Page images
PDF
EPUB

on property acquired with farm loans and the level of insurance that borrowers needed to have had as a condition for obtaining an emergency loan.

Establishes a maximum indebtedness level of $500,000 for disaster emergency loans.

Allows FSA to (1) contract with commercial lenders to service the farm loan portfolio (2) use private collection agencies to assist in collecting delinquent amounts.

Requires borrowers to pay at least a portion of the interest on their loans as a condition for having the terms of their loans rescheduled or reamortized. In particular, borrowers who are unable to make their farm loan payments, but who are not 90 days past due, can have the terms of their farm loans rescheduled or reamortized if they pay a portion of the interest that is due on the loans. The Secretary of Agriculture is to establish the level of interest payments that borrowers need to make.

The FAIR Act also clarifies FSA's basic lending mission by, among other things, emphasizing that its assistance is to be temporary. Additionally, the act builds upon other legislation enacted earlier in the 1990s that emphasized helping beginning farmers and ranchers get started and progress in farming or ranching. The act also reinforces past congressional emphasis on shifting farm lending from direct loans to guaranteed loans. More specifically, the act, among other things, does the following:

Sets term limits for the receipt of direct farm ownership and operating loans. A person must have operated a farm or ranch for at least 3 years to be eligible to obtain a direct farm ownership loan. A borrower can obtain direct farm ownership loans during a 10-year period that starts when the person first obtains a farm ownership loan. A borrower can obtain direct farm operating

loans during 7 years; these may be consecutive, nonconsecutive, or a
combination of consecutive and nonconsecutive years.

Encourages the graduation of direct loan borrowers to conventional credit by allowing a 95-percent guarantee on loans made by commercial lenders to refinance the existing direct loans that borrowers have.

Increases the guarantee percentage allowed on loans made by commercial lenders to beginning farmers and ranchers who participate in a farm ownership loan program that is targeted to them.

Targets farm properties that are in FSA's inventory for sale to beginning
farmers and ranchers. If a beginning farmer or rancher does not offer to
acquire the property at current market value within 75 days of FSA's
acquisition, then the properties are to be disposed of competitively.

The changes in the FAIR Act address many of the problems that we have reported on in the past. While it is too early to gauge their impact on the financial condition of the portfolio, we believe that, if properly implemented, they will reduce the financial risk associated with the farm lending programs. We plan to continue to monitor and report on the USDA's progress in implementing the FAIR Act's credit provisions.

This concludes our prepared statement.

(150427)

FSB

First State Bank
Specimen IX

February 20, 1997

Congressman Combest

1527 Longworth

Washington, D.C. 20515

Congressman Combest:

If I

I understand that there will be testimony in Lubbock on
February 21, 1997, before the subcommittee on agriculture.
understand correctly, part of that testimony will be in reference
to the various FmHA programs, including the guaranteed loan
program. First State Bank, has been using FmHA guaranteed loans
for farm operating, equipment, and livestock loans for about 20
years. During that time we have had only a minimal number of
claims against the guaranties. Those claims were paid with no
problems whatsoever. The paperwork associated with the guarantee
process is considerable and time consuming, but not impossible to
someone familiar with ag lending. I believe the application
process could be streamlined. Cooperation from our past county
supervisors and present county supervisor, Mike Beck, has been
very good. All have been knowledgeable and good to work with.
The only problem we have ever experienced was on a loan that was
in excess of our county supervisor's approval limit. This loan,
which went to the district supervisor, was in process for over
four months. This long delay cost First State Bank a good
potential customer and caused the customer to put his plans on
hold.

I believe the FmHA guarantee program is worthwhile and
important for our many marginal ag producers. FmHA has been good
to us and we hope the program continues. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Mile

Mike Schnell
President

MS/rec

P.O. BOX 247

Spearman, TX 79081

8061659-5565

[blocks in formation]

Congratulations on being selected to testify before Congressman Combest and the Agricultural Sub Committee.

I

I would appreciate you conveying my thoughts on the FmHA guaranteed loans. believe the intent of the FmHA was to help farmers who could not obtain bank financing. With the inception of the guaranteed loans this took a lot of pressure off of the FmHA. The theory behind the guaranteed loans is good. However, the application process is cumbersome and almost always requires outside help in the preparation of the forms. As with most government agencies you are required to give the same information in 6 different places. Most bank personnel that I am acquainted with do not have the time to properly fill out this volume of paper, much less being able to interpret the often gray regulations.

Additionally, I would like to add that the settlement process is slow and awkward. I have known instances whereby it has taken almost 2 years to collect on the guarantee. The regulations are so overwhelming that if the agency so desires to renege on the guarantee there is almost always an out for them.

Certainly guaranteed loans would be an attractive program for our community, but due to time and paperwork involved and the horror stories regarding collection we have not actively pursued them.

I would be in favor of any positive efforts to help streamline and make the process more effective for the farmer and the banker. This is a program that could be vital to our area and the entire agricultural sector.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Member FDIC

FirstBank
Southwest

National Association

February 14, 1997

Don Townsend, President

First National Bank

P.O. Box 337

Spearman, Tx 79081

Dear Don,

You have asked me to provide a letter of our experiences with FmHA guaranty loans.

Currently FirstBank Southwest has three FmHA guaranty loans, two of which just
completed their first year of the three year Loan Note Guarantee plan and the third loan is
in loss claim status. First, I will address the two current Loan Note Guarantees. One is
through the Deaf Smith County office and the other is through the Castro County office.
The application was submitted and closed in 60 days through the Castro County office
and the supervisor was very cooperative however, it took 120 days through the Deaf
Smith County office and the County supervisor as well as the District supervisor were
less than cooperative. Also, there were several inconsistencies in information required
from the two offices (ie: 356 vs. 360 basis interest accrual, differences in the way each
office wanted cash flow items categorized.)

The loan in loss claim status was a Loan Note Guarantee (through the Parmer County
office) which started in 1992 and was annually renewable with the final maturity date of
3/15/95. After trying to work with the borrower and FmHA to restructure the debt, to no
avail, FirstBank Southwest filed a loss claim 1/10/96 and received a letter from the
county office on 1/31/96 informing me of their receiving the loss claim and sending me a
checklist to be completed. On or about 2/5/96 the County supervisor came to the bank.
picked up the checklist and delivered the claim forms to the District office. After
approximately 30 days I called the County supervisor to inquire about the status of the
claim, he said he would call the district office. Later that day he informed me that the
district director told him that she was too busy to work the claim and it would be 30 days
before she would have a chance to review the claim. Sometime thereafter it was
submitted to the State office. I continued to check on the status, through the County
supervisor and the State office informed him that it was in line to be worked. On 9/3/96 I
received a call asking for a lot more information (ie:detailed analysis of each transaction
on the notes for three years). As it finally turned out, FmHA reduced our claim by 46%
because we advanced for tractor and land payments that were not included in the original
cash flow submitted in 1992, however they were included in subsequent years cash
flows.

I realize that we may have made some mistakes, but we have serviced farm production
loans for many years and feel. based on our track record. that we are very knowledgeable
concerning farm production loans. Additionally, the first time I talked to the FmHA loss

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »