., 6 79.,1 83 . 6 69,,4 70,,0 82.,9 15 , .5 26,.3 29,.9 27,. 6 .6 32 , 47 . ,0 49.,9 52 , .6 47 , .2 59,.3 56 ,1 55 . 5 A N N U A L P E R C E N T A G E OF L O A N S M A D E 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 29,.0 39,.2 43 .1 , 38,.9 45 .3 . 53 .4 , 59,.5 61 .4 , 61,.0 65..2 65,.1 71,.7 33 , .3 47 , .8 .8 47 , 41,.2 61,.4 60,.5 51,. 6 65..3 71,.4 76..8 81..5 78..5 21 .6 30 . .2 28 .7 32 .3 .9 44 . .8 34 . 69 .6 39 .5 40 .0 61..6 69 .3 63 .5 31.. 5 43.. 0 48.. 1 41..7 43..0 57 , . 2 62.. 1 . 8 63 , 59.,1 68,. 3 68,. 8 66,.3 .9 14 . 15 , .5 .6 17 , .3 24 , 19 , .6 30,.9 55,.5 .9 54 , .9 32 , 40 , .0 40,.6 .8 47 , 28,,5 31,.4 ,3 44 , 39,.5 47 , ,3 50,:6 62 , 1 63 , ,2 73 , .6 51 , ,2 50,,3 75,,3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 15.,5 24,.3 25,. 6 23 ,8 27 . ,6 40,, 6 48,,5 49,. 3 50 > 4 53 . 6 52 .0 57 . ,3 17..7 25..6 29.. 1 . 3 31 , .5 31 . 41..8 45,. 6 51 . ,5 49,. 6 59,. 2 59,,0 59,. 1 21..7 29.,7 34.,9 29..0 42..0 48..2 54.,4 60..8 58.,5 6 6 .0 . 64..0 61 . .2 42.. 9 53..4 55,.9 52,.7 56,. 6 63 >7 68,.5 67,,0 69,. 1 ,5 67 , 67,,8 78.. 6 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 A V E R A G E P E R C E N T A G E D U R I N G FIRST FULL W E E K OF S E C O N D M O N T H OF Q U A R T E R 1991 Q3. Q4 . 74 .7 54 .1 92.3 69.5 81.7 47.8 74.7 60.9 47.6 41.1 58.4 37.6 55.2 49.9 62.6 50.5 68.8 54.7 82.2 54.9 84.8 58.5 57.1 46.6 1992 Ql. 71.0 71.9 69.7 73.5 76.1 84.2 78.7 77.0 43.0 53.5 78.4 75.8 59. 67 . 70.0 39.8 56.9 39.7 51.0 83.6 75.2 62.0 74.3 55.7 59.6 58.8 54.8 60.3 55.9 65.4 55.7 56.3 61.3 65.4 62.4 78.0 80.9 73.9 80.4 87 . 1 84.4 78.0 81.5 46.9 54.9 57.0 62.4 71.2 81 .6 79.1 85.9 87.2 89.6 56.7 64.3 77.8 70.6 64.8 74.2 47.0 60.4 33.5 61 .3 95.6 78.0 57 . 7 59.5 62.7 60.3 60.0 57.6 60.8 77.2 91.4 87.5 81.5 92.0 88.6 58.6 61 .1 61.2 Q2 . Q3. 04. 1993 Ql. Q2. Q3 . 68 , 65.1 69.2 Table I.G PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS,1 BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE Effective interest rate (percent) All loans.. Under 5. 0 . . 5.0 • to 5 .9. 6.0 • to 6 .9. to 7 .9. 7.0 • 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 and over August 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 100 - - 1 7 1 2 11 23 30 21 2 1 - 4 8 22 20 35 8 1 - 4 16 32 42 5 - 3 9 12 13 18 36 6 1 1 1 11 15 12 16 25 16 3 1 3 17 14 34 18 12 2 2 7 21 39 22 8 - 1 6 27 36 21 8 1 - 26 4 16 19 28 6 1 1 9 14 23 14 26 10 2 100 100 6 4 22 18 23 16 8 2 12 29 14 19 22 4 1 Memo: Percentage Distribution of Number of Loans, 1993 Mav Aug 100 100 1 12 24 32 21 7 1 1 14 25 32 19 7 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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. * Less than 1 percent. E.2A SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 2-6,1993 Loans to farmers Size class of loans (thousands) all sizes ALL Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 Standard error 3 Interquartile range 4 By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 1,697,964 54,012 14.1 6.17 - ! i $100-249 $250 and over 7.50 0.31 9.03 115,418 33,091 7.3 8.25 - 8.90 0.14 9.73 174,121 11,566 10.8 8.00 - 8.60 0.16 9.50 153,814 4,421 16.6 171,714 2,534 19.7 212,893 1,511 20.9 870,005 888 10.6 8.30 0.21 9.21 7.90 0.10 7.00- 8.97 7.60 0.36 6.61 - 8.57 6.90 0.41 8.50 7.50- 6.00 - 8.93 8.98 9.02 9.85 9.43 7.99 8.49 8.54 8.78 9.09 8.98 7.98 8.17 8.62 8.58 8.14 8.61 7.93 7.44 8.16 8.29 8.59 8.61 7.30 7.66 7.89 7.72 9.33 9.29 6.76 8.06 6.63 6.91 79.3 79.1 62.5 60.3 58.9 58.4 61.2 60.4 72.3 64.9 80.0 77.5 90.0 92.2 27.7 5.7 25.1 3.0 5.3 33.3 7.6 6.8 69.1 6.2 2.2 8.1 10.0 6.8 55.9 10.2 1.6 15.4 25.0 10.3 34.8 4.3 8.5 17.1 18.2 11.3 34.9 5.8 11.4 18.4 26.7 9.6 26.6 4.3 7.3 25.6 36.4 2.4 9.0 4.2 47.9 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 999,016 13,565 10.7 26,047 7,134 7.2 39,453 2,627 8.2 55,305 1,573 10.3 68,916 1,033 9.1 99,094 667 10.2 710,201 530 12.7 7.70 0.18 8.49 7.50 0.21 6.55 - 8.00 7.30 0.16 6.50 - 8.00 7.00 0.26 6.27 - 7.50 6.00 - 8.60 5.99 OTHER 7.00 0.37 8.29 7.50 - 8.20 0.15 8.90 7.00 - 5.75 - 6.87 0.40 9.00 8.04 6.79 7.24 7.96 9.16 5.99 8.26 7.76 8.32 8.60 9.70 7.77 7.50 7.33 7.87 8.51 9.44 7.47 7.19 6.91 7.68 8.41 8.69 7.49 7.28 6.94 7.47 7.44 9.28 7.03 7.25 6.80 6.81 7.00 10.45 6.84 8.21 6.63 6.75 91.0 93.9 92.7 82.8 89.7 84.5 93.9 87.8 93.2 87.6 95.9 92.3 89.9 96.2 35.1 4.1 15.5 0.5 2.7 42.1 10.6 3.8 60.0 3.0 2.6 20.0 14.4 5.2 44.8 3.2 3.5 28.9 28.5 5.9 29.7 1.3 8.3 26.4 22.5 10.5 28.5 2.5 6.1 30.0 26.5 6.6 28.1 0.7 4.1 34.0 40.1 3.0 8.1 698,949 40,447 15.3 89,372 25,958 7.3 134,668 8,940 11.1 98,509 2,848 17.9 102,798 1,501 23.1 113,799 844 25.0 159,804 357 8.6 9.21 0.14 9.96 8.91 0.15 8.17 - 9.72 8.81 0.18 8.21 - 9.50 8.43 0.14 8.00 - 9.50 8.16 0.50 7.00 - 9.50 7.29 0.40 6.25 - 8.17 7.92 8.82 8.82 9.14 8.58 7.40 9.24 9.16 9.19 10.01 9.34 8.26 8.97 8.80 8.98 9.13 8.54 8.36 8.85 9.07 8.97 8.11 8.56 8.47 7.59 8.88 8.69 8.83 8.43 7.82 8.02 8.41 8.61 9.51 8.88 6.63 7.33 8.50 7.17 62.4 57.9 53.7 53.8 49.8 50.8 42.8 45.0 58.3 49.6 66.1 64.5 90.2 74.6 17.0 7.9 38.8 6.5 9.0 20.8 6.7 7.7 71.8 7.1 2.1 4.6 8.8 7.3 59.2 12.2 1.1 11.5 23.1 12.8 37.7 6.0 8.6 11.8 15.3 11.8 39.2 8.0 15.1 10.6 26.8 12.2 25.3 7.4 10.0 18.2 20.0 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 8.81 5.70 1.7 47.1 BANKS5 Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 51 $50-99 FARM LENDERS5 h Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 I Standard error 3 : Interquartile range 4 By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock i Other current operating expenses i Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 46 $25-49 8.01 7.96 8.24 9.02 8.76 6.35 Percentage of the amount of loans With floating rates Made under commitment By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other LARGE $10-24 BANKS Amount of loans (thousands) Number of loans Weighted average maturity (months)1 i $1-9 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2 Standard error 3 Interquartile range 4 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 By purpose of loan Feeder livestock Other livestock Other current operating expenses Farm machinery and equipment Farm real estate Other 7.50 - 8.37 0.19 9.37 8.50 - 6.68 13.3 15.1 51.6 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 residing in the portfolios of those banks. Loans of less than $1,000 are excluded from the survey. Beginning with the August 1986 survey, loans secured by farm real estate are included in the survey, and one purpose of a loan may be "purchase or improve farm real estate". In previous surveys, the purpose of such loans are reported as "other". 