Full text of Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) : May 1969

View original document

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

business
•
revIew

may 1969

FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF DALlAS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)

contents

federally assisted
family food programs . . ....... . ............ .

resurgence in business
fixed investment ........... . ........ . ...... .

district highlights ................. . .........

J4.

fede,.ally assisted
family food p,.og,-a,ns
For many years, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has been cooperating with state
and local authorities in providing low-income
families with supplemental food. Such assistance currently is being furnished through two
basic types of programs - the Commodity
Distribution Program and the Food Stamp
Program. The Commodity Distribution Program is the older of the two types of programs
and, until recently, has been the more important.
Commodity distribution programs originated in
the early 1930's, when surplus foods were given
directly to the poor and unemployed.
A food stamp program was in operation betWeen 1939 and 1943 but was discontinued
When wartime demands increased incomes and
reduced unemployment. This stamp program
Was directly related to surplus commodities. In
1961, a new food stamp plan was initiated on a
pilot basis, and the plan was given more perIllanent status by the passage of the Food Stamp
Act of 1964. The program was established to
remedy some of the weaknesses of the Com1ll0dity Distribution Program.
Both the Commodity Distribution and the
l100d Stamp Pf0grams are in operation in parts
of the Southwest. The purpose of this article is
to highlight the background and growth of these
two programs in the United States and in the
live states of tlle Eleventh Federal Reserve District. One section of the article will discuss
how successful each program seems to be in
achieving the goals outlined by the framers of
the enabling legislation.

commodity d, stribution program
i
As mentioned earlier, the Commodity DistribUtion Program is the oldest governmental fam-

ily food-assistance program operating at this
time. Under tlns program, food commodities
declared to be in surplus supply, as well as
other purchased foods, are shipped by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to various distribution centers throughout the Nation for redistribution to low-income fanrilies and to institutions. Presently, the USDA carries out its
surplus food donation program to the needy
under two authorities: section 32 of Public Law
320, approved in 1935, and section 416 of
Public Law 439, approved in 1949. The USDA
also distributes food to participants in the
school lunch programs under section 6 of the
National School Lunch Act, passed in 1946.
Sections 32 and 416 are intended to provide
food assistance to families and institutions, and
section 6 is a part of child nutrition programs.
The following article will focus on the family
food-assistance programs.
Under section 32, an annual appropriation is
provided to the USDA for the general purpose
of expanding the demand for agricultural commodities. Specifically, the legislation was to give
assistance to agricultural products in excess
supply and to producers suffering from low
prices. Section 32 legislation permits the USDA
to make surplus-removal purchases of commodities, usually those tllat are in excess supply
at the tinle of peak marketing. The commodities acquired under section 32 generally do
not move into Government inventory but are
shipped to centers throughout the country for
redistribution to eligible recipients.
Section 416 of Public Law 439 provides authorization for the distribution of agricultural
commodities that have been acquired by the
Commodity Credit Corporation under price-

business review/may 1969

food stamp program

support programs. Under section 416, commodities held by the CCC that cannot be sold
or bartered are made available to school lunch
programs and to needy families and institutions
in the United States. Any quantities in excess of
domestic requirements are eligible for use by
needy persons abroad.

The Food Stamp Program authorized by
Congress in 1964 has dual objectives: (1) to
improve diets by increasing the ability of needy
persons or families to purchase more and better foods and (2) to expand the domestic
markets for agricultural products.

The cost of Federal assistance to needy persons and institutions under the Commodity Distribution Program has varied significantly. Federal assistance was at the extremely low level
of less than $2 million in fiscal 1945 but subsequently rose to a record of about $257 million in fiscal 1965. With the introduction of the
Food Stamp Program, the cost of Federal assistance to the commodity program declined
sharply in 1966 and 1967, but such cost increased again in fiscal 1968. The slight increase
in cost in 1968 reflected the greater variety of
foods made available in the program, since the
number of participants continued to move
downward.

