View original document

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 1996
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 second quarter of 1996; the other data generally were available through the third 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 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 - estate 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

.
. . .
rate
floating interest rate....
by effective interest rate
survey results

7

8

9
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
348 commercial banks. A subset of 25 0 banks was asked for information regarding agricultural lending, and
about 15 0 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 1996 survey,
193 banks reported at least one farm loan, and the number of sample loans totaled 4624.
In both the previous survey and the new one, the national estimates exhibit variability due to sampling error.
The estimates are sensitive to the occasional appearance of very large loans in the sample.
In addition, the
breakdown of national estimates into those for large banks and small banks may have been affected somewhat by
the new sampling procedures that were implemented in August 1989; apparent shifts in the data as of that date
should be treated with caution.




3

SECTION I: (CONTINUED)
More detailed results from each quarterly survey previously were published in Statistical Release E.2A,
"Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers". Beginning in February, 1992, the more detailed results are
included at the end of this section of the Databook. and the E2.A has been discontinued.
Starting with the
August 1986 survey, farm loans secured by real estate are included in the data shown in the table of detailed
results, whereas such loans are excluded from the tabulations in Tables I.A through I.G and the summary
charts.
Beginning in November 1991, several survey statistics are estimated for each of ten farm production regions as
defined by the USDA. These statistics, which are presented in table I.I, should be treated with some caution.
Although an effort was made to choose a good regional mix of banks for the panel, the panel never has been
stratified by region. Consequently, the survey results are less precise for each region than for the totals
for the nation.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
In the August 1996 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks, was a bit below
the August readings of the past couple of years, while the average size of loans was more or less in line with
the figures from previous years. Together, these two August estimates yield a projected annual volume of
loans of about $75 billion, towards the middle of the range seen since 1990, but far below the May estimate.
In the August survey, the average maturity of farm non-real-estate loans remained near the bottom of the range
seen over the past five or six years. Also in August, the average effective rate of interest on non-realestate farm loans rose 50 basis points to 8.6 percent. When loans are separated according to the stated
purpose of the loan, rates for non-feeder livestock and current operating expenses rose substantially.
In
contrast, rates on loans for feeder livestock were down more than a percentage point. The percentage of loans
that were made with a rate of interest that floats, which fell sharply in the May survey, fell again in
August to about 55 percent, one of the lowest readings in the past decade.
By farm production region, weighted average rates of interest rose substantially in August in the Cornbelt,
while they increased much less in the Northern Plains and the Mountain states.
In other regions, estimated
rates declined in the August survey. The estimated standard errors of the weighted average rate of interest,
which have been high in the past few surveys, moved down on balance in August, suggesting that rates have
become a bit more uniform.




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

Thousands of dollars
Average size of non-real-estate farm loans
40

- Four quarter moving average

1996

Billions of dollars, Annual rate

130

120
Amount of non-real-estate farm loans

110

100

— Four quarter moving average

1978




vO

Chart 2

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers

Months

Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans

- Four quarter moving average

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Percent

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

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1993

1994

1995

1996

100

Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate




1992

40
- Four quarter moving average

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

ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

BY SIZE
OF BANK

BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000s)

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

1
|

2 ., 4 2
2 ., 0 6

|

0., 1 8

3 .. 2 6

0 ., 0 9

1
1

1

1 .. 5 7
.42
1.

0.. 0 8
0.. 0 8
0.. 0 7
0.. 0 9

o ., 1 8
o .. 2 0

2 .. 7 8

,71
1.

0.. 4 0
0.. 3 0
0.. 2 9
0.. 2 7

0., 0 9

|

0.,53
0., 5 1
0., 4 6
0.. 4 6
0.. 4 3
0.. 5 2

|
|

.20
0.
.23
0.

2 .. 1 8

1

o .. 3 6

.23
2 ,

OTHER

LARGE

OTHER

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE

1984.
1985.
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.

0., 2 9
0..23
0.. 1 7
0.. 1 3
0.. 1 1

2 . 63

0. 3 4
0., 3 4
0.. 3 0
0.. 3 9
0.. 2 9
0.. 3 0
0.. 3 2

2 .60

0.. 3 5

2 . 69
.70
2 ,

0,. 3 5
0.. 3 6

0 .27

1 .62

2 .53

0 .28

0 .23

1 .56

0 .26

0 .19

1 .48

3 .44
2 . 96
2 . 55
2 . 38
2 . 21
2 . 60

2 .49

0 .. 2 0

0,. 2 4
0.. 2 3
0,. 2 5

2 .0 6

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

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

0., 3 5
0., 2 7
0.. 2 4
0.. 1 9
0.. 2 1
0.. 2 0
0.. 1 9
0.. 2 1
0,. 2 4
0.. 2 7
0 .27
0 .39

|
1

-.67

1

0 .. 2 8

0,. 3 1
0,. 3 5

2 .. 3 4

1,.99

.44
0.
.50
0.

2 .20

0,. 1 0

|
|

0 .37

0 .11

|

0,. 5 1

2 .18

0 .56

0 .37

0 .12

0 .35

0 .12

o,.55
0 .54

2 .15

0 .51

1
|

0 .57

0 .36

0 .12

|

0 .66

1 .83

2 .. 0 4

1

1'. 7 0

1
j

!•. 6 6
1,. 6 7

0.. 5 1
0.. 5 4

0 .32

1
|

1 .65
1 .55

1

1

.45

0 .. 4 9

0,. 0 9

2 .10

1 .98

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

1994

1995

1996

2 .. 6 6
I-. 8 3

0.. 2 1
0.. 3 2

0.. 1 6
0., 1 8

1.. 7 9
0.. 9 8

0.,16
0., 1 2

0., 3 4
0., 2 2

1. 7 2
1., 0 8

0.. 5 2
0.. 3 6

0., 3 3
0.. 2 8

0., 0 9
0., 1 0

1
j

o ., 6 2
0., 4 1

2 ,. 3 5
2 .. 9 6

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

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

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

0.. 3 3
0.. 3 9
0.. 4 4
0.. 3 8

1., 3 1
1.. 8 0
1.. 5 5
1.. 1 3

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

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

0.. 1 2
0.. 1 4
0.. 1 0
0.. 1 3

1
j

.04

0.. 2 9
0,. 2 3
0,. 2 2
0 .29

j

o.. 5 4
0.. 7 4
0.. 7 3
0.. 6 3

1 .95
2 .74

0 .15
0 .15

0,. 2 2
0,. 1 7

0 .41
0 .60
0 .49

0,. 1 3
0 .13

1
j

o .45
0 .68

2 .07

0 .11

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

0 .31
0 .38

0 .16

0.. 1 5
0,. 1 4
0,. 1 5

0,. 2 9
0 .45

.24

1,. 1 4
1,. 8 3
1 .45

0 .28

0 .09

j

0 .63

1 .62

Q3 . . .

1

04. . .

1

Ql. . .

1

Q2 . . .

1

Q3 . . .

1

2

.61

Q4. . .

1

2

Ql...

1

Q2 . . .

1

Q3. . .

1




2

0 .37

j

1.. 4 2
1.. 8 1
.22
2 ,
1,. 8 9
1,. 4 1
1 .50

7

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 ($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

291,.2
254,.7
280,.4
320,.4
320,.4
272..1
487..7
539..9
468..2
490..3
480..7
451..3

88 .1
82,.0
62,.0
85,.5
70,.0
53,.7
100,.7
107,.0
97,.0
106,.0
101..3
84..0

13 .8
13 .4
15 .3
14 .9
16 .3
14 .4
13 .9
13 .9
15,.8
15,.8
15,.4
15,.7

ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE

1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989,
1990,
1991
1992.
1993,
1994,
1995,

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

17 7
17 .6
19 .0
20 8
21 8
19,
.9
28,.4
31,.9
31..2
34..3
33..9
33..8

|
|
1
|
1

j
j
j
j

31 8
25 .7
35 0
33 .8
34 .1
42 .7
69 .7
61 .0
68 .2
79 .7
60 .3
49 .7

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

12 9
12 8
14 0
14 6
16 7
14,.1
15,.7
15,.6
14,.7
15,.2
16..3
18..5

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

34 .8
42 .1
32,.9
44,.6
34,.7
32,.2
94,.3
129,.3
108,.7
112,.0
123,.6
93,.6

|
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j

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

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

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

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

1994 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
j

31..3
45..0

|
j

72,.3
44,.9

24,.0
30,.7

14..2
16..3

.7
12 ,
14,.0

108.,0
202.,0

1
j

3,.5
3 .9
,

14. 4
14. 9

46.,0
47.,5

588. 4
572. 2

98.,2
142.,4

11.,0
16.,9

1995 01. •.
02...
03...
04...

|
1
j
1

34..8
33..0
27..7
41..7

|
j
j
j

65,.2
62,.7
33,.9
35,.7

24,.6
28..1
26..4
28..0

20..1
17..4
14..6
24..6

15,.4
18..7
14,.4
12..4

83..8
101.,7
79.,5
110.,0

|
j
j
j

3,.6
3,.8
3..6
3,.9

14. 8
14. 5
14. 5
15. 2

46. 7
43. 7
44. 5
45. 1

431. 3
466. 5
437. 5
464. 0

90.,8
82.,8
66.,8
99.,8

18.,1
16..4
12.,6
15.,9

1996 01. ..
02...
03...

