Full text of E.15 Agricultural Finance Databook : Third Quarter 2001

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

»

#

^

#

*

#

e

#

•

•

•

#

E.15 (125)

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE
DATABOOK
Third Quarter 2001
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
N i c h o l a s A. Walraven



22
33

General Information
The Agricultural Finance Databook is a compilation of various data on current developments in agricultural finance. Large portions of the data
come from regular surveys conducted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or Federal Reserve Banks. Other portions of
the data come from the quarterly call report data of commercial banks or from the reports of other financial institutions involved in agricultural
lending. When the current issue went to press, data from the survey of terms of bank lending were available for the third quarter of 2001; the
other data generally were available through the second quarter of 2001.

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 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. A copy of the back cover showing the old address should be
included.




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
IB
I.C
ID
IE
IF
IG
I.H
I.I

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

7
8
9
. . . . . . . . . . 1 0
"
%j
12
13
14
21

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 250
banks was asked for information regarding agricultural lending, and about 150 typically reported at least one farm loan.
Since August of 1989, the data have been drawn from a redesigned sample of 250 banks that is no longer part of the broader survey. In the redesigned
sample, banks are stratified according to their volume of farm lending; previously, they had been stratified according to the volume of business loans.
However, the sample data always have been expanded into national estimates for all commercial banks, and these estimates necessarily 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.
Beginning with the May 1997 survey, data on the assessment by the lender of the risk associated with each loan, the next date that the rate of interest could
be adjusted, whether the loan was callable by the bank, and whether the borrower could prepay the loan without penalty began to be collected. Over time,
the data on the lender's perception of the riskiness of farm loans should help provide a better picture of the effect of fluctuations in the creditworthiness of
farm borrowers as either farm financial conditions or the broader economic environment changes. The new data on loan repricing dates, callability of the
loan, and the existence of prepayment penalties should help to refine estimates of the duration of farm loans made by commercial banks.
Tables I.H.I through 1.H.6 contain most of the new data, while the other tables in section I attempt to show estimates that are comparable to those that have
been presented for a number of years. However, for several quarters while the new survey was being designed, banks that left the survey panel were not
replaced immediately, because new replacement banks would soon have been forced to revise their newly-instituted reporting procedures when the new
survey form went into effect. As a result, the size of the survey panel dwindled through early 1997, and with the May 1997 survey, an unusually-large
number of new reporters (about 25) were added. While this does not affect the validity of the May survey information, it likely introduced sampling error,
especially when the May survey results are compared with those of previous quarters.
The format and the information contained in the tables are likely to change over time as more of the new survey information is acquired.



3

4
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 2001 survey, the estimated number of non-real-estate farm loans made by banks was below the estimated level of one year earlier, continuing
the gradual downward trend that seems to have begun around 1994. The average size of loans in the August survey was towards the lower end of the range
seen in recent years, although the reading was a little greater than one year earlier. The estimated volume of farm loans in the August survey was the lowest
since the late 1980s, as larger loans seem to have become increasingly scarce in the survey. Relative to one year earlier, the declines in the volume of loans
outstanding largely reflected lower volumes of loans for operating expenses.
In the August survey, the average maturity of farm non-real-estate loans remained a bit less than twelve months, well below the maturity of 18 months that
was recorded in the February survey. Relative to the previous year, maturities shortened most on larger loans. In August, the average effective rate of
interest on non-real-estate farm loans fell more than half a percentage point from the reading in the previous quarter, bringing the rate below 8 percent for
the first time since 1994. Roughly three of every four loans in the August survey were made with a rate of interest that floats, towards the upper end of the
range seen for this series in the entire history of the survey.
The weighted average risk rating (line 5 of Tables I.H.l through I.H.6) was 3.08 in the August survey, pretty much in line with previous ratings this year.
The weighted average repricing interval (line 4 of the tables) rose to 7.39 months in August, almost a full month longer than early in 2001. The percentage
of the volume of loans that were to purchase or improve farm real estate (line 23) moved above 10 percent, compared with about 5 percent early in the year.
The proportion of farm loans that were secured (the sum of lines 25 and 26) remained a touch above 90 percent, but the proportion of the volume of loans
that was secured by farm real estate rose to almost 20 percent.
When broken out by the riskiness of the loan (Tables I.H.4 through I.H.6), more than a third of the estimated volume of loans in August was rated
"moderate". Weighted-average rates of interest have fallen more than 2 percentage points this year, and while rates have fallen for all risk categories, the
declines in rates tended to be larger at the riskier end of the spectrum.
Changes in weighted average rates of interest varied considerably across farm production regions in the August survey, ranging from a 1.1 percentage point
increase in the Lake States to a decline of a similar magnitude in the Appalachian region.




Chart 1

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers
Millions, Annual rate
Number of non-real-estate farm loans

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5

— Four quarter moving average

2.0
1.5

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Thousands of dollars

1.0

50
45

Average size of non-real-estate farm loans

40
35
30
- Four quarter moving average

25
20
15

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

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

10

130
120
110
100
90

- Four quarter moving average

80
70

60
50
40
1978




1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

30

Chart 2

Results from the Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers
Months
18
16

Average maturity of non-real-estate farm loans

14
- Four quarter moving average
12

10
8
6
4
1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Percent

20
18

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

16
14
12

10
8
6
1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Percent
Share of farm loans with a floating interest rate

100
90
80
70
60
50
40

— Four quarter moving average

30
20
10

1978




1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

0

ESTIMATES FROM THE QUARTERLY SAMPLE SURVEY OF BANK NON-REAL-ESTATE LOANS TO FARMERS
TABLE I.A
NUMBER OF LOANS MADE (MILLIONS)
BY SIZE OF
LOAN ($1,000#)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

OTHER

BY SIZE
OF BANK

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

1.67
1.70
1.66
1.67
1.65
1.55
1.45
1.33
1.32
1.20
1.09
1.09

0.52
0.49
0.51
0.54
0.56
0.51
0.57
0.48
0.50
0.45
0.44
0.44

0.31
0.35
0.32
0.37
0.37
0.35
0.36
0.31
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.28

0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.10

0.36
0.44
0.50
0.51
0.55
0.54
0.66
0.53
0.46
0.39
0.40
0.57

2.23
2.20
2.10
2.18
2.15
1.98
1.83
1.69
1.82
1.71
1.56
1.34

ANNUAL NUMBER OF LOANS MADE
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

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

2.60
2.63
2.60
2.69
2.70
2.53
2.49
2.22
2.27
2.10
1-96
1.91

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

0.30
0.32
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.28
0.26
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.14
0.11

0.20
0.24
0.23
0.25
0.27
0.23
0.19
0.17
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.17

1.73
1.69
1.64
1.67
1.62
1.56
1.48
1.38
1.40
1.39
1.32
1.30

0.16
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.16
0.13

0.20
0.19
0.21
0.24
0.27
0.27
0.39
0.36
0.33
0.22
0.18
0.19

NUMBER OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
2.12
1.70

|
j

0.10
0.17

0.16
0.14

1.50
1.05

0.15
0.14

0.20
0.20

1999 01.. .
Q2.. .
Q3.. .
04...

1.93
2.37
2.05
1.49

|
j
|
j

0.20
0.12
0.07
0.15

0.18
0.18
0.13
0.15

1.17
1.77
1.47
0.88

0.17
0.17
0.19
0.13

0.20
0.14
0.19
0.17

2000 Ql.. .
Q2.. .
Q3. . .
Q4...

1.91
2.27
1.86
1.59

|
j
j
j

0.09
0.12
0.09
0.14

0.16
0.19
0.15
0.19

1.36
1.56
1.29
0.96

0.13
0.18
0.12
0.11

0.16
0.22
0.20
0.19

2001 Ql. . .
Q2.. .
Q3.. .

1.63
2.16
1.66

|
j
j

0.12
0.13
0.09

0.17
0.19
0.13

0.97
1.34
1.09

0.14
0.16
0.12

0.23
0.34
0.23

03...
Q4. . .




|
|

|
j
j
j

1.36
0.94

0.41
0.36

0.26
0.30

0.09
0.11

||
j|

0.38
0.33

1.74
1.37

0.96
1.41
1.25
0.74

0.45
0.51
0.44
0.36

0.36
0.34
0.29
0.29

0.15
0.10
0.08
0.10

||
jE
j|
j

0.39
0.45
0.44
0.33

1.54
1.93
1.61
1.16

1.07
1.28
1.10
0.90

0.43
0.54
0.43
0.35

0.27
0.33
0.26
0.26

0.14
0.11
0.08
0.08

|
j
j
j

0.72
0.53
0.52
0.51

1.19
1.74
1.34
1.08

0.84
1.23
1.00

0.37
0.49
0.36

0.30
0.32
0.23

0.11
0.12
0.08

0.52
0.79
0.59

1.11
1.37
1.07

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 ($1,000#)

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

320.4
272.1
487.7
539.9
468.2
490.3
480.7
451.3
545.9
385.3
357.0
322.1
258.4

70.0
53.7
100.7
107.0
97.0
106.0
101.3
84.0
115.0
92.0
95.0
76.2
44.1

16.3
14.4
13.9
13.9
15.8
15.8
15.4
15.7
15.4
16.3
18.1
19.3
18.7

120.7

21.0

137.6
63.4
47.5
58.7

23.4
17.4
14.3
23.8

42.0
51.8
40.0
43.3

24.4
17.4
16.2
17.7

55.2
43.6
39.4

23.2
17.3
14.4

ANNUAL AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997,
1998
1999
2000,

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

21.8
19.9
28.4
31.9
31.2
34.3
33.9
33.8
39.2
31.4
32.4
30.9
26.3

34.1
42.7
69.7
61.0
68.2
79.7
60.3
49.7
59.0
42.3
41.5
35.6
43.3

40.6
29.5
22.7
25.2
26.9
23.1
27.6
26.7
24.2
26.0
24.3
26.4
26.0

16.7
14.1
15.7
15.6
14.7
15.2
16.3
18.5
26.0
16.8
18.2
21.4
21.3

13.9
12.1
11.9
15.1
15.9
13.9
17.5
15.6
17.2
17.8
28.1
31.8
29.3

34.7
32.2
94.3
129.3
108.7
112.0
123.6
93.6
95.2
97.2
127.9
101.1
48.5

3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.9

14.8
14.7
14.8
14.9
14.8
14.9
14.6
14.7
15.0
14.9
14.8
14.8
14.9

45.2
45.9
46.1
46.6
45.9
46.1
47.0
44.9
45.2
45.8
45.4
46.8
45.3

AVERAGE SIZE OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1998 Q4. . .

1

40.4

1999 Ql. . .
Q2...
03...
Q4.. .

|
j
j
|

2000 Ql...
Q2...
03...
04...
2001 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .




|

50.7

29.3

18.9

26.9

161.7

|
1

3.9

15.3

44.6

424.7

46.6
26.1
21.4
31.5

32.7
30.2
30.1
46.5

26.9
21.2
25.1
33.1

25.6
20.5
17.0
24.9

21.9
52.4 .
26.6
25.9

219.2
66.3
44.0
54.5

|1
|
j1
j1

3.7
3.8
3.7
4.1

15.5
14.5
14.6
14.9

47.9
46.4
45.9
46.7

412.6
314.6
261.3
242.1

|
j
j
j

31.1
25.4
22.9
25.9

38.5
40.3
56.9
40.2

29.9
23.3
23.8
27.0

27.6
20.1
18.1
18.6

48.0
23.3
25.6
20.6

43.5
58.5
36.2
54.8

3.8
4.0
3.5
4.2

15.1
14.8
14.8
15.1

47.7
45.6
43.6
44.2

256.3
255.6
273.0
252.2

|
j
|

33.3
26.9
23.2

30.1
31.4
43.6

25.3
29.5
27.2

24.3
19.3
16.2

34.6
41.2
23.4

78.4
47.1
46.1

3.9
3.9
3.7

15.2
14.5
14.7

46.6
44.1
44.0

274.0
263.7
255.6

|1
j1
j1

|

|
|
j
j|

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 ($1,000#)

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

19.6
44.2
53.7
49.4
58.8
55.1
55.3
61.2
41.9
37.0
30.6
25.1

32.0
30.5
29.1
34.3
33.8
30.6
28.8
26.1
29.6
31.1
30.1
25.0

ANNUAL AMOUNT OF LOANS MADE
1989.
1990.
1991.
1992.
1993.
1994.
1995.
1996.
1997.
1998.
1999.