Through the stamp plan, participants are
able to increase their food-purchasing power by
excbanging the amount of money they would
normally spend for food for an allotment of
coupons of a higher monetary value. These
coupons are used by needy persons and families to purchase domestically produced foods
from retail food outlets at prevailing prices.
Authorized merchants redeem the food coupons for cash at commercial banks, which present the coupons to a Federal Reserve bank for
payment through appropriate collection channels. Food stamps are liabilities of the U.s·
Treasury Department, and Federal Reserve
banks serve as fiscal agents of the Treasury.

COST OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO FAMILY FOOD PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

300

. ... ..
•

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

200

1960

1961

1968 pr e liminary .

SOURCE : U. S. Da parlm ent of Agr ic ultur e .

1962

•

1963

1964

FISCAL YEARS

•

1965

1966

1967

1968

After Congress authorized the permanent
Food Stamp Program in 1964, the number of
counties and cities participating grew to 324
by 1966, to 838 in 1967, and to approximately
1,550 local governmental units by the first of
the current year. The average monthly participation in the program in fiscal 1968 was slightly
more than 2.2 million people, up sharply from
1.4 million in fiscal 1967 and from 0.9 million
in fiscal 1966. The total value of food coupons '
issued in fiscal 1968 amounted to $455 million; $282 million of this was paid for by partiCipants, and $173 million was the cost to the
Federal Government.
With the authorization of the stamp plan in
1964, the USDA proposed to make the Food
Stamp Program tlle first-line food delivery system in the war on poverty. Consequently, the
cost of Federal assistance under sections 32 and
416 declined; and in fiscal 1968, the Federal
subsidy under the Food Stamp Program surpassed Federal assistance to institutions and
needy persons under the Commodity Distribution Program.

geographical participation
By January 1, 1969, one or the other of the
two family food-assistance programs was in
operation or planned in approximately 2,640
Counties throughout the Nation. About 83 perCent of the population of the United States resides in these counties. The number of participants in bOtll pJ;ograms had reached nearly 6.5
million persons, and the USDA estimates that
this number will likely increase to 7.0 million
participants by the end of fiscal 1969. Most of
the increase probably will occur in the Food
Stamp Program if present trends continue. At
the beginning of this year, there were only about
480 counties and cities which did not operate
Under the programs.
The map on the following page shows ilie
participation in boili the Commodity Distribution Program and the Food Stamp Program. At
the beginning of 1969, only six states had a

PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN FAMILY
FOOD PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES
MILLIONS OF PERSON S

COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION
PROGRAM
(Peak mo nth )

2
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
(Month ly avora g e)

o ~~::r::::::L~-1...--L~
1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

FISCAL YEARS
1968 pr olimina ry.
SOURCE : U.S. Depa rtm ont o f Agri cultur e.

family food-assistance program in all of their
counties and cities. (Under present regulations,
the programs cannot operate simultaneously in
the same area.) Program participation is heaviest in the Mississippi River Basin and in
Mountain and Far Western States.
In the southwestern states of Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas,
some counties in each state participate in the
Commodity Distribution Program. In fact, all
counties in Arizona and all but three counties
in Oklahoma participate in ilie commodity program. Counties in Arizona and Oklahoma have
not participated in tlle Food Stamp Program,
although a majority of tlle counties in Louisiana and New Mexico and a few counties in
Texas are participants. The greatest concentrations of participants in tlle stamp program in

business review/may 1969

the Southwest are in Louisiana and New Mexico.
Less than 5 percent of the total population
in the five southwestern states participated in
the family food-assistance programs at the first
of this year, with the proportions for the individual states ranging from slightly over 9 percent in Oklahoma to below 3 percent in Texas.
In the Nation, less than 4 percent of the population participated in the programs.

program procedures
Under current legislation, both the Food
Stamp Program and the Commodity Distribution Program are operated as joint Federalstate-local efforts. Generally, counties, parishes,
or townships desiring to participate in one of
the two programs work through the state's wel-

fare office. Once a program is approved, the
eligibility of participants is determined according to standards used by the state in its own
welfare programs.
Under the Commodity Distribution Program,
participants are usually given punch cards to
show proof of their eligibility to receive food
monthly at distribution centers. Under the Food
Stamp Program, coupons are usually issued by
local welfare departments or commercial banks.
Recently, some states were given authority to
deliver stamps to individual recipients by mail
witllOut being held liable for loss (Texas has
been authorized to use mail delivery).
The dollar amount of food coupons received
monthly by eligible individuals or families is
based upon the amount of purchasing power
necessary to provide an adequate diet as defined

GEOGRAPHICAL PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY FOOD PROGRAMS, JANUARY 1969
,

SOURCE : .u .S. Oopa rtm t nl 01 AQrl cu lturo,

COMMODITY DISTRIBUT ION PROGRAM

•

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

DO NOT

Finally, the relative cost of the two food distribution methods should be evaluated.