|
j
j

43..4
43..3
33..3

|
j
j

59..7
44,.0
116..7

23..2
25..4
25..6

27..1
39.,6
15.,5

18..4
15..7
16..2

127.,0
73.,2
76.,7

I
j
j

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

15. 1
14. 9
14. 5

45. 0
44. 8
45. 8

474. 1
673. 1
554. 3

122. 8
131.,1
89. 8

19.,6
14.,5
11. 4




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 ($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

ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE

1984

1

60

8

|

10

7

6

5

26

5

4 .4

1 2 ,.2

8 ..9

7 ..8

1 7 ..6

2 6 ,.5

|

1 5 ..8

4 5 ..0

1985

1

52

1

|

8

6

5

2

22

6

4 .4

1 1 ,.3

7 ..2

7 ..4

1 3 ..5

2 4 ..0

|

1 4 ..9

3 7 ..3

1986

|

48

5

1

1 0 .4

4

5

23

2

2 .4

8 .0

6 ..0

6 ..9

1 3 ..2

2 2 ..3

j

1 2 ..6

3 5 ..9

1987

|

49

6

1

13

2

3

4

22

5

2 .3

8 .3

5 ..7

6 ..8

1 2 ..6

2 4 ..5

j

1 7 ..1

3 2 ..5

1988

1

48

2

1

10

0

4

6

24

3

1 .9

7 .4

5 ..2

6 ..4

1 2 ..9

2 3 ,.7

j

1 5 ..9

3 2 ..3

1989

1

51

6

1

12

9

6 .0

24

3

2 .0

6 .4

6 ..1

7 ..7

1 4 ..4

2 3 ,.4

j

1 9 ..6

3 2 ..0

1990

|

7 4 ..7

1

2 2 .0

5,.5

2 6 ,.6

2 .3

1 8 .3

6,.1

7 ..3

1 5 ..9

4 5 ..3

j

4 4 ..2

3 0 ..5

1991

8 2 ..8

j

2 1 ..4

5..8

2 5 ,.5

2 .5

2 7 .6

6 ..1

7 ..6

1 5 ..1

5 4 ,.0

1

5 3 ..7

2 9 ..1

1992

8 3 ..7

1993

9 2 ..6

2 3 ..6

6..7

2 4 ,.6

2 .9

2 6 .0

6 ,.2

8 ..0

1 6 ..8

5 2 ,.8

4 9 ..4

3 4 ..3

j

2 8 ..7

6,.2

2 4 ,.7

2 .5

3 0 .6

6 ..1

8 ..3

1 7 ..1

6 1 ,.0

5 8 ..8

33 .
.8

1994

j

8 5 ..7

j

1 6 ..8

6 .4

2 5 .4

3 .2

3 3 ,.9

5 ,.8

7 ..4

1 6 ..5

5 6 ,.0

1995

j

8 4 ..1

j

.7
12 ,

5,.2

2 7 ,.3

2 .7

3 6 ,.1

5 ..4

8 ..3

1 6 ..0

5 4 ,.4

AMOUNT

1994

1995

LOANS

MADE

DURING

FIRST

FULL

WEEK

OF

SECOND

MONTH

OF

QUARTER,

ANNUAL

3 0 ..6

5 5 ..3

2 8 ..8

RATE

03...

|

8 3 .. 1 4

|

1 5 ..4

3,.8

2 5 ..5

2 .0

3 6 ,.5

6 ..0

7 ..5

1 5 ..0

5 4 ..6

1

6 0 ..6

2 2 ,.5

Q4. . .

|

8 2 .. 4 4

j

1 4 ..5

5,.6

1 6 ..0

1 .7

4 4 ,.6

4 ..2

5 ..4

1 3 ..3

5 9 ,.5

j

5 8 ..4

2 4 ,.1

Ql. . .

1

8 1 .. 5 9

|

Q2. . .

1996

OF

5 5 ..1
j

1 8 ..9

5 ..6

2 6 ..8

2 .6

2 7 ,.8

4 ..8

8 ..4

1 6 ..2

5 2 ,.2

|

4 8 ..8

3 2 .8

9 7 .. 6 2

1 4 ..4

6 ..3

3 3 ..0

4 .2

3 9 ,.7

6 ..9

9 ..2

1 7 ..3

6 4 ,.3

|

6 1 ..3

3 6 ,.4

7 ..5

3 ..4

2 4 ..5

2 .1

3 4 ..9

5 ..5

8 ..7

1 6 ..3

4 1 ,.7

j

4 8 ..6

2 3 ,.7

5 ..6

2 4 ..9

1 .9

4 2 ,.2

4 ..4

7 ..1

1 4 ..1

5 9 ,.2

j

6 2 .. 5

2 2 ,.4

1

Q3 . . .

|

7 2 .. 3 1

Q4. . .

j

8 4 .. 8 5

j

1 0 ..2

Ql...

|

8 4 .. 7 6

1

9 ..1

5 ..1

3 1 ..0

2 .7

3 6 ,.9

4 ..0

6 ..2

1 4 ..1

6 0 ..5

6 ..6

4 ..2

7 2 ..7

2 .2

3 3 ..2

6 ..1

8 ..9

1 6 ..8

8 7 ,.2

1 8 ..6

2 ..8

2 2 ..6

2 .4

2 8 ..3

5 ..1

7 ..1

1 3 ..0

4 9 ,.5

Q2. . .
Q3. . .




1 1 8 .. 9 6
j

7 4 .. 7 1

j

j

5 5 ..3

2 9 ,.5

8 9 ..1

2 9 ,.9

5 6 ..2

1 8 ,.5

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 ($1,000s)

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

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

7,.7
9..1
9,.8
9..3
10..2
9..3
11..9
10..6
11..1
11..1
13..5
12..1

BY SIZE
OF BANK

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

j
j
j

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

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

ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY

1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.

1
1
1
1
1
1

|

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

1
1
1
1
1

1

5. 0
6. 1
5. 8
5. 5
6.4
6. 8
6. 0
6. 7
6. 1
7. 3
7. 6
8.7

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

7 8
7 3
7 6
7 6
8 5
7..2
7..5
7..2
8..6
8..3
8..6
8..5

12..6
13..4
21.,0
22.,8
19..8
18..7
21..9
24.,6
20..1
30..4
36..6
26..5

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

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

8 .0
7 •9
7 .1
8 .3
7 .7
7 .1
4 .9
5,.8
7, 2
7..4
7..2
8..2

|
|
|
|
|
j
|
|

|

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

1994 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
1

9..3
8..3

1
1

9.4
5.7

16..2
8..2

6..8
7.,3

32..3
28..2

7..9
11..3

8..1
7..6

9..2
10..5

13.,2
12..3

6..8
4..8

|
j

5.,9
5.,8

11.,5
9.,3

1995 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3...
04...

I

10,.3
10..6
9,.0
9,.4

1

8.0
7. 1
7. 9
131.0

9..8
9..2
10..4
10..6

10.,5
9..5
6..8
6..8

28..4
24..7
30.,4
23..9

7..0
12..7
10.,9
8..6

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

11..2
12..1
9..8
10..0

13. 9
13.,6
9.,4
11..4

8..1
8..4
7..6
8.•7

|
j
j
|

5.,6
6. 9
6. 7
9. 6

12.,3
12.,6
10.,1
9.,2

8. 3
16.1
5.2

15..0
7 .4
,
10..8

8..7
6..0
10..0

26..3
35..7
28..0

17.,4
5..8
5..3

8.,9
9.,8
8..2

13..0
10..7
9.,1

12.,7
13.,0
11. 2

10..1
5..6
6.,7

|
j
|

8. 7
5. 1
6. 1

12.,8
12 .7
12. 5

1996 01. ..
02...
03...

1
1
1

1




11 .2
7..1
7,.8

1
1

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

13.1
11. 2
9. 6
9. 2
10. 2
12.,1
10.,9
,0
9.
6.,8
6..7
7.
.2
9..0

14. 4
13. 4
12. 1
11. 3
11. 6
12. 7
12. 3
11.,3
9.,4
8.,7
8..8
10..4

.4
.8

9,.2
9,.5

9 .7
.9
9 .0
8 .8

10 .4
10 .3
10 .5
10 .6

.7
7.4
8 .1

10 .0
10 .1
10 .2

ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE

1984.
1985.
1986.
1987.
1988.
1989 .
1990
1991,
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995,

I
1
1
1
1
1

|

14. 1
12. 8
11. 5
10 6
11 2
12. 5
11.,4
9-,8
7.,8
7.,5
7..8
.5
9.

1
1
1
1
1
1

j

13 7
12 5
11 1
10 7
10 9
12.,3
11.,5
10.,2
8..2
8..0
8..3
10..1

14 3
12 7
11 9
10 2
11 9
12.,4
12..0
11..0
8..6
8..1
8..0
10..2

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

14. 6
13. 7
12. 2
11. 5
11. 7
12. 8
12. 3
11. 3
9. 3
8. 7
8. 6
10.,3

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

|
|
j
|
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
|

14. 6
13. 7
12. 4
11. 6
11. 7
12. 8
12. 5
11. 5
9. 7
9.,0
9.,1
10.,6

14. 3
13. 2
12. 0
11. 3
11.,6
12.,7
12.,4
11.,2
9..3
8..7
8..8
10..5

14. 3
13. 2
11. 8
11. 1
11. 4
12. 7
12. 1
10. 7
8.,8
8.,3
8.,6
10.,3

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

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

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

1994 Q3. . .
Q4. . .
1995

1996

01...

1
1
1

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

|

01...

1

Q2...
03...

1




7..9
.3

1
|

8,.7
8,
.8

8,.4
8,.7

8,.4
8,.7

9..0
9..5

7 .0
7 .8

|
j

9..2
9..6

9,.0
9,.4

8..7
9,.1

7 .3
7 .9

1
1

10,.0
9,.4
9 .5
9.2

1

10 .9
9 .6
9 .8
9.7

9 .9
10 .2
9 .8
10 .6

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

10,.4
10,.2
10,.4
10,.0

9 .0
8 .7
8 .8
8 .8

|
j
j
j

10,.6
10,.6
10,.6
10,.6

10 .3
10 .6
10 .6
10 .5

10,.2
10,.4
10 .2
10 .2

9 .8
8 .8
8 .8
8 .8

1
1
j
1

8 .5
8 .1
8 .6

1

9 .5
9 .3
8.0

9 .9
8 .9
9 .6

8 .8
7 .9
9 .7

9 .8
9 .8
9 .9

7 .8
8 .1
7 .9

|
|
j

10 .3
10 .2
10 .3

10 .1
10 .1
10 .1

9 .8
9 .9
9 .8

7 .9
7 .4
7 .9

1
|
1

8

|

|

7
7

8

7

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

12

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE

3 8 ..9

4 1 ..2

3 2 .,3

4 1 ..7

2 4 .,3

3 9 ..5

|

2 3 ..8

3 1 ..3

2 9 ..0

5 2 ..7

1

7 1 ..1

27.6

1985

4 5 ..3

6 1 ..4

4 4 ..9

4 3 ..0

1 9 .,6

4 7 ..3

j

2 7 ..6

3 1 ..5

4 2 ..0

5 6 ..6

j

7 7 ..1

32.6

1986

5 3 ..4

6 0 ..5

3 4 ,.8

5 7 ..2

3 0 ..9

5 0 ..6

j

4 0 ..6

4 1 ..8

4 8 ..2

6 3 ..7

j

7 1 ..9

47.0

1987

5 9 ..5

5 1 ..6

6 9 .,6

6 2 ..1

5 5 .,5

6 2 ..1

|

4 8 ..5

4 5 ..6

5 4 ..4

6 8 ..5

j

7 7 ..6

49.9

1988

6 1 ..4

6 5 ..3

3 9 ..5

6 3 ..8

5 4 ..9

6 3 ..2

4 9 ..3

5 1 ..5

6 0 ..8

6 7 ..0

j

7 9 ..1

52.6

1989

6 1 ..0

7 1 ,.4

4 0 ..0

5 9 ..7

3 2 ..9

7 3 ..6

j

5 0 ..4

4 9 ..6

5 8 ..5

6 9 ..1

j

8 3 ..6

47.2

1990

6 5 ..2

7 6 ,.8

6 1 ..6

6 8 ..3

4 0 ..0

5 1 ,.2

j

5 3 ,.6

5 9 ..2

6 6 ..0

6 7 ..5

j

6 9 ,.4

59.3

1991

6 5 ..1

8 1 ,.5

6 9 ..3

6 8 ,.8

4 0 ..6

5 0 ,.3

j

5 2 ,.0

5 9 ..0

6 4 ,.0

6 7 ,.8

j

7 0 ..0

56.1

1992

7 1 ,.7

7 8 .5

6 3 ..5

6 6 ,.3

4 7 ..8

7 5 .3

j

5 7 ,.3

5 9 ,.1

6 1 ,.2

7 8 .6

j

8 2 .9

55.5

1993

7 6 ,.7

8 4 .6

7 0 ..0

7 0 ,.3

4 8 ,.2

7 8 .1

j

6 0 .1

6 1 ,.0

6 4 .5

.9
83 ,

j

8 6 .9

58.9

1994

7 5 ,.1

8 2 .9

7 4 ,.3

7 2 ,.3

5 1 ..6

7 5 .7

j

5 8 .6

5 9 ,.8

7 0 ,.4

8 0 .2

j

8 3 ,.7

59.7

7 3 ,.8

8 3 .9

7 5 ,.9

7 3 .0

5 3 ..1

7 2 .2

j

6 1 .7

6 3 ,.9

7 3 .6

7 6 .7

j

7 9 ,.9

62.3

1

1984

1995

1

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER
1994

1995

1996

Q3. . .

1

7 8 ..6

9 1 ..3

7 9 ..8

6 5 ..6

5 1 ..1

8 3 ..6

|

5 8 ..9

6 2 ..4

7 0 ..2

8 5 ..3

|

8 6 ..8

5 6 ..4

Q4. . .

j

7 3 ..1

7 0 ..7

6 4 ..3

7 2 ..3

4 3 ..3

7 6 ..5

j

5 8 ..9

6 2 ..2

6 9 ..8

7 5 ..9

j

8 0 ..3

5 5 ,.7

Ql. . .

1

7 9 ..0

8 8 ,.3

7 6 ..1

8 4 ..3

5 5 ..7

7 0 ..3

|

6 3 ..6

6 1 ,.4

7 9 ..9

8 2 ..9

|

8 3 ..1

7 2 ,.9

Q2. . .

6 7 ..3

8 2 ,.8

7 9 ..5

6 5 ..7

5 9 ,.7

6 2 ..0

j

6 0 ..9

6 3 ..2

6 6 ..1

6 9 ..0

j

7 3 ..7

5 6 ,.7

Q3. . .

7 3 ,.4

7 6 ,.3

5 1 ..1

6 5 ,.3

5 0 ,.2

8 2 ..0

|

6 1 ..7

6 5 ,.1

7 2 ..1

7 7 ..2

j

8 3 ..3

5 3 ,.2

7 6 ,.7

8 2 .8

8 6 ..5

7 8 ,.0

3 7 ,.9

7 5 ,.0

j

6 0 ..6

6 6 .3

7 7 ,.0

7 9 ..1

j

8 0 ..8

6 5 ,.5

Q4. . .

j

Ql...

1

Q2. . .
Q3...




|

7 0 .4

8 6 .4

5 6 ..6

7 4 .6

4 0 .0

6 7 ,.0

|

5 8 ,.7

6 1 .6

6 7 ,.1

7 2 ,.8

1

7 4 ..1

6 3 ..3

6 1 .9

8 5 .9

8 2 ,.0

6 2 .4

2 6 .9

5 5 ,.8

j

6 1 ,.8

6 3 .9

6 9 ,.2

6 0 ,.3

j

6 3 ..7

5 6 ,.4

5 5 .3

3 4 .8

7 6 ,.3

7 0 .5

3 2 .2

5 6 ,.5

j

6 2 .7

6 3 .2

7 3 .0

4 8 ,.7

1

5 4 ..7

5 6 .9

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

Memo:
Perecentage
Distribution of
Number of Loans,

August
1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

May 96

Aug 96

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

*

—

*

*

*

5

15

1

*

-

4

-

11

4

4

-

11

13

14

23

Under 5 percent

-

-

-

-

-

5.0 to 5.9

-

-

-

-

-

1

6.0 to 6.9

-

-

-

-

—

-

-

-

7.0 to 7.9 . . . . .

1

1

1

-

-

30

18

22

21

15

18

2

2

8.0 to 8.9

6

11

10

-

-

17

23

18

22

8

25

12

14

9.0 to 9.9

12

21

20

-

1

9

17

16

20

30

22

37

37

10.0 to 10.9 . . .

11

23

27

5

8

22

10

20

4

30

15

34

33

11.0 to 11.9 . .

33

22

23

8

33

8

7

5

2

10

4

11

11

12.0 to 12.9. ..

22

19

15

39

39

2

1

1

*

1

1

2

2

13.0 to 13.9 . .,

13

3

3

34

14

-

-

*

1

*

*

-

1

14.0 to 14.9 . , .

2

5

-

-

-

*

*

-

8

*

-

15.0 to 15.9 . . .

-

—

4

-

-

—

-

*

*

*

-

16.0 to 16.9...

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23.0 to 23.9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24.0 to 24.9 . . .

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

*
-

-

-

17.0 to 17.9...
18.0 to 18.9 ...
19.0 to 19.9 .. .

20.0 to 20.9
21.0 to 2 1 . 9 . . .
22.0 to 2 2 . 9 . . .

25.0 and over . .
~
~
~
~
%
~
1. Percentage distribution of the estimated total dollar amount of non-real-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 percent because of rounding.
* indicates less than .5 percent.



