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