00 NOT

FOLD

SPINDLE

; :
;

I,
I

NON·THAN5f£RAB lE

I'XCl:l'f

IJr~ tll: 1I

CONllITWNS

1'1I1 ~ S(; IIIIJI : 1J

IIY TIll: Sr:CIlF.l'AIIY UF AWIIC;\l IJUW:

' !
, 1

.,,!!gj.!);;!L*9Mj ' +-'t'.jji'.M'it4!.!i- ~
DO

DO NOT

NOT

SPINDLE

FOLD

AlrlcuUur.1 Abundm.
NON .THANSFERABlE
I:XCI:I'T UNIII:II (;O NIIIII ClNS I'HI'5(;III III:" IIV TilE SWIF.rAIIY OF AHlIIGIII.TlIIII'

by local authorities, assisted by the USDA.
Cost of the coupons to the participant is based
Upon the family's income and the number of
dependents. The difference between the value
of coupons received by a participant and the
cost paid by the receiver is referred to as bonus
power; mathematically, the cost of the stamps
and their bonus value are inversely correlated.
Food coupons are issued in books of 50-cent
and $2 denominations, and families use the
coupons to buy domestically produced food at
retail stores authorized to accept them by the
USDA's Consumer and Marketing Service. Authorized retailers agree to abide by the rules
governing the use of such food coupons.

program goals
The relative effectiveness of the two family
food-assistance programs probably could be
evaluated in the light of three variables. First,
and possibly most important, is the influence
the programs have on increasing the dietary
standards of low-income families. Second, the
programs should be evaluated as to their influence on increasing the aggregate demand for
farm products, thereby raising farm income.

improving dietary standards
The potential for substantially improving the
diets of low-income families under the Commodity Distribution Program was quite low up
to 1961 because the foods distributed were
basically limited to five commodities. Since
1961, a greater variety of commodities has been
available; and by the beginning of 1969, a maximum of about 22 commodities, valued at
$12.75 per person monthly, could be distributed under the program. However, not all participating areas were distributing the maximum
number of commodities.
Despite the fact that the number of commodities available under the Commodity Distribution Program has increased, the Food
Stamp Program has the potential of providing
a superior nutritional diet. Food stamp coupons
can be used to purchase any basic foods at
retail food stores at existing prices (no iInported foods may be purchased). Since the
choice of foods under the Commodity Distribution Program is dependent, in most cases, upon
which commodities are in excess supply or have
been acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Food Stamp Program - with no
such restrictions - would seem to offer the
housewife a better opportunity to prepare a
wider range of nutritious meals.
The success of either type of program in
increasing the dietary standards of participants
is, however, limited by substitution. If any food
acquired under either of the two programs is
substituted for purcbases that would have been
made otherwise, the net increase in total food
consumption would be smaller than anticipated.
Both programs are intended to supplement food
consumption; they are not intended to replace
usual or previous levels of consumption.
The Food Stamp Program may be more
effective than the Commodity Distribution Pro-

business review/ may 1969

gram in limiting the ability of participants to
substitute the new purchasing power for previous purchasing ability. Participants are required to pay for food coupons, and the amount
necessary to purchase stamps is based, in part,
on the income of the recipient. Under the
Commodity Distribution Program, recipients
pick up their free commodities at cen~ral d.istributing points and may do as they WIsh WIth
the income that would have been spent for food
if the free commodities were not available.