<r

SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 5-9,1996
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all s i z e s

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$ 2 5 0 a n d 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
By purpose 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

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

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

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

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

53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

128,654
3,839
12.5

152,977
2,281
17.1

172,364
1,192
44.5

8.62
0.26
9.65

10.24
0.02
9.72 - 10.76

10.10
0.10
9.50 - 10.65

9.80
0.09
9.20 - 10.52

9.68
0.10
9.04 - 10.41

9.38
0.06
8.69 - 10.20

7.95
9.60
9.60
9.96
8.86
7.98

10.18
10.38
10.26
10.26
9.41
10.17

9.99
9.93
10.23
10.06
9.39
9.90

10.05
10.12
9.85
10.02
8.78
9.50

9.16
10.30
9.92
10.01
9.10
9.29

8.93
9.75
9.69
9.59
9.00
9.24

7.61
8.52
8.53
9.65
8.64
7.37

57.1
85.1

63.1
64.9

62.8
64.7

69.7
67.9

68.8
77.0

78.8
73.0

47.6
96.8

22.5
3.5
30.4
3.2
4.0
36.4

5.1
3.9
71.7
6.4
0.6
12.3

9.3
5.2
55.8
10.6
2.2
16.9

12.0
9.0
47.4
5.7
3.1
22.8

7.3
6.4
48.0
5.7
6.7
25.9

10.6
2.8
38.1
2.5
9.2
36.8

33.0
2.0
14.9
1.0
3.4
45.8

795,572
12,923
10.1

24,485
6,518
8.7

42,999
2,926
9.4

49,911
1,476
9.7

59,614
904
12.2

84,344
575
12.8

534,220
524
9.6

8.21
0.29
9.16

10.08
0.08
9.49 - 10.65

9.87
0.07
9.21 - 10.46

9.54
0.11
9.04 - 10.11

9.38
0.04
8.84 - 9.70

9.10
0.16
8.54 - 9.53

9.08
9.00
8.96
9.67
8.81
7.62

9.83
9.92
10.14
10.10
9.80
10.02

9.50
9.61
10.07
9.97
9.40
9.71

9.55
9.58
9.68
9.48
9.77
9.41

9.43
9.29
9.51
9.60
9.30
9.26

9.06
9.75
9.11
9.69
8.71
9.01

871
7.14

65.1
94.5

88.7
80.7

90.0
83.7

85.3
87.1

81.1
81.4

87.0
92.2

54.8
98.6

5.9
4.1
28.8
1.3
2.7
57.3

4.7
3.8
57.4
2.8
0.7
30.6

5.5
4.6
49.4
2.8
1.3
36.4

11.8
5.3
35.7
4.5
1.2
41.4

14.4
7.7
28.6
7.0
2.2
40.2

11.9
5.7
39.8
2.1
3.6
36.9

3.5
3.3
23.5

787,089
31,961
19.7

75,939
20,476
8.4

96,066
6,687
10.1

78,744
2,363
14.2

93,363
1,377
20.5

88,020
616
73.8

354,958
442
12.6

9.04
0.31
7.21 - 10.24

10.30
0.04
9.79 - 10.78

10.20
0.11
9.56 - 10.75

9.96
0.11
9.38 - 10.55

9.86
0.18
9.31 -10.52

9.65
0.16
8.75 - 10.47

7.89
0.53
7.21 - 8.57

7.78
10.47
10.18
10.03
8.88
9.37

10.28
10.52
10.29
10.28
9.25
10.38

10.09
10.05
10.29
10.06
9.38
10.27

10.37
10.28
9.93
10.26
8.61
9.72

8.27
11.19
10.04
10.37
9.08
9.34

8.77

7.54

10.29
9.52
9.07
9.47

10.50
9.65
8.57
9.01

49.1
75.5

54.8
59.8

50.6
56.2

59.7
55.8

60.9
74.2

71.0
54.7

36.7
94.0

39.4
2.8
32.1
5.1
5.4
15.2

5.2
3.9
76.3
7.5
0.6
6.5

11.0
5.5
58.7
14.1
2.5
8.1

12.1
11.4
54.7
6.5
4.4
10.9

2.8
5.6
- 60.4
4.9
9.5
16.8

9.3

77.5

36.5
2.9
14.6
36.8

1.9
2.4
4.0
14.2

7.21 -

889,178
966
10.9

6.85 -

7.71
0.26
8.57

6.79 -

6.34 -

7.59
0.27
8.57
8.68
8.52
8.42

2.9
66.8

BANKS5

41
42
43

47
48
49
50
51
52

139,064
9,613
9.9

FARM LENDERS5

21
22
23

33
34

100,424
26,994
8.5

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

27
28
29
30
31
32

1,582,662
44,884
15.0

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




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 a s "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.




Tab.le I.I
S u r v e y of Terms, of B a n k L e n d i n g to F a r m e r s , (selected
bv 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 loans
outstanding,
Aug. 1996
survey
Sample Coverage
Aug. 1996
survey (%)
Avg. Loan S i z e .
Aug. 1996
survev ($1000)
Survey d a t e :

2 9

USDA Region

LS

CB

NP

10. 4

25 0

17. 3

6. 4

5 .
,4

5 .3

9 .8

6.,9

10,.6

8 0

15 .7

12 .2

7.
.0

6 .6

7 .6

23 ., 0

.9
72 ,

23 .3

154. 4

30 .6

19. 6

33 .7

15

1

5 2

171

8

12. 7

27

1

Wei ehted

Average

AP

SE

quarters)

DL

Interest

During
Rate :

SP

MN

PA

49. 3

116..3

S a m p l e Wee k

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
(. 3 3)

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)

8. 3
(. 53)

9. 0
(. 81)

7. 9
(. 43)

7 .3
.
(•• 19)

A u g , 1992

7 7
(. 15)

9. 3
(. 21)

9 1
( 10)

8.,6
(. 50)

5. 6
(1 ..36)

.0
7.
(..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)

.6
5.
(.,90)

8 .3
.
(•.2 2)

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
,
( .3 2)

5. 2
(•.57)

8 .4
.
( .29)

, 8
7.
(..43)

8 .3
(•,48)

7.
, 7
(• 5 2)

,
6 .8
(..26)

Aug.

1993

8 .2
,
( .35)

,5
7.
(..69)

8.
,2
( .18)

8.0
( .33)

5. 7
(,.94)

7 .3
( .3 7)

, 0
7.
(•.74)

7. 7
(..6 2)

7. 1
(..34)

7.
,2
(•.39)

Nov.

1993

8 .3
(.28)

8.. 1
(,.19)

7 .8
( .22)

7 .4
( .50)

5.
, 3
(1 .73)

6. 3
( .07)

8. 2
(•.12)

7.
,8
( .5
- 7)

7. 1
(•• 36)

,
6 .7
( .49)
.

Feb.

1994

7. 7
( .3 2)

8.. 6
(•.25)

7. 9
( .22)

7 .5
( .39)

5.
, 2
(1..09)

7 .3
( .09)

7. 7
(..33)

.6
7.
( .43)
-

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
.
( .36)
•

V .34)

. 5

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
,
(,.3 7)

7,. 6
( .35)

7 .5
( .25)

Nov.

19 94

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
( .45)

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
( .36)

10 .3
( .21)

9 .3
( . 46)

9 .8
( .16)

8. 1
( .96)

9 .6
( .10)

10 .4
( .31)

10 . 1
( .2 2)

9 .4
( .39)

9 .5
( .29)

Nov.

1995

10 .8
( .3 2)

10 .3
( .21)

8 .3
( .93)

9.6
( .26)

7 .9
( .80)

10 . 1
( .25)

10 .3
( .32)

9 .8
( .24)

9 .3
( . 66)

8 .9
( .40)

Feb.

1996

8 .8
( .3 2)

9 .9
( .25)

8 .0
(1 .10)

9 .4
( .22)

7 .3
( .99)

9 .4
( .31)

10 .9
( . 22)

9 .9
( .24)

8 .9
( .85)

8. 1
( .65)

May

1996

10 .3
( .25)

10 . 2
( .13)

7 .3
( .93)

9 .0
( .38)

8. 1
( .86)

9 .6
( .68)

10 .4
( .36)

9 .8
( .25)

8. 7
( .78)

8 .3 .
( .65)

8. 1
8. 9
9 .4
9 .4
10 .0
9 .9
8 .9
9 .4
8 .3
7 .6
(.55)
(.59)
( .19)
( • 37)
( • 59)
( .97)
( • 19)
( .49)
( • 92)
f • 25)
NE is N o r t h e a s t . 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 .
and PA is
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 . MN is M o u n t a i n S t a t e s
Pac if ic.

Aug.

1996

S t a n d a r d e r r o r s are 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 calculated
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 .




from

100

SECTION II:

SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS

Page

TABLES:
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-offs of non-real-estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
delinquent real estate farm loans at insured commercial banks
net charge-offs 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 charge-offs of "agricultural loans" according to the particular bank's own definition, which may include
loans that are secured by farm real estate. Furthermore, small banks that hold less than 5 percent of total
loans as farm production loans are not required to report any information regarding delinquencies or chargeoff s 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 15.9 percent in June of 1996.
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

SECTION II:

(continued)

Recent Developments:
Loans outstanding: At the close of the second quarter of 1996 , the volume of farm loans had risen 3.4 percent
from its level one year earlier, up from a 3.1 percent year - over-year increase in the first quarter. The
acceleration in the growth of total farm loans reflected a pickup in the volume of non-real- estate farm
loans relative to one year earlier. The volume of farm real estate debt that was held by commercial banks
was 4.7 percent above the reading from one year earlier.
Problem loans: At the end of June 1996, delinquent farm non-real- estate loans amounted to $1.2 billion, about
2.8 percent of such loans outstanding. Both in absolute levels and as a percentage of loans outstanding,
these figures provide further evidence of a slight increase in delinquencies that first was noticeable in
the first quarter of this year. The pickup in delinquencies of farm non-real-estate loans likely reflects
assorted production problems this year for crops and cattle that reflect poor weather conditions in many
parts of the Midwest. Net charge-offs of farm non-real-estate loans remained up as well, apparently as
agricultural bankers moved quickly to deal with problem agricultural loans. The volume outstanding of
delinquent farm real estate loans was little changed from year-earlier levels, and charge-offs of these
loans remained low. The proportion of agricultural banks that reported a level of nonperforming loans that
was greater than 2 percent of total loans remained about even with the first - quarter reading. Nevertheless,
at the end of June, the proportion of farm banks that were experiencing some deterioration in the quality of
their portfolios of farm loans was higher than one year earlier, a trend that first appeared in mid-1995.
Although farm banks may now face a bit less favorable operating environment than they have enjoyed since the
latter 1980s, by far the majority of agricultural banks continue to report few problem loans.
Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks through the
first half of 1996 was 0.6 percent, identical to the first-half return for agricultural banks for the past
several years. The average capital ratio for agricultural banks was down compared with the second quarter
of 1995. Although the capital ratio at agricultural banks has been edging down since late 1995,
agricultural banks remained well-capitalized when compared to their average level of capital over the past
decade, thus maintaining a substantial cushion for any losses on nonperforming loans. On June 30, 1996, the
ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks was a percentage point higher than at midyear 1995.
Failures of agricultural banks: Two agricultural banks failed in the second quarter of 1996, breaking a
string of ten consecutive quarter with no failures.
Given the strong capital positions of most agricultural
banks and their still low levels of problem loans, the number of failures seems likely to remain fairly
small in coming quarters; indeed, no more failures have been reported as this publication went to press.




