Full text of Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta : Annual Report '80

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

EDERAL RESER
LIBRARY

oAtlanta oBirmingham DJacksonville oMiamioNashville oNew Orleans

Bt-

i
m-8
:

a -'e:

...

From the Boardroom.................................

Monetary Policy and
the National Economy ...............................

Southeastern Economy..............................

!I
?

A New Era for
Southeastern Financial Institutions..........11
Federal Reserve Operations......................

Directors and
Senior officers.........................................

Statement of Condition...........................

Statement of Erig...............
anns..............

Summary of Operations..........................

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

From the Boardroom
1980 has been a remarkable year of transition for
the financial institutions of the Sixth District,
their customers, the Federal Reserve System, and
for our Bank.
The most exciting and far-reaching event of
the year, by far, was the passage of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary
Control Act. When President Carter signed that
Act on March 31, 1980, he initiated the most
significant series of changes in our financial
environment since the 1930s. They will affect us
and our constituents importantly for the remainder of the twentieth century.
For the southeastern consumer and his banking institution, the most noteworthy feature of
the new law was the introduction of interestbearing checking accounts. In addition to allowing
banks to pay interest on consumer checking
balances on the final day of 1980, the new legislation extended the same option to savings and loan
associations as well as credit unions. About nine
out of ten S&Ls in the District are using the new
power. A few credit unions (CUs) were already
offering similar services, called "share drafts," in
1980. Now more than threequarters of the larger
credit unions in the District are expected t o offer
such accounts to their members.
Sixth District consumers will also find that
there has been a huge increase in the number of
places where they can go to obtain checking
services. The S&Ls and CUs in our District currently operate from over 5,000 offices. We estimate that interest-bearing checking accounts are
or will soon be available at half or more of these
locations. When added t o our 7,000 bank offices,
this represents at least a 50 percent increase in the
number of places consumers can take their checking account business.
Naturally, the interest payments on these new
accounts will be quite costly for the institutions
offering them. Costs will grow even more because
the new legislation also requires the Federal
Reserve Banks to begin charging fees for the basic
services we have traditionally provided free to our
constituents. For member banks as a whole, however, these charges in 1981-84 will be offset by a
phased reduction of their reserve requirements.
Our new constituents-nonmember banks, the
thrift institutions, and credit unions-on the other

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
4
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

hand, are now subject to gradually increasing
reserve requirements as they begin to use Fed
services and offer the new checking accounts.
From our Bank's point of view, the landmark
legislation brings us a large increase in both
our regulatory and service functions. On the regulatory side, for example, we are now receiving
deposit reports from and calculating required
reserves for about 2,900 institutions-a fourfold
increase from less than 700 institutions under the
old rules. We have also opened the discount
window to our new constituents and will soon be
offering other services t o them on a price-forservice basis. In short, the Monetary Control Act
of 1980 has propelled us into a challenging period
of service growth.
On the national economic scene, the way we
conduct monetary policy also has been changing.
W are now in our sixth quarter of operations
e
under the new operating procedures that were
announced on October 6,1979. By placing much
more emphasis on controlling the nation's monetary growth, the Federal Reserve intended t o
initiate a gradual reduction of the inflation rate.
A year ago, we targeted 1980 growth rates for the
monetary aggregates which would gradually reduce the trend of inflation if complemented by
appropriate fiscal policy measures. The result has
been a mixture of success and disappointment.
One of the two most prominent definitions of
money-M-lA-we held within the top of our
target range. The other one-M-lB-was pulled
above the range we specified by unexpectedly
rapid growth in the new interest-bearing checking
deposits. Measured monthly rather than on a
quarterly average basis, however, M-1B reentered
our target range in December. For both of these
measures of money, we held 1980 growth slightly
below that of 1979. In the face of rising inflation
and federal deficits, this was no small achievement.
But we clearly missed the midpoints of the ranges
we intended to achieve and are now redoubling
our efforts to further curtail the monetary aggregate growth rates in 1980-81. Our success is
indispensable to the fight against inflation. We
hope and expect that the federal budget deficit,
which totaled $59 billion in the past fiscal year,
will also be curbed so that pressures in the fiiancia1 markets will not become intolerably intense
as we follow through with our contribution to
the anti-inflation program.
Here in the Southeast, we have shared the
national pattern of inflation and recession. We

fared generally better than the nation in 1980,
partly because of the move of people and resources to the Sun Belt, partly because our
construction sector avoided its speculative
vulnerability of five years before, and partly
because our region is less concentrated in
recession-prone manufacturing of durable goods.
Our friends in Alabama were the exception t o this
rule; 1980 was not a good year for them.
Louisiana, in contrast, benefited disproportionately from its concentration in energy-related
industries.
It is also a time of transition within the
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta because of the
recent retirement of President Monroe Kimbrel.
Under his able leadership, this Bank has
heightened its reputation for efficiency and
excellence. Specifically, he presided over the
installation of our Regional Check Processing
Centers, the creation of path-breaking new
facilities in our automated clearing house, and

the construction of our new Branch in Miami.
Under his leadership, the Bank contributed
significantly to the automation of currency
processing and the introduction of electronic
bookkeeping for Treasury securities.
Above all, Monroe Kimbrel led this Bank in
demonstrating that public institutions can be costconscious and efficient. Our Bank has increased
its physical volume of production-checks cleared,
currency processed, etc.-by 10 percent a year
since 1977. During the same period, our staff has
actually been reduced by 5 percent-from 2,439 in
1977 to 2,3 18 full-time employees in December
1980. These are remarkable gains in productivity.
They have enabled us to rise to rank first in
measured overall efficiency among the 12 Federal
Reserve Districts. For this legacy of excellent
management, we thank Monroe Kimbrel and
wish him well in his future endeavors.
Looking ahead, we see many things: a new
building for our Jacksonville Branch; a new computer system serving all six offices; an altogether
unfamiliar and challenging “priced services”
operating environment; and major tasks relating
to the full implementation of our new responsibilities under the Monetary Control Act. We plan
to do all this without any appreciable increase in
staff and with virtually no real increase in our
operating budget, adjusted for inflation.
We also see an opportunity to persevere in
the battle against inflation ... serve more deposito
tory institutions than the Fed has ever served
to
before, and to serve them better ... meet and
work effectively with leaders from our region’s
nonmember banks, savings and loan associations,
credit unions, and various international banking
organizations.
To our old friends, the member bankers, we
say thanks: your loyalty means a great deal t o us,
and our continuing obligation to serve you well
will not be forgotten.
To our new friends, we say welcome, as we
join to make this the beginning of a productive

Deputy Chairman Weitnauer

William F. Ford
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
President
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

William A. Fickling, Jr.
Chairman

Deputy Chairman

Monetary Policy
and the National Economy

4
'R

?
Monetary policy in 1980 interacted with a mer.curial and inflationary economy.
The year began amid fears of recession.
Instead, the economy generated moderate growth,
but inflation accelerated with surprising sharpness.
A spurt in energy and food prices pushed up the
Consumer Price Index at a 17-percent rate in the
first quarter.
Businesses and consumers rushed to borrow
in the atmosphere of heightened inflation, raising
interest rates dramatically. On March 14, the Fed
imposed special credit restraints at the request of
the President. The prime rate then peaked at 20
percent in early April, but later fell sharply.
Income and production peaked, too. When
the figures for April emerged, it was clear that the
long-awaited recession had finally arrived-with a
jolt. Interest rates plunged, the dollar declined on
world markets, and the unemployment rate rose
1.6 points from March to May. Hopes for a
balanced budget, or even the $28-billion deficit
projected earlier by the Administration, vanished

quickly as the recession took hold. Secondquarter statistics later confirmed the sharpest
quarterly decline of the postwar era.
But then, almost as quickly, the nation's
economic pulse revived. Third-quarter
economic growth, although certainly not spectacular, surprised most forecasters. Inflationary
pressure quickened, too. Interest rates rose again.
And by the time the federal government closed its
books on fiscal year 1980 at the end of October,
the deficit had amounted to $59 billion-over
twice the original estimate.
Even as economic activity quickened, though,
there were conspicuous weak spots. Homebuyers
balked at high mortgage rates. Domestic automakers cut production t o match slumping sales.
Spending for plant and equipment items proved
disappointingly sluggish, especially in view of the
need for more investment and higher productivity.
1980 was indeed mercurial, a year of perplexing ups and downs. As the year ended, inflation
apparently remained as strongly imbedded as ever,

Real GNP

Inflation (GNPPrice Deflator)

billions of I972 dollars

96 change at annual rate

I
I
I

Qtrs.1980

I-

-_-

Q t r s . 1980

and more sluggishness was in prospect for the
economy.
This was not an environment conducive to
effective monetary policy-making. Throughout
the year, credit demands and interest rates ebbed
and flowed with the shifting economy. Monetary
growth impacted and reflected these shifting
economic patterns of strength, weakness, and
strength again, despite Fed efforts to moderate
these swings.
Most of all, monetary policy was made more
difficult by the surging federal deficit. The doubled
deficit made it much more difficult to develop
and sustain much confidence that inflation was
coming under control. It required more Treasury
borrowing from already-congested debt markets.
This put even more pressure on interest rates and
crowded out the efforts of some businesses, at
least, to finance investments in productivityenhancing plant and equipment.
The record of monetary growth in 1980 is
somewhat disappointing. Relative to the quarterly

growth targets established for the four monetary
aggregates, we finished the year clearly within the
target range on only one, M-1A. In addition, the
monthly M-1B aggregate just barely fell back within its intended target range at the end of December.
In both cases, 1980 growth was reduced from
1979’s rate. But in none of the cases did we
approach the midpoint of the respective target
range. In short, monetary growth was cut back in
1980, but not as much as we had hoped.
Looking ahead to 1981,controlling monetary
growth remains the key ingredient in our efforts t o
control inflation. The Fed’s record promises to be
better in 1981. There is now increasing support
for holding down the federal deficit. If a firm
monetary policy is accompanied by a less inflationary budget and other growth-inducing
policies-particularly longer-run policies designed
to foster investment, saving, and productivity1981 should be a year of progress in our nation’s
ongoing battle against inflation.

Budget D f c t
eii

Targeted and Actual M-1B

billions of dollars

Fiscal
Years

1977

1978

1979

1980

1979

1980

Southeastern
Economy
Overview
Volatile financial conditions and high inflation hit
the Southeast almost as hard as the rest of the
country in 1980. But a variety of factors, including in-migration and more recession-resistant
industries, helped the District hold up better than
the U. S. as a whole.
Our real estate industry survived two bouts of
high mortgage rates and tight financial conditions.
Commercial and industrial construction projects,
fed by continued population growth, helped keep
the area’s construction industry moving.
Job growth slowed, however, across a broad
spectrum of industries. Manufacturing employment-usually more sensitive t o downturns than
other sectors-fell considerably. But a favorable
mix between light and heavy manufacturing
cushioned the effect of sharp declines in automobile and steel employment.
Unemployment rates in the region were the
worst since the 1973-75 contraction. In the sixstate area, unemployment rose from 6 percent of
the labor force in late 1979 to almost 8 percent
during the depths of the 1980 recession. By late
in the year, however, our region’s unemployment
rate had moved back down to around 7 Dercentroughly a

Among southeastern farmers, there were a few
winners but many losers. Drought hurt the prospects for expanded crop output for many producers, but wheat and tobacco, with early growing
seasons, largely escaped the searing heat and
produced higher yields per acre than in 1979.
It was an especially tough year for livestock producers: meat prices fell during the first half of
1980, partly due to a huge increase in hog marketings. The situation worsened during the fall
months, when sharply rising feed costs aggravated
earlier losses and further discouraged meat production.
Overall, the region’s economy-like the
nation’s-went through four distinct phases during
1980, moving from a relatively strong position
from January through March, into recession from
April to August, on t o a partial recovery in late
summer and the fall and, finally, renewed uncertainty as the year came t o a close. A brief
retracing of the region’s major economic events
follows.

First Quarter: A Strong Regional Economy
As the curtain rose on 1980, the southeastern
economy looked fairly strong in most sectors.
Expanding employment and fatter paychecks
supported brisk retail sales, despite the recordsetting first quarter surge in consumer prices.
Demand was especially strong for energy-efficient
products. Home entertainment items were hot,
perhaps as a consumer reaction t o escalating gaso1
up in

Nonfarm Employment

Unemployment Rate

millions

percent

1980

Jan.

’

Apr .

July

Charts on pages 8-10 cover Sixth District states.

’

OCt.

1980

Jan.

API.

July

OCt.

compact car sales, but had trouble keeping enough
fuel-efficient cars on their lots to compete with
foreign products.
The tourist industry also fared well in the
early months of 1980. Hotels and motels in
central Florida enjoyed peak occupancy rates, and
attendance at tourist attractions was close to
capacity.
Commercial and industrial building provided
considerable support to construction. In Jacksonville and Atlanta, especially, contractors were busy
with a backlog of big projects. The District’s
alternative fuel industry also boomed: two
alcohol plants opened in southern Louisiana, and
others will open soon in Jacksonville, Tampa,
Orlando, Miami and Pensacola. A large coal
gasification complex was planned for northern
Alabama.
Some signs of impending weakness appeared,
however, as impulse buying slowed and an unusually large number of customers reached their
credit limits.
Weakness also showed up in residential construction early in the year. Rising mortgage
interest costs cut into home demand, and mortgage loan applications fell markedly. Deposit inflows at S&Ls contracted.
And, unlike many other parts of the country,
the Southeast saw consumer and business loan
demand at commercial banks begin to slacken in
the first quarter. High interest rates caused consumers to defer purchases of big-ticket items and
seek credit less eagerly.
International developments also caused c0.ncern in the region: the federal ban on phosphate

exports to the Soviet Union worried Florida’s
phosphate industry, and retaliatory trade restrictions preoccupied poultry farmers.
A hard freeze in early March hurt the region’s
peach crop badly, but Florida’s citrus and vegetable crop escaped major damage. Prospects for
relatively high prices led farmers to expand plantings of several major crops despite sharply higher
production costs.
Recession in the Southeast
As spring unfolded, the District economy became decidedly recessionary. High interest rates
intensified a sales slump and forced layoffs in the
home and automobile industries. Many auto
dealers closed their doors, and almost all of them
kept their inventories as low as possible. Consumers retrenched, and merchandise sales, adjusted
for inflation, declined.
By April, residential construction came to a
standstill in most areas of the Southeast. Buyers
had difficulty qualifying for loans, and houses
remained on the market longer. Mortgage rates at
16 percent for potential home buyers were typical.
Mortgage loan applications slowed to a trickle.
Savings and loan associations had trouble securing
loanable funds except through expensive money
market and 30-month savings certificates.
Nonresidential construction activity was still
fairly brisk, and numerous plans for hotel, office,
and/or retailing complexes were announced during
spring and early summer. Some companies, however, postponed construction until more favorable
financing terms could be arranged. Condominium
construction in Florida slowed, as many buyers
were unable to sell their houses in the northern

u. s.

The high borrowing costs also sharply reduced
consumer loan demand. Retailers noted a falloff
in the sale of big-ticket items, where financing is
usually necessary. Customers became very price
conscious.
Employment weakened, too, throughout the
District. Layoffs hit metal and auto supplies hard,
especially in Mississippi (automotive wiring),
Tennessee (auto glass), and Alabama (steering
gears, aluminum and steel). Work forces in construction-related industries also were reduced
throughout the region: carpet and lumber mills
cut production, laid off workers and struggled to
eliminate excess inventories.
A severe drought shriveled crops across the
region in June and July. Hay and pasture suffered

Retail Sales
biNions of dollars

Jan.

Apr.

July

OCt.

the largest losses, followed by corn, soybeans, and
peanuts. Record temperatures also damaged the
poultry industry.
Late Summer Rebound
By August, there was growing evidence that
the recession had bottomed out. Although consumer spending continued to be restrained, confidence was returning. Stronger-than-expected
back to school purchases of soft goods encouraged
retailers. Household improvement items sold
briskly. Cash sales increased as credit usage
declined.
Inventories continued to be closely monitored. New car sales improved in most areas and
used car activity picked up. Consumers shopped
carefully for the best rates on installment loans.
As mortgage interest rates fell in the third
quarter, mortgage loans rebounded. By late
summer, in fact, residential construction contracts in the six state area surged to the highest
level of the year. Applications increased considerably at savings and loans, particularly in
Florida, but builders of single-family homes
were cautious. Residential construction remained
weak in areas of rising unemployment, however,
especially in central and northern Alabama.
Banks reported strong gains in real estate and
installment loans. International banking was in a

growth spurt in south Florida, where Miami
opened its sixteenth foreign agency.
Tourism held up reasonably well. The percentage of foreign visitors-especially Latin American visitors to the Miami area-continued to
increase, offsetting a decline in domestic tourism.
Some industries, notably steel, plywood, tire,
and aluminum plants, were recalling laid-off workers by fall, but hours worked in many industries
remained far behind last year’s rate. Scattered
strikes troubled Alabama, where unemployment
was the worst in the District.
Third quarter figures showed retail sales up
3.6 percent over second quarter, and District
manufacturing production was beginning to
improve.
Lingering drought further reduced District
crop production, although price increases offset
some of the drag on income. Farmers made
heavy use of emergency credit. Eight principal
District crops yielded a combined net loss of
$1.2 billion in 1980.
More Uncertainty Late i Year
n
Toward the end of 1980, some signs warned
of possible renewed weakness ahead. Rapidly

rising interest rates crimped housing starts again.
Auto dealers also encountered difficulties as high

R esiden t ial Construct ion Contracts

Manufacturing Production

billions of dollars

index, I96 7 = IO0

1980

Jan.

Apr.

July

OCt.

1980

Jan.

Apr.

