When loan repayment capacity is investigated for a rural loan, the analysis is frequently concentrated on a projected money flow statement. Though such practices can satisfy short term money flow obligations, the rural business must be profit-making in the long term to survive, and profitability should be included when considering repayment capacity. A proportion of 1.5 would indicate the farm could meet its needs one and one half times, so there would be a margin to handle any inadequacy that would arise when figuring out the proportion for a future period of time. One limitation when using the term debt and capital lease coverage proportion is the reduced availability of comparative information for farming. Rural banks and other users of the cover proportion can use two approaches when hunting for standards that can be employed for comparison.
First, the ten year median average for all producers in the country can be used, which is 1.5. A second approach is to utilize annual comparative info for the farming industry, which can supply the user with further discernment as to how individual borrowers compare to other rural producers who experienced the same or an analogous production, pricing and monetary environment. For resale and the price tags of acquired feed from gross farm income.
The restricted number of years of information provided makes it hard to make any inferences across farm size, type and rein level. Instead, the yearly information are reported to provide users with info for the 2 latest years for which information are available, which can then be used to compare the average industry proportion price to the proportion for individual borrowers. Those 2 measures are the term debt and capital lease coverage proportion and the term debt repayment margin. Since the 1st measure is reported as a proportion, it can be compared across farms and to comparative information for the industry. The second measure is worked out as an unconditional greenback value so it is tough to make comparisons across farms. The ten year average median is provided, as well as median values for years 2003 and 2004. the mean values are reported for all producers and then sorted by farm size, farm type and reign levels.
First, the ten year median average for all producers in the country can be used, which is 1.5. A second approach is to utilize annual comparative info for the farming industry, which can supply the user with further discernment as to how individual borrowers compare to other rural producers who experienced the same or an analogous production, pricing and monetary environment. For resale and the price tags of acquired feed from gross farm income.
The restricted number of years of information provided makes it hard to make any inferences across farm size, type and rein level. Instead, the yearly information are reported to provide users with info for the 2 latest years for which information are available, which can then be used to compare the average industry proportion price to the proportion for individual borrowers. Those 2 measures are the term debt and capital lease coverage proportion and the term debt repayment margin. Since the 1st measure is reported as a proportion, it can be compared across farms and to comparative information for the industry. The second measure is worked out as an unconditional greenback value so it is tough to make comparisons across farms. The ten year average median is provided, as well as median values for years 2003 and 2004. the mean values are reported for all producers and then sorted by farm size, farm type and reign levels.