The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
1448 AUtilCULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL LIQUIDATION March k, 1920 to April 28, 1921. Not for publicationSt.222$. The following tables give an analysis of reports to the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board fran about 9> 5^0 banks throughout the country which are manbers of the Federal Reserve system. The purpose of the analysis was to ascertain what changes took place during the year ended April 28, 1921 in the loans of banks in agricultural communities as compared with the loans of banks in non-agricultural communities. While loans by country banks are often made fcr uses other than to finance farmers, and many loans by city banks are made to move crops and for other purposes intimately connected with agriculture, i t i s f e l t that the figures compare with fair accuracy the liquidation of industrial and agricultural loans. All counties i n the country were grouped in three classes, agricultural, semi-agricultural and not>-agricultural. Counties were classified as agricultural, when the value of their products according to data obtained from the 1920 census reports, the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Soils, and a l l other available sources was estimated to be not less than 80 per cent agricultural; as semiagricultural when their products were between 50 and 80 per cent agricultural; and as non-agricultural, when their products were less than 50 per cent agricultural. The summary table below shows that between May 4, 1920 and April 28, 1921 the loans and discounts of banks in agricultural counties throughout the country declined $36,$00,000 or slightly more than 1.2 per cent; the loans and discounts of banks in semi-agricultural counties declined $18,700,000 or 1.3 per cent; and the loans and discounts of banks in non-agricultural counties declined $827,100,000 or 5.6 per cent. The borrowings frcm the Federal Reserve Banks by banks in agri- cultural counties increased $127,"00,000 or 56.5 per cent; borrowings by banks in semi-agricultural counties remained practically stationary; and borrowings by banks in ron-agricultural counties declined $629,100,000 or 28.5 P e r cent. - 2 - St.2225a INCREASE OR DECREASE IN LOANS, BORROWINGS (a>AND DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS (1920-1921). (Amounts i n m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s ' ) Agricultural : Semi-agricul- : Mon-agricultur-: counties :tural counties: al counties : : Per i : Per : Per :* Amount*;cent ;' Amount : cent: Amount ; cent ".Amount i cent Loans and discounts -36.5 *1.2 -18.7 -1-3 -827-1 -882.3 -5.6 -4.5 Borrowings from F* R, Banks — + 1 2 7 * 6 "*"56 *5 - 0 . 2 -629.I - 2 8 . 5 --O.3 -501.8 -19.5 Borrowings from other banks + 4 5 , 2 +65.7 >6.1 + 1 9 , 0 +0.6 +0.5 +51.8 +27.3 Total deposits -4ll.S -11.1 -87*7 -5,2 -665.7 -4.4 -II65.2 -5'7 (a) Bills payable and rediscounts • • In partial explanation of the relatively heavy demands upon the Federal Reserve system by banks in agricultural counties, i t appears that their loss in total deposits was 11,1 per cent, as against a loss of 4.4 per cent, by banks in non-agricultural counties. Between May 4, 1920, and April 28, 1921, member banks show a total liquidation of loans amounting to $882,000,000 of which $827,000,000, or $4 per cent, i s shown for banks in non-agricultural counties, while the liquidation in agricultural and semi-agricultural counties amounted to only about $55»000,000. An analysis of the changes in loans by Federal Reserve districts shows few important reductions for banks in agricultural counties, the largest reduction being reported for banks in the Kansas City district, where loans were reduced by about $53>000,000. On the other hand, banks in the Richmond and Atlanta districts showed somewhat larger loans this year than a year ago. In the semi-agricultural counties, no important changes are reported for ary of the Federal Reserve districts. In the non-agri-* cultural counties the volume of liquidation has been material in every Federal Reserve district, except Cleveland, which reports a 10 per cent increase in loans. I ii50 I - 3 - st.2225a. The contrast "between the barks in agricultural and non~agricultural counties i s even more pronounced when borrowings from the Federal Reserve banks are compared* These borrowings increased for banks in agricultural counties by about 128 millions, or 57 per cent* particularly heavy relative increases being shown for the Atlanta, Dallas and Minneapolis districts• In the semi-agricultural counties, the amount of loans from Federal Reserve Banks