Pub. 11 2016-2017 Issue 6

March/April 2017 21 Extraordinary Service for Extraordinary Members. ■ Bert Ely — continued on page 22 encourage FCS institutions to lend and provide services beyond those authorized by the act, including partnering “with veterans’ groups, land grant universities, and urban communities,” noting that some of these partnerships “have resulted in new hospitals, schools, nursing homes, and other community facilities.” There is one problem: The Farm Credit Act does not authorize FCS institutions to finance such facilities even though they may be in rural America. Most troubling, Tonsager stated that “as your regulator, we will continue to work to bring clarity to the approval process for these projects so that you can continue to participate in them.” Translation: The FCA will ignore the limits and restrictions of the Farm Credit Act when it is so inclined. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Tonsager’s talk was his focus on FCS structure, stating that he “would like to propose a year of dialogue between the [FCS] and FCA on this issue.” He noted that in recent years, “there’s been a lot of talk about the right number of banks and associa- tions. I don’t know if there is a right number of associations. However, since the banks are jointly and severally liable for [FCS] debt, I believe there is a point where the [FCS] could be left with too few banks.” Today, there are just four FCS banks, with AgFirst and Farm Credit Bank of Texas, if combined, about one-half the size of AgriBank and less than half the size of CoBank. Tonsager went on to say that “both the [FCS] and FCA will need to reflect more closely on the reasons and ramifications for mergers and other changes in [FCS] structure.” Interestingly, Tonsager ignored the very important role that Congress and the FCS’ taxpaying competitors should play in that discussion. Farm Credit Mid-America to Face Loss Farm Credit Mid-America (FCMA) almost certainly faces a loss on a loan to a bankrupt college it should never have made. Two years ago, in the January 2015 edition of Farm Credit Watch, I wrote about a $27 million loan FCMA made in May 2013 to St. Joseph’s College in Rensselaer, Ind. FCMA, the second-largest FCS association, is head- quartered in Louisville, Ind. According to a news release St. Joseph’s issued at that time, the college refinanced “its long-term debt obligations through partnerships with DeMotte State Bank [of DeMotte, Ind.] and [FCMA].” The loan “will be locked in at a fixed interest rate for a 20-year term.” Reportedly, the bank merely serviced the loan on behalf of FCMA. On Feb. 3, St. Joseph’s announced that its board had “voted to suspend activities on [its] campus at the end of the current semester” due to “a ‘dire’ financial situation at the more than 125-year-old institution.” Ac- cording to one school official, “the school’s financial issues had been ‘brewing’ for the past 10 to 15 years, or longer;” that is, long before it obtained the FCMA loan. The school’s president stated that “a total of $100 million would be needed to sustain [the school] in its current state for five or more years,” including paying off $27 million of debt, presumably the FCMA loan. In my article about the FCMA loan, I raised two huge problems with the loan. First, I questioned if the college was an eligible FCS borrower. That is, was it a “bona fide” farmer, as that phrase is used in the Farm Credit Act. In November 2014, I asked the FCA if St. Joseph’s could be considered a “bona fide” farmer and therefore eligible to borrow from the FCS. Michael Stokke, the FCA’s director of congressional and public affairs, responding to my email, stated that my inquiry “does not involve a loan for which you are obligated,” which is how the FCA often blows off complaints about improper FCS lending. Stokke, who is still with the FCA, then stated, “We assure you that, under our examination authority, we have reviewed [FCMA’s] relationship with the College and determined that, in its business dealings with the College, [FCMA] has complied with our regulations.” According to a well-placed source, FCMA has a lien on all of St. Joseph’s real estate, which comprises campus buildings as well as 8,000 acres of farmland that had been gifted to the college. Assuming that St. Joseph’s does not reopen, as has been the case with many other small col- leges that have closed in recent years, its campus, located in northwest Indiana, 80 miles south of Chicago, will net FCMA little, if anything, after taking into account substan- tial deferred maintenance costs and its location in a town with a population of 6,000. The farmland might bring at least $6 million, so FCMA is likely facing a loss of at least $20 million on this loan. As I reported in 2015, in 2010 St. Joseph’s was gifted with 7,634 acres of farmland with an estimated value of $40 million, more than enough to pay off the FCMA loan. However, the donor of that land, a very savvy businesswoman most likely quite aware of the school’s financial difficulties, “stipulated in her will and written agreements with the college that neither the college nor the [Catholic] church could sell the farmland.” Reportedly, the new beneficiary of the income produced by this farmland will be an unrelated charitable institution. It will be interesting to see if FCMA tries to establish a claim on that land to reduce its loss on the loan. Given the substantial loss FCMA is facing on its St. Joseph’s loan, FCMA should discuss in its 2016 annual report how it justified making a clearly undercollateral- ized loan to a clearly ineligible borrower. Perhaps FCMA sold participations in this loan to other FCS institutions, which should raise this question among those buyers: Why did we buy a piece of such a lousy loan? The FCA should reexamine and publicly explain whether it should have approved this loan after being questioned about it. The ag committees should ask why the FCA stated that “in its business dealings with the College, [FCMA] has complied