51.6
74.7
82.8
83.7
92.6
85.7
84.1
87.3
71.4
68.0
60.6
50.2

2000.

12.9
22.0
21.4
23.6
28.7
16.8
12.7
10.6
8.0
6.1
4.9
4.8

6.0
5.5
5.8
6.7
6.2
6.4
5.2
4.0
5.3
4.4
4.2
4.5

24.3
26.6
25 5
24.6
24.7
25.4
27.3
35.9
23.6
25.2
28.4
27.6

2.0
2.3
2.5
2.9
2.5
3.2
2.7
2.4
2.7
4.9
5.2
3.9

6.4
18.3
27.6
26.0
30.6
33.9
36.1
34.5
31.9
27.5
18.0
9.3

6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.1
5.8
5.4
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.2
4.2

7.7
7.3
7.6
8.0
8.3
7.4
8.3
7.1
7.4
6.7
6.6
6.5

14.4
15.9
15.1
16.8
17.1
16.5
16.0
13.9
15.8
14.9
15.1
12.6

23.4
45.3
54.0
52.8
61.0
56.0
54.4
61.3
43.3
41.9
34.9
26.8

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

|

00

1998 Q4 .. .

8.8

4.1

19.7

3.8

32.3

|
1

3.6

5.5

13.2

46.4

|

40.0

28.7

|
|
j
|
|

53.9
28.3
20.8
19.3

36.0
33.5
23.1
27.7

30.4
27.2
20.9
22.0

29.0
30.2
21.7
19.3

28.4
34.4
23.2

25.8
23.6
15.5

1999 Ql. . .
Q2.. .
Q3. . .
04...

89.86
61.85
43.91
46.96

|
j
j
j

6.7
3.5
2.2
7.1

4.8
3.8
3.2
5.0

30.1
36.4
25.0
22.0

3.7
8.7
5.1
3.4

44.6
9.5
8.4
9.4

3.6
5.4
4.6
3.0

7.0
7.4
6.4
5.3

17.4
16.0
13.2
13.7

61.9
33.0
19.7
24.9

2000 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4.. .

59.42
57.44
42.60
41.24

|
j
|
j

3.6
4.8
5.1
5.8

4.8
4.4
3.7
5.1

37.6
31.5
23.4
17.8

6.3
4.1
3.0
2.3

7.1
12.7
7.4
10.2

4.1
5.1
3.8
3.7

6.6
7.9
6.3
5.3

12.7
15.1
11.3
11.4

36.0
29.3
21.2
20.8

2001 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .

54.27
58.02
38.64

|
j
j

3.6
4.1
4.1

4.3
5.5
3.5

23.7
25.9
17.7

4.7
6.7
2.8

18.0
15.9
10.5

3.3
4.8
3.7

5.7
7.1
5.3

13.9
14.1
10.2

31.4
32.1
19.5




|
j|
j|

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 ($1,000*)

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

8.3
9.2
8.3
9.7
10.0
11.6
10.8
10.5
11.6
11.3
11.2
11.5

9.3
11.9
10.6
11.1
11.1
13.5
12.1
12.1
12.4
12.5
12.4
11.1

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

7.8
4.7
5.2
6.4
6.4
5.8
7.3
6.4
7.6
6.8
9.2
10.0

8.2
10.2
9.6
10.1
10.4
12.6
11.4
12.3
12.8
13.2
13.8
12.3

5.9

11.7

7.0
9.9
12.3
10.8

12.6
18.0
11.8
11.9

8.2
11.2
10.3
10.9

14.3
11.9
11.8
10.4

19.6
8.9
9.9

17.8
15.9
12.6

ANNUAL AVERAGE MATURITY
|
1
|
|

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997,
1998,
1999.
2000,

j
j
|

j
|

j
j
j

8.1
7.5
7.3
8.9
9.2
10.3
9.9
8.5
9.9
9.8
11.5
11.2

|

j
j
j
j
|

j
j
j
j
j
j

6.8
6.0
6.7
6.1
7.3
7.6
8.7
7.8
9.1
8.0
8.0
8.0

7.4
8.8
8.5
9.5
9.6
9.8
9.9
11.3
11.0
10.3
11.0
10.8

7.2
7.5
7.2
8.6
8.3
8.6
8.5
7.6
10.7
9.9
11.3
9.5

18.7
21.9
24.6
20.1
30.4
36.6
26.5
29.4
30.6
27.5
20.1
22.4

11.8
6.4
5.3
9.4
9.4
9.4
10.0
9.2
7.4
6.8
10.5
13.2

7.4
7.4
7.7
8.3
8.5
8.6
9.0
8.6
8.8
8.8
9.8
9.7

7.1
4.9
5.8
7.2
7.4
7.2
8.2
7.3
8.8
8.7
11.4
11.4

MATURITY OF LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER,, ANNUAL RATE
1998 Q4. . .

|

8.3

|

8.3

8.6

8.9

31.5

5.2

1999 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

j
j
j

|

9.2
14.4
12.0
11.5

|

8.3
8.8
6.9
7.7

12.8
12.0
7.3
10.9

11.2
14.2
9.3
8.7

28.0
13.9
22.3
24.1

6.1
18.8
17.1
16.9

|
2000 Ql. . .
02... . j
j
03...
j
Q4. . .

11.2
11.6
11.1
10.6

9.0
9.7
6.7
7.2

10.4
9.3
14.8
9.7

10.0
10.1
9.1
7.9

17.4
22.3
30.7
25.8

14.1
13.4
10.2
14.5

|
1
j|

|

18.7
11.8
11.0

8.7
8.1
6.8

18.6
16.9
10.7

12.4
10.2
8.6

30.6
14.0
32.3

25.9
12.8
11.3

|
|

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

2001 Ql. ..
02...
03...




j
j

j
|

j
|

j
j
j
1

j
j

|

|
|

j1

7.6

8.9

11.4

7.5

10.1
9.9
9.4
9.7

11.9
11.3
10.4
11.1

10.9
14.7
11.1
12.9

8.4
15.7
13.8
11.1

9.8
10.8
9.0
8.9

12.0
11.9
11.2
10.5

10.9
11.7
10.2
11.5

11.4
11.6
11.9
10.5

9.9
11.1
9.1

13.3
11.9
11.2

13.5
12.5
11.8

23.0
11.6
10.9

|
1

|
|
|
|

j

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

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

1
to
9

OTHER

10
to
24

25
to
99

BY SIZE
OF BANK
100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

12.1
10.9
9.0
6.8
6.7
7.2
9.0
7.8
8.7
8.3
7.9
9.3

12.7
12.3
11.3
9.4
8.7
8.8
10.4
10.0
10.0
9.8
9.4
10.2

ANNUAL AVERAGE INTEREST RATE
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
j
j
j
1

12.5
H.4
9.8
7.8
7.5
7.8
9.5
8.4
9.2
9.0
8.7
9.7

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

12.3
11.5
10.2
8.2
8.0
8.3
10.1
8.8
9.6
9.4
9.1
9.8

12.4
12.0
11.0
8.6
8.1
8.0
10.2
9.5
9.8
9.7
9.1
9.9

12.6
11.7
10.4
8.8
8.1
8.4
10.0
8.6
9.9
9.6
9.2
9.9

12.8
12.3
11.3
9.3
8.7
8.6
10.3
9.7
9.8
9.3
8.8
9.3

12.3
10.7
8.6
6.3
6.2
7.0
8.8
8.0
8.5
8.0
7.6
9.3

12.8
12.5
11.5
9.7
9.0
9.1
10.6
10.2
10.2
10.1
9.7
10.3

12.7
12.4
11.2
9.3
8.7
8.8
10.5
10.1
10.0
9.9
9.5
10.2

12.7
12.1
10.7
8.8
8.3
8.6
10.3
9.8
9.9
9.7
9.3
10.1

12.2
10.9
9.2
7.1
6.9
7.3
9.0
7.8
8.8
8.4
8.1
9.4

AVERAGE RATE ON LOANS MADE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER, ANNUAL RATE
1998 Q4. . .

8.5

|

9.1

9.0

9.3

9.0

7.7

8.2
8.8
9.0
9.2

|
j
j
j

9.1
9.0
9.0
9.3

9.1
9.1
9.1
9.2

9.2
9.1
9.2
9.4

9.2
8.2
9.0
9.4

2000 oi...
02...
03...
04...

9.2
9.7
10.2
10.0

|
j
j
j

9.2
9.6
10.4
10.0

9.3
9.9
10.2
10.3

9.5
9.9
10.3
10.3

2001 oi...
02...
03...

9.1
8.3
7.7

|
j
j

9.6
8.3
7.8

9.6
8.6
7.5

9.6
8.6
8.1

1999 01. ..
02...
03...
04...




1

|

9.9

9.7

9.3

8.1

|1

7.9

9.4

7.2
7.9
8.5
8.6

9.7
9.5
9.7
9.9

9.4
9.4
9.6
9.7

9.2
9.2
9.4
9.4

7.7
8.3
8.4
8.8

|1

7.4
8.1
8.4
8.7

9.4
9.3
9.6
9.5

8.0
10.1
10.1
10.3

9.2
9.2
9.6
9.4

9.8
10.3
10.7
10.6

9.7
10.1
10.7
10.5

9.5
10.0
10.4
10.3

9.0
9.4
9.8
9.7

8.7
9.4
9.7
9.7

9.8
10.1
10.6
10.5

9.2
8.1
8.2

8.3
7.8
6.9

10.1
9.2
8.9

9.8
8.9
8.5

9.6
8.6
8.0

8.7
7.9
7.1

8.5
7.8
7.1

9.8
9.0
8.7

||
|1

11

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 ($1,0008)

BY PURPOSE OF LOAN
ALL
LOANS

FEEDER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
LIVESTOCK

OTHER
CURRENT
OPERATING
EXPENSES

FARM
MACHINERY
AND
EQUIPMENT

12

OTHER

BY SIZE
OF BANK

1
to
9

10
to
24

25
to
99

100
and
over

LARGE

OTHER

50.4
53.6
52.0
57.3
60.1
58.6
61.7
60.6
60.1
57.6
52.6
53.4

49.6
59.2
59.0
59.1
61.0
59.8
63.9
61.5
58.0
54.8
54.6
54.6

58.5
66.0
64.0
61.2
64.5
70.4
73.6
69.1
68.0
62.7
60.2
61.8

69.1
67.5
67.8
78.6
83.9
80.2
76.7
62.2
67.0
51.1
63.1
74.5

83.6
69.4
70.0
82.9
86.9
83.7
79.9
65.4
71.4
57.1
70.8
82.5

47.2
59.3
56.1
55.5
58.9
59.7
62.3
57.9
57.9
51.3
50.5
51.4

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE OF LOANS MADE
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

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

61.0
65.2
65.1
71.7
76.7
75.1
73.8
63.1
65.8
54.4
60.7
66.9

71.4
76.8
81.5
78.5
84.6
82.9
83.9
58.1
66.4
55.0
45.6
57.3

40.0
61.6
69.3
63.5
70.0
74.3
75.9
71.2
73.2
59.4
66.0
60.7

59.7
68.3
68.8
66.3
70.3
72.3
73.0
67.3
67.8
68.5
68.6
67.0

32.9
40.0
40.6
47.8
48.2
51.6
53.1
32.9
49.9
46.7
58.2
62.2

73.6
51.2
50.3
75.3
78.1
75.7
72.2
61.4
64.3
42.0
52.0
76.7

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE DURING FIRST FULL WEEK OF SECOND MONTH OF QUARTER
1997 Q4.

58.5

55.4

78.0

73.4

54.5

48.0

61.6

57.7

72.2

54.2

57.2

60.6

1998 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

56.6
54.6
54.7
51.6

59.4
76.2
51.6
39.9

56.6

70.2

54.2

67.1

68.0

58.1
48.2
28.3
38.9

41.2
34.9
47.4
44.4

60.5
58.0
55.7
56.4

56.7
50.5
57.7
55.9

67.0
61.9
59.3

52.6
51.7
52.4
48.1

53.9
57.6
61.9
55.8

59.1
51.1
44.1
45.7

1999 Ql.
Q2.
03.
Q4.

46.4
73.7
70.2
62.3

50.2

65.2
72.5
69.1
59.9

63.6
72.6
71.5
65.4

33.9
75.5
48.8
54.1

33.2
79.2
86.3

47.0
57.6
50.2
54.2

50.4
58.8
51.4
58.0

55.0

43.5
83.3
86.4
66.5

43.4
91.5
94.3
91.8

50.8
58.6
48.6
41.7

2000 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

63.0
68.3
71.0
66.5

46.4
51.0

59.4
69.7
78.9

80.6

62.8

57.6
38.6
51.0

70.8
78.4
72.9

81.6

51.8
53.0
57.3
51.6

52.4
54.7
57.9
53.2

53.0

60.0
66.8

69.2
57.8
59.5
56.2

69.7
78.0
79.2
73.1

65.2
88.4
89.9
91.9

60.7
50.2
52.9
37.6

2001 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.

67.7
76.1
76.5

64.7
77.5
72.5

73.7
56.8
72.6

73.4
73.8
75.5

50.8
79.0
54.9

63.9
85.1
86.9

60.0

60.4
57.4
63.5

66.4
69.0
70.7

70.4

57.3
58.0

76.2
91.9
95.0

58.4
53.2
48.9




66.6

44.6
31.2

60.1
66.2

68.1

82.6

60.8
66.2

62.3
57.9

61.8
67.8
65.7

86.2
86.6

TABLE I.G
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE OF NON-REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS MADE BY BANKS*

EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE (percent)
ZERO
ALL
TO
RATES 5.0

5.0
TO
5.9

6.0
TO
6.9

7.0
TO
7.9

15
5
8
4
1
23

18
3
10
10
1
25

25
33
30
35
16
25

22
33
29
32
30
12

15
17
16
12
28
3

4
8
6
4
19
1

1
2
0
1
5
0

0
0
0
0
1
0

8.0
TO
8.9

9.0
TO
9.9

10.0
TO
10.9

11.0
TO
11.9

12.0
TO
12.9

13.0
TO
13.9

14.0
TO
14.9

15.0
TO
15.9

17.0
TO
17.9

18.0
TO
18.9

19.0
TO
19.9

20.0
TO
20.9

—1\ £2 a. Ll-Lily4S
.J.WUI *ucviuua years for m e inust rec eiiL quarcer-

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

100
100
100
100
100
100

0
1

0
0
0
2
0
9

1998 04...

100

0

0

0

3

15

30

34

13

4

0

0

1999 Ql. .
02. .
03. .
04. .

100
100
100
100

0
0

4
4
2
0

17
4
4
3

17
12
10
9

29
37
35
30

23
30
32
36

9
11
12
17

2
2
4
5

1
0
1
1

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

2000 Ql. .
02. .
03. .
04. .

100
100
100
100

0
0

0
0
0
0

5
0
1
0

4
4
1
3

30
19
16
15

36
36
30
30

18
27
28
34

6
11
19
13

1
2
5
4

0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

2001 Ql. .
02. .
03. .

100
100
100

0
0
1

3
9

8
8
23

7
29
25

28
31
25

33
22
12

17
5
3

5
2
1

2
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0

0

16.0
TO
16.9

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0

**
**

0
**

0

0

**
**

* *

0
0
0

0

0

0
0

0

0

0

* Percentage distribution of the estimated dollar amount of nonreal-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured
commercial banks during the survey week. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending
to Farmers # which is conducted during the first full business week of the second month of each quarter.
Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
A value of 0 indicates less than .5 percent, while ** indicates no observation.




14
TABLE I.H.I
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 6-10, 2001
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

ALL BANKS
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months) 1
Weighted average repricing interval (months) 2
Weighted average risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other

15
16
17
18

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




917,350
36,857
21.03
7.39
3.08

79,631
21,827
9.37
4.01
2.81

114,848
7,935
11.94
6.01
2.80

117,215
3,450
15.89
8.61
2.93

116,966
1,771
16.34
5.51
3.15

200,522
1,354
19.56
12.01
2.96

288,168
520
32.80
5.95
3.34

7.77
0.19

8.86
0.07

8.56
0.06

8.24
0.18

7.86
0.18

7.54
0.08

7.08
0.34

8.60
6.92

9.64
8.11

9.25
7.81

8.96
7.40

8.50
6.96

8.33
6.70

7.52
6.43

7.83
7.54
8.17
8.09
7.83
6.97

8.86
9.30
8.87
9.18
9.10
8.08

8.26
9.25
8.71
8.34
8.36
7.89

8.24
8.47
8.33
8.30
8.82
7.58

8.60
7.54
7.89
8.00
7.95
7.37

7.70
6.88
7.79
8.41
8.11
6.74

7.11
6.50
7.53
7.38
7.38
6.64

74.64
76.67
21.33
1.08

61.07
76.51
21.98
3.33

63.40
72.79
20.27
0.82

62.17
68.69
23.01
1.65

76.68
74.82
19.63
0.34

68.48
70.34
18.05
0.83

91.41
86.68
23.86
0.82

8.74
7.40
42.52
6.59
11.02
23.74

3.85
7.46
70.56
6.85
2.11
9.17

4.32
4.88
65.31
9.68
1.39
14.42

6.93
10.07
49.15
10.78
6.17
16.90

13.74
6.86
44.69
3.96
8.56
22.19

11.13
9.34
36.08
3.87
17.32
22.26

8.89
6.17
26.57
6.55
15.91
35.91

19.26
71.52

11.41
79.52

11.75
78.58

13.04
78.55

20.73
75.17

25.04
71.07

22.35
62.46

TABLE I.H.2
SURVEY OP TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 6-10, 2001
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

69,402
2,040
10.66
3.36
3.26

86,716
1,302
13.13
5.09
3.31

134,605
915
14.84
8.76
3.23

267,678
458
29.28
5.35
3.37

LARGE FARM LENDERS 7
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months) 1
Weighted average repricing interval (months) 2
Weighted average risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17

659,644
20,104
19.46
5.48
3.29

41,164
11,238
8.69
3.10

60,078
4,151
11.82
4.09
3.20

7.44
0.23

8.31
0.14

8.15
0.19

7.87
0.24

7.62
0.22

7.32
0.19

7.04
0.33

8.14
6.70

9.04
7.63

8.89
7.46

8.60
6.96

8.25
6.92

8.11
6.43

7.51
6.43

41
83
93
64
47

7.69
8.46
8.53
7.64

8.10

7.98
7.75
8.33
7.89
8.17

7.73
7.14
8.11
8.06
7.77

7.76
7.00
7.90
7.33
7.75

7.48
6.88
7.88
8.03
7.64

7.11
6.50
7.45
7.38
7.38

81.18

79.31

82.54
89.82
25.75

80.74
82.19
19.62

73.53

93.12
91.37
23.75

3.69
5.50
56.93

8.50
13.92
34.78
3.20
6.44

22.26

9.57
6.64
26.67
7.05
17.13
35.91

17.94
76.25

18.35
65.30

2.06

84.38
87.75
23.26

93.95
23.71

7.95
7.37
40.78
5.50
9.44
23.74

4.80
3.09
71.95
3.72
1.31
9.17

4.40
3.08
64.25
5.90
1.48
14.42

2.07
16.90

9.42
5.92
49.66
3.80
5.64
22.19

17.65
71.60

20.24
71.84

15.93
75.54

13.68
77.44

76.32

88.61

27.78

6.80

18.16

80.80
21.20

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




15

16
TABLE I.H.3
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 6-10, 2001
Loans to farmers
Size class of loans (thousands)
all sizes

$1-9

$10-24

$25-49

$50-99

$100-249

$250 and over

257,706
16,754
24.96
12.19
2.37

38,467
10,589
10.09
6.07
2.44

54,771
3,784
12.08
8.08
2.31

47,813
1,410
23.14
15.92
2.33

30,249
469
25.30
6.70
2.43

65,916
439
28.84
18.50
2.02

20,490
62
78.39
13.71
3.00

8.59
0.10

9.44
0.09

9.00
0.15

8.77
0.12

8.54
0.35

8.00
0.21

7.48
0.92

9.20
7.98

10.17
8.68

9.77
8.30

9.42
8.16

9.14
8.00

8.60
7.50

8.60
5.10

8.63
9.34
8.69
8.76
8.42
7.67

10.23
9.75
9.33
9.43
9.79
9.68

8.59
9.99
9.12
8.55
8.60
8.19

8.47
9.11
8.83
8.45
9.08
8.25

9.47
8.50
7.83
9.65
8.15
8.47

7.94
9.03
7.64
8.87
8.26
9.04

10.19
9.96
8.60

49.71
48.32
16.39

39.54
57.85
20.13

45.94
55.45
12.03

32.60
38.01
19.03

65.04
53.71
19.67

58.16
48.97
11.63

69.04
25.35
25.35

10.75
7.49
46.96
9.40
15.06
23.74

2.82
12.13
69.08
10.20
2.97
9.17

4.22
6.86
66.47
13.83
1.29
14.42

11.62
16.70
37.86
16.57
12.11
16.90

26.10
9.57
30.47
4.40
16.94
22.19

16.48
16.13
38.74
5.26
39.52
22.26

37.57
11.22
25.35

23.40
71.31

1.96
87.74

7.17
81.92

12.11
80.17

28.10
71.90

39.52
60.48

74.65
25.35

OTHER BANKS 7
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months) 1
Weighted average repricing interval (months) 2
Weighted average risk rating 3

6 Weighted average interest rate (percent) 4
7
Standard error 5
8
Interquartile Range 6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
With floating rates
Made under commitment
Callable
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other
15
16
17

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




-

8.00
7.10

-

23.80
35.91

TABLE I.H.4

SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 6-10, 2001
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Ratad