increasing farm income
The influence of family food-assistance programs upon farm income naturally depends
upon the extent to which the programs add to
aggregate demand. Whether or not aggregate
demand for farm products has been increased
is difficult to determine because some assumption must be made as to what aggregate demand
would have been without the family food programs. For simplicity, it is assumed that all food
consumed by recipients under the two programs
is an addition to aggregate demand; this assumption, in essence, implies that the substitution effects of the programs are zero.
The food distributed under the Commodity
Distribution Program to institutions and needy
persons in fiscal 1968 amounted to approximately 860 million pounds. At average market
values, this quantity of food probably represented no more than one-half of 1 percent of
total U.S. gross farm income. Federal subsidy
to the Food Stamp Program in fiscal 1968
amounted to around $173 million, which represented about one-third of 1 percent of farm
income. The effect of both programs on gross
farm income was, therefore, less than 1 percent.
In addition, since the Food Stamp Program is
not directly tied in with surplus commodities,
as is the case for the Commodity Distribution
Program, it is likely that the increased consumption induced by the food coupons had
little effect on the demand for most surplus
commodities, such as the basic food grains.

cost of programs
The direct costs of purchases and the amount
of subsidies paid by the Federal Government
for both programs reached a total of about
$321 million in fiscal 1968. However, the data
available on this assistance are not adequate to
permit a definitive analysis of all of the costs
of each program on a common basis since the
figures do not include state and local cost. Some
analysts have taken the position that the Food
Stamp Program may be the more efficient of
the two programs. The reason given is that the
Food Stamp Program utilizes tlle usual channels
of distribution in the marketplace, while the
Commodity Distribution Program requires a
special distribution network. The USDA admits
that the Commodity Distribution Program is a
difficult program to administer.
Furthermore, the two programs may have
different impacts on the local economy and
may, therefore, involve some social cost. If the
substitution rate under the Commodity Distribution Program is greater than zero, the program would have an adverse effect on retail
food sales in the local community. By operating
within tlle free market system, the Food Stamp
Program stimulates retail food sales, and the
amount of additional spending for food would
equal the value of the bonus coupons minus
any substitution.
Surveys by the USDA on the impact of the
pilot food stamp plan on retail food store
sales showed tllat the dollar volume of food
sales in the pilot areas rose around 8 percent
over the year immediately preceding the initiation of the Food Stamp Program. The largest
percentage sales gain recorded by the survey
stores was for fresh produce, a food category
for which an increase in consumption is generally indicative of higher nutrition levels. Because of their perishability, fresh fruits and
vegetables are usually not available to participants in the Commodity Distribution PrograJ1l·
The value of food stamps redeemed by all

stores in the survey also averaged 8 percent
of total sales volume.
The concept of providing food assistance for
low-income families has moved into a flew dimension with the introduction of the Food
Stamp Program. Emphasis has changed from a
means of distributing surplus food to a method
of increasing the food-purchasing power of low-

income families so that these families can obtain a nutritious diet through the efficient food
distribution system available to other U.S. families. There is also a growing interest in furnishing information and education on the
proper selection and care of food in order to
create a change in attitudes toward the kinds of
foods to purchase for family health.
CHARLES M . WILSON

,eesurgence i,,, business
fixed i •• vestment
Plant and equipment expenditures are one of
the major factors affecting the business cycle.
Periods of high business activity in the past
have been associated with high levels of business spending for investment; conversely, a
slackening in economic activity has been associated with a low rate of business investment.
Included as a measure of plant and equipment
eXpenditures are all outlays of private businesses for new plants, machinery, and equipment for which depreciation accounts are maintained. Excluded are investments in agriculture
and spending by real estate finns, the professions, and nonprofit organizations.
Total expenditures for new plants and equipment in 1969 are expected to rise 14 percent
above those for last year and reach $73 billion,
with outlays advancing substantially for most
major manufacturing industries and for all
major nonmanufacturing sectors. The rise in
?Usiness fixed investment for 1969, as indicated
In the joint survey released in March by the
~.S. Department of Commerce and the SecUl'ities and Exchange Commission, is well above the
4-percent increase in 1968. A further rise in

