{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011278195488721804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.771186440677966, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
LOOKING BEYOND FARM LOAN APPROVAL DECISIONS: LOAN PRICING AND NONPRICING TERMS FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARM BORROWERS

Abstract This study utilizes Farm Service Agency lending data to verify if previous racial and gender bias allegations still persist in more recent lending decisions. Beyond loan approval decisions, this study focuses on trends in direct loan packaging terms for approved single proprietorship farm borrowers. Results indicate that although no significant disparities were noted in loan amounts and maturities prescribed for various racial and gender minority groups, nonwhite male and female borrowers were usually charged higher interest rates than the others. Loan pricing differentials could have been the lenders' strategy for price management of borrowers' credit risks.