Not Reported

917,350
36,857
21.03
7.39
3.08

48,092
3,965
15.11
8.58
1.00

143,361
6,868
41.96
18.29
2.00

342,845
12,865
14.67
3.93
3.00

205,118
6,264
20.54
2.70
4.00

47,047
1,399
5.79
0.62
5.00

53,931
1,486
25.89
9.70

76,956
4,010
21.26
16.78

7.77
0.19

8.50
0.21

8.17
0.18

7.68
0.21

7.40
0.31

8.12
0.42

6.91
0.52

8.28

8.60
6.92

9.42
7.60

8.82
7.51

8.59
6.92

7.98
6.75

8.89
6.96

8.42
5.69

8.95
6.96

7.83
7.54
8.17
8.09
7.83
6.97

7.97
9.04
8.62
8.73
6.79
9.10

8.31
7.81
8.53
7.81
7.74
7.38

7.27
7.84
8.07
7.90
8.66
6.92

6.94
6.73
8.04
8.24
7.56
6.87

7.25
6.86
8.42
6.85
8.08
7.98

8.57
7.21
7.53
8.40
5.87

10.27
9.40
8.24
9.36
7.77
8.05

74.64
76.67
21.33
1.08

64.31
65.53
17.46
0.08

57.50
57.94
27.39
0.09

76.06
76.03
25.26
1.90

91.31
93.55
11.01
1.02

93.79
96.21
6.84
0.61

80.59
77.02
17.36
0.01

46.43
64.27
34.10
1.13

8.74
7.40
42.52
6.59
11.02
23.74

18.65
5.27
47.79
18.86
3.78
5.64

13.50
5.62
46.22
8.78
19.84
6.04

8.17
7.69
45.32
7.45
3.99
27.39

5.93
11.38
34.84
3.26
12.44
32.15

3.08
5.86
54.87
1.29
1.49
33.42

8.95
2.85
37.95
5.35
5.44
39.46

6.97
4.33
35.93
4.01
36.38
12.38

19.26
71.52

7.11
86.77

31.65
65.21

16.00
78.19

21.15
59.46

13.99
84.87

12.21
83.61

21.50
59.50

ALL BANKS
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating3

6 Weighted average 5 interest rate (percent)4
7
Standard error
8
Interquartile Range6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
15 With floating rates
16 Made under commitment
17 Callable
18 Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other

8.06

0.29

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




17

18
TABLE I.H.5
SURVEY OF TERMS 07 BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 6-10, 2001
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

Moderate

Acceptable

Special

Not Rated

Not Reported

26,234
1,009
8.06
0.29

LARGE FARM LENDERS7
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval (months)2
Weighted average risk rating3
4

6 Weighted average 5 interest rate (percent)
7
Standard error
8
Interquartile Range6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
15 With floating rates
16 Made under commitment
17 Callable
18 Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other

659,644
20,104
19.46
5.48
3.29

13,823
826
21.01
15.72
1.00

79,297
2,831
57.35
23.15
2.00

274,410
8,775
10.52
2.82
3.00

190,013
4,907
20.51
2.38
4.00

46,045
1,235
5.63
0.38
5.00

29,823
520
24.91
10.98

7.44
0.23

8.18
0.36

7.95
0.26

7.45
0.21

7.23
0.29

8.07
0.39

6.04
0.43

7.47
0.75

8.14
6.70

8.84
6.77

8.64
7.51

8.14
6.70

7.52
6.70

8.84
6.96

6.96
5.08

7.91
6.92

7.41
6.83
7.93
7.64
7.47
6.88

8.54
8.98
7.80
8.84
6.79
8.92

8.49
6.58
8.41
6.49
7.64
7.02

7.13
7.22
7.85
7.79
8.10
6.82

6.88
6.55
7.82
7.54
7.51
6.80

7.19
6.43
8.37
6.85
8.08
7.98

8.03
6.34
6.15
6.68
7.69
5.86

9.02
8.29
7.84
8.23
6.96
7.91

84.38
87.75
23.26
1.10

55.06
43.70
17.95
0.27

62.10
67.66
42.90
0.17

82.39
85.94
27.85
1.70

93.83
96.77
11.44
1.10

95.27
97.67
5.81
0.63

88.48
94.76
2.85
0.03

95.82
100.00
58.05

7.95
7.37
40.78
5.50
9.44
23.74

7.26
1.24
37.03
24.18
13.16
5.64

14.02
4.32
45.20
5.44
22.98
6.04

9.66
7.23
46.06
8.15
1.64
27.39

6.13
11.76
33.71
1.94
13.06
32.15

3.08
5.29
54.65
1.32
1.52
33.42

2.14
1.23
18.30
5.79
1.44
39.46

0.33
0.03
26.60
0.87
44.93
12.38

17.65
71.60

22.05
67.36

39.81
57.33

10.11
84.45

22.40
57.92

14.30
84.54

16.05
77.26

0.43
52.40

-

-

-

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




#

•

s

•

#

e

#

#

#

e

#

TABLE I.H.6
SURVEY OF TERMS OF BANK LENDING MADE DURING AUGUST 6-10, 2001
Loans to farmers
Risk Rating
All

Minimal

Low

257,706
16,754
24.96
12.19
2.37

34,269
3,139
12.73
5.71
1.00

8.59
0.10

Moderate

Acceptable

64,065
4,037
22.91
12.27
2.00

68,435
4,090
31.25
8.36
3.00

15,105
1,358
20.86
6.75
4.00

8.63
0.17

8.45
0.15

8.61
0.20

9.20
7.98

9.46
7.60

8.87
7.90

8.63
9.34
8.69
8.76
8.42
7.67

7.89
9.04
8.86
8.66
8.07
10.29

8.07

49.71
48.32
16.39
1.05

Not Rated

Not Reported

I,003
163
13.32
II.51
5.00

24,108
966
26.90
8.40

50,721
3,001
27.89
25.06

9.55
0.49

10.14
0.33

7.99
0.33

8.70
0.36

9.21
8.42

10.14
8.84

10.70
10.10

7.12

8.60

9.46
8.00

8.67
8.51
7.93
8.39

9.80
9.74
9.04
8.67
8.93
7.30

8.25
10.74
9.95
9.09
9.65
8.69

9.58
10.10
10.18
11.58
9.46

8.65
8.60
7.60
8.79
8.52
8.50

10.29
9.40
8.37
9.45
8.37
8.45

68.04
74.33
17.26
5.37

51.80
45.92
8.20
1.36

50.69
36.28
14.86
0.61

59.56
53.02
5.53
22.78

25.91
29.15
54.18

70.84
55.07
35.30

20.89
45.78
21.72

10.75
7.49
46.96
9.40
15.06
23.74

23.24
6.89
52.14
16.72
29.82
5.64

12.86
7.22
47.48
12.90
14.32
6.04

2.17
9.51
42.37
4.67
1.03
27.39

3.47
6.63
49.05
19.94
16.58
32.15

3.24
31.96
64.80
115.57
1,616.75
33.42

17.37
4.85

62.26

11.85
9.58
39.46

10.41
6.55
40.76
7.50

23.40
71.31

1.08
94.60

21.55
74.97

39.59
53.08

5.39
78.74

179.36
100.00

68.16
91.46

16.71
63.18

7

OTHER BANKS
1
2
3
4
5

Amount of loans (thousands)
Number of loans
Weighted average maturity (months)1
Weighted average repricing interval
(months)2
Weighted average risk rating3

6 Weighted average5 interest rate (percent)4
Standard error
Interquartile Range6
a.75th Percentile
b.25th Percentile
By purpose of loan
9
Feeder livestock
10
Other livestock
11
Other current operating expenses
12
Farm machinery and equipment
13
Farm real estate
14
Other
Percentage of the amount of loans
15 With floating rates
16 Made under commitment
17 Callable
18 Subject to prepayment penalty
By purpose of the loan
19
Feeder livestock
20
Other livestock
21
Other current operating expenses
22
Farm machinery and equipment
23
Farm real estate
24
Other
By type of collateral
25
Farm real estate
26
Other

-

12.38

Footnotes are at the end of table I.H




19

o

<N

NOTES TO TABLE I.H
The Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers collects data on gross loan extensions made
during the first full business week in the mid-month of each quarter by a sample of 250 banks of
all sizes. The sample data are blown up to estimate the lending terms at all insured agricultural
banks during that week. The estimated terms of bank lending are not intended for use in
collecting the terms of loans extended over the entire quarter or those residing in the portfolios of
banks. Loans of less than $1,000 are excluded from the survey.

1. Average maturities are weighted by loan size and exclude loans with no stated maturity.
2. The repricing interval measures the period from the date the loan is made until it first may be
repriced. For floating-rate loans that are subject to repricing at any time-such as many primebased loans-the repricing interval is zero. For floating rate loans that have a scheduled repricing
interval, the interval measures the number of days between the date the loan is made and the
date on which it is next scheduled to reprice. For loans having rates that remain fixed until the
loan matures (fixed-rate loans), the interval measures the number of days between the date the
loan is made and the date on which it matures. Loans that reprice daily are assumed to reprice
on the business day after they are made.
3. A complete description of these risk rating categories is available from the Banking and
Money Market Statistics Section, mail stop 81, the Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC
20551. The category "Moderate Risk" includes the average loan, under average economic
conditions, at the typical lender. The weighted-average risk ratings are calculated by assigning a
value of "1" to minimal risk loans; "2" to low risk loans; "3" to moderate risk loans; "4" to
acceptable risk loans; and "5" to special mention and classified loans. These values are
weighted by loan amount and exclude loans with no risk rating. Some of the loans are not rated
for risk.
4. Effective (compounded) annual interest rates are calculated from the stated rate and other
terms of the loans and weighted by loan size.
5. 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.
6. The interquartile range shows the interest rate range that encompasses the middle 50
percent of the total dollar amount of loans made.
7. Among banks reporting loans to farmers, most "large banks" (survey strata 1 and 2) had over
$25 million in farm loans, most "other banks" (survey strata 3 to 5) had farm loans below $25
million.




Table I.I
Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, (selected quarters)
LS

CB

USD A Farm Production Region
NP
AP
SE
DL

2.5

11.2

26.4

17.0

10.5

5.0

4.3

8.8

5.7

8.5

Sample Coverage,
Aug. 2001 survey (%)

19.0

4.3

8.9

10.7

15.4

14.2

6.3

4.8

23.0

63.5

Avg. Loan Size,
Aug. 2001 survey ($1000)
Survey date:
Nov.
1992
Feb.
1993
May
1993
Aug.
1993
Nov.
1993
Feb.
1994
May
1994
Aug.
1994
Nov.
1994
Feb.
1995
May
1995
Aug.
1995
Nov.
1995
Feb.
1996
May
1996
Aug.
1996
Nov.
1996
Feb.
1997
May
1997
Aug.
1997
Nov.
1997
Feb.
1998
May
1998
Aug.
1998
Nov.
1998
Feb.
1999
May
1999
Aug.
1999

14.9

16.6

29.1

20.8

48.5

31.6

11.0

26.7

32.2

43.4

7.9
7.8
8.1
8.2
8.3
7.7
8.7
9.1
10.2
11.7
9.0
9.6
10.8
8.8
10.3
8.3
10.1
8.8
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.3
9.2
10.2
9.4
8.4
9.6
10.2
(.29)

Weighted Average Interest Rate During Sample Week
9.2
8.3
7.9
7.3
5.5
8.4
9.0
8.0
8.0
5.6
8.3
7.8
8.7
8.1
7.9
5.2
8.4
7.8
7.5
8.2
8.0
5.7
7.3
7.0
8.1
7.8
7.4
5.3
6.3
8.2
8.6
7.9
7.5
5.2
7.3
7.7
9.0
8.0
8.1
6.1
7.8
8.2
8.6
8.3
8.6
6.5
8.6
7.6
9.7
8.9
8.5
7.1
8.5
8.8
10.7
10.0
9.9
8.6
7.2
10.4
10.4
9.3
9.4
8.5
10.2
10.7
10.3
9.3
9.8
8.1
9.6
10.4
10.3
8.3
9.6
7.9
10.1
10.3
9.9
8.0
9.4
7.3
9.4
10.9
10.2
7.3
9.0
8.1
9.6
10.4
9.9
8.9
9.4
7.6
9.4
10.0
9.9
9.3
9.0
7.5
9.3
9.9
9.5
9.5
9.3
8.0
9.9
9.5
10.1
9.2
9.5
8.3
9.9
10.2
9.8
9.6
9.9
8.5
10.1
9.9
9.5
9.3
9.8
7.5
9.4
9.8
9.0
9.4
9.8
7.3
10.0
10.3
9.4
9.2
9.7
7.6
10.2
10.3
9.5
9.5
9.5
8.8
9.5
9.7
9.2
8.7
9.0
9.4
8.3
9.7
8.9
8.9
9.1
8.2
9.0
9.6
9.1
8.8
9.0
8.0
9.0
9.8
8.9
8.7
9.3
8.2
8.9
10.0
(.56)
(.14)
(.22)
018)
037)
055)

8.2
7.8
8.3
7.7
7.8
7.6
8.4
8.6
9.0
10.4
10.1
10.1
9.8
9.9
9.8
9.4
9.1
9.5
9.7
9.7
9.4
9.8
9.6
9.5
9.2
9.1
9.0
8.8
(.65)

7.6
7.5
7.7
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.6
8.0
9.4
9.3
9.4
9.3
8.9
8.7
8.9
9.0
10.1
10.0
10.5
10.1
9.6
9.8
9.6
9.1
9.0
8.7
9.0
019)

6.9
6.5
6.8
7.2
6.7
6.9
7.2
7.5
8.5
9.4
9.3
9.5
8.9
8.1
8.3
8.1
8.6
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.8
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
(23)

NE
Proportion of farm loans
outstanding, June 2001

SP

MN

PA

Nov.