July

OCt.

t’

interest rates and buyer resistance to price increases and expensive options drew down sales.
Many prospective buyers failed to qualify for
loans.
Even so, business volume generally exceeded
retailer expectations as gross sales were up over the
previous year. Some retailers attributed the strong
sales to heavy promotions and special buys.
Retailers selling top-quality goods did better than
mass merchandisers and low-end discounters,
whose customers were the hardest hit by inflation.
New housing starts were held down, as high construction and financing costs put home builders in
a bind. New homes were scaled down and put on
smaller lots. Existing homeowners chose to stay
with their low mortgage rates rather than “trade
up” to a larger house. Corporate transferees provided the bulk of sales in some areas. Some large
savings and loan associations moved out of the
fixed rate mortgage business and initiated a
growing trend toward renegotiable and variable
rate mortgages. The slowdown affected not only
detached homes but also condominiums and
apartment conversions.
Tourism was mixed toward year-end. Attendance at central Florida’s major attractions was off
sharply. In south Florida, however, international
visitors kept bookings up at some hotels.
The high interest rates had not adversely
affected employment. Manufacturers reported
widespread increases in employment, although still
below year-ago levels. Longer work weeks suggested that some industries, at least, were moving
back toward full production. Oil support companies continued to bolster the economy in south
Mississippi, and in Louisiana the petrochemical
industry was still expanding.
Farm income prospects dimmed further.
Prices received by farmers declined. Outstanding
farm loans at astrict banks continued above yearago levels, suggesting a slowdown in rates of repayments. For those farmers who can obtain
sufficient financing, however, rising prices for
some crops promise attractive returns for 1981.
Returns to surviving livestock producers probably
will have risen enough to also provide brighter
profit margins in the year ahead.
So as the southeastern economy turned the
corner into 198 1, signs of impending weakness
were mixed with surprising resiliency.

A New Era for
Southeastern
Financial
Institutions
1980 signalled the end of a restless, uneven decade
in the financial industry, and the dawn of a
promising new era. For commercial banks, S & h ,
and credit unions, the 1970s brought rapid
changes. Inflation intensified their portfolio
problems. Uncertainty and shifting conditions
demanded more flexible management.
In response, banks tied business loan rates to
the market, and S & h and credit unions made
similar adjustments to mortgage terms. They all
sought and promoted flexible savings instruments,
such as certificates tied to Treasury securities,
pulling more than a third of the region’s time
and savings deposits into instruments of this
type.
The 1980s bring even greater challenges.
Inflation remains severe. Interest rates are volatile. Financial innovation, partially a response to
regulations, has heightened competition (from
money market funds, for example). Earlier deregulation moves have helped the regulated
institutions meet this competition, squeezing
earnings in the process. On top of these changes,
the Monetary Control Act of 1980 (MCA) will
require still more adjustments in the year ahead.

Monetary Control Act: New Powers, Fewer
Regulations
The MCA makes all regulated depository
financial institutions subject to similar rules. It
expands their ability to serve consumers. It provides for a gradual phase-out of interest rate
ceilings (Regulation Q), and it requires pricing
and access to Federal Reserve services for all
institutions.
Our region’s institutions are likely to use their
new powers aggressively. NOW accounts, for
example, were popular when introduced in the
Northeast. Personal checking accounts and consumer loans have been actively promoted by most

state-chartered thrift institutions in Maine since
late 1975.
More than 90 percent of the Southeast’s
savings and loan associations began offering NOW
accounts on January 1. Most of the region’s larger
credit unions already offer share drafts. Many of
the smaller ones are expected to join the competition soon.
The MCA should be good news for consumers.
With many more additional institutions offering
each financial service, consumers will almost
certainly find a greater variety of prices and
services to choose from.
NOW accounts, however, are not for everyone. Check processing costs money, and financial
institutions will be trying harder than ever to pass
these costs along t o customers, either through fees
or minimum balances. This means that each
consumer will now be more likely to pay the full
cost of transaction services than in the past.
People with low balances and high activity will
typically pay more than they formerly did for
checking accounts. But NOW accounts should be
a boon for those with high balances and low
activity.
Since most people prefer “one-stop banking,”
S&Ls will likely be drawn into the other consumer
services they are allowed to offer. The larger
savings and loans and credit unions are already
offering a full line of other services (credit cards,
installment loans, and even trust services) in
addition to NOW accounts.

Number of Financial Institutions, Sixth District

As they jockey for position, banks, S&Ls and
credit unions are starting from different levels of
size and structure. Credit unions in the region
outnumber both banking organizations* and
S&Ls. On the other hand, banks (with almost
2,000) have many more branches. In the aggregate, however, banks have more total deposits
than credit unions and S&Ls combined (except in
Florida). In terms of median size, on the other
hand, S&Ls exceed banks in total deposits in most
of the region’s states.
Southeastern S&Ls have another important
advantage. They may expand statewide more
easily than commercial banks through newlyestablished branches and through merger. Further,
since the first of this year, the thrift industry’s
regulators have eased requirements for federal
S&Ls’ branch applications.
Clearly, competition will intensify. The structure of our District’s financial industry will
continue to change rapidly. In the long run, deregulation should help the region’s financial
institutions cope with volatile interest rates and
innovative competitors. In the near term, howkver, they will be pushed hard to adjust to their
new, less regulated environment..
*Each multibank holding company is considered a single
banking organization. Groups of institutions under the
same noncorporate ownership are considered to be individual institutions because we lack complete information
on this form of organization.

Changing Powers of Depository Institutions
Under Fed era1 Regulations

Federal Reserve Operations
The Monetary Control Act of 1980:
Sweeping Changes for the Federal Reserve
Dominating the year for the Federal Reserve was
the passage in March of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Actthe most important financial legislation in at least
forty years. Most of the Act’s provisions have a
significant impact on Federal Reserve Bank operations and on depository institutions. Two
provisions, in particular, demanded major efforts
from this Bank as it prepared to serve its new
constituents.
Reserves: Universal and Uniform
Title I of the Act imposes Federal Reserve
requirements on all depository institutions that
maintain transaction accounts or nonpersonal time
deposits. It also gives the Federal Reserve System
authority to require all depository institutions to
file reports of their assets and liabilities. Depository institutions covered by Title I include banks,
savings and loan associations, mutual savings
banks, credit unions, Edge Act and Agreement

Corporations, and U. S . branches and agencies of
foreign banks. As a direct result of this provision,
the number of Sixth District institutions required
to file the Weekly Report of Transaction Accounts, Other Deposits and Vault Cash rose from
569 member banks to 1,871 depository institutions. Data from these reports are used by us to
calculate each reporting institution’s reserve requirement and also by the Board of Governors to
estimate the monetary aggregates.
The MCA will require much cooperation. To
solicit help, the Bank arranged a series of meetings
and workshops in each zone of the District with
financial regulatory agencies, trade associations,
and depository institutions. Individual meetings
were held with many of the District’s largest
depository institutions which provide correspondent banking services. These meetings proved
to be invaluable in establishing new avenues of
communication with our new constituents.
To handle the increased reporting volume
from nonmembers, the Bank substantially increased its computer processing capacity. It