plant and equipment expenditures in the current
year would extend to 8 the number of years in
which business fixed investment has shown consecutive increases, but the vigor of the expansion from year to year has varied markedly.
One of the major forces behind the pronounced percentage gain ill anticipated business
fixed investment during 1969 has been the
effect of a rapidly rising price level upon decisions made by the business community. This
influence is especially evident in the CommerceSEC survey published in March this year, as the
one taken in the fall of 1968 had projected
the annual rate of expenditures during the first
half of 1969 at 9 percent higher than in the full
year 1968. Of course, if the projected rise of 14
percent in dollar outlays in 1969 does occur,
"real" expenditures will not experience as large
an increase because construction and machinery
costs continue to expand.
Motivation toward increased spending also
comes from businessmen's beliefs in rapidly
expanding markets in the early 1970's, resulting
from the growth in popUlation and an even

business review/may 1969

greater advance in personal income. A recent
McGraw-Hill survey found that businessmen
indicated preliminary plans to spend larger
amounts on plants and equipment each suc~
cessive year through 1972. Since added capacity
in both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing
industries is considered necessary to accommodate future demand, business leaders apparently
believe that now is the time to expand facilities
because delayed projects may carry a higher
price tag. The sharp increase in business investment for 1969 which was indicated in the
March survey has added further to the concern
regarding the inflationary expectations that permeate the economy.

major influences
Numerous factors affect spending by business
for fixed investment, and one of the most important is sales, both current and expected. In
1965 and 1966, when plant and equipment expenditures were expanding rapidly, retail sales
advanced about 8 percent per year. During this
time, Defense Department outlays for the VietNam war were also rising. On the other hand,
there was only a small gain in retail sales during
1967, and only a small increase occurred in
business fixed investment. In the past year, sales
again began to rise rapidly, and investment
began to accelerate, especially toward the latter
part of the year.
Another factor that has a major effect on
plant and equipment expenditures is the expected rate of return on new investment in relation to the cost of capital funds . Profits are one
method, albeit a crude one, of appraising the
rate of return on business fixed investment.
During the mid sixties, corporate profits after
taxes rose substantially - particularly in 1965,
when they advanced 21 percent from the level
of the preceding year. After-tax profits rose further in 1966 and, since that time, have held at
levels well above those in the early 1960's.
The cost of capital funds also has risen substantially since the midsixties, when the rate

for Moody's Aaa bonds was 4.5 percent. The
increased costs probably have had only a
slightly moderating effect on planned outlays
in relation to expected returns on investment.
The cost of loanable funds reached historic
highs for the 20th century during the first quarter of tlus year. Around mid-March, the rate
for Moody's Aaa bonds was 6.8 percent. An increasingly restrictive monetary policy beginrling
last fall was made even more restrictive with
the advances in the Federal Reserve discount
rate and in member bank reserve requirements
in early April. It is expected that the curtailment of credit availability and the increased
cost of funds will dampen capital spending programs, but the extent cannot be predicted.
The investment tax credit, which permitS
most companies to subtract from their final tax
bill 7 percent of the cost of equipment and machinery, also has influenced plant and equipment expenditures. This investment tax credit
was introduced in 1962 in order to encourage
private investment but was suspended in the fall
of 1966, when it was felt that tlle economY
needed to be restrained. The credit was reinstated in the spring of 1967. Recently, the Administration recommended repeal of this taX
credit. Accelerated depreciation, another stUnulative measure, was in effect from 1954 until it
was suspended in 1966 but, like the investment
credit, was reinstated later.
Another major factor influencing plant and
equipment expenditures is the rate of capacitY
utilization in manufacturing. In 1964, industrial
enterprises used 86 percent of their available
capacity; and by 1966, a year of excessive demand for goods, the rate had advanced to 91
percent. Subsequently, the rate decreased and,
in the first quarter of 1969, was about 84
percent.
Plant and equipment spending by manufacturers eased slightly in both 1967 and 1968,
with outlays of durable goods producers shO~
Lng the greatest weakness. New equipment IS

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES
BY U.S. BUSINESS
.
BILLIONS OF DOL.LARS

(Seasonallv adi u s t ed ;\ l1nual r a te s )

80
ACTUAL _ _ _ _ _ __
ANTICIPATED ____ • • • • • •

ALL INDUSTRIES

,,--

....-

MANUFACTURING

COMMUNICATWN , COMMERCIAL AND
OTHER

, ...