1. Average maturities are weighted by loan size and exclude demand loans. 2. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. 3. 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. 4. The interquartile range shows the interest rate range that encompasses the middle 50 percent of the total dollar amount of loans made. 5. Among banks reporting loans to farmers, most "large banks" (survey strata 1 and 2) had over $20 million in farm loans, most "other banks" (survey strata 3 to 5) had farm loans below $20 million. Table I.I Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, (selected quarters) by USDA Farm Production Region NE LS CB NP 10 .5 25 .7 17 . 2 Sample Coverage, Aug. 1993 18 .0 survey (%) 5 .1 6 .8 Avg. Loan Size, Aug. 1993 501 .6 survey ($1000) 25 .5 16 .9 Proportion of farm loans outstanding, Aug. 1993 survey 3o 5 AP SE DL SP MN PA 6 .0 5.2 4 .5 9 .8 6 .5 10 .9 14 5 11 .3 10.5 5 .3 7 .1 23 .3 72 .0 35 5 295 .0 23.7 37 .9 35 .5 44 .3 69 .5 Survey date: Weighted Average Interest Rate During Samolp. Week Nov. 1991 9,> 8 (.,23) 10,,6 (.,27) 10.,2 (.,38) 9 ,3 < (< 71) 7,. 1 (1.,03) 9.4 (.18) 9> ,2 (., 33) 10,,0 (.,52) 9,.5 (.,58) 8.,3 (.,36) Feb. 1992 8. 4 (. 15) 10,,2 (.,16) 9.,3 (. 21) 8 ,8 = (.,44) 6,,3 (1.,06) 8.0 (.33) 8,,2 (.67) 8.. 7 (..57) 8.,2 (., 45) 6.,8 (. 21) May 1992 8 .6 ( .20) 9. 8 (. 19) 9. 1 (. 13) 8= .4 (.55) 6.,3 (1.,29) 8.0 (.35) 8e.3 (.53) 9.,0 (.,81) 7. ,9 (.43) 7 .3 (. 19) Aug. 1992 7 .7 (. 15) 9. 3 (.21) 9. 1 (. 10) 8. 6 (.50) 5.,6 (1.,36) 7.0 (.17) 8. 1 (.30) 8.,3 (.,94) 7 .5 (.32) 7 .1 (.27) Nov. 1992 7 .9 (. 28) 9. 2 (. 18) 8. 3 (.25) 7 .9 (.56) 5. 5 (1. 38) 7.3 (.39) 8 =4 (. 13) 8. 2 (.50) 7. 6 (.47) 6 .9 (.33) Feb. 1993 7 .8 ( .27) 9. 0 (. 28) 8. 0 (.27) 8. 0 ( .47) 5. 6 (.90) 8.3 (.22) 7 o8 (.41) 7 .8 (.61) 7 .5 (.41) 6 .5 (.44) May 1993 8 e1 ( .24) 8. 7 (.21) 8. 1 (.27) 7 .9 (.32) 5 .2 (.57) 8.4 (.29) 7 .8 (.43) 8. 3 (.48) 7. 7 (.52) 6. 8 (.26) Aug. 1993 8 .2 (.35) 7 .5 (.69) 8. 2 (. 18) 8. 0 (.33) 5 .7 (.94) 7.3 (.37) 7, 0 (.74) 7 .7 (.62) 7 .1 (.34) 7 .2 (.39) n? 1 3 Northeast; LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachian SE is Southeast, DL is Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. Standard errors are in parentheses below each estimate. Standard errors are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region. SECTION II: SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLES: Page Commercial banks: II.A II.B II.C Estimated volume of farm loans at insured commercial banks Estimated delinquent nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial banks Estimated net charge - offs of nonreal estate farm loans at insured commercial banks 19 20 21 Agricultural banks: II.D II.E 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 ratio of net charge - of f s 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 22 23 24 25 26 27 SOURCES OF DATA: The data in tables II.A through II.H are prepared using data from the quarterly reports of condition and income for commercial banks. Delinquencies and charge - offs of nonreal 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 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. Recently, banks began to report delinquencies of loans that are secured by farm real estate. These data will be included in the Databook in the near future when a sufficient historical series is available, probably with the next issue. 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 16.98 percent in June of 1993. Information on failed banks (table II. I) is obtained from news releases of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with agricultural banks broken out in our tabulation according to the definition stated in the previous paragraph. 17 18 SECTION II: (continued) Recent Developments: Loans outstanding: The volume of nonreal estate loans surged almost 8 percent in the second quarter of 1993, following two quarters of declines that were larger than seasonal. However, the level of loans of this type remains a bit below the same period in 1992. The volume of real estate debt that is held by commercial banks grew by about 1/2 billion dollars in the second quarter. This level of Problem loans: Delinquent farm nonreal estate loans totalled $1 billion on June 30, 1993. problem loans amounted to about 2.7 percent of the volume of such loans outstanding, the lowest proportion of problem farm loans since such data first were reported. As in the first quarter, the volume of net charge - offs of farm production loans in the second quarter continued to run well below the level of one year earlier. About 3/4 of agricultural banks reported a level of nonperforming loans that was less than 2 percent, while roughly the same proportion reported net charge - offs that were less than 0.1 percent of total loans. Performance of agricultural banks: Profits at agricultural banks were quite strong through the first half of 1993. Cumulative returns for this period amounted to 0.7 percent of assets, putting these banks on track for the best annual performance in more than a decade. Both agricultural banks and small nonagricultural banks used profits to build up capital- - the mid-year reading on the capital ratio was about 1/2 percentage point higher relative to the mid-1992 reading for both agricultural and nonagricultural banks. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks were above year - earlier levels in all Federal Reserve districts except the Dallas District. Failures of agricultural banks: As of late September, there had been seven failures of agricultural banks in 1993. While this figure is greater than at this date last year, it is about the same as in 1991, and it is far below the incidence of failure that was seen annually in 1985 through 1990. TABLE II.A FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER LOAN VOLUME, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS 1987 02... 03... 04... I 1 1 44 .3 44 .8 43 .5 13 .8 14 .1 14 .5 30 4 30 6 29 0 1 I 1 5,.6 1,. 2 -2 . 8 1988 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 I I I 42 8 45 .4 46 .1 45 .2 14 .7 15 .2 15 .3 15 .4 28 30 30 29 1 1 1 1 1989 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 44 . 2 47 .0 48 .0 47 . 4 15 .8 16 .3 16 .5 16 .6 28.. 4 30.,7 31,,5 30,,8 1990 oi... 02... 03... 04... I I I 1 46,.1 49 .0 50 .5 50 .1 16 .8 17 .1 17 .3 17 .2 1991 oi... 02... 03... Q4... I 1 I 1 49 .5 52 .6 53,.9 53,.0 1992 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 I 1 1993 01. .. 02... I I PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS QUARTER REAL ESTATE LOANS TOTAL LOANS REAL ESTATE LOANS NONREAL ESTATE LOANS 2..4 5.7 0.7 -5.2 1 I I -4,.4 -2,,8 -0,,9 14.2 13.7 13.9 -11.0 -8.9 -6.9 I | I -1,. 5 6,.0 1 .5 -1 .9 1. 9 3,,0 1. 2 0,,5 -3.2 7.6 1.7 -3.1 1 1 1 1 2,.2 2,.6 3..0 4,.0 12.1 9.6 8.6 6.7 -2.3 -0.5 0.4 2.6 | I I I 1 1 1 1 -2,.2 6,.3 2,.1 -1 .2 2. ,7 3,,0 1,.2 0,,9 -4.7 8.2 2.5 -2.2 1 1 1 1 3,.2 3,.5 4,.1 4,.9 7.5 7.6 7.6 8.0 1.0 1.5 2.4 3.3 I | | I 29,,3 31,,9 33,,2 32,,9 1 I I I -2 .8 6. 4 3 .1 -0,.8 0,.7 2,,2 1,,1 -0,,6 -4.7 8.7 4.1 -0.9 I 1 1 I 4,.3 4,. 3 5,.3 5 .7 5.9 5.1 5.0 3.5 3.4 3.9 5.5 6.9 I I I I 17 .5 18 .1 18 .3 18 .4 32,,0 34,,5 35,,6 34,.6 1 I 1 1 -1 • 3 6 .2 2 .5 -1 .6 1,,5 3,,4 1,,4 0,,6 -2.8 7.7 3.1 -2.7 I 1 I I 7 .4 7,.2 6 .6 5• 7 4.3 5.5 5.8 7.0 9.1 8.1 7.1 5.1 | I I | 51,.9 55,.1 56,,2 54,.5 18 .9 19 .5 19 .9 19 .9 33,,0 35,,6 36, 2 34, 7 1 1 1 1 -2,.1 6,.2 1 .9 -2,. 9 2,,7 3,,3 1,,9 -0,,2 -4.6 7.8 1.9 -4.4 1 1 1 1 4• 9 4. 9 4. 2 2,.9 8.2 8.1 8.6 7.8 3.1 3.2 1.9 0.2 | | | | 52,.8 56,>0 20 .0 20 .6 32,,8 35,,4 1 1 -3,. 2 6,.0 0,,5 3,,1 -5.3 7.8 1 1 1 .7 1 .6 5.6 5.4 -0.5 -0.6 | I 1 3 8 8 5. 2 NONREAL ESTATE LOANS 2. ,1 TABLE II.B ESTIMATED DELINQUENT FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS TOTAL PAST DUE 3 0 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 TOTAL 7 .8 10 .1 9 .4 6 .5 4 ,5 3 .7 , 3 .1 . 3 .2 . 2 .8 , 2 .6 2 .8 2 .4 1 .7 1 .2 1 .3 1. 3 1 .3 . 1 .0 5,.2 7..3 7.,0 4..8 3..3 2 ,3 , 1 ,9 . 1. 9 1. 8 1.2 MONACO RUAL MEMO: RESTRUCTURED LOANS IN COMPLIANCE 1..1 1 .2 , 1,.1 0,.7 0..5 0..5 0..3 0..3 0..3 4 .1 6 .1 5 .9 4 .2 . 2 ,9 . 1 .9 1 ,. 6 1 =, 6 1 .5 , NA NA 1 .4 1 .7 1 .6 1 .4 1 .1 0.9 0.7 1.1 PAST DUE 90 DAYS ACCRUING December 31 of year indicated 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ! 3 .1 3. 6 2 .9 1 .9 . 1 .4 • 1 .1 . 1 ..0 1 .1 . 1.0 . 1 .0 1 .0 0 .8 . 0 .5 0 .4 . 0 .4 . 0 .4 . 0 -4 . 0 ,3 . 2 .1 . 2.. 6 2 .2 . 1..4 1..0 0..7 0.. 6 0.,7 0.. 6 0..4 0..4 0..3 0.-2 0..1 0..1 0.,1 0.,1 0..1 1. 6 2 .2 1 .9 1 .2 0..9 0, 6 0 .5 . 0 .5 . 0 .5 . NA NA 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 End of quarter-0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.5 3.2 3.1 1.1 1 .3 2.4 2.0 1 .9 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.6 1.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.2 3.3 2.9 3.2 2.0 1 .3 0.9 1 .3 2.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 1 .6 1 .6 1.6 1 .6 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 4.3 3.3 3.0 2.8 1 .0 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 3.9 2.7 1.6 0.8 1-1 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.1 1993 Ql. Q2. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0,6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.6 1.8 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.7 1.5 1 .5 0.6 0.4 1,7 1.5 1,1 2.3 1.9 1.2 1 .1 1.1 1 .0 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 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 loans are based on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks. TABLE II.C ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NONREAL ESTATE FARM LOANS INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS* ESTIMATED AMOUNT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUAL TOTAL 1986. 1987. 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993. 1195 503 128 91 51 105 82 CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING Q1 Q2 Q3 04 235 173 28 10 -5 12 14 7 360 133 39 26 19 25 20 16 230 57 24 15 10 36 29 370 140 37 40 28 32 18 ANNUAL TOTAL | | | | | | | 3.36 1.60 0.46 0.27 0.20 0.32 0.24 Q1 Q2 03 04 0.66 0.55 0.10 0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 1.07 0.46 0.14 0.09 0.67 0.19 0.46 06 08 06 0.10 1.10 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.13 05 Data are estimates of the national charge-offs of farm nonreal 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 b y each bank for its internal purposes. Banks first reported these data on the March 1984 Report of Income. 21 TABLE II. D 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 indicated1984. 19 8 5 . . . . o e 1986. 1987...oo» 1988. 1989 . 1990 1991 1992... ... I I 1 | I 1 I I 1 100,.0 100,,0 100,,0 100,,0 100,.0 100,,0 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 44.7 36.4 39.6 50.3 59.0 65.8 69.6 70.8 76.2 33.4 33.1 32.2 30.6 28.9 25.1 22.7 22.3 18.9 16,,4 21,,6 19,.7 14,,4 9,,7 7 ,6 6.4 5=8 3.9 3. 9 5. 6 5.,5 3.,3 1.,9 1,. 2 1,,0 0,.7 0,,8 1.1 2.1 1.9 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.7 0,,2 0,.2 0,.2 0,.