Monetary Control Act 1980

D iscount 0perat ions :
Opening “the Window‘
also developed major new compufkr programs, designed a new automated data base, and expanded
the District’s data entry capacity. A critical
phase was successfully completed in early November when nonmember institutions actually began
keeping reserves with the Bank. Because nonmember reserve requirements are phased in over
eight years, only 99 additional institutions were
initially required to hold reserves in this District.
Federal Reserve Services: A New Market
A second provision in Title I also has major
significance for the Federal Reserve Banks and
depository institutions. It requires the System to
develop, publish, and begin charging explicit prices
for many of its services, and t o provide access to
those services to all depository institutions at a
uniform price. The pricing method specifies that
System services will be competitively priced at full
cost plus an adjustment for imputed taxes and the
cost of capital.
The Board will formally announce final prices
for each service in advance of each access date.
The Bank plans a series of workshops and seminars
throughout the District in 1981 to provide
complete information on all priced Federal
Reserve services. Sixth District management and
staff look forward to providing a broad range of
financial services t o many new depository institutions.

Pricing and Access

The Discount Rate

FED SERVICES

The servicesto be priced and their tentative access dates are:
Service
Wire Transfer/Net Settlement Services
Check Collection/ACH Services
’ Securities and

Noncash Collection Services

Coin and Currency Services

Another of the Monetary Control Act’s most
important features expanded access to the
Federal Reserve Discount Window. Any depository institution offering transaction accounts or
nonpersonal time deposits subject to reserve requirements will have access to Federal Reserve
credit on the same basis as member banks. U. S.
branches and agencies of foreign banks also may
now use the discount window.
The MCA provides for short-term adjustment
credit to depository institutions and extended
credit under certain conditions. It also allows
emergency credit to nondepository institutions in
unusual circumstances. Like member banks,
nonmember depository institutions now eligible to
borrow from the Federal Reserve are generally
expected to rely on other available sources before
turning to the window.
Lending activity in the Sixth District began
the year moderately but accelerated rapidly
throughout the first quarter. After peaking in
March, borrowings began to decline, reflecting
the impact of the monetary and credit actions
announced on March 14. Volume was very low
from May to August, but lending activity increased
substantially in September and remained in the
moderate to high range until year-end. Average
daily borrowings during the year were $112.4
million. Federal Reserve credit was extended to
125 depository institutions in 1980. The discount
rate was changed seven times.

percent

1B
i
=

Date
January 1981
August 1981
October 1981
January 1982

A three-phased approach for recovering the value of Federal
Reserve float will also be announced during the f i s t quarter of
1981. T i approach will include operational improvements,
hs
changes in availability schedules and explicit float pricing. In
addition, the Federd Reserve will price any new services offered.

4
9
1980

Supervision and Regulation
1980's major legislative and regulatory accomplishments greatly intensified the activities of
the SuDervision and Regulation Department.
The MCA resolvedihe problem of declining
membership in the Federal Reserve System. Thus,
instead of decreasing as in previous years, the
number of District state-chartered banks subject
to examination increased from 78 in 1979 to 82
by year-end 1980. This trend should continue.
Another six existing and proposed state-chartered
banks are slated to become members in 1981. No
state member banks have announced plans to
withdraw from membership.
The year also saw a very large expansion in
the Bank's international supervision activities. As

number of applications received

'17

Regulation K was also revised to permit Edge
Act Corporations to branch in the United States.
Sixth District Edge Corporation offices-many of
them in Miami-increased from 18 to 26 in 1980,
with twelve more applications pending. The
Federal Reserve joined with state banking authorities of Georgia and Florida to begin an examination program of state-chartered foreign bank
agencies. At year-end, there were 27 such agencies
in the District, with four more pending. In January 1981, the Department of Supervision and
Regulation established a field office in Miami,
principally for the purpose of examining Edge
Corporations and foreign bank agencies.
1980 also saw increasing use of a new
computer-based early warning system. A series
of financial ratios from various routine reports
enables examiners-using comparative analysis-to
pinpoint potential problems. In late December
1980, the department installed a new computer
terminal linked with the FDIC's computerized
data base which includes all insured banks.
This will help analyze bank holding company
applications, aid in inspections, and
reduce the overall cost of supervision and regulation. Another significant development was the
surge in applications involving one-bank holding
company formations. During the year, 74 applications for one-bank holding company formations
were processed, more than the previous nine years
combined.

Bank Holding Companies

'I6

a result of this growth, a separate official responsibility was created within the department early in
the vear.

'78

'9
7

ron

First
in Cost
Effectiveness
Bankwide Aggregate Cost Index

The MCA generated tremendous activity at the
Atlanta Federal Reserve and its branches. Historically, the Sixth District has emphasized operational efficiency and strong cost controls.
Preparations for the MCA presented a formidable
challenge in cost effectiveness. Based on the
figures for 1980's first three quarters, however,
the District again was the System leader in
efficiency.
Since 1977, the Federal Reserve System has
used formal cost performance measures to evaluate

objectively the comparative efficiency of Reserve
Bank operations. At the top level of measures is
the Bankwide aggregate unit cost index. This
measures comparative efficiency of total operations-the lower the index, the higher the
efficiency. At the second level are aggregate unit
cost indices for cash, payments mechanism, fiscal
agency, and all other operations.
Overall, the Sixth District's solid gains in
operational efficiency are clearly reflected in the
comparative cost performance measures.

Sixth District Ranking

Sixth District Perfomance, I980 vs. 1979

among the 12 Federal Reserve Districts
based on aggregate unit cost index

efficiency index (System=lOO)

I
higher efficiency

Marked Improvement

High Standings

The Electronic Money Network
The District's electronic payments and communications systems, faced with huge increases in
volume, played key roles in the effort to maximize efficiency and service.
Automated Clearing H u e
os
The Automated Clearing House (ACH) was
a product of the late 1960s. The financial industry was concerned with the growing volume of
paper processing. More than ten years of study,
experimentation, and refinement have resulted in
a network of 32 ACH facilities serving the entire
country.
During 1980, nationwide ACH volume increased by 40 percent. The number of companies
utilizing ACH services grew by 46 percent. Excluding Treasury-originated payments, ACH
growth figures are even more impressive. Private
sector volume increased 125 percent. In the District, total volume increased 26 percent (to 29
million transactions), and commercial activity
rose 100 percent.

ACH
millions of items processed

1
1979

The most successful ACH application is
direct deposit services for income credits such as
payrolls, pensions, and dividends. On the debit
side, preauthorized payments-mortgages, insurance premiums, utility, loan, and credit card
payments-comprise the second largest use of
ACH. Despite the ACH increase, over a billion
consumer bill payments per year are still made
by check in the Sixth District.
A relatively new service offering great potential for volume and convenience to the consumer
is telephone bill payments. This service allows
consumers to pay bills by telephone either by
talking to an operator or keying in data using a
Touch-tone telephone.
To further encourage ACH use, the Bank
offered participating financial institutions an expanded schedule, marketing assistance, and new
data communication links. In the fall of 1979,
the Federal Reserve System expanded its current
schedule to allow late-night deposit of timecritical debits. This service makes the ACH
system more attractive to depository transfer
check issuers. During 1980, Sixth District offices
combined marketing efforts with local ACH
associations to stimulate interest and volume
growth. Several association-sponsored seminars
were held to introduce the business community
directly to ACH services.
In mid-1979, the District installed its first
data communications link with participating
institutions. This permits electronic exchange of
ACH transactions between a Fed-operated ACH
facility and a remote site serving financial institutions. District-supported link sites increased
to eight in 1980. In the era of rising energy costs,
these electronic deliverv svstems are beioming
"
increasingly important.
The Automated Clearing House made great
strides during the previous decade-especially in
1980. Technological advances reduced its hardware cost. Legal groundwork assured customer
I

1 Y 80

protection in using the new payment service.
Competitive pricing should increase ACH use more
than ever. All these advances will insure an ever
expanding role for the ACH in the nation’s payments mechanism during the ’80s.

Since its installation, the Sixth District network has grown considerably, both in size and in
number of messages. It is now one of the largest
in the System, serving over 150 member banks.
Forty additional terminals were installed in
1980. The increase is expected to be even larger
in 1981 because the Monetary Control Act permits
on-line access to the Fedwire network for nonmember financial institutions. The Sixth District’s
computer now switches approximately 25,000
messages a day, third highest in the System.
To consolidate the essentially independent
District communications networks into a single,
consistent and reliable network, the Districts in
late 1981 will introduce a new communications
network-FRCS-80. The new network offers
state-of-the-art technology, multiple paths for
message delivery and increased protection against
circuit and equipment failures. In order to take
full advantage of FRCS-80’s capabilities, a Systemwide effort is underway to rewrite the present
software applications.

Federal Reserve Communications System
In the early 1970s, the Federal Reserve
Communications System (FRCS), which transmits
funds and security transfers, was largely automated. The FRCS connects member banks, the
Federal Reserve offices, and the Federal Reserve
Board to a national switching center in Culpeper,
Virginia via communication lines. As part of the
nationwide network, the Sixth District operates a
dual Cyber 1000 computer linking branch offices
and local member banks to the Culpeper Switching
Center. With the fully automated FRCS, funds
can now be transferred from coast-to-coast in
minutes.

Federal Reserve Communications System

I \
I \

Branches linked to Reserve Banks

Currency Handling in the Age of Automation
Cost effectiveness is also a primary concern in
the District’s massive currency handling operation. Until very recently, currency processing
and destruction were labor intensive operations.
Beginning as a simple tabletop hand sort for
fit or unfit notes, the sorting operation progressed
to note-by-note operator inspection using a Federal Bill Counting machine. Manual destruction of
notes was also highly-controlled and laborintensive.
Between 1966 and 1975, the currency volume
(in millions of pieces) processed by Reserve Banks
increased 49 percent. This rapid increase in
currency use accelerated the search for a costeffective, automated solution to our labor
intensive operations.
Medium-speed processing techniques, introduced in 1975, doubled our production rates
but did not provide individual note inspection or
fitness sorting.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta played a
major role in the development of a new high speed
currency handling system. In 1978, we installed
the first production model of a Currency Verification Counting and Sorting (CVCS) system. The
CVCS counts each note and electronically inspects
it for genuineness and fitness. It processes 50,000
pieces of currency per hour, compared to about
40,000 notes per @ via manual processing. It
destroys unfit notes on-line and repackages fit
notes for recirculation with exceptional accuracy.
Currently, high speed equipment handles 58.6
percent of all notes processed in our District. That
will soon rise to almost 90 percent. With the
acceptance of Miami’s first CVCS system in
August 1980, all Sixth District locations now
have at least one high speed system. Currently 13
systems are on-line throughout the District, with
seven more scheduled t o be operating by 1983.
High speed currency processing is a return to
note-by-note fitness inspection. The result is improved quality and a relatively consistent fit
currency product. The equipment also enables
Reserve Banks t o reduce staff, strengthen security,
and improve controls.

Currency Verification
Counting and Sorting System, Sixth District

The Federal Reserve System has also worked
to improve the shredder, strapper, and authentication and denomination detectors. Further
modifications have enhanced accountability, security, and the detection of defective notes.
These first generation high speed systems ar
justified primarily because they automate the
destruction process and control the quality of
circulating currency. Since their operation is still
somewhat labor intensive, however, a Task Force
is now developing requirements for second generms, with first
ation currency processin
delivery targeted for 198c.
’

The Treasury's Financial Agent
A systematic productivity improvement program,
begun in 1979, has cut our costs of providing fiscal
services to the U. S. Treasury, depository instittions, and the general public. These services
include :
(1) issuing, reissuing, and redeeming U. S.
Savings Bonds
(2) issuing, servicing, and redeeming other
Government paper, such as U. S.Treasury
bills, notes, and bonds
(3) other related services, including wire
transfer of securities, securities safekeeping, collection of noncash items, purchase
and sale of securities, and maintenance
of the Treasury Tax and Loan (TT&L)
accounts.
The first phase of the program, completed in
early 1980, focused on streamlining and standardizing savings bond operations. The second phase
involved adopting custody standards to strengthen
our operational controls and security. The third
phase, recently begun, addresses the remaining
Fiscal Agency operations.

