Abstract
A survey of agricultural banks in New York State found that inability to compete with the low interest rates offered by the Farm Credit Service (FCS) rather than the unavailability of funds per se was limiting agricultural lending by commercial banks. A MASI-like intermediary would (1) be of assistance only to banks unable to use loan participations and with high CD costs and (2) would likely require a large multistate area to be feasible. Only eight percent of the New York banks serving agriculture qualify for FICB funding. Further, FICB funding would be profitable only if banks experienced illiquidity at least 50 percent of the time.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