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 distribution,, end of 100.,0 100,,0 100,,0 100,.0 65.1 65.7 66.5 70.8 25.5 25.5 25.7 22.3 7.7 7.1 6.6 5.8 | 1 I I 100,.0 100,.0 100,,0 100,.0 66.4 68.2 71.6 76.2 24.6 24.1 22.1 18.9 7.5 6.5 5.5 3.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 0-.3 0,.2 0,.1 0 .1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 | 100,.0 100..0 71.8 74.7 21.8 20.2 5.3 4.4 0.9 0.6 0 .2 0 .1 0.0 0.1 1991 01.,. Q2 0 0 O Q3 . . . Q4 O O O 1 1992 Ql0 0 0 Q20 0 0 03.o o Q4.o . 1993 Ql. e o Q2 . o o | 1 1 1 v * 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, TABLE II.E DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY THE PROPORTION OF THEIR LOANS CHARGED OFF NET CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS* TOTAL 0.10 0.49 0.99 2.49 4.99 OVER Percentage distribution during year indicated 1 9 8 6 198? 198 8 198 9 199 0 199 1 199 2 I I I I | I I 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.7 19.4 31.8 36.0 40.2 40.2 44.9 13.4 20.6 25.7 28.1 29.3 31.9 30.9 15.5 18.5 17.2 16.5 15.3 14.7 12.7 30.7 25.4 17.3 14.1 11.8 10.2 9.3 18.0 11.0 5.8 3.9 2.7 2.5 1.7 12.6 5.1 2.2 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 Percentage distribution based on the year-to-date charge-offs through the quarter indicated1991 02... 03,.. Q4-- I I I 100.0 100.0 100.0 63.8 54.5 40.2 24.7 28.1 31.9 7.1 10.2 14.7 3.7 5.7 10.2 0.6 1.1 2.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 1992 01... 02... 03... 04... I I I I 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.1 65.5 56.6 44.9 14.9 23.5 27.0 30.9 3.2 6.7 9.3 12.7 1.6 3.5 5.6 9,3 0.2 0.5 1.1 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1993 01... 02... I I 100.0 100.0 84.6 72.6 11.9 20.0 2.3 5.0 1.1 2.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 Net charge-offs are charge-offs less recoveries for all loans (both agricultural and nonagricultural) in the year indicated. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section II. 23 24 TABLE II.F DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY RATIO OF NONPERFORMING LOANS TO TOTAL CAPITAL* NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CAPITAL ALL BANKS UNDER 25 25 TO 49 50 TO 74 75 TO 99 loo TO 124 125 TO 149 150 TO 174 175 TO 199 200 AND OVER*** 0.3 1.0 0.,0 0,,0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0,,0 -Percentage distribution, December 31 of year indicated- 1 1 1 1 1986. 1987 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 1 1 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100.,0 100,,0 100,,0 100,.0 72. 4 81. 5 87, 5 90. 1 91.,6 93,.0 95,,8 16.5 11.5 8.4 7.6 6.6 5.6 3.1 5.4 3.6 2.1 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 2.3 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 /3 4 #| 4* yk J Iai i 1 QlSuriDUululi/ 1991 02... Q3. . . Q4. . . 1992 01... 02... 03... Q4... 1993 01... 02... 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0,2 0,,1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 miartftrv^uai wcji 1 1 1 100,.0 100,.0 100,.0 90,,9 91,.4 93,.0 7.1 6.7 5.6 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 0 ,1 0,>2 0,> 2 0,.0 0,.0 0,.0 0,,0 0,, 0 0,,0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 .0 .0 .0 .0 91,.5 92 .8 94 .2 95 .8 6.7 5.7 4.7 3.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 ,1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 ,1 0. 0 0.1 0.0 1 1 100 100 100 100 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 1 100 .0 100 .0 94 .8 95 .8 4.0 3.5 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 * Total primary and secondary capital items that are available at the end of the period specified, in the introduction to section II. ** Less than 0.05 percent. *** Includes banks with negative capital. 0.0 Agricultural banks are defined TABLE II.G SELECTED MEASURES OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS* NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS ALL BANKS NEGATIVE 0 TO 4 5 TO 9 10 TO 14 AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN TO EQUITY 15 TO 19 20 TO 24 RATE OF RETURN TO ASSETS 25 AND OVER AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS 6 .0 4 .0 2 .0 1 .0 1 .0 . . 1 .0 . 1 .0 2 .0 . 3 .0 . 1 ,. 1 0 ,9 . 1 .7 15 .0 14 .0 , 11 .0 , 8.. 0 6..0 5..0 8..0 10..0 11..0 10. 8 10. 9 12 .6 13 ,0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 .0 11 .0 . 8 ,0 8 .. 0 9.,0 10 . 0 8. 5 8 ,. 9 11 .5 1 .2 1 .1 1 .0 0,. 7 0,. 5 0 .4 . 0..7 0..9 1..0 1..0 1..0 1..2 0 .9 0 ,9 0. 9 0 .8 0 .8 0. 6 0 .. 6 0..7 0 ,8 . 0 .7 . 0 .7 . 1,.0 NET CHARGE-OFFS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS AGRICULTURAL BANKS AVERAGE CAPITAL RATIO (PERCENT) OTHER SMALL BANKS AGRICULTURAL BANKS OTHER SMALL BANKS 0 .4 0 .7 0 .9 1 .2 2 .1 , 2 .3 . . 1 .3 0 .7 . 0..6 0 ,4 . . 0 .4 0 ,4 . 0,. 4 0.. 6 0.. 7 0.. 6 0..8 1., 1 0.,9 0..7 0., 7 0. 7 0. 8 0, 7 9 .2 9 .3 9 .4 9 .5 9 .6 9 .5 . 9 ,8 . 9..9 10 .1 . 9 .9 . 10 .1 . 10 ,4 . 8.6 8 .5 8.4 8.5 8.5 8,4 8.8 8.8 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.5 -percentage distribution1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 .0 100 .0 100 . 0 100,. 0 100..0 100..0 100..0 100.,0 100.,0 100.. 0 100..0 100.0 2. 0 4 .0 7 .0 13 .0 , 18..0 19..0 13 .0 . 9..0 5..0 4 .9 . 4 .1 1. 9 3. 0 5. 0 7 .0 9. ,0 11 . 0 14 .0 . 13 .0 . 9..0 7..0 7. 5 7. 7 5. 0 12 .0 15 .0 18 .0 23 .0 22 .0 27..0 31 .0 . 30..0 29.,0 33 .4 . 32., 2 25. 5 33 .0 3 3.0 36 . 0 36..0 33..0 28..0 31..0 36..0 38.,0 37.. 6 39. 2 41. 1 32 .0 28 .0 24 .0 15 .0 13 .0 . 9..0 9..0 12 .0 . 14 ,0 . 12..9 13 ,4 . 19. 8 13 . 0 11 .0 7. 0 3. 0 3 .0 . 2 .0 . 2. 0 3 .0 . 4 ,0 . 2 .. 6 2 ,. 5 5. 1 QUARTERLY YEAR TO DATE-1991 Q2... Q3 . . . Q4. . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 5. 7 .6 10. . 9 5, 2 7. 5 8. 9 0. 5 0. 8 1..0 0 .4 0, 6 0 .7 0 .2 0 .2 0 .4 0 .4 0 .5 0..8 1992 Ql... Q2... Q3... Q4. . . 10 . 2 10 .3 10 .1 9 .1 9 .2 9 .2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 .. 4 6.. 7 10.. 0 12 . 6 3 ,. 0 6.. 1 8..9 11 . 5 0.. 