Full text of E.15 Agricultural Finance Databook : Third Quarter 1995

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

E.15 (125)

n

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE
DATABOOK

Third Quarter 1995
Guide to internal tables of contents and notes on sources

Amount and characteristics of farm loans made by commercial banks

Page

3

Selected statistics from the quarterly reports of condition of commercial
banks
Reserve bank surveys of farm credit conditions and farm land values

Division of Research and Statistics
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Washington, D.C. 20551
Nicholas A. Walraven and Douglas Carson



17
28

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 1995: the other data generally were available through mid year.
Parts or all of the Agricultural Finance Databook may be copied and distributed freely. Any redistribution of
selected parts of the Databook should be accompanied by the "contents" pages at the beginning of the
corresponding section, together with the front cover identifying the Databook and date of issue, and this page
providing subscription information. Remaining questions may be addressed to Nicholas Walraven or Doug Carson
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 the Quarterly survey of non-real-estats farm loans
Summary charts

Page
5

Tables:
I.A
I.B
I.C
I.D
I.E
I.F
I•G
I.H
I.I

Number
Average size
Amount
Average maturity
Average effective interest
Percentage of loans with a
Distribution of farm loans
Detailed survey results
Regional disaggregation of

7
8
9
rate
floating interest rate
by effective interest rate....
survey results

10

11
12
13
14
16

SOURCES OF DATA:
These data on the farm loans of $1000 or more made by commercial banks are derived from quarterly sample
surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve System during the first full week of the second month of each
quarter. Data obtained from the sample are expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks, which
are shown in the following tables.
Before August 1989, the farm loan survey was part of a broader survey of the terms of lending by a sample of
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.
Since August of 1989, the data have been drawn from a redesigned sample of 250 banks that is no longer part of
the broader survey. In the redesigned sample, banks are stratified according to their volume of farm lending:
previously, they had been stratified according to the volume of business loans. As before, however, the
sample data are being expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks. In the August 1995 survey.
196 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled 5321.
In both the previous survey and the new one. the national estimates exhibit variability due to sampling error,
he estimates are sensitive to the occasional appearance of very large loans in the sample. In addition, the
breakdown of national estimates into those for large banks and small banks may have been affected somewhat by
v new sampling procedures that were implemented in August 1989; apparent shifts in the data as of that date
should be treated with caution.




3

SECTION I: (CONTINUED)
More detailed results from each quarterly survey previously were published in Statistical Release E.2A,
"Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers". Beginning in February, 1992 . the more detailed results are
included at the end of this section of the Databook. and the E2.A has been discontinued. Starting with the
August 1986 survey, farm loans secured by real estate are included in the data shown in the table of detailed
results, whereas such loans are excluded from the tabulations in Tables I.A through I.G and the summary
charts.
Beginning in November 1991, several survey statistics are estimated for each of ten farm production regions as
defined by the USDA. These statistics, which are presented in table I.I, should be treated with some caution.
Although an effort was made to choose a good regional mix of banks for the panel, the panel 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:
In the August 1995 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks fell to about the
average that has been seen since 1990. However, the average size of loans dropped to the lower end of the
range seen during that period, reflecting, in large part, sharp declines from one year earlier in the average
size of loans for feeder livestock and for loans that fall in the "other" category. The drop in both the
estimated number and the average size of loans left the estimated volume of loans during the survey week at
the lowest level since late 1992.
In the August survey, the average effective rate of interest on non-real-estate farm loans edged up to
9-1/2 percent, roughly 150 basis points greater than in August of 1994. Since the May 1995 survey, rates on
loans for livestock other than feeder livestock declined a bit. while rates on loans for all other purposes
edged up. After dipping substantially in the May survey, the percentage of loans that were made with a rate
of interest that floats rose to 73.4 percent, roughly in line with the proportion that has prevailed in recent
years.
Table I.G offers a historical perspective on changes in the dispersion of rates of interest for non-realestate loans, which suggests that the dispersion of rates in the August survey was somewhat smaller than the
survey one year earlier. Since the May 1995 survey, changes in the average rate of interest charged for farm
loans have been mixed across USDA farm production regions--while rates rose about 50 basis points in the
Northeast and Northern Plains, rates declined by roughly a similar magnitude in the Appalachian, Southeast,
and Delta States regions. As mentioned in the description of the data in the beginning of the section, these
estimates are quite sensitive to the occasional appearance of large loans.




m

Chart 1

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers

Millions, Annual rate
Number of non-real-estate farm loans

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5

— Four quarter moving average

2.0
1.5

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

i . . • i . • . i
1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Thousands of dollars
Average size of non-real-estate farm loans

1.0

45
40
35
30

Four quarter moving

25
20
15

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Billions of dollars. Annual rate
Amount of non-real-estate farm loans

10

110
100
90

Four quarter moving average

80
70
60
50
40

1978

1979




1980

I • i i i • » i I . i i I
1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1

1987

1988

1989

1990

• • «

1991

1

1992

1993

1994

i

1995

30

Chart 2

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers

Months
Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans

14

12
- Four quarter moving average

1978

1979

1980

1981

10

I . . « I
1982

1983

1984

I ... I ... I ... I ... I
1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

_L_

1991

1992

I ... I ... I
1993

1994

1995

Percent

20
18

Average effective interest rate on non-real-estate farm loans

16
14
12
10
8

1978

I ... I ... I
1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

_l_

6

1987

1988

1989

I ... I ... I ... I ... I ... I
1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

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

I . . . I
1979




1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

l.i.l
1986

1987

1988

1989

i ... i
1990

1991

' . . '
1992

1993

i ... i 0
1994
1995

ESTIMATES PROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.A
NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS)
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

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

2 .32
2.42
2 .06
1 .71
1 .57
1 .42
1 .67
1 .70
1 .66
1 .67
1 .65
1 .55

0 .60
0 .53
0 .51
0 .46
0 .46
0,.43
0,.52
0..49
0..51
0..54
0..56
0,.51

0 .38
0 .40
0 .30
0 .29
0 .27
0 .28
0 .31
0 .35
0 .32
0 .37
0 .37
0 .35

0 .11
0 .09
0 .09
0 .08
0 .08
0 .07
0 .09
0 .09
0 .10
0 .11
0 .12
0,.12

BY SIZE
OF BANK

LARGE

OTHER

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

0 .20
0 .18
0 .18
0 .20
0 .20
0 .23
0 .36
0 .44
0 .50
0 .SI
0 .55
0 .54

3 .21
3 .26.
2 .78
2 .34
2 .18
1 .99
2 .23
2 .20
2 . 10
2 . 18
2 . 15
1,.98

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

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

3.41
3.44
2 .96
2 .55
2 .38
2 .21
2.. 60
2,.63
2,. 60
2,.69
2..70
2..53

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

0 .37
0 .34
0 .34
0 .30
0 .39
0 .29
0 .30
0 .32
0 .35
0 .35
0 .36
0 .28

0 .32
0 .29
0 .23
0 .17
0 .13
0 .11
0 .20
0 .24
0 .23
0 .25
0,.27
0,.23

2 .00
2 .06
1 .77
1. 6 6
1 .54
1 .45
1 .73
1 .69
1 .64
1 .67
1 .62
1 .56

0 .39
0 .35
0 .36
0 .17
0 . 14
0 . 14
0,. 16
0,.19
0,. 17
0,. 18
0.. 18
0., 18

0 .32
0 .35
0 .27
0 .24
0 . 19
0 .21
0,.20
0,. 19
0,.21
0..24
0..27
0.,27

NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1993 Q3 . . .
04...

1
1

2.68
2.49

1
1

0,.28
0,.43

0.,20
0,,32

1,.70
1 .31
,

0. 16
0. 14

0. 34
0. 30

1,.68
1..40

0. 57
0. 53

0.,33
0.,41

0.,11
0.,14

1
1

0.,63
0.,58

2,,05
1.,91

1994 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

2.44
3.18
2.66
1.83

1
1
1
1

0..28
0,.30
0,,21
0.,32

0. 33
0. 25
0. 16
0. 18

1..40
2 .06
.
1.,79
0.,98

0. 21
0. 25
0. 16
0. 12

0. 22
0. 32
0. 34
0. 22

1,,44
1 ,97
.
1.,72
1 ,08
.

0. 50
0. 65
0. 52
0. 36

0. 38
0. 42
0. 33
0. 28

0.,12
0. 15
0. 09
0. 10

1
1
1
1

0.,48
0.,66
0,62
0.41

1. 96
2. 52
2. 04
1. 42

1995 oi...
02...
03...

1
1
1

2.35
2.96
2.61

1
1
1

0.,29
0.23
0.22

0. 23
0. 22
0. 13

1. 33
1 .89
1. 68

0. 17
0. 23
0. 15

0. 33
0. 39
0. 44

1 .31
1 .80
1. 55

0. 56
0. 63
0. 60

0. 35
0. 40
0. 37

0. 12
0. 14
0. 10

1
1
1

0.54
0.74
0.73

1. 81
2. 22
1. 89




ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.B
AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

294.,2
291..2
254..7
280..4
320..4
320..4
272..1
487..7
539..9
468..2
490..3
480..7

92..0
88.,1
82..0
62..0
85..5
70..0
53..7
100..7
107..0
97..0
106,.0
101..3

15..2
13..8
13..4
15..3
14..9
16..3
14,.4
13 .9
13 .9
15 .8
15 .8
15 .4

ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

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

19..7
17..7
17..6
19..0
20..8
21..8
19..9
28.A
31..9
31..2
34..3
33..9

32..5
31..8
25..7
35..0
33..8
34..1
42..7
69..7
61..0
68..2
79..7
60..3

18..2
21..9
22..5
25..8
26..3
40..6
29..5
22..7
25..2
26..9
23..1
27..6

15..5
12..9
12..8
14..0
14..6
16..7
14..1
15..7
15..6
14..7
15..2
16..3

15.,6
12..5
12..4
13..6
16..1
13..9
12..1
11..9
15..1
15..9
13..9
17..5

37.1
34.8
42.1
32.9
44.6
34.7
32.2
94.3
129.3
108.7
112.0
123.6

3..6
3..7
3..5
3..5
3..6
3..7
3..6
3..6
3..6
3 .7
3,.7
3,.7

14..8
14..7
14..4
14..9
14..7
14..8
14,,7
14..8
14,.9
14,.8
14,.9
14,.6

46..3
43..8
45..5
44..9
46..5
45..2
45..9
46..1
46,.6
45..9
46,.1
47..0

AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1993 Q3. . .
04...