1999

9.1
(.67)

9.2
067)

8.8
029)

9.4
015)

8.3
031)

8.8
(.50)

9.8
037)

9.0
(.37)

9.5
(16)

8.8
(28)

Feb.

2000

9.4
(.49)

9.2
Oil)

9.2
028)

9.6
010)

8.4
015)

9.8
032)

9.3
006)

10.0
(.49)

9.8
021)

8.4
(.66)

May

2000

10.7
(.5)

9.5
016)

9.7
009)

9.7
017)

9.1
017)

9.1
(1.15)

10.5
02)

10.0
(28)

10.1
(22)

9.5
024)

Aug.

2000

10.5
(96)

10.30
(23)

10.0
(.20)

10.3
(.09)

9.7
035)

9.2
(1.10)

10.5
001)

10.0
031)

10.6
(29)

9.7
(.27)

Nov.

2000

10.7
(.75)

9.3
(25)

9.9
(13)

10.1
OH)

9.2
012)

9.4
(.97)

9.2
(1.24)

10.3
033)

10.3
019)

9.8
(20)

Feb.

2001

9.3
(.11)

9.1
(22)

9.4
016)

9.7
(13)

8.4
019)

7.8
(1.20)

9.5
025)

9.0
(95)

9.8
037)

8.8
012)

May

2001

8.7
058)

8.3
012)

8.8
009)

7.4
022)

8.1
(67)

8.3
051)

9.2
(29)

8.6
041)

7.9
009)

Aug.

2001

9.8
(.07)

7.9
016)

8.2
012)

6.3
(.22)

7.6
(1.17)

8.7
025)

8.8
042)

7.8
037)

7.2
036)

8.2
(0.5)
8.3
036)

* NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is Delta States, SP is Southern Plains,
MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific.
Standard errors are in parentheses below the more recent estimates. Standard errors are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling
of banks) in each region.




22
SECTION H: SELECTED STATISTICS FROM THE QUARTERLY REPORTS OF CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLES:

Page

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

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

24
25
26
27
28

Agricultural banks:
II.F Distribution of agricultural banks by ratio of nonperforming loans to total loans
II.G Distribution of agricultural banks by rate of return to equity
II.H Loan-deposit ratios at agricultural banks
II I Failures of agricultural banks

29
30
31
32

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. These reports
changed substantially beginning in March 2001, and the information on the delinquencies and charge-offs of farm nonreal estate loans after that date is not
directly comparable to that shown in earlier editions of the Databook. Under the new system, banks with more than $300 million in assets or any bank with
a foreign office continue to report the same information as before. However, smaller banks where farm production loans account for more than 5 percent of
total loans now report the same information on delinquencies and charge-offs of farm production loans as larger banks. In the new reporting system, small
banks where farm production loans account for less than 5 percent of total loans are excused from reporting delinquencies or charge-offs of farm production
loans. Before March 2001, these small banks had reported delinquencies and charge-offs of "agricultural loans" according to the particular bank's own
definition, and we used these responses to help estimate total delinquencies of farm production loans. Under the new reporting system, the totals for the
nation as a whole include estimates of delinquencies and charge-offs of non-real-estate farm loans for small banks that hold about 35 percent of the volume
of such loans that is outstanding. All banks continue to report delinquencies and charge-offs of loans that are secured by farm real estate, which are shown
in tables n.D and H 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 n.D through table HI 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 15.2 percent in June of 2001.
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.



SECTION II: (continued)
Recent Developments:
Loans outstanding: In June of 2001, the total volume of farm loans was 4.0 percent higher than one year earlier, as modest growth in the second quarter
came on the heels of first quarter declines that were less than typical seasonal patterns suggested. Year-over-year growth in loans secured by farm
real estate was only 4.2 percent at midyear, the slowest rate of growth since 1990. The volume of nonreal estate farm loans at the end of June was
3.9 percent greater than one year earlier, something of a pickup after a fairly poor year-on-year readings in 1999 and 2000.
Problem loans: In June 2001, problem non real estate loans totaled $1.4 billion, or 2.9 percent of such loans outstanding. As was mentioned in the
introduction to Section II, the estimates for 2001 are not strictly comparable with those of previous years. For those (larger) banks that reported
delinquencies of farm production loans on a consistent basis before and after the reporting change, delinquencies of farm production loans grew
$286 million in aggregate from 2000:Q4 to 2001 :Q 1—among these 754 banks, the largest increase in delinquencies was $51 million and the largest
decline was $14 million. This slight increase in farm delinquencies at larger banks, which as a group held almost half of all farm production loans
in 2001 :Q2, suggest that some of the pickup in farm delinquencies in 2001 may have arisen from the changes in reporting. The information on
delinquencies of loans secured by farm land was unaffected by the reporting change, and the readings for both the first and second quarters were
little changed from the year-earlier figures. However charge-offs of farm production loans (which were affected by the reporting change) and farm
real estate loans (which were not affected) both were somewhat elevated compared with most of the 1990s. One indication that the pickup in
delinquencies and charge-offs was not completely the result of the reporting change is the information on total delinquencies at agricultural banks
(shown in Table H.f). As may be seen, the proportion that reported a level of nonperforming loans that was less than 2 percent of total loans moved
back down a couple of percentage points in the first and second quarter, after showing improvement in 2000.
Performance of agricultural banks: The average rate of return on assets at agricultural banks was 0.6 percent (1.2 percent at an annual rate) through the first
half of 2001, the same rate of profitability as has been seen for most of the past decade. The capital ratio for agricultural banks edged up a couple of
tenths relative to the previous year, as banks apparently worked to rebuild the capital cushion towards the 11 percent range that prevailed for several
years prior to the declines that began in 1999. The ratio of loans to deposits at agricultural banks continued to increase, and on June 30, the ratio
stood at 76.6 percent, a touch higher than in 2000.
Failures of agricultural banks: There were no failures of agricultural banks through the third quarter of 2001, and none failed in 2000. Given the growing
capital cushions and low level of problem loans of most agricultural banks, the number of failures seems likely to remain fairly small in coming
quarters.




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

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS QUARTER

NONRZAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

PERCENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

TOTAL
LOANS

REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

NONREAL
ESTATE
LOANS

1992 Ql.. .
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4...

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
6.2
1.9
-2.9

2.7
3.3
1.9
-0.2

-4.6
7.8
1.9
-4.4

4.9
4.9
4.2
2.9

8.2
8.1
8.6
7.8

3.1
3.2
1.9
0.2

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

52.8
56.0
58.0
57.7

20.0
20.6
20.8
20.9

32.8
35.4
37.1
36.8

-3.2
6.0
3.5
-0.5

0.5
3.1
1.2
0.1

-5.3
7.8
4.9
-0.8

1.7
1.6
3.2
5.8

5.6
5.4
4.7
5.0

-0.5
-0.6
2.4
6.2

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

56.8
61.1
63.0
61.3

21.2
21.9
22.4
22.6

35.5
39.2
40.6
38.7

-1.5
7.6
3.1
-2.7

1.8
3.2
2.2
0.7

-3.4
10.2
3.6
4 6

7.6
9.1
8.7
6.2

6.4
6.4
7.5
8.2

8.3
10.7
9.3
5.2

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

59.9
63.5
65.3
63.7

22.9
23.6
23.8
23.9

36.9
40.0
41.5
39.8

-2.3
6.1
2.9
-2.5

1.6
2.7
1.1
0.4

-4.6
8.2
3.9
-4.1

5.4
4.0
3.7
3.9

8.0
7.5
6.3
5.9

3.9
2.0
2.3
2.8

1996 Ql.. .
Q2...
Q3...
Q4.. .

61.7
65.7
66.6
65.5

24.0
24.7
24.9
25.0

37.7
41.0
41.6
40.5

-3.1
6.5
1.3
-1.6

0.5
2.7
1.1
0.3

5 3
8.9
1.5
-2.8

3.1
3.4
1.9
2.8

4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6

2.0
2.7
0.3
1.8

1997 Ql.. .
Q2.. .
Q3...
Q4.. .

63.8
69.0
71.1
71.3

25.4
26.2
27.0
27.1

38.4
42.8
44.2
44.2

-2.6
8.2
3.0
0.3

1.4
3.3
2.9
0.7

-5.1
11.5
3.1
0.0

3.4
5.1
6.8
8.9

5.5
6.2
8.1
8.5

2.0
4.4
6.0
9.1

1998 Ql.. .
Q2. . .
Q3.. .
Q4.. .

70.1
75.0
76.3
74.7

27.6
28.5
28.9
29.3

42.4
46.5
47.4
45.5

-1.7
7.1
1.7
-2.0

1.8
3.2
1.3
1.3

-3.9
9.6
1.9
-4.0

9.8
8.6
7.2
4.8

9.0
8.8
7.2
7.8

10.4
8.5
7.3
3.0

1999 Ql...
Q2.. .
Q3.. .
Q4.. .

72.7
75.8
76.8
76.0

29.7
30.8
31.4
31.8

42.9
45.1
45.5
44.2

-2.8
4.4
1.3
-1.0

1.7
3.5
1.9
1.5

-5.6
5.0
0.9
-2.8

3.7
1.1
0.7
1.7

7.6
8.0
8.6
8.8

1.1
-3.1
-4.1
-2.8

2000 Ql...
Q2.. .
Q3.. .
Q4.. .

71.5
79.7
80.1
80.9

31.4
33.7
33.9
34.0

40.1
45.9
46.2
46.9

-5.9
11.4
0.6
1.0

-1.4
7.5
0.5
0.3

-9.2
14.4
0.6
1.5

-1.6
5.0
4.3
6.4

5.5
9.6
8.1
6.8

-6.5
1.9
1.6
6.1

79.4
82.9

34.3
35.1

45.1
47.7

-1.9
4.4

0.8
2.5

-3.9
5.8

11.0
4.0

9.2
4.2

12.4
3.9

2001 Ql...
Q2...




1
J

1
1

1
|

1
1

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

AS PERCENTAGE OF OUTSTANDING FARM PRODUCTION

NONPERFORMINO

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONPERFORMINO
NONACCRUAL

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONACCRUAL

-December 31 of year indicated1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5

2.8
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.1

1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9

1.8
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2

0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2

1.1
1.0

0.3

0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3

1.5

1.2

0.9
0.9

1.0

0.9
0.9

-End of quarter1998 Q2.
03.
Q4.