1

TABLE II.A




FARM DEBT OUTSTANDING AT COMMERCIAL BANKS, END OF QUARTER
LOAN VOLUME,
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

28.4
30.7
31.5
30.8

-2.2
6.3

2.7
3.0

-4.7

1.2

-1.2

0.9

29.3
31.9
33.2
32.9

-2.8
6.4
3.1
-0.8

0.7

-1.3

18.3
18.4

32.0
34.5
35.6
34.6

51.9
55.1
56.2
54.5

18.9
19.5
19.9
19.9

33.0
35.6
36.2
34.7

-2.1

52.8
56.0
58.0
57.7

20.0

32.8
35.4
37.1
36.8

-3.2

20.6
20.8
20.9

-1.5
7.6
3.1
-2.7
-2.3

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

44.2
47.0
48.0
47.4

15.8
16.3
16.5

46.1
49.0
50.5
50.1

16.8

49.5
52.6
53.9
53.0

|
j

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS QUARTER

16.6
17.1
17.3
17.2
17.5

18.1

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

2.1

6.2

2.5
-1.6

6.2

1.9
-2.9

6.0

3.5
-0.5

2.2

1.1

-0.6
1.5
3.4
1.4

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

1.0

2.5
-2.2

8.0

-4.7
8.7
4.1
-0.9

4.3
4.3
5.3
5.7

5.9
5.1
5.0
3.5

3.4
3.9
5.5
6.9

-2.8

7.4
7.2

4.3
5.5
5.8
7.0

9.1

2.7
3.3
1.9
-0.2

-4.6
7.8
1.9
-4.4

0.5
3.1

0.1

-5.3
7.8
4.9
-0.8

1.8

-3.4

2.2
0.7

3.6
-4.6

1.6

-4.6

21.2
21.9
22.4

22.6

35.5
39.2
40.6
38.7

59.9
63.5
65.3
63.7

22.9
23.6
23.8
23.9

36.9
40.0
41.5
39.8

2.9
-2.5

0.4

1.1

3.9
-4.1

61.7
65.7

24.0
24.7

37.7
41.0

-3.1
6.5

0.5
2.7

-5.3

2.7

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

1.5
2.4
3.3

56.8
61.1
63.0
61.3

6.1

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

7.5
7.6
7.6

0.6

3.2

TOTAL
LOANS

3.2
3.5
4.1
4.9

8.2

7.7
3.1
-2.7

1.2

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR

10.2

8.2

8.9

6.6

5.7
4.9
4.9
4.2
2.9
1.7

8.2

8.1
8.6
7.8

8.1

7.1
5.1
3.1
3.2
1.9

0.2

3.2
5.8

5.6
5.4
4.7
5.0

-0.5
-0.6
2.4

7.6
9.1
8.7

6.4
6.4
7.5

8.3
10.7
9.3
5.2

5.4
4.0
3.7
3.9

7.5
6.3
5.9

3.1
3.4

4.8
4.7

1.6

6.2

8.2
8.0

6.2

3.9

2.0

2.3

2.8
2.0
2.7

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

TOTAL

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION LOANS

NONPERFORMING

NONPERFORMING

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

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

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

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

NONACCRUAL

MEMO:
RESTRUCTURED
LOANS IN
COMPLIANCE

0..7
0..5
0..5
0..3
0..3
0..3
0..2
0..2
0..3

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

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

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

•December 31 of year indicated1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

End of quarter-

1996 Ql.

02.

1.0
0.8
0.8

0.3
0.2
0.3

0.7
0.6
0.5

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.5
0.5
0.4

0.2
0.2
0.2

2.7
2.3
2.2

0.8
0.7
0.8

1.9
1.6
1.4

0.4
0.3
0.2

1.5
1.3
1.2

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
0.8
0.8

0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.9
2.3
1.9
2.1

1.6
0.9
0.7
0.9

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1.3
1.2

0.7
0.5

0.6
0.7

0.2
0.2

0.4
0.5

0.0
0.0

3.4
2.8

1.8
1.2

1.6
1.6

0.5
0.5

1.1
1.1

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*
x.

1 9 8

9

|

9 1

1 0

2 6

1 5

4 0

|

0 . 2 7

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 9

0 . 0 5

0 . 1 3

1 9 9

0

j

5 1

- 5

1 9

1 0

2 8

j

0 . 2 0

- 0 . 0 2

0 . 0 6

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 8

1 9 9

1

j

1 0 5

1 2

2 5

3 6

3 2

|

0 . 3 2

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 8

0 . 1 0

0 . 0 9

1 9 9

2

j

8 2

1 4

2 0

2 9

1 8

j

0 . 2 4

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 6

0 . 0 8

0 . 0 5

1 9 9

3

j

5 4

7

1 6

5

2 6

j

0 . 1 5

0 . 0 2

0 . 0 5

0 . 0 1

0 . 0 7

1 9 9

4

j

6 9

1 0

1 1

1 5

3 3

j

0 . 1 9

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 8

1 9 9

5

j

5 1

- 2

1 4

1 3

2 5

j

0 . 1 3

- 0 . 0 0

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 3

0 . 0 6

1 9 9

6

* *

1 6

2 6

* *

* *

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 7

* *

* *

* *

* 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 1 9 8 4 Report of Income.




21

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
2.1

0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0

1.3
1.1
0.8
1.0

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.6

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

December 31 of year indicated
199 2
199 3
199 4
199 5

|
j
|
|

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

|
j
j
j

End of quarter

0.4
0.4
0.4

0.1
0.1
0.1

0.3
0.3
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.0

0.2
0.2
0.2

2.0
1.8
1.8

0.4
0.3
0.7

1.4
1.3
1.1

0.4
0.3
0.2

1.0
0.9
0.8

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

2.1
1.6
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
0.3
0.4

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

1.9
1.5
1.4
1.5

0.9
0.6
0.5
0.7

1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6

0.5
0.4

0.2
0.2

0.2
0.3

0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1

2.1
1.7

1.0
0.7

1.0
1.0

0.4
0.4

0.6
0.6

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




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

TOTAL
199 3
199 4
199 5
199 6

|
I
|
|

6
-1
3
**

Q1
0
- 1
-0
-1

Q2
1
- 1
-0
-1

Q3

Q4

2

3
1
2
**

0
2
**

TOTAL
|
j
j
j

0.03
-0.00
0.01
**

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

0.002
-0.004
-0.001
-0.004

0.003
-0.004
-0.001
-0.003

0.008
0.002
0.006
**

0.015
0.003
0.007
**

* All commercial banks 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
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991,
1992 .
1993 ,
1994.
1995,

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

|
|
1
I
I
|
I
1

50 .3
59 .0
65 .8
69 .6
70 .8
76 .2
80 .6
85 .5
83 .7

30..6
28..9
25..1
22..7
22..3
18..9
15..9
12..3
13..8

14 .4
9 .7
7 .6
6 .4
5 .8
3 .9
2 .8
1 .9
2 .1

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

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

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

A oLX iiJULxUll/
if* i nn C11U
pnHULofyuaiUC1
Ulb

|
|

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

79 .2
81 .1
83 .6
85 .5

16..8
16,.0
13,.6
.3
12 ,

3 .3
2 .4
2 .4
1 .9

0,.5
0..4
0,.3
0,.2

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

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

1995 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3 . . .
04...

|
|
|
|

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

81 .7
82 .1
83 .0
83 .7

15,.3
15,.0
14,.3
13 .8

2 .7
2 .5
2 .3
2 .1

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

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

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

1996 Ql...
Q2 . . .

|

100 .0
100 .0

78 .4
78 .5

17 .2
16 .9

3 .5
3 .9

0,.5
0,.6

0,.1
0,.1

0..1
0..1

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

|
|

1

* 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.O

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 CHARGK-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

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

8.0
6.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
11.0
10.8
10.9
12.6
12.4
11.9
11.3

12.0
11.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
8.5
8.9
11.5
12.4
12.4
11.6

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

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

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

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

9.5
9.6
9.5
9.8
9.9
10.1
9.9
10.1
10.4
10.8
10.7
11.1

8.5
8.5
8.4
8.8
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.9
10.5

distribution
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

j
|

j

|

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

13.0
18.0
19.0
13.0
9.0
5.0
4.9
4.1
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.4

9.0
11.0
14.0
13.0
9.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
5.0
5.7
5.7
5.6

23.0
22.0
27.0
31.0
30.0
29.0
33.4
32.2
25.5
27.8
31.3
36.8

36.0
33.0
28.0
31.0
36.0
38.0
37.6
39.2
41.1
40.6
40.2
39.9

15.0
13.0
9.0
9.0
12.0
14.0
12.9
13.4
19.8
18.5
17.1
13.3

3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.6
2.5
5.1
4.6
3.3
2.4

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.1
0.9
1.7
1.3
0.9
0.6

|

j
|

j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
QUARTERLY

YEAR TO DATE
1994 Q2...
Q3...
04...

|
|
|

6.3
9.4
12.4

0.6
0.9
1.2

0.6
0.9
1.1

0.1
0.1
0.2

0.1
0.2
0.3

11.0
11.1
10.7

10.1
10.1
9.9

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
|
|
|

3.1
6.1
9.3
11.6

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

11.1
11.3
11.3
11.1

10.3
10.4
10.5
10.5

1996 01...
02...