1
1

30..3
41..5

88..3
80..8

24..9
31..2

12..5
16..3

14..7
12..3

82..3
119..9

3..5
3.. 8

14,.9
14,.7

46..8
47..3

475..5
487..7

83,.7
119,.6

13..8
17 .8

1994 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4...

1
1
1
1

34..9
28..9
31..3
45..0

72..5
57..0
72..3
44..9

27..3
27..9
24..0
30..7

19..9
15..7
14..2
16..3

21..5
19..0
12..1
14..0

106..5
97..5
108..0
202..0

3..6
3..9
3..5
3..9

14..7
14..4
14..4
14..9

48..5
46..0
46..0
47..5

445.,0
377.,9
588.,4
572..2

102,.8
77,.6
98..2
142..4

18,.1
16,.1
11..0
16..9

1995 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3...

1
1
1

34..8
33..0
27..7

65..2
62..7
33..9

24,.6
28..1
26..4

20..1
17..4
14..6

15..4
18..7
14..4

83..8
101..7
79..5

3..6
3..8
3..6

14..8
14..5
14,.5

46..7
43..7
44..5

431. 3
466.,5
437..5

90..8
82..8
66..8

18..1
16..4
12.,6




#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.C
AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,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

100
and
over

17 .5
17 .6
13 .5
13 .2
12 .6
12 .9
14 .4
15 .9
15 .1
16 .8
17 .1
16 .5

32 .4
26 .5
24 .0
22 .3
24 .5
23 .7
23 .4
45 .3
54 .0
52 .8
61 .0
56 .0

BY SIZE
OF BANK

LARGE

OTHER

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

18 .6
15 .8
14 .9
12 .6
17 .1
15 .9
19 .6
44 .2
53 .7
49 .4
58 .8
55 .1

48 .7
45 .0
37 .3
35 .9
32 .5
32 .3
32 .0
30 .5
29 . 1
34 .3
33 .8
,
30,.6

ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

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

67 .3
60 .8
52 1
48 .5
49 .6
48 .2
51 .6
74 .7
82 .8
83,.7
92,.6
85,.7

|
|
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I
I

12 .1
10 .7
8 .6
10 .4
13 .2
10 .0
12 .9
22 .0
21 .4
23 .6
28 .7
16 .8

5 .9
6 .5
5 .2
4 .5
3 .4
4 .6
6 .0
5 .5
5 .8
6 .7
6 .2
6 .4

31 .1
26 .5
22 .6
23 .2
22 .5
24 .3
24 .3
26 .6
25 .5
24 .6
24 .7
25 .4

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

11 .9
12 .2
11 .3
8 .0
8 .3
7 .4
• 6.4
18 .3
27 .6
26 .0
30 .6
33,,9

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

8 .4
8 .9
7 .2
6.0
5 .7
5 .2
6 .1
6. 1
6 .1
6 .2
6,.1
5,.8

9 .0
7 .8
7 .4
6 .9
6 .8
6 .4
7 .7
7 .3
7 .6
8 .0
8,.3
7 .4

AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1993 03...
04...

1
1

81.,26
103.45

|
|

24 ,5
.
34..7

4 .9
,
10,.1

21..3
21..3

2 .4
1 .7

28.,2
35.,6

1
1

5.,8
5.,4

8.,5
7.,8

15., 2 51,.7
19.,6 70,.7

1
1

53..1
69.A

28.,2
34.,0

1994 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...

1
I
1
1

85.27
91.99
83. 14
82.44

|
|
I
I

20.,2
17 .2
15.,4
14. 5

9..1
7 ,1
.
3 ,8
.
5.,6

27.,7
32..3
25.,5
16. 0

4 .5
4 .7
,
2 .0
,
1,.7

23.,7
30.,7
36. 5
44. 6

1
1
1
1

5.2
7.7
6.0
4.2

7.,4
9. 3
7. 5
5. 4

18.,3
19.2
15. 0
13. 3

54.,3
55..7
54.,6
59.,5

1
1
1
1

49.,9
51.,5
60.,6
58.,4

35. 4
40. 5
22 .5
24. 1

1995 oi...
02...
03...

1
1
1

81.59
97.62
72.31

|
|
|

18. 9
14 .4
7. 5

5. 6
6. 3
3 .4

26. 8
33. 0
24. 5

2 .6
,
4 »2
.
2 .1
.

27. 8
39. 7
34. 9

1
1
1

4.8
6.9
5.5

8. 4
9. 2
8.7

16. 2
17. 3
16. 3

52 .2
64. 3
41 .7

1
1
I

48.8
61.3
48.6

32. 8
36. 4
23. 7




9

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.D
AVERAGE MATURITY OF LOANS MADE (MONTHS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

8..1
7..5
7..7
8..0
8..1
9..2
8..3
9..2
8..3
9..7
10..0
11..6

8 .1
7 .7
9 .1
9 .8
9 .3
10 .2
9 .3
11 .9
10 .6
11 .1
11 .1
13 .5

BY SIZE
OF BANK

100
and
over

ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

8 .9
7 .7
8 .0
8 .0
8 .4
8 .7
8 .1
7 .5
7 .3
8 .9
9 .2
10 .3

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

5 5
5 0
6 1
5 8
5..5
6..4
6..8
6..0
6.,7
6. 1
7. 3
7. 6

8 .1
6 .6
7 .8
6 .3
7..7
4..7
7,.4
8..8
8..5
9..5
9..6
9..8

10 4
7 8
7 3
7 6
7..6
8..5
7..2
7..5
7..2
8..6
8..3
8..6

10..6
12..6
13..4
21..0
22..8
19..8
18..7
21..9
24..6
20..1
30..4
36..6

7..8
8..1
8..8
8..8
12..1
10..9
11..8
6..4
5..3
9..4
9..4
9..4

7,.0
7,.0
6..7
6..8
7,.5
7..1
7..4
7,.4
7..7
8..3
8,.5
8..6

10 .0
8 .0
7 .9
7 .1
8 .3
7 .7
7 .1
4 .9
5 .8
7 .2
7 .4
7 .2

|
|
I
I
I
|
1
|
|
I
|
I

6..1
7,.0
6 .9
5 .5
5 .9
8 .1
7,.8
4,.7
5..2
6 .4
6..4
5..8

9..9
7..9
8..4
8..8
9..3
8..8
8..2
10..2
9..6
10..1
10..4
12..6

MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER,, ANNUAL, RATE
1993 Q3. . .
04...

1
1

9 .8
7 .4

1
I

9.2
7. 0

8..2
9..9

8..1
7..2

24.,5
29..0

11..0
3.,8

7..3
8..0

10..6
8..8

9 .8
10..3

9 .7
5 .1

|
I

9..7
4..7

9..9
9..3

1994 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
04...

1
1
1
1

10,.1
13..0
9,.3
8,.3

1
1
1
1

6. 9
8.4
9.4
5.7

8..3
9..4
16..2
8..2

8..9
10..5
6.,8
7. 3

32..0
45..7
32.,3
28. 2

6. 6
10. 8
7. 9
11. 3

8..6
9..5
8..1
7..6

12..7
13.,3
9..2
10..5

13..9
14..2
13..2
12..3

6..6
10..7
6..8
4..8

|
|
|
|

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

12.,8
15..0
11. 5
9. 3

1995 01...
02...
03...

1
1
1

10..3
10..6
9..0

1
1
1

8. 0
7. 1
7. 9

9.,8
9.,2
10..4

10. 5
9. 5
6. 8

28. 4
24. 7
30. 4

7. 0
12. 7
10. 9

9.,3
10..2
8..0

11. 2
12. 1
9. 8

13..9
13..6
9..4

8..1
8..4
7..6

1
|
|

5. 6
6. 9
6. 7

12. 3
12. 6
10. 1




#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.E
AVERAGE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS MADE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1, 000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
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

12.1
13.1
11.2
9.6
9.2
10.2
12.1
10.9
9.0
6.8
6.7
7.2

14,.1
14..4
13..4
12..1
11..3
11..6
12..7
12.,3
11..3
9.,4
8.,7
8. 8

ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE
1983.
1984.
1985.
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.

13.5
14.1
12.8
11.5
10.6
11.2
12.5
11.4
9.8
7.8
7.5
7.8

13.6
13.7
12.5
11.1
10.7
10.9
12.3
11.5
10.2
8.2
8.0
8.3

.8
.3
.7
11..9
10..2
1 1 ..9
12..4
12..0
1 1 ..0
8 .. 6
.1
.0

13 .5
14 .2
13..0
11,.5
10..8
11..2
12..6
11..7
10..4
8.,8
8.,1
8. 4

14 .3
14 .6
13 .7
12,.2
11..5
11..7
12..8
12..3
11..3
9..3
8.,7
8..6

12 .8
14,.0
12..1
11..2
9..5
10..7
12..3
10..7
8..6
6..3
6..2
7. 0

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

14 .2
14,.6
13,.7
12,.4
11,.6
11..7
12..8
12..5
11..5
9..7
9.,0
9.,1

14 .1
14 .3
13,.2
12,.0
11,.3
11..6
12..7
12..4
11..2
9..3
8..7
8.,8

14.0
14.3
13.2
11.8
11.1
11.4
12.7
12.1
10.7
8.8
8.3
8.6

13,.0
13,.7
12..1
10,.8
9,.9
10..8
12..2
10..9
9..2
7..1
6..9
7..3

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

AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1993 Q3...
04...