3 0.. 6 1..0 1., 2 0 .3 , 0 .5 0 .8 . 1..0 0 .1 0 .2 . 0 .2 , 0 .4 . 0..1 0.,3 0.. 4 0.,7 1993 Ql... Q2 . . . 10 .3 10 .5 , 10 .7 . 10 .4 . 9.,3 9 .5 . 9.. 6 9..5 100.0 100.0 3 .5 6. 8 3. 6 6. 8 0..3 0. 7 0 .3 . 0 .6 . 0 .0 . 0 .1 . 0.,1 0. 2 10 .6 . 10 .9 . 8 9.,9 10.,0 25 26 TABLE II.H AVERAGE LOAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS* DECEMBER 31 U.S. CLEVELAND ATLANTA CHICAGO ST. LOUIS MINNEAPOLIS KANSAS CITY 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 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 4344 4181 4068 3955 3854 0.54 0 .54 0.55 0.55 0.55 96 84 77 71 75 0.64 0 .64 0 .65 0.64 0.64 144 138 135 133 131 0.585 0.588 0.595 0.609 0.607 1111 1055 1009 969 948 0.529 0.548 0.563 0.572 0.574 500 477 477 470 456 0.549 0.558 0.566 0.567 0.563 778 758 743 725 694 0.532 0.552 0.559 0.569 0.579 1239 1196 1171 1135 1092 0.512 0.511 0.511 0.522 0.53 3 392 393 385 378 384 0.506 0.481 0.460 0.438 0.422 62 57 57 60 61 0.637 0.637 0.699 0.711 0.708 15.72 15.87 15.92 16.56 16.72 1991 Q2... Q3... Q4... 4080 4059 3955 0 .56 0 .56 0 ,55 77 77 71 0 .66 . 0 .66 . 0 .64 . 152 144 133 0 .627 . 0 .622 . 0 .609 . 998 992 969 0 .580 . 0 .581 . 0 .572 , 485 503 4 70 0 .590 . 0 .594 . 0 .. 567 740 742 725 0..600 G..597 0..569 1157 1149 1135 0 . 5.13 0 .520 . 0 .522 389 378 378 0 .447 . .451 0 .438 . 60 51 0 . 757 0 .. 741 0 ,711 16 ,47 '16 . 7 7 1.6 .56 1992 Ql. . . Q2... Q3 . . . Q4... 3977 3970 3942 3854 0 .54 0 .57 . 0 .58 . 0 .55 72 76 78 75 0 .65 . 0. . 66 0 .67 . 0..64 157 153 147 131 0 .. 611 0..626 0-.639 0.,607 964 959 964 948 0 .563 . 0,.586 0..597 0.. 574 460 474 481 456 0 .562 . 0..590 0..608 0 .563 . 725 725 703 694 0 .568 . 0 .601 . 0..611 0..579 113 3 1118 1110 1092 0 .528 . 0 .539 . 0 ,, 53 3 3 86 385 387 3 84 0 .428 . 0 .446 . 0 .455 0..422 58 59 58 61 0 ,662 0,.753 0 ,728 . 0 ,708 16 ,4.3 16 .98 17 ,08 . 1 6.72 1993 Q l . . . Q2... 3822 3875 0 .56 0 .58 73 76 0 .65 . 0 .67 . 140 153 0 .616 , 0 .636 . 931 933 0..574 0 .593 . 43 7 470 0..563 0..591 682 684 0 .579 . 0..620 1091 1085 0 .532 o.. 555 391 396 0 ,. 431 0 .438 . 59 57 0..722 0 .765 . 16 ,47 16 .98 * The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total deposits. that shown in the last column, as described in the introduction to section II. Agricultural banks are defined as banks with a farm loan ratio at least as great, as TABLE II.I FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS* NUMBER OF FAILURES 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 .. .. .. .. .. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 ANNUAL TOTAL 12 14 22 11 5 3 2 1 3 21 14 19 6 7 5 2 1 2 17 21 12 12 5 6 3 1 2 18 16 16 7 5 3 1 2 68 65 69 36 22 17 8 5 ** ** * Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to section II. SECTION III: FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS AND FARM LAND VALUES TABLES: III.A III.B III.C III.D III .E 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 ^0 32 34 ^6 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. 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 ot 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 more than 430 banks. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Citv. Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198 The sample chosen originally in 197 6 consisted of 181 banks selected from banks at which farm loans constituted 50 percent or more of total loans, with appropriate representation of all farm areas. The sample• was redrawn and significantly expanded in 1987; 318 banks responded to the second - quarter 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 m 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. In the first quarter of 1993, 157 banks responded to the survey. Section I I I ; (continued) 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. The results for the most recent quarter were based on the responses from 204 respondents. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Richmond, Virginia 23261 The number of agricultural banks in this district is much smaller than those of the other districts. When the survey was initiated in 1975, the sample consisted of 43 banks of all sizes; banks with larger amounts of farm loans were sampled more heavily. More recently, the sample has consisted of about 30 banks, roughly three-fourths of which typically respond to the quarterly surveys. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: Bankers responding to the surveys indicate that farm loan demand continued on a course of slow-to-moderate expansion in the second quarter of 1993. The surveys were taken before the flooding in the midwestern states had become a serious problem--the next issue of the Databook may provide a picture of how the assessment by bankers of farm conditions was affected by the flooding. The survey responses continue to suggest that commercial banks have ample funds available for farm lending. The number of respondents saying that fund availability is greater than a year ago (or, in some surveys, greater than normal) has continued to exceed --by wide margins --the number of those reporting diminished fund availability. In most districts, a large majority of the respondents still characterizes its current loan-todeposit ratios as being lower than desired. The exception to this characterization of the availability of credit was the Minneapolis Federal Reserve district, where the number of banks reporting a ratio of loans to deposits that was at the desired level roughly equalled the number of banks that wanted to increase lending. Rates of interest on farm loans edged down further in all districts and for nearly all types of farm loans in the second quarter. The declines amounted to an additional 10 to 20 basis points in most cases. The rates that were reported in the second quarter generally were the lowest in about 15 years; some of the rates were at their lowest levels since the mid-1970s. The slight pickup in the rate of increase in prices for farmland that was noted in the last edition of the Databook seems to have persisted in this report. All of the surveys now are showing year-to-year increases in prices for land, and in some cases, the increase runs to 5 percent or more. A year ago, the surveys were showing annual increases of about 1 to 3 percent in several of the districts and price declines in some. 29 30 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) C „ LOWER SAME LOWER HIGHER SAME LOWER HIGHER SAME ^IGHgR ; COLLATERAL REQUIRED RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS LOAN REPAYMENT RATE FUND AVAILABILITY D E M A N D FOR LOANS » LOWER SAME LOWER HIGHER —— III.A1 SEVENTH ; 1991 02... Q3. . . Q4 . . .