I
|

3.1
6.1

0.3
0.6

0.3
0.6

0.0
0.1

0.1
0.1

11.0
11.0

10.6
10.5

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




25

26

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

LOANS
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
NUMBER
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
TO
OF
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995.

3955
3854
3723
3550
3482

0. 551
0. 555
0. 582
0, 625
0.,641

71
75
67
56
60

0. 642
0. 643
0. 660
0. 707
0. 717

133
131
130
125
135

0. 609
0. 607
0. 618
0. 646
0. 647

969
948
912
860
841

0. 572
0.,574
0. 600
0.,643
0.,658

470
456
432
402
393

0.,567
0..563
0.,590
0.,629
0..654

725
694
669
658
637

0. 569
0. 579
0. 615
0.,674
0.,681

1135
1092
1063
1014
981

0. 522
0.,533
0.,566
0.,618
0..634

378
384
378
366
359

0. 438
0. 422
0, 442
o. 474
0. 499

60
61
58
53
55

0..711
0..708
0..733
0..747
0..741

16..56
16.,72
17.,04
16..99
15..79

1994 Q2. ..
Q3..
04..

3689
3640
3550

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

64
61
56

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

138
131
125

0. 652
0. 669
0. 646

886
889
860

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

431
432
402

0..626
0..657
0..629

668
664
658

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

1046
1023
1014

0..601
0..618
0..618

379
367
366

0. 476
0. 503
0. 474

59
56
53

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

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

1995 01..
Q2..
Q3. .
04. .

3484
3488
3617
3482

0 .634
0 .655
0 .668
0 .641

56
55
64
60

0 .718
0 .730
0.736
0 .717

129
136
150
135

0. 653
0. 668
0.,680
0. 647

847
844
868
841

0,.650
0,.664
0,.685
0,.658

389
397
432
393

0..634
0..665
0,.692
0,.654

638
639
652
637

0..684
0..714
0,.717
0..681

993
984
1007
981

0..622
0..637
0..647
0..634

364
361
368
359

0. 491
0. 518
0. 525
0. 499

50
52
56
55

0..768
0..791
0..763
0,.741

16,.75
17,.12
17,.27
15,.79

1996 Ql. .
02. .

3471
3461

0 .639
0 .665

58
57

0 .721
0 .743

143
151

0.,664
0.,690

828
829

0 .657
0 .671

394
402

0 .650
0 .692

632
630

0..682
0..712

978
964

0,.629
0..651

357
349

0. 489
0. 515

57
54

0 .737
0 .778

15 .46
15 .94

* The loan-deposit ratio is defined as total loans divided by total depsits. Agricultural banks are defined as banks with a farm loan ratio at least as great as
that shown in the last column, as described in the introduction to section II.







TABLE II.I

FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS*
NUMBER OF FAILURES

1988
1989
1990.,,.
1991....
1992
1993 ...
1994
1995....
1996....

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

ANNUAL
TOTAL

11
5
3
2
1
1
0
0
0

6
7
5
2
1
2
0
0
2

12
5
6
3
1
2
0
0
0

7
5
3
1
4
0
0
0

36
22
17
8
7
5
0
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:

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS AND FARM LAND VALUES
Page

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

30
32
34
36
38

SOURCES OF DATA:
Data are from quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks. These surveys are
conducted at the end of each quarter by five Federal Reserve Banks. The size of the surveys differs
considerably, as is noted in the information below. In addition, the five surveys differ in subject matter
covered (as is evident in the tables), wording of basically similar questions, and type of banks covered.
Most of the differences in wording are reflected in the use of different column headings on the two pages of
each table. The states included in each district are indicated in the table headings; states that fall only
partly within a given district are marked with asterisks.
Beginning in 1994, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank revised its survey considerably. Many questions were
changed and it was not always possible to match the data to the categories that we have shown in previous
editions of the Databook. Whenever possible, we have tried to fit the data from the revised survey into the
older format. Series that were discontinued show no data for the first quarter, while those that were added
suddenly appear. When a significant break in the data occurred, we included the new data and added a footnote
to highlight the changes.
Research departments at each of the five Reserve Banks issue more detailed quarterly reports on their survey
results; these reports are available at the addresses given below.
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Box 834, Chicago, Illinois, 60690
The sample includes member banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total loans as of
June 1972 (a 10 percent standard is used for banks in the state of Michigan). The sample has undergone
periodic review. The latest survey results were based on the responses of about 450 banks.
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Citv. Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198
The sample chosen originally in 1976 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; roughly 300 banks responded to the latest survey.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480
Before 1987, the sample provided a cross - section of banks of all sizes that were engaged in farm lending.
Members of the Upper Midwest Agricultural Credit Council formed the core of the survey panel. Beginning in
1987, the sample was redrawn to include only banks at which farm loans represented 25 percent or more of total
loans. As outlined above, the Minneapolis survey was changed considerably beginning in the first quarter of
1994. In recent surveys, about 130 banks responded.




Section III: (continued)
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. P.O. Box 655906, Dallas, Texas 75265-5906
The sample is stratified regionally and includes banks at which farm loans are relatively important or
which hold a major portion of bank loans in their region. The sample was enlarged in the first quarter of
1985 and was redrawn in the second quarter of 1989. The results for the most recent quarter were based on the
responses from about 200 respondents.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Richmond, Virginia 23261
The number of agricultural banks in this district is much smaller than those of the other districts. When
the survey was initiated in 1975, the sample consisted of 43 banks of all sizes; banks with larger amounts of
farm loans were sampled more heavily. More recently, the sample has consisted of about 30 banks, roughly
three-fourths of which typically respond to the quarterly surveys.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
Bankers responding to the surveys indicated that the demand for farm loans remained fairly steady in the
second quarter of 1996. One possible exception to this observation came from the Dallas district, where
bankers saw some weakness in the demand for loans. Many banks in the Kansas City and Dallas districts, where
drought and low prices for cattle reduced farm returns, reported continued problems with loan repayments.
Indeed, bankers in the Dallas district noted a further deterioration in the rate of loan repayments relative
to one year earlier, while repayment rates seemed to have stabilized in the Kansas City district. In
addition, bankers in these two districts reported more renewals or extensions, and collateral requirements had
been increased as well. In contrast, responses for the rate of loan repayment, renewals and collateral
requirements seemed in line with historical patterns in the Chicago, Minneapolis, or Richmond districts.
Bankers in all districts that report expected loan volume (Chicago, Dallas, Richmond, and Minneapolis)
anticipated that loan volumes for feeder livestock would weaken in coming quarters. This sentiment seems
inconsistent with the pickup in loans for feeder livestock that was noted in section I, and attitudes of
bankers may have changed in recent weeks as profitability of livestock feeding has increased.
The ratio of loans to deposits was about even with year - earlier levels at banks in all the districts that
report, except for the Dallas district, where the ratio had picked up substantially. Despite the high level
of this measure of liquidity, most bankers characterized their loan-deposit ratio as "lower than desired".
Reported rates of interest on farm loans were little changed in all districts in the second quarter of 1996.
Relative to one year earlier, prices for agricultural land seem to be up substantially in the Chicago district
and up somewhat less in the Minneapolis district. In contrast, prices for farmland generally were weak in the
Kansas City, Dallas, and Richmond districts.




29

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

SAME

FUND AVAILABILITY
LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

LOWER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

HIGHER

jU

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

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

I
1
1

10
13
21

41
42
46

49
45
33

1
1
1

13
22
18

67
60
63

20
18
19

1
I
I

20
20
18

69
66
53

11
14
29

I
I
1

10
13
24

65
68
60

25
19
17

I
1
1

0
1
1

89
88
90

11
11
9

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
I
1
I

15
13
13
20

49
50
52
48

37
37
36
32

I
1
1
1

20
14
16
6

64
67
65
65

16
18
19
29

1
1
1
1

19
16
13
15

64
76
76
53

17
9
11
32

I
1
1
I

17
13
13
29

63
71
72
57

20
16
16
14

1
1
1
1

1
o
1
1

87
89
90
90

12
10
9
9

1996 Ql...
02...

1
I

15
17

44
49

41
34

1
I

6
11

62
65

31
24

I
1

13
13

57
66

30
21

I
I

29
23

56
62

15
16

|
1

0
1

91
89

9
10

III.A2

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

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

10
10
9

53
49
56

37
41
35

1
I
I

19
28
26

67
62
65

13
9
9

1
I
1

16
18
25

78
74
65

6
8
10

I
I
I

5
8
10

84
77
69

12
15
21

|
|
I

0
0
0

92
90
89

8
9
11

1995 Ql...
02...
Q3...
04...

10
11
16
16

51
58
53
56

39
32
32
28

1
1
I
1

21
18
20
14

69
69
67
66

10
14
14
20

I
I
I
1

28
32
32
43

67
67
63
53

5
1
5
4

I
I
I
I

6
2
5
5

69
70
67
55

25
27
28
41

I
|
I
I

0
0
0
1

87
88
86
84

13
12
13
15

1996 Ql...
02...

18
15

56
54

26
30

1
1

10
16

69
66

21
19

I
I

51
38

46
58

4
4

I
I

5
6

49
57

45
37

I
I

1
1

79
78

20
22

III.A3

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

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

22
16
13

56
49
54

21
35
33

I
1
1

3
10
7

79
72
71

18
18
22

1
1
1

14
13
16

75
76
72

11
12
12

I
I
I

12
10
13

77
75
68

11
16
20

I
1
1

1
2
o

91
88
88

8
10
11

1995 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...