1.1
1.0
1.0

0.5
0.4
0.5

0.6
0.6
0.5

0.2
0.2
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.4

2.4
2.1
2.2

1.1
0.8
1.0

1.3
1.3
1.2

0.5
0.4
0.3

0.8
0.9
0.9

1999 Ql.

1.6
1.3
1.0
0.9

0.9
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5

3.7
2.8
2.2
2.1

2.1
1.2
0.8
0.8

1.5
1.6
1.4
1.3

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2

1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1

1.2
1.0
0.9
1.0

0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4

0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5

3.0
2.2
1.9
2.1

1.5
0.9
0.7
0.9

1.5
1.3
1.2
1.2

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2

1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.7
1.4

1.0
0.6

0.8
0.8

0.2
0.2

0.6
0.6

3.9
2.9

2.2
1.2

1.7
1.8

0.4
0.4

1.3
1.3

02.

03.
04.
2000 Ql.

02.

03.
04.
2001 Ql.

02.

1
|1

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.




25

26

TABLE II.C

ESTIMATED NET CHARGE-OFFS OF NON-REAL-ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

CHARGE-OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

ANNUAL
TOTAL

Q1

02

Q3

Q4

ANNUAL
TOTAL

69
51
95
93
87
126
108

10
-2
16
6
4
18
-35
67

11
14
27
19
15
37
64
53

15
13
24
19
24
35
34

33
25
30
50
45
36
45

0.19
0.13
0.24
0.23
0.20
0.28
0.24

**

**

**

01

02

03

04

0.03
-0.00
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.04
-0.08
0.15

0.03
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.16
0.12

0.04
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.07

0.08
0.06
0.07
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.10

**

90 percent of the outstanding national volume of such loans. Additional uncertainty of the estimates arises because small
banks report only charge-offs of 'agricultural' loans as defined by each bank for its internal purposes. Banks first reported
these data on the March 1984 Report of Income.




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

0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.8

0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3

0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

NONFERFORMINQ
NONACCRUAL

TOTAL

PAST DUE
30 TO 89
DAYS
ACCRUING

TOTAL

PAST DUE
90 DAYS
ACCRUING

ACCRUAL

-December 31 of year indicated1995.
1996.
1997.
1998.
1999.
2000.

0.2

0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

2.6
2.9
2.0

1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.9

1.4
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.4

0.8
0.5
0.6

0.8

2.4
2.8

0.2
0.2
0.3

0.2
0.3

2.3

0.5
0.7

0.6

0.9

1.0

0.9

1.0
0.7

-End of quarter01...
02...
Q3. ..
Q4...

0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3

0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3

3.5
2.6
2.5
2.9

1.6
1.0
0.9
1.2

1.9
1.6
1.6
1.7

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8

1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0

Ql. ..
Q2. ..
03...
Q4...

1.1
0.8
0.7
0.6

0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2

3.6
2.7
2.3
2.0

1.6
1.0
0.8
0.8

2.0
1.7
1.5
1.3

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7

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

1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3

0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

3.2
2.7
2.1
2.3

1.3
1.0
0.7
0.9

1.9
1.7
1.4
1.4

0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6

1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8

1.1
0.9

0.6
0.4

0.5
0.6

0.1
0.1

0.4
0.4

3.2
2.7

1.7
1.0

1.4
1.7

0.4
0.4

1.1
1.2

Ql...
Q2...

1
|
1

1
|

All commercial banks began.to report these data in 1991.




27

28

TABLE II.E

NET CHARGE-OFFS OF REAL ESTATE FARM LOANS
INSURED COMMERCIAL BANKS*
ESTIMATED AMOUNT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

CHARGE - OFFS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF SUCH LOANS OUTSTANDING

ANNUAL
TOTAL

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

ANNUAL
TOTAL

10
12
7
16
6
15
12

1
-0
0
-1
-1
-0
-12
10

1
3
1
-0
3
3
3
9

3
6
2
3
-0
5
8

6
4
4
14
5
7
14

0.05
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.04

**

**

**

All commercial banks began to report these data in 1991.




01

Q2

Q3

Q4

0.003
-0.001
0.000
-0.003
-0.004
-0.001
-0.037
0.030

0.003
0.011
0.003
-0.001
0.009
0.011
0.009
0.027

0.013
0.027
0.009
0.010
-0.000
0.015
0.022

0.026
0.016
0.017
0.054
0.016
0.022
0.040

**

* *

#

#

e
1

<

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

•

e

*

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

NONPERFORMING LOANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOANS

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

76.2
80.7
85.5
83.4
81.9
84.5
81.7
84.8
85.0

2.0
TO
4.9

o
o
H

UNDER
2.0

o
in

TOTAL

TO
9.9

TO
14.9

ueconusor
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

18.8
15.8
12.3
14.0
15.4
12.9
15.1
12.6
12.8

3.9
2.8
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.8
2.4
1.8

15.0
TO
19.9

20.0
AND
OVER

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0

of year
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3

o.o

quarter
1998 Q3...
Q4 . . .

1

100.0
100.0

80.3
81.7

16.2
15.1

3.1
2.8

0.3
0.3

0.1
0.0

0.0
0.1

Q3...
Q4...

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

77.2
78.7
80.4
84.8

17.8
16.9
15.9
12.6

4.5
3.8
3.4
2.4

0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2000 Ql...
Q2...
Q3...
Q4...

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

81.8
82.2
83.0
85.0

14.8
15.1
14.9
12.8

2.9
2.4
1.7
1.8

0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

100.0
100.0

80.3
80.2

16.9
16.6

2.6
3.0

0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1

0.0
0.0

1999 Ql...

Q2...

2001 Ql...
Q2...

1
J

1

I
1

I
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.




29

TABLE II.O

30

SELECTED MEASURES OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER BANKS
NET INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE
OF AVERAGE EQUITY AT
AGRICULTURAL BANKS
5
TO
9

10
TO
14

20
TO
24

25
AND
OVER

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

19 .6
18..4
16 .9
13..4
14..2
14..2
13..4
14..2
13..8

5.1
4.6
3.3
2.3
2.6
3.1
3.5
4.9
4.2

1..6
1..3
0..9
0. 6
0. 5
1..1
1. 3
1..9
1..8

12.5
12.3
11.8
11.2
11.4
11.4
11.3
11.8
11.7

NET CHARGE-OFFS
AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL LOANS

AVERAGE
CAPITAL RATIO
(PERCENT)

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

11.3
12.3
12.5
12.1
12.3
12.3
11.7
11.9
11.4

1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2

1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1

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

0..7
0..4
0..3
0..3
0..3
0..3
0..3
0..3
0..3

10.4
10.8
10.7
11.2
10.9
11.0
10.9
10.5
10.7

9..5
9..9
9..9
10..4
10..4
10..5
10..5
10..3
10.,4

8.9
11.3

9.1
11.7

1.0
1.2

0.9
1.2

0.1
0.2

0.2
0.3

11.4
10.9

10..8
10..5

1999 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3.. .
Q4. . .

2.9
6.0
9.1
11.8

3.0
6.1
8.9
11.9

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3

11.0
10.8
10.8
10.5

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

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3.. .
Q4...

3.2
6.5
9.3
11.7

3.1
6.1
8.9
11.4

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2

0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1

0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3

10.5
10.6
10.7
10.7

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

2.8
5.6

2.8
5.4

0.3
0.6

0.3
0.5

0.0
0.1

0.1
0.1

11.0
11.0

10..5
10. 5

NEGATIVE

15
TO
19

RATE
OF RETURN
TO ASSETS
AGRICULTURAL
BANKS

ALL BANKS

0
TO
4

AVERAGE RATE
OF RETURN
TO EQUITY
OTHER
SMALL
BANKS

•percentage distribution1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
**

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

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

25..3
27..8
31..4
37..1
33..4
34..5
35..6
34..8
35. 3

41.1
40.4
40.1
39.6
41.6
39.7
35.5
33.3
33.5

QUARTERLY
YEAR TO DATE
1
|

2001 Ql...
Q2 . . .

1
1
1|

**

ww

**
**

**

**

**

*

••

**

1
11

* Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section II; small bank# 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.




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

U..S.

CLEVELAND

ATLANTA

CHICAGO

MINNEAPOLIS

ST. LOUIS

KANSAS
CITY

DALLAS

SAN
FRANCISCO

MINIMUM
FARM LOAN
RATIO

NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS NUMBER
LOANS
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
OF
TO
BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS DEPOSITS BANKS
DEPOSITS
199 5
199 6
199 7
199 8
199 9
200 0

3352
3239
3101
2968
2866
2767

0.639
0.656
0.685
0.683
0.718
0.751

53
49
45
40
41
39

0.720
0.771
0.747
0.763
0.849
0.859

118
113
113
99
93
92

0.657
0.684
0.704
0.709
0.738
0.766

816
795
759
733
715
693

0.652
0.680
0.719
0.711
0.750
0.776

375
363
346
321
300
293

0.651
0.663
0.698
0.693
0.718
0.748

619
609
574
558
538
519

0.682

0.699
0.725
0.715
0.738
0.760

959
928
890
868
838
796

0.634
0.643
0.680
0.681
0.715
0.760

344
313
312
289
277
269

0.489
0.491
0.523
0.529
0.564
0.619

53
52
49
48
48
50

0.740
0.735
0.661
0.660
0.724
0.741

16.83
16.45
16.44
16.34
15.67
15.08

1998 Q3...
Q4...

3036
2968

0.724
0.683

46
40

0.786
0.763

109
99

733
733

0.734
0.693

569
558

0.768
0.715

880
868

0 .721

294
289

0.704
0.660

16.78
16.34

0.689
0.718
0.735
0.718

42
41
44
41

0.793
0.849
0.844
0.849

100
93
106
93

317
302
319
300

0.688
0.719
0.745
0.718

550
539
547
538

0.723
0.738
0.775
0.738

868
838
846
838

297
279
275
277

48
48
51
48

0.692
0.724
0.737
0.724

16.04
16.26
16.23
15.67

2000 Ql...
Q2...

Si:::

2842
2834
2790
2767

0.726
0.764
0.766
0.751

41
43
42
39

0.865
0.886
0.880
0.859

97
96
93
92

288
306
306
293

0.714
0.757
0.768
0.748

536
529
523
519

0.757
0.799
0.791
0.760

831
814
796
796

50
54
54
50

0.743
0.778
0.764
0.741

15.28
15.36
15.36
15.08

2001 Ql...
Q2...

2755
2736

0.749
0.766

40
41

0.840
0.835

95
95

282
291

0.731
0.759

514
508

0.764
0.801

798
791

0 .684
0..715
0,,721
0..715
0.,719
0.,755
0..761
0..760
0.755
0.771

0.549
0.529
0.532
0.566
0.567
0.564
0.571
0.614
0.613
0.619
0.611
0.622

49
48

2957
2872
2918
2866

0.750
0 .711
0 .719
0 .750
0,.765
0..750
0.757
0.790
0,796
0,776
0.781
0.783

341
321

1999 Ql...
02...

0.751
0.709
0.719
0.738
0.746
0.738
0.748
0 .784
0.797
0 .766
0,.754
0,.765

46
44

0.764
0.804

14.95
15.21

11:::

720
716
716
715
705
707
698
693
696
682

* The loan-deposit ratio is defined a» total loans divided by total deposits,
that shown in the last column, as described in the introduction to section II.




0 .681

278
268
261
269
266
265

Agricultural banks are defined as banks with a farm loan ratio at least as great as

31




TABLE II.I

FAILURES OF AGRICULTURAL BANKS*
NUMBER OF FAILURES

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

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

5
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0

6
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

3
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
* *

ANNUAL
TOTAL
17
8
7
5
0
0
2
1
1
1
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.