1
1

7..5
7..3

8.0
8.1

7,.9
7,.7

8 .2
7 .8

9 .0
8 .4

6.4
6.1

9.0
8.9

8.6
8.5

8.1
8.2

7.0
6.8

7.0
6.7

8.6
8.6

1994 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

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

7.7
8.1
8.7
8.8

7..3
8,.1
8..4
8..7

7,.9
8..5
8..4
8..7

8,.2
8,.6
9..0
9..5

6.1
6.6
7.0
7.8

8..8
8..9
9..2
9..6

8..4
8..1
9..0
9..4

8..1
8..5
8..7
9..1

6..7
7..2
7..3
7..9

6..6
7..0
7..4
7..8

8..3
8..7
9..2
9..5

1995 Ql...
02...
03...

1
1
1

10. 0
9.4
9. 5

10.9
9.6
9.8

9. 9
10. 2
9. 8

10.,3
9. 9
10. 2

10..4
10..2
10. 4

9.0
8.7
8.8

10.6
10.6
10.6

10.3
10.6
10.6

10.2
10.4
10.2

9.8
8.8
8.8

9.7
8.9
9.0

10.4
10.3
10.5




ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.F
PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE WITH A FLOATING INTEREST RATE
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($l,000s)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK

1
to
9

10
to
24

100
and
over

25.6
23.8
27.6
40.6
48.5
49.3
50.4
53.6
52.0
57.3
60.1
58.6

29,.1
31,.3
31 .5
41,.8
45 .6
51 .5
49 .6
59 .2
59 .0
59 .1
61 .0
59 .8

34. 9
29.,0
42<,0
48.,2
54.,4
60.,8
58.,5
66..0
64,.0
61,. 2
64,.5
70,.4

55. 9
52.,7
56.,6
63.,7
68..5
67..0
69..1
67,.5
67,.8
78,.6
83,.9
80,. 2

LARGE

OTHER

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

77.7
71.1
77.,1
71.,9
77.,6
79..1
83..6
69,.4
70,.0
82 .9
86 .9
83 .7

29. 9
27 ,6
.
32..6
47 .0
.
49,.9
52,.6
47 .2
,
59 .3
56 .1
55 .5
58 .9
59 .7

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE
1983
1984
1985
1986.
1987 .
1988.
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993,
1994,

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

43 1
38 9
45 3
53 4
59..5
61.,4
61..0
65.,2
65..1
71..7
76,.7
75,.1

I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1

47.8
41.2
61.4
60.5
51.6
65.3
71.4
76.8
81.5
78.5
84.6
82.9

28.7
32.3
44.9
34.8
69.6
39.5
40.0
61.6
69.3
63.5
70.0
74.3

48.1
41.7
43.0
57.2
62.1
63.8
59.7
68.3
68.8
66.3
70.3
72.3

17.,6
24.,3
19.,6
30..9
55..5
54.,9
32..9
40,.0
40,.6
47,.8
48,,2
51,,6

44.3
39.5
47.3
50.6
62.1
63.2
73.6
51.2
50.3
75.3
78.1
75.7

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

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER
03...
04...

1
1

79,.1
75,.6

1
1

89.6
77.9

77.8
74.9

74.2
72.7

33 .5
53 .9

78.0
76.3

1
1

62.7
60.9

57 .6
66 .6

69,.2
64,.0

87,.5
80,.9

1
1

88 .6
85 .5

61 .2
55 .4

1994 oi...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

77 .2
71 .7
78 .6
73 .1

1
1
I
1

89.1
78.3
91.3
70.7

78.1
74.4
79.8
64.3

76.6
73.9
65.6
72.3

66 .9
40 .4
51 .1
43 .3

69.6
70.0
83.6
76.5

1
1
1
1

56.6
59.6
58.9
58.9

59 .3
56 .8
62 .4
62 .2

72,.9
68,.7
70..2
69,.8

83,.1
77,.0
85,.3
75,.9

1
1
1
1

85,.8
81..8
86..8
80..3

65 .3
58 .9
56 .4
55,.1

1995 Ql. . .
02...
03...

1
I
1

79 .0
67 .3
73 .4

1
I
I

88.3
82.8
76.3

76.1
79.5
51.1

84.3
65.7
65.3

55 .7
59 .7
50 .2

70.3
62.0
82.0

1
1
1

63.6
60.9
61.7

61 .4
63 .2
65 .1

79,.9
66,.1
72,.1

82,.9
69,.0
77,.2

1
1
1

83.,1
73.,7
83..3

72 .9
56 .7
53 .2
,




Table 1.6

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS, 1
BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE
Effective
interest
rate
(percent)

August
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1994 1995

Memo:
Percentage
Distribution
of Number of
Loans, 1995
Mav

All loans
Under 5 Percent
5.0 to 5.9
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 and over..

100

100

100

100

100

100

-

-

-

-

-

"

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5
7
11
24
31
13
7
1
-

1
6
12
11
33
22
13
2

100

1
11
30
17
9
22
8
2

11
13
18
23
17
10
7
1

100

100
„

-

"

100

1
11
21
23
22
19
3

1
10
20
27
23
15
3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5
8
39
34
8
4
1
-

1
8
33
39
14
5

4
4
23
21
22
20
4
2
*

-

-

-

*

-

-

-

*

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4
14
22
18
16
20
5
1

100
-

5
15
8
30
30
10
1
1

100

-

*

1
2
24
42
24
5
1
*

1
4
27
42
21
4
1
*

„

-

„

.
"

100

Alio

-

-

"

"

-

„

-

"

ui xuuLxuii ui Lue et> Lj-maueu toiai Qoiiar amount ox non-real-estate tarm
* . - v_i.
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.
* indicates less than .5 percent.



SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 7 - 1 1 , 1 9 9 5

Loans to farmers

all sizes

$1-9

Size class of loans (thousands)
$10-24
$25-49
$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

ALL B A N K S
1
2
3

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

4
5
6

Weighted average interest rate (percent) 2
Standard error 3
Interquartile range 4
Bypurpose of loan
Feeder livestock
Other livestock
Other current operating expenses
Farm machinery and equipment
Farm real estate
Other

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

1,339,746
49,579
12.0

105,329
29,363
8.1

164,542
11,280
10.8

148,709
4,503
• 16.8

160,703
2,550
8.7

177,423
1,242
19.7

583,041
642
6.8

9.54
0.19
8.84- 10.47

10.65
0.06
10.18- 11.17

10.61
0.13
10.07 - 11.04

10.35
0.06
9.92- 11.00

10.14
0.11
9.47 - 10.75

9.72
0.04
9.11 - 10.25

8.61
0.35
7.38 - 9.65

9.79
9.84
10.27
10.37
9.98
8.83

10.40
11.19
10.67
10.67
10.21
10.55

10.21
10.74
10.71
10.40
10.71
10.46

10.18
10.72
10.51
10.18
10.29
10.06

9.80
10.41
10.33
10.03
9.98
9.96

9.52
9.70
9.78
9.42
9.82
9.75

71.5
79.6

61.1
59.2

65.4
64.9

68.0
69.3

71.4
74.6

72.4
71.2

75.7
93.9

10.0
4.8
34.1
2.9
2.5
453

8.0
5.5
64.8
6.3
1.1
14.3

7.1
4.3
60.3
7.7
2.9
17.8

9.2
5.8
50.0
9.3
3.8
21.9

19.0
7.8
48.3
1.6
0.2
23.0

15.3
7.3
35.3
1.0
6.0
35.0

7.3
2.9
12.8
0.3
1.8
74.9

• 820,176
12,927
10.2

25,073
6,609
6.8

42,133
2,825
9.4

47,681
1,425
16.2

55,854
848
8.2

98,106
660
18.5

551,329
561
6.0

8.96
0.33
9.92

10.47
0.06
9.92 - 11.02

10.25
0.06
9.75 - 10.77

10.04
0.10
9.42 - 10.65

9.88
0.06
9.25 - 10.25

9.52
0.07
9.08 - 9.98

8.50
0.35
7.38 - 9.65

9.55
8.85
9.58
10.39
9.68
8.67

9.91
10.63
10.51
10.74
10.54
10.56

9.80
10.11
10.24
10.23
9.86
10.40

9.61
10.08
9.94
10.34
10.01
10.22

9.83
10.15
9.85
10.03
9.98
9.90

9.43
9.75
9.49
9.42
9.65
9.55

9.41
8.27
9.04
12.19
9.61
8.34

82.6
92.9

88.9
85.7

89.5
85.3

93.3
87.8

92.1
89.2

88.0
92.7

79.0
94.6

8.6
3.1
18.6
1.2
2.1
66.4

10.3
2.1
48.6
2.3
0.4
36.2

9.9
3.3
40.1
2.8
1.7
42.1

13.7
2.8
31.8
4.1
3.0
44.7

22.0
3.2
35.8
4.6
0.7
33.8

16.4
3.7
32.4
1.8
4.5
41.2

5.2
3.1
10.2
0.3
1.9
79.2

519,570
36,653
12.7

80,256
22,754
8.3

122,409
8,455
11.0

101,027
3,078
16.9

104,849
1.702
8.8

79,317
583
20.2

31,712
81
9.8

10.46
0.07
10.01 - 10.94

10.71
0.07
10.25 - 11.20

10.73
0.16
10.23 - 11.19

10.50
0.08
10.03 - 11.04

10.28
0.16
9.76 -10.79

9.97
0.12
9.38 - 10.47

10.39
0.31
10.01 - 10.47

10.07
10.51
10.62
10.37
10.31
10.14

10.62
11.25
10.70
10.66
10.18
10.53

10.44
10.90
10.80
10.42
10.86
10.55

10.71
10.84
10.66
10.16
10.38
9.75

9.78
10.45
10.49

9.66
9.68
10.08

10.67

9.94
10.02

10.12

53.9
58.6

52.4
51.0

57.1
57.9

56.0
60.5

60.5
66.9

53.2
44.7

18.7
81.3

12.2
7.4
58.6
5.6
3.0
13.2

7.2
6.6
69.9
7.5
1.3
7.5

6.1
4.6
67.2
9.4
3.3
9.4

7.1
7.2
58.7
11.7
4.2
11.2

17.4
10.2
55.0

14.0
11.8
39.0

43.0

6.0
17.3

27.3

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

9.60
8.27
9.43
12.19
9.61 *
8.34

LARGE FARM L E N D E R S 5
21
22
23

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

24
25
26

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

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

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
OTHER

BANKS5

41
42
43

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

44
45
46

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

47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

7.43 -

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




..
..

10.01

-

57.0
—

NOTES TO TABLE I.H

m

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.