13
12
17
20

53
50
50
44

34
38
33
35

I
I
1
I

8
8
10
9

78
79
76
78

14
14
14
14

1
1
I
I

20
21
28
40

72
74
63
53

7
5
9
7

1
I
I
I

11
9
12
8

67
70
64
54

22
21
24
39

1
1
1
I

1
0
2
1

83
81
78
75

16
19
20
24

1996 Ql. . .
02...

18
26

51
42

31
32

1
1

5
7

73
77

22
16

1
1

49
59

45
39

6
2

I
I

7
2

41
38

52
60

1
1

0
o

66
61

34
39




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)
DEMAND FOR LOANS
LOWER
Ill .A4

SAME

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME: HIGHER

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

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

1
1
1

***

**

***

**

***

**

1995 01...
02...
03...
Q4...

1
1
1
1

***

**

***

**

* **

**

***

**

1996 01...
02...

1
1
III .A5

FUND AVAILABILITY

***

**

***

**

1
1
1

16
29
17

64
54
66

19
17
17

I
|
|

25
28
36

71
62
47

5
9
17

I
I
1

10
10
11

71
74
64

20
16
25

1
1
1

1
0
0

86
93
86

13
7
14

1
1
1
1

21
20
21
11

66
62
60
62

13
18
20
27

|
|
|
|

43
45
35
36

51
53
59
49

6
2
6
15

1
1
1
1

10
7
9
4

55
63
66
60

35
30
25
26

1
I
1
1

0
1
1
0

81
74
84
84

19
25
15
16

1
1

11
12

57
65

32
23

|
|

46
37

37
48

17
14

1
1

15
15

49
54

36
31

1
1

4
1

76
75

20
24

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

1994 Q2 o • O
03...
04...

1
1
1

5
13
19

76
79
71

19
8
10

I
1
1

0
0
0

67
75
76

33
25
24

|
|
I

10
4
10

90
88
81

0
8
10

1
1
1

0
17
14

86
79
76

14
4
10

1
1
1

0
0
0

80
83
76

20
17
24

1995 01...
02...
03...
04.. .

1
1
1
1

20
20
32
24

68
76
64
62

12
4
5
14

1
1
1
1

16
12
9
0

72
72
64
76

12
16
27
24

I
I
|
I

12
12
9
29

84
88
82
67

4
0
9
5

1
1
1
I

12
4
14
5

84
88
68
67

4
8
18
29

1
1
1
1

4
4
0
0

80
84
91
90

16
12
9
10

1996 01...
02...

1
1

14
12

71
71

14
17

1
1

0
3

81
71

19
26

|
|

14
17

81
78

5
5

1
1

5
3

75
76

20
21

1
1

0
0

90
83

10
17




31

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

CROP STORAGE

DAIRY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

OPERATING

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

32

FARM MACHINERY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

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

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

1
1
1

13
23
18

55
48
52

32
29
30

I
1
|

48
44
31

50
50
62

2
5
7

I
|
|

24
20
21

70
74
74

6
6
5

|
|
|

19
12
19

67
45
58

14
43
23

1
1
1

8
21
12

50
49
46

42
29
42

1
1
I

25
17
16

54
50
54

21
34
30

1995 01...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

14
14
15
17

53
60
59
50

33
26
26
32

1
I
|
I

32
38
40
47

62
58
54
48

6
3
6
5

|
I
|
|

19
21
21
21

71
74
75
71

10
5
5
8

|
|
|
I

19
26
23
37

68
65
58
52

13
9
19
11

1
1
1
1

13
11
13
13

42
53
60
46

46
36
27
41

1
I
1
1

15
22
16
8

53
61
55
46

33
17
29
45

1996 01...
02...

1
1

17
17

44
54

39
29

|
|

59
62

38
36

4
2

|
I

23
25

68
67

9
8

|
|

36
33

56
57

8
10

1
1

14
12

37
47

50
41

I
1

10
14

37
48

53
38

III,,B2

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

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

1
1
1

18
10
6

67
62
63

15
28
31

|
|
I

38
28
18

51
55
68

10
17
13

I
|
I

16
9
13

80
88
81

4
3
6

I
|
|

15
8
11

72
74
84

13
17
6

1
1
I

5
10
5

63
63
60

32
28
36

1
1
1

15
15
12

69
66
69

16
19
19

1995 Ql...
Q2. o .
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

15
16
15
16

65
54
59
57

21
30
25
27

I
I
I
|

22
33
31
41

63
55
50
49

15
12
20
10

|
I
I
|

13
20
25
20

83
78
71
77

3
3
4
3

|
|
I
|

12
11
16
18

86
79
75
71

3
10
9
11

1
I
1
1

12
8
13
15

55
58
54
49

34
33
33
36

1
1
1
1

12
15
23
26

67
69
64
54

21
16
14
20

1996 Ql. . .
02...

1
1

30
40

52
44

18
17

|
I

49
57

45
36

6
7

|
I

29
31

71
67

1
2

|
1

29
30

65
56

6
14

1
1

19
22

47
42

34
36

1
1

33
42

56
50

11
8

III . B3 FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC , SC, VA, WV*)
1994 02...
03...
04...

5
18
11

65
68
72

30
14
17

1
1
1

16
15
13

74
70
81

11
15
6

1
1
1

18
11
7

82
84
87

0
5
7

1
1
I

10
9
5

86
77
95

5
14
0

I
1
1

10
17
5

62
71
71

29
13
24

1
1
1

10
13
0

67
67
81

24
21
19

1995 Ql...
Q2...
03...
04...

17
8
16
20

67
79
74
65

17
13
11
15

1
I
I
1

25
20
18
35

70
80
82
65

5
0
0
0

1
I
1
1

14
21
27
25

76
79
73
75

10
0
0
0

I
I
I
1

14
14
25
20

77
86
60
65

9
0
15
15

I
1
I
I

12
4
15
19

72
88
80
62

16
8
5
19

I
1
1
1

8
4
19
19

71
84
67
67

21
12
14
14

1996 Ql.,.
02...

20
11

70
73

10
16

1
I

31
35

69
63

0
3

1
1

20
24

80
71

0
6

1
1

11
18

83
68

6
14

1
I

14
7

57
58

29
35

1
1

10
17

81
60

10
22




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

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

LOWER

LOWER

III.B4

SAME

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

1

8

69

23

1

9

81

10

1991 Ql.• •
Q2. . .
Q3.. .
Q4. c .

1
1
I
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

1992 Ql.. .
02...
Q3...
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

1993 Ql. . .
02...
Q3...
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

FEEDER LIVESTOCK
LOWER SAME

01. ..

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1990 Q4«. o

1995

DEBT EXTENSION
OR REFINANCING

11

68

20

|

6
2
7
7

6
5
5
4

83
78
66
69

12
16
29
27

|
|
|
|

90
86
82
80

7
3
5
6

2
2
8
7

79
86
78
68

18
11
14
25

|
|
|
|

85
82
71
75

7
6
14
18

3
6
6
6

84
78
55
56

13
17
39
38

|
|
|
|

OTHER INTERMEDIATE

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

1

FARM REAL ESTATE

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

OTHER , OPERATING

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

FARM MACHINERY

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

02...
03...
Q4 •..

1
1
1
1

28
47
43
53

68
49
50
36

4
4
7
11

1
1
1
1

15
27
25
26

75
58
64
59

10
16
11
15

1
1
1
1

30
44
38
31

60
48
52
53

10
8
10
16

1
1
1
1

5
5
16
9

58
59
64
62

37
36
20
29

1
1
1
1

29
45
36
32

58
49
55
55

13
7
9
12

1996 Ql.. .
Q2. ..

1
1

52
60

44
35

4
6

1
1

24
16

62
68

14
17

1
1

31
28

50
56

19
16

1
1

5
9

64
56

31
35

1
1

30
24

54
58

15
18




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

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
AT
LOWER
DESIRED
THAN
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

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

NONBANK AGENCIES

CORRESPONDENT :
BANKS

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME

NONE

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

1994 04. . .

1

64

1

50

32

18

1

1

***

1

***

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04. ..

I

1
1
1
1

49
48
51
53

34
35
32
36

17
17
17
11

1
1
1
1

j
1
1
1

***

I
1

65
66
67
65

j
j
|
j

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

1996 01...
02...

I
1

65
66

1
1

56
54

30
32

14
14

1
1

1
1

***

1
1

***

|

III .C2

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME

***

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

1994 04 o ..