Improved automated systems also helped reduce costs in this area. The Districtwide introduction of the Cyber/Custody System in mid-1979
significantly reduced securities transfer costs. The
Savings Bond Consignment and Accountability
System, introduced in October 1979 for issuing
new Series EE and HH bonds, streamlined the
savings bond operation. Changes to the Treasury
Tax and Loan (TT&L) System also reduced our
data processing costs.
The Bank made these cost improvements
at the same time that record high interest rates
encouraged sharply higher volume in Treasury
issues, wire transfers of securities, custody, and
noncash collection operations. Although volume
in these operations increased as much as 234 percent over the year, the number of Fiscal Agency
employees rose only 2.5 percent.
In 1980 the District significantly improved its
cost position among the 12 Federal Reserve Banks
in all Fiscal Agency service categories. According
to the overall ranking, the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta is fast becoming a leader within the
System in providing cost-effective Fiscal Agency
services.

Sixth District Fiscal Agency Cost Ranking
among I 2 Federal Reserve Banks

Low number indicates low cost.

1
P

.
I

3
A

Improving the Working Environment

c
1

In 1980 we also pressed ahead with several major
improvements to the Bank's physical facilities.
Strong economic growth in the region during the
1970s generated increasing work volumes for the
Bank and its branches. The economy of the entire
region was healthy, but growth was exceptionally
powerful in Florida. It became clear that the
Federal Reserve's physical facilities in Florida had
to be markedly upgraded. At the same time, all
Sixth District offices were increasing automation
to absorb the growing workload and avoid unacceptable growth in staff.
A major gain came with the Miami Branch's
move in July 1980 from small rented quarters into
a new building designed to serve south Florida for
many years to come. Finally, on September 4,
1980, the new Miami building was dedicated for
service to the south Florida banking and business
community. It is a spacious, efficient, low-cost
building of 260,000 square feet with capacity for
handling the activity generated by an expanding
south Florida economy. A staff of 380 employees
operates the branch, which is well equipped, highly automated, and generally suited to support the
many new Fed responsibilities.

Vigorous economic growth also characterized
central and north Florida in the past decade,
greatly increasing the Jacksonville Branch workload. The present branch building, completed in
1952, has become inadequate for Reserve Bank
activities, especially check, currency and coin, and
fiscal agency operations. An improvement
program during the mid-1970s reduced the Jacksonville staff level significantly, enabling operations to proceed efficiently in the existing building plus a small amount of rented space. By
1978, however, it became clear that a new branch
building would be required at Jacksonville as the
volume of financial activity in the area continued
t o mount.
In August 1980, the firm of Kemp, Bunch,
and Jackson, Architects Incorporated, of Jacksonville, was engaged to assist with the design and
construction of a new branch building containing
about 224,000 square feet. We expect that it will
be completed in 1984.

Miami Branch
(Architect's Drawing)

ead Off ice
Board of Directors
Wlim A. Fickling, Jr., (Chairman)
ila
Chairman and Chief Executive,
Charter Medical Corporation
Macon, Georgia
John H. Weitnauer, Jr., (Deputy Chairman)
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Richway
Atlanta, Georgia
Fred Adams, Jr.
President, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.
Jackson, Mississippi
Dan B. Andrews
President, First National Bank
Dickson, Tennessee
Harold B. Blach, Jr.
President, Blach 's, Inc.
Birmingham, Alabama
Guy W. Botts
Chairman o f the Board,
Barnett Banks of Florida, Inc.
Jacksonville, Florida
Jean McArthur Davis
President, McArthur Dairy, Inc.
Miami, Horida
Floyd W. Lewis
ChairmanlChiefExecutive Officer,
Middle South Utilities,Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana
Hugh M. Willson
President, Citizens National Bank
Athens, Tennessee

Federal Advisory Council
Robert Strickland
Chairman, Trust Company of Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia

Senior Officers

Branch Directors

William F. Ford
President
Robert P. Forrestal
First VicePresident
Arthur H. Kantner
Senior Vice President
Harry Brandt
Senior Vice President
Jack Guynn
Senior Vice President
B. H. Hagett
Senior Vice President
Donald L. Koch
Senior Vice President and
Director of Research
Brown R. Rawlings
Senior Vice President
Harry C. Schiering
General Auditor
W. R. Caldwell
Vice President
William N. Cox, I11
Vice President and
Associate Director o f Research
W. M. Davis
Vice President
Delmar Harrison
Vice President
Robert E. Heck
VicePresident
John R. Ken
VicePresident
William G. Pfaff
Vice President
H. Terry Smith
Vice President
John M. Wallace
Vice President
Edmund Willingham
Vice President and General Counsel

BIRMINGHAM
Louis J. Willie, (Chairman)
Executive VicePresident, Booker T.
Washington Insurance Company
Binningham. Alabama
Guy H Caffey, Jr.
.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Southern Bancorporation of Alabama
and Birmingham Trust National Bank
Birmingham, Alabama
Samuel Richardson Hl,Jr.
il
President, University of Alabama in
Birmingham
Birmingham, Alabama
C. Gordon Jones
President and Chief Executive Officer,
First National Bank of Decatw
Decatur, Alabama
Henry A. Leslie
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Union Bank & Trust Company
M o n t g v m q , Alabama
Wlim H. Martin, 111
ila
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Martin Industries, Inc.
Florence, Alabama
Martha McInnis
Executive Vice President,
Alabama Environmental Quality
Association
Montgomety, Alabama

JACKSONVILLE
Jerome P. Keuper, (Chairman)
President, Florida Institute of
Technology
Melbourne, Florida
Gordon W. Campbell
Preskient and Chief Executive Officer,
Exchange Bancorporation, Inc.
Tampa, Florida
Copeland D. Newbern
Chairmano f the Bwrd,
Newbern Groves, Inc.
Tampa, Florida

..
c

ras

January 1,1981

Branch Offices
Branch Managers

Whitfield M. Palmer, Jr.
Chairman, Florida Crushed Stone
tompany
Ocala, Florida
Joan Stein
partner, Regency Square Shopping
Center
Jacksonville, Florida
?Billy J. Walker
I President, Atlantic Bancorporation
*
Jacksonville, Florida
Robert E. Warfield, Jr.
Chairman of the B a r d and President,
fBarnett Bank of Eustis, N.A.
Eustis, Florida
A

Charles J. Kane
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Third National Bank
Nashville, Tennessee
John Rutledge King
President, The Mason and Dixon
Lines, Inc.
Kingsport, Tennessee
Robert C. H. Mathews, Jr.
President, R. C. Mathews Contractors,
Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee
James F. Smith, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Park National Bank
Knoxville, Tennessee

