Author
Listed:
- Charles B. Dodson
- Bruce L. Ahrendsen
- Gianna Short
Abstract
Purpose - A potential farm policy concern is that if nontraditional (vendor/point-of-sale) financing represents increased risk, it may have an aggregate effect on sector-wide farm financial risk. This analysis examines the use of nontraditional lender credit among borrowers in the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Farm Service Agency (FSA)'s direct farm loan programs. Design/methodology/approach - Data source included the USDA FSA direct operating loan program for 2011–2020. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the occurrence of default over seven-year term direct operating loans. Findings - Results indicated that point-of-sale financing has a significant and positive relationship with risk for FSA direct operating loan borrowers. The presence of intermediate point-of-sale financing (mostly from machinery and equipment vendors) is associated with an increased probability of default of 9%, and the presence of such loan balances in the amount of $50,000 or more had a higher probability of default of 21%. Short-term nontraditional financing (for example from fertilizer vendors) was found to be positively related to borrower risk of default as indicated by a 22–25% increase in the likelihood of loan default. Originality/value - Through FSA Farm Business Plan data, the authors were able to distinguish specific vendors and their loan purpose, which advances the knowledge beyond what is currently available through survey data. Findings indicate a minor increase in borrower risk for those with intermediate-term nontraditional financing. However, borrowers with short-term nontraditional financing and having large balances or greater number of nontraditional loans had increases in risk of default by substantive amounts.
Suggested Citation
Charles B. Dodson & Bruce L. Ahrendsen & Gianna Short, 2022.
"Does use of nontraditional credit increase risk?,"
Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 82(2), pages 359-378, January.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:afrpps:afr-06-2021-0085
DOI: 10.1108/AFR-06-2021-0085
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:afr-06-2021-0085. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.