T a b l e I.I
S u r v e y of T e r m s of B a n k L e n d i n g to F a r m e r s , (selected
by U S D A Farm P r o d u c t i o n R e g i o n
NE
P r o p o r t i o n of
farm l o a n s
outstanding.
May 1995
survey
Sample Coverage
May 1995
s u r v e y (%)
A v g . Loan S i z e ,
May 1995
s u r v e v ($1000)
Survey date:

USDA Region

quarters)

LS

CB

NP

3 .0

10 .0

25 .0

17.8

6 .0

5 .0

5 .0

10 . 1

18 .6

5 .5

7 .3

14.9

13 . 2

9 .9

6. 1

8 .6

40 .5

17 .2

30 .8

22.6

Weighted

Average

AP

345 .0

SE

53 .4

DL

SP

27 .6

Interest Rate During

MN

26 .2

7. 2

PA

10 .8

24 .9

71 .7

43 . 2

69 .5

Sample 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
( .5 2)

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
( .5 7)

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)

8 .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.
, 8
(,.41)

,
7 .8
(•.61)

7,.5
(,.41)

6 .5
,
(.. 44)

May

1993

8 .
, 1
(• 24)

8., 7
(. 21)

8 .
, 1
(,.27)

7.9
(.32)

5.
, 2
(..57)

8 .4
,
(..29)

7.. 8
(..43)

8 .3
.
(..48)

7, 7
(•.5 2)

6 .8
.
(..26)

Aug.

1993

8 .
,2
(..35)

7. 5
(. 69)

8 .2
.
(•.18)

8.0
(.33)

5. 7
(.,94)

7 .3
.
(..3 7)

7.
.0
(.• 74)

7 .
.7
(..6 2)

7.
, 1
(. 34)

7.
.2
(..39)

Nov.

1993

8 .
.3
(. 28)

8. 1
(. 19)

.8
7.
(•.22)

7.4
(.50)

5 .3
(1 .73)

.
6 .3
(..07)

8., 2
(.• 12)

7.
,8
(..57)

7 .1
(• 36)

6 ,7
.
(..49)

Feb.

1994

7. 7
(. 32)

8. 6
(. 25)

.9
7.
(.,22)

7.5
(.39)

5. 2
(1. 09)

7.,3
(. 09)

7. 7
(. 3 3 )

7 .6
(. 4 3 )

7. 3
(. 69)

6 ,9
.
(.• 31)

May

1994

8 .7
(. 28)

9. 0
(. 26)

8 .0
(. 17)

8.1
(.23)

6 .1
(. 79)

8 .2
(. 29)

7. 8
(. 60)

8 .4
(. 3 6 )

7. 5
(. 34)

7 .2
(. 26)

Aug.

1994

9 .1
(. 19)

8. 6
(. 41)

8 .3
(. 40)

8.6
(.19)

6. 5
(. 83)

8 .6
(• 11)

7 .6
(• 72)

8 .6
(. 37)

7 .6
(. 35)

7 .5
(. 25)

Nov.

1994

10. 2
(. 38)

9. 7
(. 18)

8 .9
(. 18)

8.5
(.39)

7 .1
(. 39)

8 .5
(. 37)

8. 8
(. 68)

9 .0
(. 17)

8. 0
(. 43)

8. 5
(. 20)

Feb.

1995

11 .7
(. 65)

10. 7
(. 14)

10. 0
(. 14)

9.9
(.16)

8. 6
(. 79)

7 .2
(1 .79)

10. 4
(. 34)

10. 4
(. 21)

9. 4
(. 50)

9 .4
(. 25)

May

1995

9. 0
(. 38)

10. 4
(. 29)

9. 3
(. 4 5 )

9.4
(.42)

8. 5
(. 93)

10. 2
(. 31)

10. 7
(. 74)

10 .1
(. 18)

9. 3
(. 23)

9 .3
(. 34)

Aug.

1995

9. 6
10. 3
9. 3
9.8
8. 1
9. 6
10. 4
10. 1
9. 4
9 .5
(. 21)
46)
(. 31)
f ,35)
(. 22)
M 6 )
f. 90)
ft 10)
f . 39)
f .29)
LS is L a k e S t a t e s , CB is C o r n b e l t , NP is N o r t h e r n P l a i n s , AP is A p p a l a c h i a ,
SE is S o u t h e a s t , DL is D e l t a S t a t e s , SP is S o u t h e r n P l a i n s , M N is M o u n t a i n S t a t e s , and PA is
Pac if ic.

(,

S t a n d a r d e r r o r s a r e in p a r e n t h e s e s b e l o w each e s t i m a t e .
Standard errors are
r e p l i c a t i o n s of a b o o t s t r a p p r o c e d u r e ( r e s a m p l i n g of b a n k s ) in each r e g i o n .




calculated

from

100

e

#

e

SECTION II:

#

e

e

e

e

•

•

#

SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

TABLES:

Page

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

Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated

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

19
20
21
22
23

Agricultural banks:
II.F
II.G
II.H
II. I

Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans
Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity
Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks
Failures of agricultural banks

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 non-real- estate farm loans for the nation as a
whole (table II.B and table II.C) are estimated from reports of banks that hold more than 90 percent of total
non-real-estate farm loans. The incomplete coverage arises because banks with less than $300 million in
assets have been excused from some reporting requirements. First, these smaller banks report delinquencies
and chargeoffs of "agricultural loans" according to the particular bank's own definition, which may include
loans that are secured by farm real estate. Furthermore, small banks that hold less than 5 percent of total
loans as farm production loans are not required to report any information regarding delinquencies or chargeoffs of "agricultural loans." In constructing the data presented in the tables, banks that are not required
to report these data are assumed to have the same delinquency rates as those that do report. Recently, banks
began to report delinquencies of loans that are secured by farm real estate. These data, which are shown in
tables II.D and II.E, are reported by all banks, regardless of the size of the institution or the relative
amounts of farm loans that they hold. Because "agricultural loans" and loans secured by farm real estate may
overlap for some small banks, it is unclear whether it is proper to add the data in table II.B to its
counterpart in table II.D to obtain total agricultural delinquencies. A similar caveat applies to the data
concerning charge-offs in tables II.C and II.E.
Examination of total lending at banks that have a high exposure to agricultural loans provides an alternative
perspective on the agricultural lending situation. Agricultural banks in table II.D through table II.I are
those that have a proportion of farm loans (real estate plus nonreal estate) to total loans that is greater
than the unweighted average at all banks. The estimate of this average was 17.1 percent in June of 1995.
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: During the second quarter of 1995, the volume of non-real-estate farm loans rose about
8-1/4 percent. This increase was roughly in line with the seasonal increases that have been seen in the
spring in recent years. The yearly change in this series was 2 percent, considerably below the substantial
increases seen in the first half of 1994. The volume of farm real estate debt that was held by commercial
banks at the end of the first quarter of 1995 was 7-1/2 percent greater than one year earlier--more or less
the average rate of growth seen since the mid 1980s.
Problem loans: At the end of June 1995, delinquent farm non-real-estate loans amounted to $0.9 billion, about
2-1/3 percent of such loans outstanding. Through the first half of 1995, commercial banks charged off, on
net, $12 million of farm production loans. The volume of delinquent farm real estate loans outstanding at
mid year was unchanged from one year earlier. On June 30, 1995, fewer than 1 of five agricultural banks
reported a level of nonperforming loans that was greater than 2 percent of total loans, slightly better than
the end of June 1994.
Performance of agricultural banks: Through the first half, profits at agricultural banks were about in line
with those of the last several years. The average capital ratio for both agricultural banks and other small
banks, though already high when compared to the average over the past decade, edged up further in the second
quarter. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks increased in all Federal Reserve districts in
the second quarter. For all agricultural banks, the ratio of loans to deposits was 65.5 percent on June 30,
the highest level since the late 1970s, when the liquidity of many agricultural banks was a concern.
Failures of agricultural banks: No agricultural banks failed in the first three quarters of 1995. Given the
strong capital positions of most agricultural banks and their low levels of problem loans, the number of
failures seems likely to remain quite low in coming quarters.




•

•

#

e

•

#

#

e

TABLE II.A
FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER
LOAN VOLUME,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS QUARTER

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR
TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

1987 Q3...
04...

1
I

44.8
43.5

14.1
14.5

30.6
29.0

1
1

1.2
-2.8

2.1
2.4

0.7
-5.2

1
1

-2.8
-0.9

13.7
13.9

-8.9
-6.9

|
|

1988 Ql...
02...
03...
04. ..

1
1
1
1

42.8
45.4
46.1
45.2

14.7
15.2
15.3
15.4

28.1
30.3
30.8
29.8

1
1
I
1

-1.5
6.0
1.5
-1.9

1.9
3.0
1.2
0.5

-3.2
7.6
1.7
-3.1

I
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

|
|
|
|

1989 Ql...
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

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

|
|
|
|

1990 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

46.1
49.0
50.5
50.1

16.8
17.1
17.3
17.2

29.3
31.9
33.2
32.9

1
1
1
1

-2.8
6.4
3.1
-0.8

0.7
2.2
1.1
-0.6

-4.7
8.7
4.1
-0.9

1
1
1
1

4.3
4.3
5.3
5.7

5.9
5.1
5.0
3.5

3.4
3.9
5.5
6.9

|
|
|
|

1991 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

49.5
52.6
53.9
53.0

17.5
18.1
18.3
18.4

32.0
34.5
35.6
34.6

1
1
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

1
1
1
1

7.4
7.2
6.6
5.7

4.3
5.5
5.8
7.0

9.1
8.1
7.1
5.1

|
|
|
|

1992 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

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

|
|
|
|

1993 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

52.8
56.0
58.0
57.7

20.0
20.6
20.8
20.9

32.8
35.4
37.1
36.8

1
1
1
1

-3.2
6.0
3.5
-0.5

0.5
3.1
1.2
0.1

-5.3
7.8
4.9
-0.8

1
1
1
1

1.7
1.6
3.2
5.8

5.6
5.4
4.7
5.0

-0.5
-0.6
2.4
6.2

|
|
|
|

1994 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

56.8
61.1
63.0
61.3

21.2
21.9
22.4
22.6

35.5
39.2
40.6
38.7

1
1
1
1

-1.5
7.6
3.1
-2.7

1.8
3.2
2.2
0.7

-3.4
10.2
3.6
-4.6

1
1
1
1

7.6
9.1
8.7
6.2

6.4
6.4
7.5
8.2

8.3
10.7
9.3
5.2

|
|
|
|

1995 Ql...
02...

1
1

59.9
63.5

22.9
23.6

36.9
40.0

1
1

-2.3
6.1

1.6
2.7

—4.6
8.2

1
1

5.4
4.0

8.0
7.5

3.9
2.0

|
|




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

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

TOTAL

9 .4
6 .5
4 .5
3 .7
3 .1
3 .2
2 .8
2 .2
2 .0

2.4
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.9

7..0
4..8
3..3
2..3
1..9
1..9
1..8
1..4
1..1

NONACCRUAL

MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE

1..1
0..7
0.,5
0..5
0..3
0..3
0,.3
0..2
0..2

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

1 .4
1 .7
1 .6
1 .4
1 .1
0 .9
0 .7
0 .5
0 .4

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

December 31 of year indicated
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2 .9
1 .9
1 .4
1 .1
1 .0
1 .1
1 .0
0 .8
0..8