_---

PU BLiC UTILITIES
'TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING RAIL
MINING

o
SO URC ES : Securities and

E XC ha~gC Commissio n.

----'\"'""---'""':'-----:-----1-.. ---1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

U. S. Department of Commerco.

business review/may 1969

installed to increase industrial capacity; however it is also necessary for an industry to replac~ obsolescent equipment ~. order to keep
costs down and remain competitive. The extent
to which excess capacity in manufacturing has
a significant influence on total plant and equipment expenditures has been questioned, because
of the presence of aging equipment and variations in the evaluation of excess capacity from
industry to industry. The need for new capacity
must be weighed carefully, for new equipment
that is idled through a lack of demand would
prove to be expensive.
Increasingly since the midsixties, investment
decisions have been made to obtain more technologically advanced equipment in order to reduce total labor costs. The shortage of skilled
labor has become progressively more acute.
Unit labor costs, which had eased slightly in
1962 from the levels of the previous 2 years,
were relatively stable until 1966 but subsequently have moved upward continuously.
The strong growth in the rate of plant and
equipment spending now forecast for this year
is partially explained by the results of the survey on "Manufacturers' Evaluation of Their
Capacity," conducted by the Commerce Department and the SEC in December 1968. Of
the manufacturers participating in the survey,
47 percent believed that their capacity was inadequate in relation to sales expectations for
the next 12-month period, which is an increase
of 2 percentage points from a survey taken a
few months earlier. On a quarterly basis, tlle
evaluation of capacity needed has risen steadily
since the March 1968 survey.
Somewhat less than one-half of the respondents in the December 1968 survey said that
their capacity was about adequate, but only 5
percent stated that existing plants and equipment exceeded needs. The chemical industty is
one of the largest investors in new facilities,
and 58 percent - an unusually low figure - of
the chemical manufacturers felt that more ca-

pacity was needed. The replies from the petroleum companies indicated that 40 percent required new capacity. High proportions of the
food and beverage industry, along with metal
fabricators, also responded that more plants
and equipment were needed.

anticipated investment
As mentioned earlier, the anticipated amount
of total expenditures for plants and equipment
during 1969 is almost 14 percent above the
level for last year, when a much smaller increase of 4 percent was recorded. In contrast
with the small declines that occurred in 1967
and 1968, investment by manufacturers in the
current year is projected to rise 16 percent;
durable goods industries anticipate a gain of 15
percent, and nondurable goods industries, an
increase of 17 percent. Sales in manufacturing
are expected to advance 8 percent this year,
with durables and nondurables producers each
anticipating that their sales will show about the
same percentage gain.
Wiili the exception of the steel industrY,
which had substantial outlays in the preceding
2 years, virtually all major durable goods industries are planning higher investment outlays
this year. The largest percentage increases are
expected in motor vehicles and parts, along with
the stone, clay, and glass industries, with the
latter planning a 42-percent rise in expenditures.
Despite the large outlays by the producers of
stone, clay, and glass, sales in that industry are
expected to advance modestly during 1969. Investment by manufacturers of motor vehicleS
and parts is projected to rise 27 percent, aCcording to the survey. Assemblies of passenger
cars have been projected at about 9.0 million
units, which would be higher than last year.
A strong demand for electronic systems because of the Viet-Nam conflict and rising orders
for more high-voltage capacity in electrical
utilities have intensified the need for new capital
goods in electrical machinery. Transportatio~
equipment (other than motor vehicles) anticl-

pates higher outlays than last year, with capital
investment expected to peak in the aerospace
industry. Major firms that will manufacture airbuses and "jumbo" jets expect to spend substantial amounts during the year. Also, construction is going ahead on a new $130 mil lion
shipyard at Pascagoula, Mississippi. The current concept for the building of ships is production, rather than construction. Assembly-line ,
techniques will be utilized; and separate modules, or sections, of ships are to be built on land
and later fitted together for launching.
Among the nondurable goods, both the textile industry and the paper industry project expenditures at about 35 percent higher for this
year - in contrast to 1968, when each eased
expenditures. The chemical industry, in which
new air and water pollution control devices are
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT OUTLAYS
BY U.S. BUSINESS
In bi ll ions
of dollars