* 1992 Ql. . . Q2. . . 03. 04... 1 1 1 1 1 1993 01... 02... -III A2 1993 Ql. , . Q2 - v . 1 1 1 80 76 79 20 23 21 h 1 1 1 10 10 9 21 53 60 69 52 37 30 22 I 1 1 1~ 1 °* 1 1 ! 73 77 , 80-. ; 83 26 22 19 16 1 1 20 13 58 65 22 22 I . I ' " 1 0 82 85 - 16 15 29 31 36 I I I 29 26 40 67 66 52 3 8 9 1 1 I 15' 15 20 20 42 47 50 52 44 38 30 28 [ I | 1 6 8 9 7 59 62 59 60 34 31 ,32 33 1 I 1 I 34 27 19 30 55 67 73 47 11 6 8 23 23 24 46 49 31 27 1 1 8 5 53 61 39 34 I I 20 18 58 68 22 13 1.8 20 20 (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT 54 56 58 28 24 23 53 48 51 55 31 31 28 28 56 58 25 28 ELEVENTH 2T3 24 22 18 19, -24 •< 26 1 1 I I I 63 59 59 18 14 1992 01 >.. 02 . . . 03 • Q4. . . 29 26 41 8 10 5 16 22 ! . 21 . : 16 1 1 1 63 65 52 1 1 1 1992 01:, , 02. . . Q3 * . .Q4... 1991 02:.. 03... 04... 8 9 7 43 33 32 1 III .A3 ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI* ) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 45 46 45 TENTH 20 22 HIGHER - • 13 21 23 1991 02. . . 03... 04. 1993 01.. . 0 2 . (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT SAME 4—-r—; ; > , V ( CO, KS, M0*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS V '- 1 '1 o 1 1 81 81 76 19 18 24 27 19 15 12 | | 1 1 1 1 4 1 76 78 77 82 23 21 20 16 75 82 11 8 I I 0 1 86 88 13 11 1 1 1 0 o o 60 66 61 40 34 39 0 0 1 64 65 73 75 35 34 27 24 1 0 75 85 24 15 I 1 1 7 9 7 65 63 64 29 29 30 I 1 1 14 21 31 77 71 61 9 8 8 1 1 1 7 9 5 81 75 68 I I I I 10 15 16 10 58 57 54 60 32 28 30 30 I I I 1 30 22 20 13 62 72 70 69 8 6 10 19 1 1 1 1 10 8 16 16 63 72 69 72 I | 8 11 64 62 28 27 I I 10 8 74 82 15 10 1 1 14 11 (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT r\ " . 12 16 26 ; ( LA*, NM*, TX ) 55 49 53 23 27 26 I I I 5 7 6 59 59 56 37 34 38 I I I 18 10 30 69 77 56 14 13 14 1 1 1 11 17 13 72 72 59 17 10 29 49 57 53 55 33 24 2219 I I 1 I 5 7 5 5 59 62 66 56 36 31 29 39 1 1 1 I 29 18 14 16 58 67 67 62 13 15 19 21 1 1 1 I 13 ,14 , , 14 22 56 65 , 70 " 62 31 20 15 17 58 57 22 21 I I 2 4 62 57 37 39 I I 9 5 70 76 22 20 1 1 24 16 68 78 9 6 , I 1 I 1 1 I , 0 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) D E M A N D FOR LOANS LOWER Ill oA4 SAME FUND AVAILABILITY HIGHER LOWER SAME LOAN REPAYMENT RATE HIGHER NINTH (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT LOWER ( MI* SAME RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS HIGHER LOWER SAME COLLATERAL REQUIRED HIGHER LOWER SAME: HIGHER MN, MT, ND, SD, WI* ) 1991 Q2. . 03. . Q4. . 1 1 1 6 4 8 71 76 75 23 20 17 *** *** *** 26 33 33 74 65 63 0 2 3 1 1 1 6 8 7 83 78 64 11 14 29 j | | *** *** *** *** *** *** 1992 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . 1 1 1 1 6 6 8 7 77 70 73 83 17 24 19 10 *** *** * ** *** 31 19 30 30 65 78 70 63 4 3 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 5 7 9 69 81 82 65 30 14 11 26 j | *** *** j | *** *** *** *** *** *** 1993 Ql. . Q2. . 1 1 7 9 80 79 13 12 *** *** 33 20 60 78 7 2 1 1 8 8 64 77 28 15 | | *** *** FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV* ) III ,A5 *** *** 1991 Q2... Q3. . Q4. . ! 1 1 25 30 27 63 59 68 13 11 5 1 1 1 4 4 0 72 63 59 24 33 41 | I | 12 7 14 88 85 86 0 7 0 1 1 1 12 22 14 72 63 59 16 15 27 1 1 1 0 0 0 72 67 76 28 33 24 1992 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . 1 1 1 1 22 33 29 17 65 54 63 65 13 13 8 17 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 52 58 58 67 48 42 42 33 | | I | 9 17 13 25 78 79 75 71 13 4 13 4 1 1 1 1 23 21 17 9 59 67 71 57 18 13 13 35 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 0 82 70 75 71 18 26 25 29 1993 Ql. . Q2. . 1 1 8 9 83 83 8 9 1 1 0 0 67 70 33 30 | | 17 5 78 91 4 5 1 1 4 18 75 77 21 5 1 I 5 0 76 87 19 13 31 32 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE H I * B p A R M NQNREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) LOWER SAME III.B1 LOWER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT SEVENTH LOWER SAME HIGHER FARM MACHINERY OPERATING CROP STORAGE DAIRY FEEDER CATTLE TOTAL LOWER SAME HIGHER LOWER SAME HIGHER HIGHER (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 12 17 18 58 52 48 30 31 34 | | | 31 33 36 63 61 59 7 6 5 I | | 27 28 20 65 68 73 8 4 8 19 19 20 63 58 63 18 23 17 | I | 7 10 7 48 53 44 45 37 49 1 | | 34 38 37 49 44 48 17 18 15 11 14 16 15 49 57 56 57 40 29 28 29 I I I I 24 23 19 16 69 72 67 70 7 5 14 14 I I I | 19 15 19 16 71 78 74 78 10 7 7 6 21 16 14 16 72 74 51 55 7 9 35 29 | | | | 8 8 14 13 43 51 57 48 49 41 29 39 I | | | 27 31 28 22 51 56 51 53 22 13 21 25 16 18 59 58 25 23 | | 19 22 66 69 15 9 | | 20 16 74 77 5 6 23 24 66 67 11 9 | | 16 14 46 51 38 35 I | 20 33 51 47 29 20 HI.B2 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1991 Q2. . . Q3... Q4 • . . | 1 I 17 16 19 62 62 57 21 22 24 I | | 26 22 29 65 63 64 9 15 7 23 21 18 72 73 79 5 6 3 | | | 23 14 22 67 81 73 10 5 5 | | | 13 14 18 60 63 53 28 23 29 j I | 17 17 27 67 60 57 16 23 15 1992 Ql. . . Q2... Q3... Q4. . . I | | I 17 20 18 20 58 63 65 62 24 17 17 18 | I I I 18 18 15 18 72 72 72 69 11 10 13 13 17 13 14 16 75 79 79 78 7 8 7 6 I | 1 | 15 17 15 16 80 74 68 75 5 9 17 9 | | | I 14 19 16 13 55 65 68 67 31 17 16 19 I I | I 28 27 21 18 58 59 65 63 14 14 14 19 1993 Ql... Q2. . . 