0..8
0..5
0..4
0..4
0..4
0..4
0..3
0..3
0..3

2,.2
1,.4
1..0
0,.7
0..6
0..7
0..6
0..5
0..4

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

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

0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

End of quarter

1.2
1.1
1.0

0.4
0.4
0.3

0.8
0.7
0.6

0.2
0.2
0.1

0.6
0.6
0.5

0.3
0.2
0.2

3.3
3.0
2.8

1.1
1.1
1.0

2.2
1.9
1.8

0.5
0.4
0.3

1.7
1.5
1.5

0.7
0.7
0.7

1.3
1.0
0.8
0.8

0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.6

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

3.9
2.7
2.3
2.2

1.6

0.5
0.5
0.4

0.8
0.7

0.8

2.3
1.9
1.6
1.4

0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2

1.7
1.5
1.3
1.2

0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5

1.1
0.9

0.8
0.8

0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

3.1
2.2
1.9
2.0

1.5
0.7
0.6
0.9

1.6
1.5
1.3
1.1

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2

1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

1.1
0.9

0.6
0.4

0.5
0.5

0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4

0.0

2.9
2.3

1.6
0.9

1.4
1.3

0.4
0.4

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

Data are estimates of the national totals for farm non-real-estate loans. After 1984, estimates are based on reports from banks that hold more than 90
percent of such loans. Earlier, only large banks that held about one-fourth of such loans reported nonaccrual and renegotiated farm loans; for other banks,
estimates of delinquent farm loans are based on a study of delinquent total loans at these banks.




TABLE II.C
ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*

1988
1989
199 0
199 1
199 2
1993
1994
199 5

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

TOTAL

01

Q2

Q3

Q4

128
91
51
105
82
54
69
**

28
10
-5
12
14
7
10
-2

39
26
19
25
20
16
11
14

24
15
10
36
29
5
15
**

37
40
28
32
18
26
33
**

TOTAL

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|

0.46
0.27
0.20
0.32
0.24
0.15
0.19
**

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

0.10
0.03
-0.02
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
-0.00

0.14
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.04

0.10
0.05
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.01
0.04
**

0.12
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.07
0.08
**

* Data are estimates of the national charge-offs of farm non-real-estate loans based on reports from banks that hold more than
90 percent of the outstanding national volume of such loans. Additional uncertainty of the estimates arises because small
banks report only charge-offs of 'agricultural' loans as defined by each bank for its internal purposes. Banks first reported
these data on the March 1984 Report of Income.




22

TABLE II.D
DELINQUENT FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING
FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
NONPERFORMING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONPERFORMING

NONACCRUAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

2..1
1..8
1..5

1.,0
0..8
0..7
0.,7

1..6
1..3
1..1
0..8

0..4
0..3
0..2
0..2

1.,2
1..0
0.,8
0..6

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

December 31 of year indicated1991
1992
1993
1994

1
1
1
1

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

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

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

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

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

1
1
1
1

2. .6

End of quarter1992 Q2.
03.
04.

0.5
0.4
0.4

0.1
0.1
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.2
0.2

2.4
2.1
2.1

0.5
0.4
0.3

1.7
1.5
1.3

0.5
0.4
0.3

1.2
1.2
1.0

1993 Ql.

0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

2.5
2.0
1.8

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.7

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.1

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

2.1

0.1

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

1.5
1.5

1.0
0.6
0.5
0.7

1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8

0.4
0.4
0.3

0.2

0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.1

0.2
0.2

0.1

1.9
1.5

0.9
0.6

1.0
0.9

0.3
0.3

0.6
0.6

02.
03.
04.
1994 Ql.

02.

03.
04.
1995 Ql.

02.

0.1
0.1

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




0.1

1.8

1.6

TABLE II. E
NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*

ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUAL
TOTAL

1992 .
1993 .
1994 ,
1995.




20
6
-1
* *

CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

4
0
-1
-0

7
1
-1
-0

4
2
0

6
3
1

ANNUAL
TOTAL

1
1
1
1

0.11
0.03
-0.00

Q1

0 .019
0,.002
-0,.004
-0,,001

Q2

0,• 033
0,,003
-0..004
-0,,001

03

Q4

0,.022
0,.008
0,.002

0. 029
0. 015
0. 003
**

I
I
I
1

began to report these data in 1991.

23

TABLE II.F
DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS BY THE SHARE OF THEIR LOANS THAT ARE NONPERFORMING*

NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS

TOTAL

UNDER
2.0

2.0
TO
4.9

5.0
TO
9.9

10.0
TO
14.9

15.0
TO
19.9

20.0
AND
OVER

Percentage distribution, December 31 of year indicated
1 9 8 6

1

1 0 0

. 0

3 9 . 6

3 2 . ,2

1 9 .7

5,.5

1,.9

1 . 0

|

1 9 8 7

1

1 0 0

.0

5 0 . 3

3 0 . .6

14 . 4

3,.3

0,.9

0 . 3

|

1 9 8 8

1

1 0 0

.0

5 9 . 0

2 8 . .9

9 .7

1,.9

0,.4

0 . 2

|

1 9 8 9

1

1 0 0

.0

6 5 . 8

2 5 . ,1

7 . 6

1,.2

0,.2

0 . 1

|

1 9 9 0

1

1 0 0

.0

6 9 . 6

2 2 . ,7

6 . 4

1,.0

0,

.2

0 . 0

|

1 9 9 1

1

1 0 0

.0

7 0

. 8

2 2 . ,3

5 . 8

0,.7

0 .3

0 . 1

|

1 9 9 2

1

1 0 0 , .0

7 6

. 2

1 8 . ,9

3 . 9

0,.8

0 .1

0 . 0

|

1 9 9 3

1

1 0 0 , .0

8 0

. 6

1 5 . ,9

2 . 8

0,.6

0 .1

0 . 0

|

1 9 9 4

1

1 0 0 , .0

8 5

. 5

1 2 . .3

1 . 9

0,.2

0 .1

0 . 0

|

trtdJ-VcHLayc
1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

i o •" v i

Ki l •-

I
'

i
snd
of

/-<n i —t v» f- z-\ v*

0 1 . . .

1

1 0 0 , .0

7 1

. 8

2 1 . ,8

5 . 3

0,.9

0,.2

0 . 0

|

0 2 . . .

I

1 0 0 , ,0

7 4

. 5

2 0 . ,3

4 . 4

0,.6

0,.1

0 . 1

|

0 3 . . .

I

1 0 0 . ,0

7 6

. 6

1 9 . ,1

3 . 6

1 0 0 . .0

8 0

. 6

1 5 . ,9

2 . 8

0,. 1
0,. 1

|

1

0,. 6
0,. 6

0 . 0

0 4 . . .

0 . 0

|

oi...

1

1 0 0 . ,0

7 9

. 2

1 6 . ,8

3 . 3

0..5

|

1

1 0 0 . .0

8 1 . 1

1 6 . ,0

2 . 4

0 . 0

|

0 3 . . .

1

1 0 0 . ,0

8 3

. 6

1 3 , ,6

2 . 4

0 . 0

|

0 4 . . .

1

1 0 0 . ,0

8 5 . 5

1 2 . ,3

1 . 9

0,. 4
0., 3
0., 2

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

0 . 0

0 2 . . .

0 . 0

|

0., 2
0., 2

0,. 1
0.. 1

0 . 1

|

0 . 1

|

oi...

1

1 0 0 . .0

8 1

.7

1 5 . ,3

2 . 7

0 2 . . .

1

1 0 0 . .0

8 2

. 1

1 5 . ,0

2 . 5

Renegotiated or restructured loans
* Nonperforming loans are loans in nonaccrual status or past due 90 days or more.
in compliance with the modified terms are not included. Agricultural banks are defined in the introduction to
section II.




TABLE II.0

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
25
TO AND
24 OVER

RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS

NET CHAROE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS

AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

11.0
8.0
6.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
11.0
10.8
10.9
12.6
12.4
11.9

12.0
12.0
11.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
8.5
8.9
11.5
12.4
12.4

1.0
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2

0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.1

0.9
1.2
2.1
2.3
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2

0.7
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.3

9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
10
10

4
5
6
5
8
9
1
9
1
4
8
7

8.4
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.8
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.9

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

•percentage distribution1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

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

7.0
13.0
18.0
19.0
13.0
9.0
5.0
4.9
4.1
1.9
1.5
1.5

7.0
9.0
11.0
14.0
13.0
9.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
5.0
5.7
5.7

18.,0
23 .0
22,,0
27,.0
31,0
30.0
29.0
33.4
32,2
25.5
27.8
31.3

36.0
36.0
33.0
28.0
31.0
36.0
38.0
37.6
39.2
41.1
40.6
40.2

24.,0
15.,0
13.,0
9.,0
9.,0
12.0
14.0
12.9
13.4
19.8
18.5
17.1

7,.0
3 .0
3 ,0
2,.0
2,,0
3 ,0
4 ,0
2.6
2.,5
5.1
4 6
3 3

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

0
0
0
0
o
0
0
1

9

7
3
9

I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
QUARTERLY

YEAR TO DATE
1993 Q2...
Q3. ..
04...

|
|
|

100.0
100.0
100.0

6.8
9.7
12.4

0,,7
1,,0
1,,2

0.6
0.9
1.1

0.1
0.1
0.2

0.2
0.3
0.4

10.9
11.0
10.8

10.0
10.0
10.0

1994 Ql...
02...
Q3...
Q4...

|
|
|
|

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3.1
6.3
9.4
12.4

0,3
0,6
0,9
1,2

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1

0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3

11.0
11.0
11.1
10.7

10.1
10.1
10.1
9.9

1995 Ql...
Q2...

|
|

3.1
6.1

0,3
0.6

0.3
0.6

0.0
0.1

0.1
0.1

11.1
11.3

10.3
10.4

* Agricultural end other bank# are defined in the introduction to section II; small banks have less than 500 million dollars in assets
Total primary and secondary capital (items that are available at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets.
Quarterly data in the lower panel are cumulative through the end of the quarter indicated and, for periods of less than a year, are not comparable to
the annual data in the upper panel.