Hiram J. Honea
Vice President
Birmingham Branch
Charles D. East
Vice President
Jacksonville Branch
Frank Craven
Vice President
Miami Branch
Jeffrey J. Wells
Vice President
Nashville Branch
James D. Hawkins
Vice President
New Orleans Branch

MIAMI
Roy Vandegrift, Jr., ( C h h a n )
President, Vandegnyt-Williams' Farms,
4, Inc.
Pahokee, Florida
0 Eugene Cohen
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Coconut Grove, Florida
Jane C. Cousins
Realtor
Cousins Associates, Inc.
Miami, Florida
Daniel S. Goodrum
t President and Chief Executive Officer,
Century Banks, Inc.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Alfred W. Roepstorff
President
The National Bank of Collier County
-L, Mmco Island, Florida
David H. Rush
VPresident, ACR Electronics, Inc.
Holly wood, Florida
M. G. Sanchez
President and Chief Executive Officer,
First Bankers Corporation of Florida
Pompno Beach, Florida
~

<'
'

NEW ORLEANS
Horatio C. Thompson, (Chairman)
President, Horatio Thompson Investment, Inc.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Robert H. Bolton
President, Rapides Bank & Trust
Company
Alexandria, Louisiana
Patrick A. Delaney
President, Whitney National Bank of
New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana
Leslie B. Lampton
President, Ergon, Inc.
Jackson, Mississippi
Paul W. McMullan
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
First Mississippi National Bank
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Levere C. Montgomery
Chairman, Time Saver Stores, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana
Ben M. Radcliff
President, Ben M. Radcliff Contractor, Inc.
Mobile, Alabama

NASHVILLE

h n C. B o w e r , Jr., (chairman)
h
Management Consultant
Knoxville, Tennessee
Cecelia Adkins
Executive Director, Sunday School
Publishing Board
Nashville, Tennessee
4 +Ruth W.E l k
President, Mountain Empire Bank
Johnson City, Tennessee
P

January 1,1981

Statement of Condition
Assets
Gold Certificate Account

December 3 1,1979 December 3 1,1980
$

524,688,000

465,000,000

Special Drawing Rights Certificate Account

64,000,000

79,000,000

coin

39,384,258

37,825,493

Loans and Securities

5,279,866,673

4,720,945,944

Cash Items in Process of Collection

1,563,425,548

2,040,620,660

31,161,579

34,819,465

338,935,683
$7,84l 4 1,741
,6

536,880,814
$7,915,092,376

$3,550,549,462

$3,670,093,144

Deposits *

2,438,304,058

1,887,472,720

Deferred Availability Cash Items

1,134,83
3,592

1,666,5
23,054

97,811,925

118,931,979

446,646,204
$7,668,145,241

391,915,579
$7,734,936,476

Bank Premises
Other Assets
Total Assets

Liabilities
Federal Reserve Notes

Other Liabilities
Interdistrict Settlement Account
Total Liabilities

CaDital Accounts
Capital Paid In

Surplus

86,658,250

90,077,950

86,658,250
Total Capital Accounts
Total Liabilities and Capital Accounts

90,077,950

173,316,500
$7,841,461,741

$ 180,155,900
$7,915,092,376

*Includes Depository Institution Accounts, Collected Funds Due to Other F.R. Banks, U,S. Treasurer - General Account.

fi-

EI:

I-

Statement of Earnings
1979

Earnings and Expenses

1980

$440,720,694

$491,746,033

62,242,578

Total Current Earnings

70,172,381

$378,478,116

$421,573,652

-6,268,983

-1,038,097

Net Expenses
Current Net Earnings
Net Additions (+) Deductions (-)*

3,781,700

4,723,800

$368,427,433

$415,811,755

Assessment for Expenses of Board of Governors
Net Earnings before Payment t o U S Treasury
..

Distribution of Net Earnings
Dividends Paid

5,050,938

Payments to U. S. Treasury (Interest on F. R. Notes)

5,355,123

357,326,595

407,036,932

Transferred to Surplus Account
Net Additions (+) Deductions (-)

+ 6,049,900

+ 3,419,700

Total Earnings Distributed

$368,427,433

$415,811,755

$ 80,608,350

$ 86,658,250

6,049,900

3,419,700

$ 86,658,250

$ 90,077,950

Surplus Account
Surplus January 1
Transferred to Surplus - as noted above
Surplus December 3 1

*Includes gainsflosses on sales o f U. S. Government securities and foreign exchange transactions.

Summary of Operations
1979
$

SERVICES TO D E ~ O S ~ O R Y
INSTmUTIONS
Clearing and Collection Services
Checks handled :
U. S. Government checks
Postal money orders
All other
ACH payments processed
Wire transfers of funds
Cash Services
Total cash receipts
Total cash payments
Currency processed
Coin processed

Loans to depository institutions, daily average
Securities Services
Wire transfers of securities
Noncash collection*
Government securities bought and sold byFederal Reserve Bank

(millions)

51,799
849
915,526
7,782
3,200,000
14,564
10,438
103

1980

items
(thousands)

(millions)

items
(thousands)

95,517
18,118
1,965,862
23,328

57,572
942
1,028,497
14,718

90,098
18,129
2,043,507
29,462

3,600

1,134,648
938,562
1,190,853
2,6443 17

3,900,000

4,200

16,926
10,982

1,246,197
1,029,306
1,170,823
2,580,650

112

276,292
315
295

157
195
5

246,579
673
209

171
555
4

323

2,719

348

2,377

1,474

22,564

1,581

21,840

470,329

156

5 2 9 s 18

207

26,108

852

29,477

911

2,649

310,605

2,616

286,308

U. S. savings bonds issued and redeemed by qualified issuing and
paying agents
Other Treasury securities issued, serviced and redeemed
Deposits t o Treasury Tax and Loan accounts
Food coupons destroyed

*In late 1979,a cash-basissettlement system was established for corporate and municipal bond coupons, significantly increasing volume.

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
26
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

rr
P

SERVICES TO U. S. TREASURY
U. S. savings bonds issued, serviced, redeemed by Federal Reserve Bank

=.4

,
...

-..

Full text of Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta : Annual Report '80

FRASER