1 I 14 14 65 63 21 23 1 | 15 10 71 74 13 16 14 8 78 85 8 7 | | 17 12 78 77 5 11 I I 13 11 61 65 26 24 I I 16 13 67 69 17 18 :.B3 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 17 20 24 79 64 57 4 16 19 1 | I 15 27 21 85 68 68 0 5 11 | | I 43 30 26 57 70 74 0 0 0 21 19 20 79 81 65 0 0 15 17 19 14 75 62 59 8 19 27 21 37 23 75 44 64 4 19 14 13 17 22 5 78 74 65 82 9 9 13 14 | I 1 | 5 15 14 20 90 85 73 75 5 0 14 5 1 | 1 I 15 30 24 11 80 70 76 90 5 0 0 0 10 23 14 15 85 73 68 70 5 5 18 15 17 8 21 17 65 83 79 71 17 8 0 13 13 17 33 21 74 75 67 71 13 9 0 87 96 4 4 I 1 11 10 78 85 11 5 I 1 6 5 94 95 0 0 17 9 83 82 0 9 4 13 88 78 9 9 4 13 83 83 13 4 8 0 8 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Q U A R T E R L Y SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.B (CONTINUED) EXPECTED DEMAND FOR FARM LOANS DURING NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH NORMAL D E M A N D (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER LOWER III. B4 SAME NINTH HIGHER SAME DEBT EXTENSION OR REFINANCING HIGHER (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT LOWER SAME HIGHER ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1990 Q2. . . Q3... 04... 4 8 8 86 76 69 10 16 23 1 1 1 4 9 9 83 81 81 12 11 10 1 1 1 12 9 11 80 78 68 8 13 20 | J | 1991 Ql. . . Q2. . . 03... 04... 5 4 3 8 72 75 78 75 23 21 18 18 1 1 1 1 12 14 12 11 82 84 81 82 6 2 7 7 1 1 1 1 6 5 5 4 83 78 66 69 12 16 29 27 | | | | 01. .. 2 8 10 5 86 78 80 86 11 14 10 9 1 1 1 1 3 11 13 14 90 86 82 80 7 3 5 6 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 7 79 86 78 68 18 11 14 25 | | | | 5 3 84 81 11 16 1 1 8 13 85 82 7 6 1 1 3 6 84 78 13 17 | | 1992 02... 03,.. 04... 1993 Ql. . . 02... 33 34 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 >C1 REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS AT LOWER DESIRED THAN DESIRED LEVEL SEVENTH HIGHER THAN DESIRED (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS NONBANK AGENCIES CORRESPONDENT BANKS NONE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER HIGHER LOWER SAME NONE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER LOWER SAME HIGHER ( IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1991 04... 1 57 1 64 30 6 1 | *** 1 *** *** 1992 Ql. . . Q2... Q3. . . Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 57 58 59 59 1 1 I 1 67 67 60 64 26 26 30 29 7 7 10 8 1 1 1 1 j j | | *** *** *** *** | *** 1 | *** *** *** 1993 Ql... Q2. . . 1 1 58 59 1 1 68 66 24 25 8 9 1 1 j | *** *** 1 ! *** III ,C2 TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT 1 ( CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) AGRICULTURAL BANKS 1991 Q4 * * . 1 52 1 80 6 14 I 2 74 1 78 15 80 4 I 68 16 74 10 1992 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . 04... ; 1 1 1 i 52 53 55 54 1 I 1 1 82 80 77 78 5 7 8 8 12 13 15 14 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 0 75 73 76 75 1 1 1 I 76 76 78 77 24 24 27 18 69 70 69 76 7 6 4 6 1 1 1 1 63 66 69 67 23 22 24 18 63 64 67 71 14 13 9 11 1993 01... 02... I i 53 55 1 1 82 79 6 6 11 15 1 1 2 1 76 74 I I 78 78 16 15 77. 80 7 5 I I 66 68 16 14 73 76 11 9 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT 13 79 8 J *** 9 83 8 8 12 12 15 85 80 80 76 7 8 7 9 I 1 1 j *** 8 9 6 11 79 74 84 79 12 16 11 10 15 15 80 81 5 5 j 1 *** 8 16 84 77 8 6 H I .C3 " ( LA*, NM*, TX) 1991 04... I 43 J *** *** 1 2 1 1992 Ql... 02... Q3. . . 04... I I I I 42 41 43 41* | | | | -• *** *** *** *** *** *** *** j | | 1 j *** *** *** 1 1 3 1 3 | *** 1993 Ql . . . 02... I I 41 41 | *** *** *** j 1 1 0 J 1 *** 1 ... *** | *** *** FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.C (CONTINUED) A V E R A G E LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) AVERAGE LOAN-TODEPOSIT RATIO, END OF QUARTER PERCENT Ill ,C4 NINTH REFUSED OR REDUCED A FARM LOAN BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF LOANABLE FUNDS LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS LOWER AT THAN DESIRED DESIRED LEVEL HIGHER THAN DESIRED (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO ACTIVELY SEEKING NEW FARM LOAN ACCOUNTS CORRESPONDENT BANKS NONE NONBANK , AGENCIES COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER NONE COMPARED WITH NORMAL NUMBER LOWER SAME HIGHER ( MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1991 Q4. . . 1 56 1 40 54 7 1 5 1 42 2 52 5 1 35 1 54 10 1992 01. . 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 54 57 58 56 1 1 1 1 43 39 44 53 49 50 48 41 8 11 9 6 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 28 34 32 41 5 5 7 2 64 58 60 57 3 3 1 0 I 1 1 1 27 30 31 38 5 4 5 2 64 62 62 56 3 4 2 3 1993 01... Q2. . , 1 1 54 58 1 1 49 46 45 45 7 9 1 1 4 3 1 1 31 40 3 2 64 57 1 0 1 1 27 28 3 3 64 63 6 6 III,,C5 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1991 04... 1 72 1 45 45 10 | 9 82 1 85 5 10 0 1 79 5 11 5 1992 oi... 02... 03... 04... 1 1 1 1 71 69 68 69 1 1 1 1 43 45 52 52 52 45 44 44 5 10 4 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 8 14 87 79 67 83 1 1 1 1 95 75 57 80 0 0 0 5 5 25 43 15 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 90 74 64 71 0 5 9 5 11 21 18 24 0 0 9 0 1993 oi... 02... 1 1 67 67 1 1 50 62 42 33 8 5 1 1 4 0 75 78 1 1 77 71 0 0 9 24 14 5 1 1 82 20 0 5 14 75 5 0 35 36 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS III.Da OTHER OPERATING LOANS SEVENTH SHORTTERM NONREAL ESTATE INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT 10.1 1992 Ql. 9.8 9.6 9.2 9.1 9.8 9.6 9.2 9.1 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.7 8.9 8.3 1993 Ql. 02. III .D2 T E N T H 8.6 8.6 ^ m T ^ E D E R A L "RESERVE DISTRICT 1991 04. 10.2 10.4 10,4 9.7 1992 Ql. 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 10.1 10,1 9.7 9.4 9.2 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.3 8.9 8.9 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.2 9.1 Q2. 03. 04. 