25

26

TABLE II.H
AVERAGE L/DAN-DEPOSIT RATIOS AT AGRICULTURAL BANKS IN SELECTED FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS*
DECEMBER 31

U.S.
NUMBER
0F

BANKS

CLEVELAND

ATLANTA

CHICAGO

ST. LOUIS

MINNEAPOLIS

KANSAS
CITY

DALLAS

SAN
FRANCISCO

MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO

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

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

4068
3955
3854
3723
3550

0 .548
0..551
0,.555
0,.582
0,.625

77
71
75
67
56

0,.649
0,.642
0,.643
0,.660
0,.707

135
133
131
130
125

0 .595
0 .609
0 .607
0..618
0 .646

1009
969
948
912
860

0..563
0,.572
0,.574
0..600
0..643

477
470
456
432
402

0..566
0..567
0..563
0..590
0..629

743
725
694
669
658

0..559
0..569
0..579
0..615
0..674

1171
1135
1092
1063
1014

0..511
0..522
0..533
0,.566
0..618

385
378
384
378
366

0..460
0..438
0..422
0,.442
0..474

57
60
61
58
53

0,.699
0 .711
0 .708
0 .733
0,.747

15,.92
16 .56
16,.72
17 .04
16 .99

1993 Q2. ..
Q3. ..
Q4. ..

3820
3794
3723

0.,581
0..597
0..582

74
73
67

0..677
0..673
0..660

144
144
130

0..633
0..654
0,.618

925
925
912

0..594
0..609
0.,600

458
459
432

0..593
0..618
0..590

678
676
669

0..621
0..640
0..615

1076
1067
1063

0..556
0..564
0..566

389
377
378

0..439
0..463
0..442

57
59
58

0,.765
0,.756
0,.733

16 .97
17 .27
17 .04

1994 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

..
..
..
..

3705
3689
3640
3550

0..586
0.,621
0.,643
0.,625

66
64
61
56

0..670
0,.704
0.,701
0.,707

132
138
131
125

0..620
0..652
0..669
0..646

894
886
889
860

0.,606
0. 634
0. 658
0. 643

421
431
432
402

0..590
0..626
0.,657
0.,629

672
668
664
658

0.,622
0.,677
0.,702
0.,674

1057
1046
1023
1014

0..570
0.,601
0..618
0.,618

387
379
367
366

0.453
0..476
0.503
0.,474

58
59
56
53

0..749
0..764
0..768
0..747

16 .88
17,.42
17,.55
16,.99

1995 Ql...
Q2. ..

3484
3488

0.,634
0.,655

56
55

0.,718
0.,730

129
136

0.,653
0.,668

847
844

0.650
0.664

389
397

0. 634
0. 665

638
639

0.684
0.714

993
984

0.,622
0. 637

364
361

0.491
0.518

50
52

0..768
0..791

16,.75
17..12

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

1987..,, . .
1988..., . .
1989..., . .
1990 . , ,
..
1991. . . .,.
1992. , , . .
1993 . . ,. .
1994..,, . .
1995..., . .

01

02

03

04

ANNUAL
TOTAL

22
11
5
3
2
1
1
0
0

19
6
7
5
2
1
2
0
0

12
12
5
6
3
1
2
0
0

16
7
5
3
1
4
0
0

69
36
22
17
8
7
5
0

* *

* *

* 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.

28
SECTION III:

F E D E R A L R E S E R V E BANK Q U A R T E R L Y S U R V E Y S OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS A N D F A R M LAND V A L U E S

TABLES:
III.A
III.B
III.C
III.D
III.E

Page
Nonreal estate lending experience
Expected change in non- real - estate loan volume and repayment conditions
A v e r a g e loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availability
Interest rates
Trends in real estate values and loan volume

30
32
34
36
38

SOURCES OF DATA:
Data are from quarterly surveys of a g r i c u l t u r a l credit conditions at commercial banks.
These s u r v e y s are
conducted at the end of each quarter by five Federal Reserve Banks.
The size of the surveys d i f f e r s
considerably, as is noted in the information b e l o w .
In addition, the five surveys differ in subject m a t t e r
covered (as is evident in the tables), w o r d i n g of basically similar questions, and type of b a n k s c o v e r e d .
Most of the d i f f e r e n c e s 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 w i t h asterisks.
Beginning in 1994, the Minneapolis Federal R e s e r v e Bank revised its survey considerably.
Many q u e s t i o n s were
changed and it w a s not always possible to m a t c h the data to the categories that we have shown in p r e v i o u s
editions of the D a t a b o o k .
Whenever possible, w e h a v e tried to fit the data from the revised survey into the
older format.
Series that w e r e discontinued show no data for the first quarter, w h i l e those that w e r e added
suddenly appear.
W h e n a significant b r e a k in the data occurred, we included the new data and added a footnote
to highlight the changes.
Research d e p a r t m e n t s at each of the five R e s e r v e Banks issue more detailed
results; these reports are available at the a d d r e s s e s given below.

quarterly reports on their survey

Federal Reserve B a n k of Chicago. Box 834, Chicago, Illinois, 60690
The sample includes m e m b e r banks at w h i c h farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total loans as of
June 1972 (a 10 percent standard is used for b a n k s in the state of M i c h i g a n ) .
The sample has u n d e r g o n e
periodic review.
The latest survey results w e r e based on the responses of about 450 banks.
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Federal R e s e r v e P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198
The sample chosen originally in 1976 consisted of 181 banks selected from banks at which farm loans
constituted 50 percent or more of total loans, w i t h appropriate representation of all farm areas.
T h e sample
w a s redrawn and significantly expanded in 1987; m o r e than 300 banks responded to the latest survey.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. M i n n e a p o l i s , Minnesota
55480
Before 1987, the sample provided a cross - section of banks of all sizes that were engaged in farm lending.
M e m b e r s of the Upper Midwest Agricultural Credit Council formed the core of the survey panel.
B e g i n n i n g in
1987, the sample was redrawn to include only b a n k s at which farm loans represented 25 percent or m o r e of total
loans.
As outlined above, the Minneapolis survey w a s changed considerably beginning in the first quarter of
1994.
In recent surveys, about 130 banks r e s p o n d e d .


http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
#
e
Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis

e

#

e

#

#

e

•

•

#

#

#

Section III:

#

#

#

#

#

#

*

#

#

(continued)

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. P.O. Box 655906, Dallas. Texas 75265-5906
The sample is stratified regionally and includes banks at w h i c h 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 w e r e based on the
responses from about 200 respondents.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Richmond, Virginia 23261
The number of agricultural banks in this district is much smaller than those of the other d i s t r i c t s .
When
the survey was initiated in 1975. the sample consisted of 43 banks of all sizes; banks w i t h larger amounts of
farm loans w e r e sampled more heavily.
More recently. the sample has consisted of about 30 b a n k s . roughly
three-fourths of w h i c h typically respond to the quarterly surveys.
RECENT D E V E L O P M E N T S :
Bankers responding to the surveys indicated that the demand for farm loans remained fairly steady in the
second quarter of 1995.
The availability of funds, which may have tightened a bit in the first quarter,
appears to have remained about the same in the second quarter.
Compared w i t h one year earlier, the rate of
loan repayment was about the same in the Chicago and Richmond districts, w h i l e it was lower in the other
districts.
The districts that reported poorer rates of loan repayment also reported a pickup in renewals or
extensions.
Consistent with the data from the Call reports shown in the previous section, the ratio of loans to d e p o s i t s
was w e l l above y e a r - e a r l i e r levels at banks in all the districts that report.
Furthermore, the p r o p o r t i o n of
banks that characterized their ratio of loans to deposits as higher than desired grew as w e l l .
Several b a n k s
in the Kansas City and M i n n e a p o l i s districts reported turning down a loan b e c a u s e of a shortage of l o a n a b l e
funds, although the level of this indicator remained quite low in both districts.
Rates of interest on farm loans edged down in general in all districts in the second quarter of 1995.
As
noted in section I of the Databook. rates on agricultural loans probably began to move down in the last few
months.
However, the timing of these surveys varies across districts, and the average speed at w h i c h b a n k s
pass along changes in costs of funds may vary across districts as well.
Prices for agricultural land have been mixed through mid 1995.
The rate of increase in prices from one year
earlier slowed for all land in the Chicago and Minneapolis districts.
The rate of increase in prices for
ranchland slowed in the Kansas City and Minneapolis districts, perhaps reflecting poorer returns for
cattlemen, yet prices for ranchland in the Dallas district surged.




29

30
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.A
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
DEMAND FOR LOANS
LOWER
III.A1

SAME

FUND AVAILABILITY
LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1993 02...
03...
04...

1
1
1

24
20
15

49
50
44

27
30
40

1
1
1

5
10
6

61
59
62

34
31
32

1
1
1

18
21
29

68
67
46

13
11
25

1
I
1

13
13
21

65
64
49

22
23
30

1
1
I

0
1
1

85
84
87

15
15
12

1994 Ql...
Q2...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

12
10
13
21

41
41
42
46

47
49
45
33

1
I
I
1

9
13
22
18

61
67
60
63

30
20
18
19

1
I
I
1

28
20
20
18

50
69
66
53

22
11
14
29

1
1
1
1

18
10
13
24

50
65
68
60

32
25
19
17

1
1
1
1

0
0
1
1

86
89
88
90

14
11
11
9

1995 Ql...
02...

1
1

15
13

49
50

37
37

I
1

20
14

64
67

16
18

1
1

19
16

64
76

17
9

1
1

17
13

63
71

20
16

1
1

1
0

87
89

12
10

III.A3

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

1993 02...
03...
04...

14
16
14

58
57
56

28
26
30

1
1
1

11
17
12

62
61
68

27
22
20

1
1
1

7
12
20

82
80
71

11
8
10

1
1
1

11
7
10

82
81
74

7
12
16

1
1
I

1
0
1

88
89
91

11
11
9

1994 oi...
02...
03...
Q4...