SECTION HI: FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF FARM CREDIT CONDITIONS AND FARM LAND VALUES
TABLES:
IH.A Nonreal estate lending experience
III.B Expected change in non-real-estate loan volume and repayment conditions....
m.C Average loan/deposit ratio, and other indicators of relative credit availability.
III.D Interest rates
IDLE Trends in real estate values and loan volume

Page
35
37
39
41
43

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 City. Federal Reserve P.O. Station, Kansas City Missouri 64198
The original sample chosen in 1976 had 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 in the first half of 2001 likely held up fairly well in all the districts that report
except perhaps Richmond. In general, responses on fund availability seemed to have remained in line with readings from earlier years. Relative to one year
earlier, survey respondents in the Kansas City and Dallas districts noted a somewhat higher incidence of renewals and extensions of loans through the first
half of 2001, and the loan repayment rate in these districts seemed to worsen a bit as well. The proportion of bankers that reported higher collateral
requirements was more or less in line with year-earlier levels.
Scanning through reported expectations for the third quarter of 2001, for most types of loans, few bankers reported diffusion indexes that seemed to indicate
concerns about loan demand in the near future. Despite the high ratio of loans to deposits that was noted in section H, there appeared to be little change, on
balance, in the proportion of bankers expressing concerns that their ratio of loans to deposits was higher than desired, and hardly any reported refusing a
loan because of a shortage of funds. Relative to one year earlier, respondents in the Dallas district seemed to have experienced an uptick in referrals to other
sources of funds, but this did not seem to be a problem in other districts.
Rates of interest that were reported in these Reserve bank surveys generally have dropped along with other rates thus far in 2001. The declines in farm loan
rates that were picked up in the last couple of Survey of Terms of Lending to Farmers (reported in section I of the Databook) likely will continue to show
through in the next set of surveys from the Reserve banks.
Relative to one year earlier, the nominal price of farmland was up substantially in the Minneapolis and Richmond districts, and prices also were up for
ranchland in the Dallas district. Prices in other districts generally were up about 4 percent or so for all types of farmland.




#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

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
Ill • A1
1999 Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

SAME

FUND AVAILABILITY

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE
LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

21
22
22

44
46
50

36
32
28

1
1
1

45
55
51

3
4
10

3
3
7

44
53
54

53
44
39

0
0
0

70
74
75

30
26
25

8
5
4
7

57
60
69
68

34
35
27
25

0
0
0
1

78
79
80
78

22
21
20
21

4
4

61
60

35
36

o
0

74
77

26
23

20
35
28
21

66
54
61
66

14
11
10
13

33
31
26
27

57
66
70
65

10
3
3
8

2001 Ql...
Q2. . .

1

17
23

48
48

35
29

18
13

64
65

18
22

37
31

58
65

5
4

1
I
1

14
18
17

66
60
67

20
22
17

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
1
1
I
1

12
11
16
16

69
66
64
61

19
23
20
22

2001 Ql...
Q2. . .

1
I
1

13
14

63
61

24
25

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
2001 Ql...
Q2. . .

I
1




1
1

1
|
1

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

1999 Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4...

1

SAMEi HIGHER

52
41
39

34
32
25
26

|

LOWER

18
12
17

52
45
56
54

I

HIGHER

72
71
71

14
23
19
20

1999 Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

SAME

io
17
12

1
1
I
1

III, A3

LOWER

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

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

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...

III A2

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

|
|
|
1

|
1
|
1

1°
22
16

73
66
69

17
12
15

31
29
24

66
68
66

3
3
10

20
30
25
21

65
62
65
68

15
8
10
11

16
19
20
25

75
75
76
68

8
6
4
7

12
18

70
65

18
18

25
26

72
72

3
3
8

67
69
70

30
28
22

1
1
1

86
86
84

13
13
15

|
1
|
I
|
I
I
1

9
6
4
4

75
80
79
73

16
14
17
24

0
1
1
0

87
84
86
85

13
15
13
15

3
2

|
I
I
1

3
2

71
75

26
22

0
1

82
81

18
18

|1
11
|

8
io
22

61
64
52

31
27
26

0
1
0

74
73
75

26
27
25

19
13
12
13

64
73
64
59

18
13
24
28

1
2
1
2

75
79
82
73

24
19
17
25

7
8

62
62

31
31

1
0

72
73

27
27

|
|1

ELEVENTH (DALLAS) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( LA*, NM*, TX )
22
29
27

63
52
55

18

20
18
23
21

59
63
51
49

21
19
26
30

17
22

54
55

29
23

15

|

19

!
|

j
|

2
5
4

74
80
75

24
15
21

25
27
24

63
62
52

12
11
24

7
14
17
13

73
72
71
72

20
14
13
15

15
12
22
27

67
71
65
64

18
17
13
10

8
10

74
69

17
21

30
26

61
66

9
7

I
1

|
I

35

36
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
III.A4

SAME

.
.
.
.

HIGHER

*

.
.
.
.

*
*

2001 Ql...
Q2...

*
III.A5

SAME

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

3
7
8

47
44
70

49
48
22

63
67
69
78

20
19
25
11

COLLATERAL REQUIRED

HIGHER

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

1
|
|

11
14
10

64
71
67

25
15
23

1
|
j
1

8
27
39
16

69
61
56
68

23
13
5
15

1
|

11
12

70
66

20
22

|
1
|
1
|
1

|
1
|
1

1

52
59
26

41
39
62

7
2
12

24
18
20
9

46
62
72
69

30
19
8
22

1
|

17
14
5
11

23
17

61
72

16
11

I
|

7
6

77
70

16
24

4
3
8

89
71
58

7
26
33

|

|
1
|
1
|
1

o
o
o

68
66
80

32
33
20

0
1
0
1

82
76
82
87

18
23
17
12

|
1
|
1

0
1

83
86

17
13

0
0
0

81
77
69

19
23
31

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

1999 Q2. . .
03...
Q4. . .

1
j
1

19

26
25

81
63
61

o
11
14

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

|
j
j
1

30
22
34
21

57
68
60
75

14
11
6
4

2001 Ql. . .
Q2. . .

|
j

19
24

58
70

23
6




LOWER

RENEWALS OR EXTENSIONS

LOAN REPAYMENT RATE

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

1999 Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4...
2000 Ql.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.

FUND AVAILABILITY

1
1
|
1

|
1
1

4
11
19

67
66
69

30
23
11

1
1
1

4
26
31

93
71
67

4
3
3

16
19
9
4

76
69
80
92

8
11
11
4

1
|
1
1

27
22
6
13

70
73
83
79

3
5
11
8

|
1
|
1
1
1
I

14
o
11
9

57
78
80
87

30
22
9
4

|
1
|
1
1
1

0
0
0
0

73
78
74
67

27
22
26
33

o
3

85
76

15
21

1
1

15
15

81
85

4
o

1
1

o
6

92
82

8
12

|
1
1

0
0

62
74

38
26

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
1999 Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4...

|
1
1

2000 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3 • . .
Q4. . .

1
1
1
1

14

2001 Ql. . .
Q2. . .

1
j

22

FEEDER CATTLE
HIGHER

LOWER SAME

DAIRY

HIGHER

CROP STORAGE

LOWER SAM!1 HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

28
31
31

|
|
1

29
22
18

65
60
58

6
18
24

19
15
21

73
75
68

9
10
11

36
22
29

51
57
62

13
21
8

16

55
54
60
53

31
23
24
31

1
|
|
I

19
26
23
18

60
63
66
67

21
11
11
15

20
27
26
28

69
64
66
66

11
9
8
7

25
21
17
25

58
49
57
66

17
30
26
9

13
20

54
57

33
23

|
|

14
22

70
65

16
13

25
22

68
71

7
7

29
29

61
61

10
9

15
24

16

III.B2
|
|
|

24
23
25

61
60
58

16
17
17

2000 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
03...
04...

|
|
|
|

23
18
24
20

57
60
60
57

20
22
16
23

2001 Ql. . .
02...

|
1

20
25

58
55

22
21

|
1
|1

|
1
|
1
|
1

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

|
|
1

|
I
|
1
|
1

|
I
1

11
13
8

43
46
46

46
41
46

8
11
11
7

47
52
54
42

45
37
35
51

8
12

43
53

49
35

|
|
1
|
1

65
62
53

30
33
39

5
5
9

46
46
43
39

46
47
49
52

8
7
8
9

|
|
1

42
42

45
50

13
8

|
1
1

20
24
24

64
58
56

16
17
21

I
|
I

17
23
13

71
76
82

6
1
5

15
24
15

68
61
72

17
14
13

19
20
19

56
56
63

25
24
17

|
|
1

26
34
30

61
58
60

13
8
10

26
25
32
15

53
56
52
65

22
19
16
20

|
|
1
|

17
21
18
15

79
77
80
78

4
2
2

2

16
19
16
16

81
71
74
78

3
11
10
6

23
18
17
14

53
58
61
55

24
25
22
31

1
1
1
|

26
26
31
29

59
57
60
55

16
17
10
16

17

65
64

17

I

17
17

78
78

5
5

14
14

83
77

3
9

17
18

57
61

26
21

|
1

29
31

60
56

11
13

sc.

VA, WV*)

16

19

|

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC,

1999 02...
03...
04...

|
j
j

39
42
23

57
45
61

4
13
16

2000 Ql...
02...
03. . .
04...

|
j
j
j

34
24
40
19

53
68
57
71

13
9
3
10

2001 Ql...
02...

|
j

17
27

70
70

13
3




HIGHER

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

1999 02...
Q3. . .
04...

III.B3

LOWER SAME

FARM[ MACHINERY

SEVENTH (CHICAGO) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*) AGRICULTURAL BANKS
50
50
55

19

OPERATING

|
|
1
|

|
1

20
26
22

80
74
74

o
0
4

25
13
35
13

58
88
65
80

17
0
0
7

12
17

88
83

o
0

1
1
1
I

1
1

|
1

11

|
1
1

37
35
42

53
65
58

11
0
0

30
40
34

60
48
66

10
12
0

44
29
23

52
56
57

4
15
20

44
49
40

52
49
57

4
3
3

38
30
29
25

62
70
71
75

0
0
0
0

31
19
11
13

69
67
59
69

0
15
30
19

17
19
26
14

61
76
65
77

22
5
9
9

50
43
38
30

42
51
53
70

8
5
9
0

18
26

82
74

o
o

io
19

81
73

10
8

8
13

72
88

20
o

24
26

68
74

8
0

1
1

|1
|
1

|
1

37

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)

OTHER INTERMEDIATE

FEEDER LIVESTOCK
LOWER SAME
III.B4

37
28

55
64

9
9

3
9
3
10

25
36
44
30

67
51
50
65

8
13
6
5

61
73
71
69

21
16
15
16

27
22
27
23

68
68
65
74

5
9
8
3

76
75

10
8

18
19

76
76

6
6

1|
1

38
28

50
66

13
7

1999 Ql...
Q2 . . .
Q3...
Q4...

|
1|
|
1
|
1

20
26
39
18

76
64
58
72

18
11
14
15
14
17

2001 Ql...
Q2. . .




|
1
1|

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

FARM: MACHINERY

LOWER iSAME HIGHER

HIGHER

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

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

1998 Q3. . .
Q4. . .

2000 Ql. . .
Q2. . .
Q3...
Q4. . .

LOWER SAME

HIGHER

OTHER OPERATING

FARM REAL ESTATE

|
1
|

|
1
|
1

9

58
70

34
24

|
1
|
1

59
46

37
52

4
2

13
19
12
11

4
11
15
12

68
57
56
67

28
32
29
22

|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1

51
61
65
56

46
33
33
41

3
5
2
3

44
52
53
55

14
13
12
6

5
7
6
9

82
62
68
78

13
31
26
13

42
42
39
43

56
49
54
53

1
9
7
4

62
64

11
8

7
6

69
67

23
27

34
35

61
60

5
5

33
27

52
57

15
16

32
32
40
33

55
49
48
57

1
I
1
1
I
1

42
35
35
39

1
1

28
28

1
1
I

|
1
|
1

1
1

|
1
|
1

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

LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

1
1

73
73

2000 Ql...
Q2.. .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

1
1
1

73
75
77
75

1

2001 Ql...
Q2. . .

1

75
75

1
1

1999 Q3...
Q4...

1
1

2000 Ql...
Q2. . .
Q3. . .
Q4. . .
2001 Ql...
Q2. . .

1
1
III.C3

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO
CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