1993 Ql. 02. LOWER SAME HIGHER SAME * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8.2 8.8 ( K A N S A S LOWER 9*4 10.1 03. 04. INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI ) AGRICULTURAL BANK 1991 04. 02. SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS 8.6 8.5 (CO, KS, MO*, MB, NM*, OK) AGRICULTURAL BANKS HIGHER LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER SAME HIGHER FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE III.D (CONTINUED) INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS MOST C O M M O N INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS (AVERAGE, PERCENT) FEEDER CATTLE LOANS III.D3 NINTH OTHER OPERATING LOANS SHORTTERM NONREAL ESTATE INTERMEDIATE NONREAL ESTATE AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER COMPARED WITH A V E R A G E RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING) LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT SHORT-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS INTERMEDIATE-TERM NONREAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER LOWER SAME HIGHER SAME HIGHER LONG-TERM REAL ESTATE LOANS LOWER SAME HIGHER (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*) 1991 Q4. . . 1 11.0 11,.0 10 .4 1 51 48 1 1 47 53 1 1 45 55 0 1992 Ql. Q2. Q3. Q4. . . . . 1 1 1 1 10.4 10.3 10.0 9.8 10 ,4 10 .3 9 .9 9,.8 9 .9 9 .8 9 .3 9 .1 I I I 1 15 7 32 12 71 89 61 62 14 5 7 26 | 1 1 1 | 1 13 6 31 10 70 89 62 64 18 5 7 26 1 1 1 I 1 10 9 23 10 75 86 70 69 15 5 7 22 1993 0 1 . . . Q2. . . 1 1 9.4 9.3 9,,5 9,.3 8 .9 8 .8 I I 10 6 80 86 10 8 | 1 1 11 7 79 85 10 8 11 1 8 5 81 90 11 5 *** | *** *** *** *** *** . . . . III , D4 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX) 1991 Q4. . . 1 10 .6 10 .6 10,,8 10 .7 I *** | *** 1992 Ql... Q2. . . Q3. . . Q4... 1 1 1 1 10 .4 10,.2 9,.8 9,.7 10 .3 10..2 9 .9 9,> 8 10,,6 10,,4 10,,0 10,,0 10 .4 10 .4 10 .0 9 .9 1 1 1 1 *** *** *** | 1 | 1 I| || 1993 Ql... Q2. . . 1 1 9,.5 9..4 9,• 7 9,• 5 9,,7 9. 6 9 .5 9 .4 I 1 *** *** III,. D5 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** 1 |1 1 | |1 || *** *** *** *** | | *** *** *** | *** *** | *** *** 1 | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1 | j | *** *** *** *** | | (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*) 1991 Q4. . . 1 9, ,3 9,, 4 9. 7 9 .8 I 1992 Ql... 02... 03... Q4. . . 1 1 1 1 9,.2 9.,5 8. 5 8. 6 9..2 9..4 8.,9 8..8 9. 5 9. 6 9. 3 9. 4 9 .6 9,.8 9,.2 9,.4 | I | 1 1993 Ql... 02... 1 1 8.,7 8. 6 8. 5 8. 5 8. 9 8. 9 9,• 1 8,.6 1 | *** *** 1 1 1 1 37 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE IIIo E TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES A N D LOAN VOLUME MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER ALL Ill .El SEVENTH 1991 Q4.. 1 0 1992 Ql. . Q2. . Q3 . . 04.., 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1993 Ql.., Q2. . < 1 1 1 1 III .E2 1 0 1992 Ql... 02... Q3. . . 04... 1 1 1 1 3 -6 4 10 1993 Ql... 02... 1 1 -3 -5 1991 Q4... 1 IRRIGATED RANCHLAND ALL (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT DOWN STABLE DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED TO YEAR EARLIER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) UP LOWER SAME HIGHER (IL* Z IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL. BANKS 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 13 77 10 1 26 51 23 1 1 2 2 *** *** *** *** | | | | 4 4 5 3 83 86 84 82 13 10 11 15 1 1 1 1 18 20 16 16 56 65 67 65 26 15 17 18 3 3 *** *** | | 3 9 79 78 18 13 1 ! 15 23 63 62 22 15 (MD, NC, SC , VA, WV*)i 1 *** | 5 86 9 ! 29 57 14 1 1 1 1 -1 -10 -0 10 *** *** | | *** j 4 4 0 0 78 91 100 88 17 4 0 13 1 i 1 1 9 18 18 18 82 73 82 82 9 9 0 0 1 1 4 6 *** *** j | 0 0 96 100 4 0 1 1 24 9 76 86 0 5 I 28 62 9 1 1 1 1 27 27 23 23 65 67 70 61 8 6 6 16 1 1 17 13 64 73 19 13 (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT -3 RANCHLAND *** 1 -1 IRRIGATED 1 (LA*, NM*, TX) -2 j * ** -2 -1 -0 1 *** *** *** *** -2 -4 -3 -2 -7 -7 -2 7 0 -2 -3 1 1 | 1 1 *** *** 1 2 13 11 0 2 1 1 1992 Ql... 02... 03... 04... 1 I 1 1 -1 -1 0 -0 -3 1 3 6 1 -1 -1 2 | | | | 1993 Ql... 02... 1 I 1 1 2 -0 1 1 | | DRYLAND (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ELEVENTH TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER 1 FIFTH 1991 Q4... III. E3 DRYLAND EXPECTED TREND IN FARM 131Z&T. t?ornami? t o * * .T rnuro *** *** *** FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS TABLE IIIoE (CONTINUED) TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND PERCENTAGE CHANGE DURING QUARTER ALL III.E4 DRYLAND TENTH IRRIGATED | *** 1992 Ql«o » Q2. . . 03,», Q4. o . I I I I *** *** *** *** 2 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1993 Ql... Q2» o » I I *** *** 0 1 III.E5 1991 Q4 . «. | -1 *** 1 1 NINTH ALL DRYLAND -0 3 2 1 | 1 *** *** *** *** 2 1 | | | 2 2 4 3 3 5 * * | * *** 2 -0 2 *** *** *** j *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | | | *** *** *** *** 2 2 3 4 1993 Ql... Q2... | | *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | *** *** 5 4 0 UP LOWER SAME HIGHER *** *** ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** j | 5 | 5 | j | | j j *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SC, WI*) 3 - STABLE | | 3 3 6 4 4 I | I I 2 3 5 2 (MINNEAPOLIS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT DOWN (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY) *** | 1 -1 2 RANCHLAND | 1992 Ql... Q2... Q3... Q4... IRRIGATED (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT 1991 Q4» . . TREND EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM A YEAR EARLIER RANCHLAND EXPECTED D E M A N D FOR FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH NORMAL (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS) 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 7 | *** | | | | | 1 *** *** j *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** I | | | *** *** *** *** *** *** | | 13 7 5 8 11 12 82 85 79 72 14 6 11 89 84 1 2 10 4 9 14 5 5 39
@FedFRASER