9
10
10
9

59
53
49
56

32
37
41
35

1
1
I
1

10
19
28
26

72
67
62
65

18
13
9
9

1
1
1
1

16
16
18
25

76
78
74
65

8
6
8
10

1
I
I
I

7
5
8
10

78
84
77
69

15
12
15
21

1
I
I
1

1
0
0
0

89
92
90
89

10
8
9
11

1995 Ql...
02...

10
11

51
58

39
32

I
1

21
18

69
69

10
14

I
1

28
32

67
67

5
1

1
1

6
2

69
70

25
27

1
1

0
0

87
88

13
12

III.A3

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

1993 02...
03...
04...

1
1
1

20
18
8

58
54
62

22
28
30

1
1
1

4
4
3

59
65
70

38
31
27

I
1
1

6
10
12

75
77
70

18
13
18

1
1
1

16
14
24

78
76
63

6
11
14

I
1
1

0
1
0

85
82
86

15
17
14

1994 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

I
I
1
1

11
22
16
13

62
56
49
54

26
21
35
33

1
1
1
1

3
3
10
7

78
79
72
71

19
18
18
22

1
1
I
1

9
14
13
16

78
75
76
72

13
11
12
12

1
1
1
1

17
12
10
13

76
77
75
68

7
11
16
20

1
1
1
1

1
1
2
0

86
91
88
88

13
8
10
11

1995 Ql. . .
02...

1
1

13
12

53
50

34
38

1
1

8
8

78
79

14
14

I
1

20
21

72
74

7
5

1
1

11
9

67
70

22
21

1
1

1
0

83
81

16
19




e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.A (CONTINUED)
FARM NONRBAL ESTATE LENDING EXPERIENCE COMPARED WITH NORMAL CONDITIONS
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
DEMAND FOR LOANS
LOWER
III.A4

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS
LOWER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1993 Q2...
Q3. . .
04...

1
1
1

9
9
3

1994 01...
02...
Q3. ..
Q4...

|
|

***
***

1995 Ql...
02...
III.AS

SAME

FUND AVAILABILITY

12
16
18

|
|
|

***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

1
1
1
1

11
16
29
17

***
***

***
***

1
1

21
20

79
75
79

***
***

1
1
1

20
44
49

78
54
45

2
2
6

8
7
8

77
73
52

15
20
40

i
|
•

***
***
***

***
***

***
***
*•*

61
64
54
66

28
19
17
17

1
1
1
1

30
25
28
36

59
71
62
47

10
5
9
17

7
10
10
11

63
71
74
64

30
20
16
25

I
1
1
1

1
1
0
0

83
86
93
86

16
13
7
14

66
62

13
18

1
1

43
45

51
53

6
2

10
7

55
63

35
30

1
1

0
1

81
74

19
25

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

1993 Q2...
03...
Q4...

1
1
I

9
23
30

83
73
57

9
5
13

1
1
1

0
0
0

70
73
74

30
27
26

1
1
1

5
14
30

91
86
65

5
0
4

18
5
5

77
86
64

5
10
32

0
0
0

87
86
70

13
14
30

1994 Ql...
02...
Q3...
04...

1
1
1
1

4
5
13
19

72
76
79
71

24
19
8
10

1
1
1
1

4
0
0
0

64
67
75
76

32
33
25
24

1
1
1
1

20
10
4
10

64
90
88
81

4
0
8
10

0
0
17
14

76
86
79
76

24
14
4
10

0
0
0
0

88
80
83
76

13
20
17
24

1995 Ql. . .
02...

1
1

20
20

66
76

12
4

1
1

16
12

72
72

12
16

1
1

12
12

84
88

4
0

12
4

84
88

4
8

4
4

80
84

16
12




31

32
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B
FARM NONREAL ESTATE LOAN VOLUME EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER, COMPARED WITH VOLUME OF LOANS MADE A YEAR EARLIER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
TOTAL
LOWER SAME
III.B1

FEEDER CATTLE
HIGHER

LOWER SAME

DAIRY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

CROP STORAGE
HIGHER

LOWER SAME

OPERATING

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

FARM MACHINERY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

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

1993 02...
Q3...
Q4 • • •

1
1
1

18
13
10

58
56
43

23
31
47

22
18
19

69
68
72

9
14
8

|
|
|

16
17
16

77
78
75

6
5
8

|
|
|

24
18
28

67
59
59

9
23
13

1
1
I

14
12
7

51
53
36

35
35
57

1
I
1

33
30
21

47
47
43

20
23
36

1994 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

11
13
23
18

42
55
48
52

48
32
29
30

22
48
44
31

72
50
50
62

6
2
5
7

|
I
|
I

16
24
20
21

74
70
74
74

10
6
6
5

|
|
|
|

28
19
12
19

64
67
45
58

8
14
43
23

1
1
1
1

7
8
21
12

38
50
49
46

55
42
29
42

1
1
1
1

15
25
17
16

48
54
50
54

36
21
34
30

1995 01...
02...

1
1

14
14

53
60

33
26

32
38

62
58

6
3

|
|

19
21

71
74

10
5

|
|

19
26

68
65

13
9

1
1

13
11

42
53

46
36

1
1

15
22

53
61

33
17

III ,B2

ELEVENTH (DALLAS

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

1993 02...
03...
Q4...

1
1
1

13
13
7

63
59
62

24
28
31

10
13
11

75
63
69

16
24
19

|
|
|

7
11
12

85
82
79

8
7
9

|
I
I

11
11
9

76
82
81

13
7
10

1
1
1

10
10
7

65
65
61

25
25
31

1
1
1

13
12
10

69
67
62

18
21
28

1994 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

7
18
10
6

75
67
62
63

18
15
28
31

14
38
28
18

74
51
55
68

12
10
17
13

|
|
|
|

13
16
9
13

77
80
88
81

9
4
3
6

I
I
|
|

17
15
8
11

79
72
74
84

5
13
17
6

1
1
1
1

7
5
10
5

65
63
63
60

28
32
28
36

1
1
1
1

8
15
15
12

74
69
66
69

18
16
19
19

1995 01...
02...

1
1

15
16

65
54

21
30

22
33

63
55

15
12

|
|

13
20

83
78

3
3

|
|

12
11

86
79

3
10

1
1

12
8

55
58

34
33

1
1

12
15

67
69

21
16

III ,B3

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC

sc, VA, WV*)

1993 02...
03...
04...

0
10
11

96
80
74

4
10
16

1
1
1

10
11
11

85
84
78

5
5
11

1
1
1

5
17
18

95
78
82

0
6
0

1
1
I

9
23
30

82
55
70

9
23
0

1
1
I

13
9
4

78
64
70

9
27
26

1
1
1

13
27
18

83
59
64

4
14
18

1994 01. ..
02...
03...
04...

14
5
18
11

59
65
68
72

27
30
14
17

1
1
1
1

5
16
15
13

90
74
70
81

5
11
15
6

1
1
1
1

11
18
11
7

89
82
84
87

0
0
5
7

1
1
I
I

14
10
9
5

82
86
77
95

5
5
14
0

1
1
1
I

13
10
17
5

57
62
71
71

30
29
13
24

1
1
1
1

23
10
13
0

59
67
67
81

18
24
21
19

1995 01...
02...

17
8

67
79

17
13

1
I

25
20

70
80

5
0

1
1

14
21

76
79

10
0

1
1

14
14

77
86

9
0

1
1

12
4

72
88

16
8

1
1

8
4

71
84

21
12




FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B (CONTINUED)
EXPECTED DEMAND POR PARM LOANS DURING NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED WITH NORMAL DEMAND
(PERCENTAGE OP BANKS REPORTING)
SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS

LOWER

LOWER

III.B4

SAME

HIGHER

SAME

DEBT EXTENSION
OR REFINANCING

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1990 Q4. . .

1

8

69

23

1

9

81

10

1

11

68

20

|

1991 01...
02...
Q3...
Q4...

1
1
1
1

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

|
|
|
|

1992 Ql. ..
02...
03...
Q4...

1
1
1
1

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

|
|
|
|

1993 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

5
3
7
3

84
81
62
69

11
16
32
28

1
1
1
1

8
13
15
7

85
82
71
75

7
6
14
18

1
1
1
1

3
6
6
6

84
78
55
56

13
17
39
38

|
|
|
|

FEEDER LIVESTOCK
LOWER SAME

OTHER INTERMEDIATE

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

FARM REAL ESTATE

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

OTHER OPERATING

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

FARM MACHINERY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

1994 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

33
39
31
31

63
57
55
61

8
4
14
7

1
1
1
1

11
15
21
13

71
71
69
77

17
13
10
10

1
1
1
1

24
27
25
33

58
56
61
55

18
17
14
12

1
1
1
1

3
11
11
3

65
63
66
66

33
26
23
31

1
1
1
1

18
20
22
24

60
65
62
61

21
15
16
15

01...

1
1

28
47

68
49

4
4

1
1

15
27

75
58

10
16

1
1

30
44

60
48

10
8

1
1

5
5

58
59

37
36

1
1

29
45

58
49

13
7

1995

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 .CI

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
LOWER
AT
DESIRED
THAN
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

..

i

60

1

65

25

10

1

1994 01.
Q2.
03.
04.

..
..

1
1
1
1

60
62
65
64

I
1
1
1

66
55
50
50

24
33
30
32

10
12
20
18

1
1
|
|
|
|

1
1
III .C2

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

NONBANK AGENCIES

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

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

1993 04.

1995 01.
02.

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO

ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

65
66

1
1

49
48

34
35

17
17

***

|

***

***

***

• **

1

***

***

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

1
1
1
1

**

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***
• **
***
***

1
|
1
1

***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***

*•*
***

***
• **

***

***
***

|
1

***

1
1

***
***
***

***

***
***
***
***
***

• **
***
• **
***

***
***

***
***

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

1993 04. ..

1

56

1

73

7

15

|

2

72

1

77

12

83

5

1

69

13

78

9

1994 01.
02. •
03. #
04.

1
1
1
1

56
59
61
60

1
1
1
1

73
69
59
61

9
8
10
7

17
23
26
30

|
|
|
|

2
1
3
4

76
76
70
72

1
1
1
1

75
77
74
75

10
11
11
12

84
82
81
81

6
7
9
7

1
I
I
1

64
68
70
67

11
10
11
9

76
78
77
77

13
12
12
14

1
1

61
62

1
1

61
59

7
7

29
25

|
|

5
5

70
65

1
1

76
78

9
11

85
84

6
5

I
1

68
70

8
9

79
81

13
10

***

12

84

4

1

11

85

4

***
* *

11
13
12
13

83
84
82
80

6
3
6
7

1
j
1
1

***
**
* *

10
10
10
13

83
86
83
84

7
4
7
4

9
14

85
80

5
6

1
|

***

11
18

84
76

5
6

*
*

1995 01.
02.