1

60

1

61

7

30

1

4

72

1

75

12

81

7

1

67

9

77

14

1995 Ql...
02...
Q3...
04...

1
I

1

61
62
63
61

1
1
1
1

61
61
58
59

7
7
7
7

29
26
25
24

1
1
1
I

5
5
4
3

70
66
64
66

1
j
1
1

76
78
80
78

9
11
11
8

85
84
83
86

6
5
6
6

1
I
1
1

68
70
74
68

8
9
11
9

79
81
78
77

13
10
11
14

1996 Ql...
02...

I
1

60
62

1
1

75
75

10
9

23
26

1
1

3
4

77
78

I
1

80
79

8
9

88
86

4
5

1
1

65
65

6
8

77
78

17
14

1

***

|

***

13

80

7

I

***

13

84

4

1
1
1
1

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

|
|
|
|

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

9
14
9
10

85
80
83
81

5
6
8
9

I
|
|
I

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

11
18
10
8

84
76
84
81

5
6
6
11

***
***

I

***
***

15
11

80
78

5
12

I

***
***

H

|

III.C3

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

1994 04...

I

44

1995 01...
02...
03.
04...

I
I
I
I

45
47
51
49

1996 ni

|

q2

] ] *

|




46
5i

|

|

***

***

***

***

***
***

***
***

***
***

|

|

1

1

|

I

70

7

73

20

19

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE XIX.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
III.C4

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS
LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONBANK AGENCIES

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

NONE

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

NONE

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

1994 04...

|

66

I

***

***

***

1

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
I
I
I

66
69
68
71

|
I
I
|

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

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

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

I
I
I
I

1996 Ql...
02. ..

|
I

72
71

|
I

***
***

***
***

***
***

|
1

III.C5

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO

ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

7

***

|

36+

57

7

|

34

56

10

10
9
7
4

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

|
|
|
|

36
36
34
43

58
55
53
57

6
9
3
0

|
|
|
|

31
32
42
39

57
57
50
58

12
11
8
3

6

***
***

|
|

46
35

51
57

3
8

|
|

40
33

47
51

13
16

7

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

1994 Q4...

|

70

1

37

58

5

1

0

90

I

88

0

13

0

71

24

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
|
1
1

75
76
75
71

1
1
1
1

42
36
45
52

46
41
50
43

13
23
5
5

1
I
I
1

0
0
0
0

76
83
68
86

1
1
1
1

83
86
81
95

4
0
0
0

13
14
19
5

0
0
0
0

70
77
89
90

22
23
11
10

1996 Ql...
02...

|
|

72
73

1
1

53
45

42
40

5
15

1
1

0
0

90
71

1
1

89
89

0
2

11
9

0
0

84
80

16
13

•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

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF 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
Ill •D1

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

AVERAGE INTEREST RATE EXPECTED DURING THE NEXT QUARTER
COMPARED WITH AVERAGE RATES IN THE CURRENT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF1 BANKS! REPORTING)

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE! LOANS

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE! LOANS

LOWER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

SAME

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

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

1994 04...

1

9.9

10.0

***

9.5

1

1

***

***

1

***

***

1995 Ql...
02
03...
Q4...

1
1
1
1

10.3
10.2
10.1
9.9

10.3
10.2
10.2
9.9

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

9.7
9.6
9.3
8o9

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

***
***

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

|
j
j
j

***

***
***

1996 Ql. ..
02...

1
1

9.6
9.7

9.6
9.7

***
***

8.7
8.8

1
1

1
1

***
***

1
1

***

!

III,,D2
1994 Q4...

***
***
***

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

1

10.0

10.1

***

10.1

9.7

1

1

19,95 Ql...
02...
Q3...
04...

1
1
1
1

10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1

10.5
10.5
10.4
10.2

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

10.5
10.4
10.3
10.1

10.1
9.9
9.8
9.6

1
1
1
1

1
I
1
1

***
***
***

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

i
|
|
j

1996 Ql...
02...

1
1

9.9
9.9

10.0
10.0

***
***

9.9
9.9

9.3
9.4

1
1

I
1

***
***

***
***

j
j




HIGHER

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE XII.D (CONTINUED)
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.D3

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

SHORTTERM
NONREAL
ESTATE

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

LOWER

SAME

LONG-TERM
REAL ESTATE LOANS

INTERMEDIATE-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

SHORT-TERM
NONREAL ESTATE LOANS

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

LOWER

HIGHER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1994 04...

1

10.,3

10, 4

9..7

1

1

***

|

1995 Ql. . .
02...
Q3. . .
Q4...

1
1
|
1

10,,6
10.,8
10.,3
10..0

10,.6
10,,8
10,.3
10,.4

10,,1
10,> 2
9,,9
9..7

1
1
I
1

***
***

j
|

***
***

1
1
|
|I

***
***

1996 Ql...
02...

1
1

9 .9
10 .0

9,,9
10,.0

9.> 2
9,,3

1
1

***
***

|1
|I

***
***

***
***

|
|

***

*

1
1

***
***

***

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

1994 04...

1

10. 5

10 .5

10 >6

10 .6

1

***

|
1

***

***

1j

***

1995 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

11. 0
11. 0
10. 8
10. 7

11 .1
11 .0
10 .9
10 .8

11 >2
11 ,1
10 ,7
10 ,8

11 -0
10 .7
10 .5
10 .6

I
I
I
1

***

|
1
1
!
1
1

***

**»

***
***
***

***

***
***
***

1|
1
|
1
|
1

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

1996 01...
02...

1
1

10. 4
10. 5

10 .6
10 .6

10 ,4
10 .4

10 .0
10 .1

1
1

***
***

|
1
1

***
***

|
1
1

***
***

* **

1

***

1
1
j
1
1

***
***

j
1

***
***

III »D5

***

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

1994 04...

1

10.,0

10 .2

10 .2

9 .8

I

1995 Ql. . .
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
1

10.,7
10.,4
10. 4
10.,1

10 .5
10 .4
10 .2
10 .1

10 .5
10 .4
10 .2
10 .1

10 .2
10 .0
10 .0
9 .5

1
I
1
1

1
1
1
|

***

1996 Ql. . .
02...

1
1

9 .8
9 .8

9 .9
9 .7

9 .5
9 .5

1
1

1
1

***




***

9., 8
9,
,9

***
***

***

37

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.E
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME

38

MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
ALL
III.El

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

04...

|

1

***

01...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

1
|
|
|

1
0
1
2

***

01...
02...

1
I

4
1

***
***

III.E2

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

RANCHLAND

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

|

7

***

|

3

65

32

1

19

63

18

1
1
1
1

5
5
4
5

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

j
j
1
|

2
3
3
1

67
73
65
41

31
23
31
58

1
1
1
1

18
18
16
11

60
69
63
60

22
13
21
29

1
j

9
11

***
***

j
j

0
1

30
42

69
57

1
1

12
11

52
63

36
26

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

1994 04...

I

-5

***

j

-1

***

j

5

95

0

1

15

80

5

1995 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
|
|
|

18
—6
—8
8

***
***
***

j
1
j
j

8
9
-3
9

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

j
j
j
j

4
0
5
0

96
96
91
100

0
4
5
0

1
I
1
1

17
26
16
26

83
74
74
68

0
0
11
5

1996 Ql...
02...

1
|

-3
3

***
ft**

j
j

-9
-1

***
***

j
|

0
2

95
86

5
12

1
1

17
16

83
75

0
9

III.E3
1994 Q4. . .
1995 Ql...

|
|

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

1
-1

02...

|

***

03...
04...

I
I

***
***

-1
0

***

-2

1996 01.,.

02...




I

|

***

1

-1

3

9 j * * *

1

1

4
-3

9
3

|

*

*

*

|
I

***
***

-0

=11

|

***

-1

-1

|

***

0

-2

|

***

4
1
1
-0

-1
-2

-4

5

3 |

4

6 |
14
|
24
|

4
5

1

-1

-5

1

-2

-11

***

***

***

I

11

79

10

* **

* * *

* * *

***

***

***
* * *

I
I
I
I

10
17
14
20

78
73
73
67

12
10
13
12

I
I

30
38

58
52

12
10

* **

* * *

I

***

***

I

***

***

***

***

***

***

|

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

MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND

ALL
III.E4

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

|

***

2

-0

1995 Ql...
Q2...
Q3 . . .
Q4...

|
|

2
1

2
1

|

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

1996 Ql...
Q2...

|
|

***
***

III.E5

RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1994 Q4...

|

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER

1
1

1

0
1

- 2 - 2
o
1

|

***

3 | * * *
- 0 |
***
2
1
***
1
I
***
I I
1 1

***
***

6

5

7

7
7

4
4

6
5

6

3

5
1
1

4
-

0
0

|

***

***

***

I

***

***

***

|
1
5 |
5
1

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

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

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

I
|
I

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

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

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

3 |
4
1

***
***

***
***

***
***

I
|

***
***

***
***

***
***

I

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

1994 Q4

|

***

***

***

***

|

***

4

4

5

|

***

***

***

|

***

***

***

1995 Ql...
Q2.
q4 e e e

|
|
I
|

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

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

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

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

|
|
|
|

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

4
3
3
4

4
3
4
6

3 |
2
I
3
|
2 |

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

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

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

I
|
|
I

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

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

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

1996 Ql...
Q2

I
|

***
***

***
***

***
***

***
***

|
|

***
***

4
5

6
4

2
2

***
***

***
***

***
***

I
I

***
***

***
***

***
***




|
|

39