shows practically no changes for the year, substantial increases in the Richmond and Atlanta districts being offset by a reduction of 10 millions in the Cleveland district* In non- agricultural counties the reduction of borrowings from Federal Reserve Banks is universal for a l l the districts, except Cleveland* For the system as a whole, the reduction in borrowings from Federal Reserve Banks amounted to about ^02 millions; for banks in non-agricultural counties the reduction was 629 millions, which was offset in part by an increase of 128 millions in the borrowings of banks in agricultural counties. Figures for the several Federal Reserve districts are shown in the table below: 14G1. - 4 - :(a) INCREASE OR DECREASE IN LOANS AND IN BORROWINGS FROM FEDERAL RESERVE BANK BY DISTRICTS (1920-1921) Federal Reserve District >r.) 3 ton Naw York Philadelphia Cleveland Richmond Atlanta Dallas (Amounts in millions of dollars) St,222%. DISCOUNTS AND LOANS : Semi-agricultural: Non-agricultural ! : Agricultural Total counties : counties : : counties : Per : Per : Per : Amount Per ] Amount "Amount : cent * Amount ::cent : cent : cent : -0.7 +1,6 +5.4 +1.5 +7.5 +7.7 + 7.1 -0.5 +5-1 -0.3 -2-3 -2.2 -2.4 -1-9 -4.8 -17-4 -0-6 -4,6 -6.0 -2.0 +15-0 +9.6 -1.6 +10.2 +11.0 +4.7 +2.4 -22.8 +2.9 -6.3 +4.4 —1 • 0 +4.5 +2-0 +4.5 -36.2 -426.1 -27-8 -2-7 -35-3 -2.5 -7.1 -7.8 -2.8 -405.7 -16.7 +106.7 -1.7 -5-1 -49-2 -55-0 -.6 -6.6 -166-1 -78.1 -64.4 -137.3 -5.4 -13.0 +100.8 +9-5 -9-3 -58-7 -29.9 -12.1 -12.6 -11.8 -12.0 -13.3 -I.5 + 6.7 -7.8 Chicago St. Louis Minneapolis Kansas City -16.4 -19.1 -52-9 -13-0 -9.0 -10.4 -132-3 -73-7 -4o-7 >-75.4 San Francisco +47.1 *13-2 -5.4 • -4.2 -17-7 —1 • 8 +24.0 +1.6 -36-5 -1.1 -18-7 -1-3 -827.V -5-6 -882-2 -4.5 Total Federal Reserve District Boston New York Philadelphia Cleveland Richmond Atlanta Dallas -3.8 -6.1 -9.1 -g.o BANKS " t a f RESERVE FEDERAL FROM BORROWINGS : Semi-agricultural: Non-agricultural Agricultural Total counties : counties counties : Per Per Per : Per Amount : cent Amount Amount Amount : cent cent cent -22-3 -28-5 +61.6 -29.3 - 2 3 . 5 +0.5 +11.8 +0-3 -25.0 -205-9 2 6 . 5 -206.9 +4-5 +0.3 +9-2 +0.7 -75-4 -33.-7 -73.3 - 3 5 . O -0.2 -6-3 -i/g -17-9 + 4.0 +2.9 +15.0 . +15.0 -34.0 1 0 . 0 -1.0 -13-7 +2-5 +3.0 —8.6 —9 * 8 +26.5 +4.7 +39.4 +6.9 -4.1 -3-5 -29.9 -31.9 +96.6 +9.6 +120.2 +16.2 -7.4 5 . 8 —24*0 —60.5 +22.0 -3-8 -25.3 493.0 —20 *1 +75-3 +2.8 +50.0 -1.6 -1.5 +23-2 +16.6 +56.5 -3 —0 2 -629.1 -28.5 -501.9 -19-5 +22.0 +127-5 +U5.I +1+2.0 +102.2 -0,4 -7.4 (a) B i l l s payable and rediscounts. -92.2 -75-5 -23.9 San Francisco +18.3 -32.0 -59.1 -1.8 +11.3 +6.8 -117.9 -46.9 +51.4 +25-9 -0.6 -0.2 -1.8 Chicago St. Louis Minneapolis Kansas City Total —l • 6 -6.3 * -80.5 -Id -46-9 -42.6 -12.6 -32.1 -48.3 -14.) -25.2 1 * 452 - 5 - St. 2225d. A comparison of borrowings with the so-called oasic line is presented in the next table. On April 28, 1921, the borrowings of member banks from Fed- eral reserve banks in agricultural counties were in excess of the so-called basic line in the Southern and Middle and Far Western districts, with the exception of Kansas City. In semi-agricultural counties borrowings were below the basic line in all the districts except tnose of Rich&ond, Atlanta, and Chicago; while in the non-agricultural counties, all the districts, except Richmond and Atlanta, reported borrowings below the basic line. BORROWINGS^ FROM FEDERAL • RESERVE BANKS, COMPARED WITH "BASIC LINE" ON APRIL 28, 1921. Hon-agri cultural Semi-agricultural Agricultural counties counties counties %Ratio of: : :Ratio of : ; ;Ratio of Federal Borrow-:Basic:borrow:Borrow-:Basic;borrowBorrow-• :Basic:borrowReserve ings : line: ings to ings : linerings to : ings : line:ings to District : : basic : . : : basic basic line • : : line_ ; : line Airount ° A m conk Percent: Amount :Amounk Percent Amount : Meant: Percent J5-i 50.0 2-9 4.6 Boston 2-5 53-5 1083.0 53.0 574.1 5 9 . 4 10.7 24.6 New York 8.8 35-7 171.0 79.6 1 3 6 . 2 56.7 6-3 3.6 8.6 54.8 Philadelphia 15-7 180.7 63.3 114.5 33-5 57.6 6.4 Cleveland 21.6 19-3 29.4 * : „ Richmond Atlanta Dallas 24.3 29.7 45.8 19.9 15.9 39-3 122.3 186.8 ll6.4 Chicago St. Loui s Minneapoli s Kansas City San Francisco 83.4 23.0 36.1 33.3 72.2 22.2 33-3 ' 45.1 115-5 103-7 108.6 74.0 51.2 4i.4 123.6 353-1 355-8 99.2 Total ^ ? 68,8 113.7 55.0 115.6 300.1 88.8 7-7 11.0 250.3 55-7 34.5 56.1 39.6 72.9 83.4 62,7 87.0 77.0 18.6 45-7 103.8 145.4 71.3 71.9 1,577-8 2418.1 65.2 15.7 33-1 31.6 4.7 137.6 : L 104.7 48.1 61.7 53-0 11.2 5.8 4 78.2 63.6 15-7 12.7 12.4 2.0 g 173.9 156.9 71.6 22.1 19-4 i 4.2 191.4 (a) Bills payable and rediscounts. 28.7 54.7
@FedFRASER