NONBANK AGENCIES

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
HIGHER
LOWER SAME

NONE

COMPARED WITH
A YEAR EARLIER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

1

«

33
32

25
21

1

:
::

35
36
32
36

21
29
33
25

41
46

35
34

23
20

1
1

j
1

* * *

www

***

* * *

• WW

www

www

www
www

www
www

www
www

www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www

www
www

* * *

www

1
1

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www

j
I

www

1
I

www

1

%

7
9

84
83

9
8

77
75
77
75

9
9
7
4

82
85
85
87

9
6
8
9

1

%

5
9

85
83

10
8

|
I

www

9
7

78
77

13
16

www

15
9
13
13

80
82
75
73

5
9
12
14

8
10

75
72

17
18

TENTH (KANSAS CITY) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ( CO, KS, MO* , NE, NM*, OK, WY)
AGRICULTURAL BANKS
68
68

1

s

10
9

32
32

67
70
71
71

1
1
1
j

63
51
54
50

6
8
9
8

29
41
37
41

70
70

1

:

11
7

2

|
1
|1

!

3
4

72
69

80
81

6
5

90
90

4
5

1
3
3
1

73
73
71
73

82
81
82
81

9
9
6
6

86
85
88
90

6
6
5
4

0
1

71
72

84
85

5
7

90
88

4
4

www
www

12
6

78
79

10
15

www
www
www
www

15
10
15
12

81
84
77
80

5
5
8
8

I
1
1
1

8
12

82
79

10
9

1
1

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

1999 Q3...
Q4. ..

1
1

53
52

2000 Ql...
Q2.. .
Q3. ..
Q4.. .

1
1
1
1

51
55
58
55

2001 Ql...
Q2.. .

1
1

56
58




HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

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

1999 Q3...
Q4...

IXI.C2

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS

WW*

|

1
I

:::

Z
* * *

1
1

1

1
1
1
5

j
1

2
2

1

* * *

* * *

www
* * *
* * *

* * *

39

40
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.C (CONTINUED)
AVERAGE LOAN-TO-DEPOSIT RATIO AND OTHER INDICATORS OF RELATIVE CREDIT AVAILABILITY (PERCENTAGE OF BANKS REPORTING)
AVERAGE
LOAN-TODEPOSIT
RATIO,
END OF
QUARTER
PERCENT
III.C4
1999 Q3...
Q4...

|
1
1
I

2001 Ql...
Q2...

LOWER
AT
THAN
DESIRED
DESIRED LEVEL

|
1
|
1
III.C5

HIGHER
THAN
DESIRED

NUMBER OF FARM LOAN REFERRALS TO

ACTIVELY
SEEKING
NEW
FARM
LOAN
ACCOUNTS

CORRESPONDENT BANKS

NONE

NONBANK AGENCIES

COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME HIGHER

NONE

70
71

1
|
|
1

84
71

|
1
|

63
"

11
10

26
26

|
|

5
3

***
***

70
62
45
62

5
8
11
8

25
30
44
30

|
|
|
|

1
5
10
5

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

68
64

11
12

21
23

|
|

2

***

2

***

|
|

***
***

7
10

85
82

8
8

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

10
10
4
13

87
81
87
84

4
8
9
3

|
|

|

***
***

9
7

86
88

5
5

|
|

88
88

3
3

9
6

94
77
88
75

0
6
0
5

80
83

0
3

|
|

***
***

7
9

80
84

13
7

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

9
10
2
10

82
80
87
85

10
9
11
4

|
|
1

***
***

8
11

85
82

7
7

0
3

1
|

76
77

3
3

12
13

9
6

6
13
12
20

0
3
0
0

|
1
1
|

80
69
67
80

0
3
0
0

9
16
30
20

11
13
3
0

20
13

0
0

|
1

80
77

0
3

20
17

0
3

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

03...
Q4...

|
|

74
75

1
1

46
38

46
44

9
18

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

|

|
|
|

74
75
75
77

1
1
1
1

42
39
38
39

44
47
44
43

14
14
18
17

Ql...
Q2...

|
|

84
78

1
1

46
61

46
32

8
6

|
1
|
1

1
I
1

o
o

66
63

0
3
3
4

68
66
60
67

o
o

73
72

|
1
|
1

+ 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'.




COMPARED WITH
NORMAL NUMBER
LOWER SAME
HIGHER

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

70
73
77
73

2000 Ql...
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4. . .

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

LOAN/DEPOSIT RATIO IS




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

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D1

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

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

1999 03...
Q4...

|
|

9.3
9.4

2000 Ql...
Q2...
Q3. ..
04...

|
|
|
|

9.7
10.1
10.1
9.9

2001 01...
02...

|
|

9.2
8.6

III.D2

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

9.3
9.4
9.8
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.2
8.6

* *
* *

8.4
8.6

*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

8.9
9.2
9.4
8.9

* *
* *

8.2
7.9

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

1999 Q3...
04...

|
|

9.6
9.7

2000 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
j
j
j

10.0
10.4
10.4
10.3

2001 Ql...
02...

|
|

9.6
9.0

9.8
9.9

9.6
9.7

9.1
9.2

10.2
10.5
10.5
10.5

10.0
10.3
10.3
10.2

9.5
9.7
9.7
9.7

9.8
9.1

9.5
9.0

8.9
8.5

41




42
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.D (CONTINUED)
INTEREST RATES ON FARM LOANS
MOST COMMON INTEREST RATE ON FARM LOANS
(AVERAGE, PERCENT)

FEEDER
CATTLE
LOANS
III.D3

OTHER
OPERATING
LOANS

INTERMEDIATE
NONREAL
ESTATE

LONG-TERM
REAL
ESTATE
LOANS

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

1999 03...
04...

|
|

***
***

9.5
9.7

9.4
9.7

8.7
9.0

2000 01...
02...
03...
04...

|
j
|
j

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

9.9
10.1
10.5
10.4

9.9
10.2
10.4
10.3

9.2
9.4
9.7
9.6

2001 Ql...
02...

|
j

***
***

9.8
9.3

9.8
9.3

9.1
8.6

III.D4

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

1999 Q3...
04...

|
j

10.2
10.4

10.2
10.5

10.1
10.1

9.5
9.6

2000 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

|
|
j
|

10.6
11.0
11.0
11.0

10.6
10.8
11.0
11.1

10.5
10.7
10.8
10.8

9.9
10.2
10.1
10.2

2001 Ql...
02...

|
j

10.3
9.7

10.4
9.7

10.1
9.5

9.5
9.0

III.D5
1999 Q3..
Q4..
2000 Ql..

02..

03..
04. .
2001 Ql..

Q2. .

FIFTH (RICHMOND) FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)
9.4
9.6

9.5
9.6

9.3
9.5

10.0

10.2
10.6
10.6
10.4

10.0
10.4
10.4
10.1

9.4

9.2
8.5

10.4
10.6
10.5
9.4

8.6

11.0

9.1
9.2
9.6

10.1
9.9
9.8

8.9
8.3

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

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

RANCHLAND

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

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

RANCHLAND

DOWN

STABLE

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

1999 Q2...
03...
Q4...

|
|
|

1
0
2

0
2
1

45
33
22

47
61
71

8
7
8

36
34
28

54
54
59

9
12
13

2000 Ql...
Q2...
Q3. . .
Q4...

|
|
|
|

2
1
1
1

4
5
6
6

13
11
8
12

75
78
80
77

12
11
12
11

26
27
22
22

61
67
66
63

14
6
12
15

2001 Ql...
Q2...

|
|

1
1

4
5

15
io

74
79

11
11

|
1
1

25
25

61
65

14
10

4
14
9

78
66
74

19
20
17

|
1
|
1
|
1

31
32
33

65
62
58

4
6
9

o
0
0
0

84
75
76
74

16
25
24
26

29
24
34
14

60
68
53
77

11
8
13
9

0
0

65
73

35
27

29
23

54
73

17
3

8
0
-0

20
26
27

63
66
62

17
8
11

-1
-1
4

62
62
61
63

17
19
10
10

68
59

12
11

III.E2

***
***

1
1

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

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

|
|
|

5
-24
7

2
-13
-12

WWW
WWW

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

|
|
j
|

-3
-0
-1
5

-17
-21
2
0

...
• WW
...
...

|
1
1
11
11

Ql...
Q2...

|
j

5
4

9
13

...
www

1
j

III.E3

***

|

www

j

|1
|1

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

1999 Q2...
Q3.. .
Q4. . .
2000 Ql...
Q2.. .
Q3.. .
Q4...

3
-1
-0
0

1
0
2
-3

:: I
4
2

I
I

1
-1

-2

20
19
29
27

2001 Ql...
Q2. . .

3
1

7
-1

5
-1

I
I

6
4

9
10

20
30




5
-2

-49-

44
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK QUARTERLY SURVEYS OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CONDITIONS AT COMMERCIAL BANKS
TABLE III.E (CONTINUED)
TRENDS IN FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES AND LOAN VOLUME
MARKET VALUE OF GOOD FARMLAND
PERCENTAGE CHANGE
DURING QUARTER
ALL
III.B4
1999 Q2...
Q3 . . .
04...

|

2000 Ql...
Q2 . • •
Q3.. .
Q4...

|
j
|

2001 Ql...
Q2. . .

|
|

|
j
j

III.E5

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

ALL

DRYLAND

IRRIGATED

RANCHLAND

STABLE

DOWN

UP

LOWER

SAME

HIGHER

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

o
-0
1

1
-1
1

0
1
3

***
www
***
***

_i
2

i

2
-0
1
1

3
-1
2
2

2
-1

-0

***
***

2
i
- i

o

***

- 1

* * *

- o

www

1

***
***

1|

|
1

2
i

* * *

3

***

4

www
***

3

3

-1
-0
2

-2
1

3
2
3
3

7

4

|
j
j

7
6

3

3
2

4

|
j

***
www
www

www
www
www

ww*
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www

www
www

|
j

www
www

www
www

www
www

49
48
57

19
12
11
14
13
12
11
8

WWW

www

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

1999 Q2.. .
03...
Q4...

1
1
|

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

I
j
j

2000 Ql...
02...
03...
04...

1
1
1
|

www
*ww
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

I
1
1
j

2001 Ql...
02...

|
j

www
www

www
www

www
www

www
www

1
j


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

TREND EXPECTED DURING
THE NEXT QUARTER
(PERCENTAGE OF BANKS)

PERCENTAGE CHANGE FROM
A YEAR EARLIER

RANCHLAND

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

#

e

www
WWW

www
www
***
***
WWW

WWW
WWW

e

4
6
5

2
1
2

4
2
2

www
www
www

www
www
www

www
www
www

|
|
j

32
40

4
11
11
10

3
8
7

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
www

www
www
www
WWW

|
j
|
|

42

6

4
5
10
2

39

44
52
53
55

8
10

6
7

2
10

***

www

* * *

WWW

www
www

|
|

28
28

62
64

e

I1
1
1

e

•

3 3

3 5
3 5

•

6

•

•