III • C3
1993 04.

..

1994 01.
02.
03. #
04.

..

1995 01.
02.

#

..

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

1

45

|

***

***

|

1

***

1

1
1
1
1

45
44
47
44

1
1
1
1

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

j
j
j
1

1
1
1

***
***
***
***

1
1
1
1

1
1

45
47

|
1

***
***

***
***

1
1

1
1

***
***

1
1




e

e

e

e

e

#

#

#

*

#

#

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

LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

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

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

5

***

1

***
• **
***
***

1
1
1
1

6
5
11
7

***
***
***
***

1
1
1
1

***
***

1
1

10
9

***

1
1

1993 04...

1

56

1

36

1994 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

63
65
68
66

I
1
1
1

1995 oi...
02...

1
1

66
69

1
i

III .C5

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS

54

10

3

62

3

1

52+
50+
42+
36+

45
44
50
57

3
7
8
7

1
1
1
1

36+
36+

58
55

6
9

1
1

31

4

63

6

49+
48+
41+
34+

38
45
51
56

14
7
8
10

31+
32+

57
57

12
11

28

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

1993 Q4...

|

68

1

53

37

11

1

0

65

1

71

0

29

0

1

65

0

35

0

1994 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
|
|
|

69
68
71
70

1
1
1
1

50
45
38
37

40
50
52
58

10
5
10
5

1
1
1
1

0
5
0
0

77
76
78
90

1
1
1
1

71
90
85
88

0
0
0
0

29
10
15
13

0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1

65
74
74
71

5
5
0
0

30
21
26
24

0
0
0
6

1995 Ql...
02...

|
|

75
76

1
1

42
36

46
41

13
23

1
I

0
0

76
83

1
1

83
86

4
0

13
14

0
0

1
1

70
77

9
0

22
23

0
0

•Beginning in 1994, Minneapolis omitted the response "none" for the number of referrals to either correspondent banks or nonbank
agencies. The column that has been added combines responses that formerly would have been reported as either "none" or "low".




35

36

FBDBRAL RBSBRVB BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE XII.D
INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS
MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS
(AVERAGE, PERCENT)

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D1

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

SHORTTERM
NONRBAL
ESTATE

1

8.5

8.5

***

1994 01.
02. • •
03. •.
04.

1
1
1
1

8.5
9.0
9.3
9.9

8.5
9.0
9.4
10.0

***
***
***
***

1995 01. •
02. •

1
1

10.3
10.2

10.3
10.2

***
***

•

III.D2

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

SHORT-TERM
NONRBAL ESTATE1 LOANS

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONRBAL ESTATE LOANS

LOWER

LOWER

***
***
***

7.9

1

***

***

8.0
8.5
8.9
9.5

1
1
1
1

***
***
***
***

www
www
www
www

9.7
9.6

1
1

**
***

www
www

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

***

1

www

• WW

WWW

|

www

***

|
I
I
1

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

WWW
WWW
WWW

|
1
|
1

www
www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www
www

1

www
www

www
www

WWW
*+*

1
1

www
www

www
www

www
www

1

www

www

www

;
1

www

www

www
www

www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www

www
www

www
www

***

,

www

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

1993 04.

1

8.7

8.9

***

8.8

8.3

j

www

1994 01. ..
02. ..
03. • »
04.

1
1
1
1

8.7
9.1
9.4
10.0

8.9
9.2
9.6
10.1

***
***
***
***

8.9
9.2
9.6
10.1

8.4
8.8
9.2
9.7

1
1
1
1

***
***
***
***

1995 01.
02.

1
1

10.4
10.3

10.5
10.5

***
***

10.5
10.4

10.1
9.9

1
1

***
***




SAME

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS

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

1993 04.

#

INTERMEDIATE
NONRBAL
ESTATE

AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER
COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)

***

***
***
***

*ww
www
www

1

www

www

1
1
1

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

I
1

www
www

www
www

www
WWW

...
...
WWW

|
I

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

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D3

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

SHORTTERM
NONRBAL
ESTATE

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER
COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

LOWER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

5

86

9

I
I
|
1

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***

SAME

HIGHER

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS
LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

1

3

88

9

1
|
|
|

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***

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

1993 Q4...

1

***

• **

8.8

8.9

8.4

|

1994 01...
Q2...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

***
***
***

9.2
9.1
9.5
10.3

***
***
***
***

9.2
9.2
9.8
10.4

8.4
8.4
8.7
9.7

|
|
|
|

1995 01. ..
Q2. ..

1
1

***
***

10.6
10.8

***
***

10.6
10.8

10.1
10.2

|
|

7

85

***
***

***
***
***
***

***

8

1

***
***

***
* *

|
1

***
***

***

***
***

1
1

***
**

***
***

***
***

III • D4 ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (LA*, NM*, TX)
1993 04...

1

9.1

9.3

***

9.4

9.2

I

***

***

***

1
I

***

***

***

1

**

***

***

1994 Ql. ..
02...
03...
04. ..

1
1
1
1

9.2
9.6
10.1
10.5

9.3
9.8
10.1
10.5

***
***
***
***

9.4
9.7
10.1
10.6

9.2
9.7
10.1
10.6

I
|
|
|

***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

1
I
|
1
|
I
1

***
***
***
**

• **
***
***
***

***
***
**
***

|
|
1
|
I
|
1

***
***
***
**

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

11.1
11.0

***
***

11.2
11.1

11.0
10.7

|
|

***
***

***
***

|I
|1

***
***

***
***

...

|
I

|
1

***

***
***

***

...

1

***

***

***

|1

***

***

***
***

• **
***
***
***

**
***

|
1
.

***
***

***

1

***
***
**•
***

***
***

i
|

***
***

1995 01...
02...

1
1

11.0
11.0

***

III • D5 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
1993 04...

1

8.5

8.3

***

8.7

8.3

|

***

***

8.2
9.9
9.7
10.2

9.0
10.0
9.4
9.8

|
|
|
|

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

|
I
|
,

10.5
10.4

10.2
10.0

|
|

***
***

***

|

***

1

1994 01. ..
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

8.6
9.8
9.6
10.0

8.6
9.7
9.5
10.2

***
***
***
***

1995 01. ..
02...

1
1

10.7
10.4

10.5
10.4

***
***




***
***

***
***
***
***

37

38
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III. E
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
ALL
III.El

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

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

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*r IN*, IX, MI*, WI«) AGRICULTURAL BANKS

1993 Q4...

I

1

***

***

***

|

3

***

**«

* *

|

4

66

30

|

14

57

29

1994 01...
02...
03...
Q4...

I
I
I
I

2
1
1
1

*•*
* *
*•*
***

»**
**«
***
***

«*«
***
*«*
***

I
|
I
I

5
6
7
7

*••
***
*•*
***

*•*
**•
***
***

••*
**«
***
***

|
|
I
|

1
2
4
3

63
70
59
65

37
20
37
32

I
|
I
I

13
16
17
19

57
66
64
63

30
18
19
18

1995 Ql...
02...

I
|

1
0

***
***

***
***

***
***

|
|

5
5

***
***

***
***

***
***

|
I

2
3

67
73

31
23

I
|

18
18

60
69

22
13

1

5

91

5

1

19

71

10

1

88
100
92
95

8
0
4
0

1
1
1
1

13
10
17
15

78
80
74
80

9
10
9
5

96
96

0
4

1
1

17
26

83
74

0
0

*

***

•**

|

8

74

17

***
***
***
***

**«
***
*
***

***
***
*•*
***

|
I
I
|

12
17
14
11

75
73
72
79

13
10
14
10

***
***

***
***

* *
**•

|
|

10
17

78
73

12
10

III.B2

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
0

***

***

1994 Ql...
1
Q2 • • •
I
Q3.. .
1
Q4...
1

8
-8
4
-5

***

***
***
***
***

1995 Ql...
02...

18
—6

***
***

1993 Q4•••

|

1
1
III.E3

***

***
***

1

-9

1
1
1
1

1
-3
4
-1

***
***
***

1
1

8
9

***
***

***

***

***
***

***
***

1
1

4
0
4
5

***
***

,
|

4
0

|

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

1993 Q4...

I

***

1

3

1994 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

I
I
I
I

***
***
***
***

2
1
0
1

2
3

1995 Ql...
02...

I
I

***
***

-1
-1




***

-

2

6

I

*«*

3

-3

3

-1
I
«**
I I * * *
-5
1
***
9 | * * *

4
5
4
4

-3
3
5
5

1
2

1 | * * *
2
I
**•

1
-1

4
3

5

|

3
I
2
1
-0
1
3 |
6
8

|
|

•

e

#

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OP AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.B (CONTINUED)
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
ALL
III .84
1993 Q4. ..
1994 01.
02. *
Q3 .•
04.

•
•

1995 01.
02.

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

0

1
1
1
1

1
0
2
2

3
1
2
-0

3
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

4
3
6
6

4
4
6
5

1
1

2
1

2
1

3
-0

I
I

7
7

4
4

***

***

1994 01.
02. •
03. •
Q4.

|
1
1
1

***

***
***
***
** A

***
***

***
***

***
***

1
1




RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

2

|

3

2

I

***

1

***

8
7
7
7

|
I
I
I

***
***
***
• **

I
|
l
|

***
***
***
***

6
5

I
I

***
***

|

|

***

***

1

7

79

14

***
***
***
***

***
***
***
***

***
***

***
***

***
***

7

***
***

***
***
***

•**

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

***

1995 01.
02.

IRRIGATED

2

1

•

DRYLAND

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

1993 04. • .

•

ALL

1

III •E5

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

RANCHLAND

EXPECTED DEMAND FOR
FARM REAL ESTATE LOANS
DURING THE NEXT QUARTER,
COMPARED WITH NORMAL
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

***

***
***

|

5

3

4

|

1
1
1
1

6
7
6
4

6
4
4
4

5
6
4
5

I
|
I
I

***

i
1
1
|

1
1

4
3

4
3

3
2

|
I

***
***

1
|

39