19691

Industry

... . 73.0

Al l industries

Ma nufacturing ., . ..
Durable goods
Primary metals . ....
Machinery
Motor vehicles and parts .
Transportation equipment"
Stone. clay. and g lass ....
Other durab le goods ....
Nondurable goods . . , .. . . .
Food and beverage .
Textile
Paper .. .. ... . .....
Chemical . . . . . .
Petro leum . . .....
Rubber ..............
Other nondurable goods ..
Mining
, ... , .. , ... , .

Railroad ....
iransportation other than rai l .
PUb l ic utilities .....
Communication .

.. , .. ,

Commercia l and other

.. .

30.7
15.5
3.2
4 .6
1.9
1.1
1.0
3.7
15.2
1.6
1.0
2.0
3.2
5.5
.7
1.2
1.6
1.7
4.B
13.2
7.4
13.6

196B'
64.1
26.4
13.5
3.3
4.0
1.5
1.0
.7
'3.0
12.9
1.4
.B
1.5
2.7
4.9
.6
1.1
1.4
1.3
4.3

11.5
6.4
12.7

Percent
change

14
16
15
-3
14
27
13
42
23
17
16
36
35
17
13
15
5
13
29
12
14
17
7

Anticipated.
• Actual.
, Exc luding motor vehicles.
.
NOTE. - Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
SOURCES: Securities and Exchange Commission .
U.S. Department of Commerce.
1

forming a larger portion of expenditures, will
increase investment outlays.
Petroleum and rubber companies will undoubtedly experience very noticeable increases
in capital goods spending. Last year, the rubber
industry showed an advance of 27 percent.
Within the petroleum industry, outlays will be
for refining, petrochemical, and transportation
facilities, with air and water pollution control
accounting for a larger portion of expenditures
than in the past. Expenditures for crude oil production and for drilling will see little change.
Spending by the petroleum industry is significant in the sense that the industry is the largest
investor in plants and equipment of any major
manufacturing group.
Other industries besides manufacturing expect ratller large gains in plant and equipment
expenditures. The railroads, with an advance of
29 percent over last year's low level, have indicated by far the largest rise in spending among
nonmanufacturing concerns. The rise is expected to occur in equipment, as a small reduction is projected in spending for rails and
roadbeds. Deliveries of new freight cars will be
up considerably from 1968 but far below the
record established in 1966. The full realization
of expenditures in 1969 may be contingent upon
approval of a railroad freight rate increase by
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Besides the railroads, otller forms of transportation are scheduling increases in their investment expenditures, and the transportation
group as a whole forecasts that outlays will be
12 percent above last year. The airlines continue
to spend large sums on the procurement of new
aircraft and parts, and trucking and water transportation companies plan more spending for
equipment and facilities.
Public utilities expect to spend 14 percent
more on new facilities in 1969, following rises
of about 17 percent in both of the previous 2
years. Electric utility firms plan to spend a
larger proportion of outlays for nuclear plants.

bltsiness review/may 1969

The mmmg industry, expenditures in which
have been relatively stable during the past several years, anticipates an increase this year.
Nonferrous metal mining was characterized by
labor disputes during the past 2 years, particularly a long copper strike. The "commercial
and other" group embraces such diverse activities as trade, service, finance, and construction
and normally spends about one-half the amount
on new investment that manufacturing industries spend, or around 20 percent of all new
plant and equipment expenditures. The group
ordinarily experiences fairly steady growth in
plant and equipment outlays, but expenditures
are projected to show a strong rise during 1969.
Economic growth is tied closely to the expansion of productive facilities by business en-

terprises. As such, this expansion is one of the
factors to be considered in the evaluation of
the future course of economic changes. Years
of national crises - World War II, the Korean
war, and the Viet-Nam war - have seen rapid
strides in the installation of new productive
facilities to meet the needs of military efforts
and, especially in the case of the Viet-Nam
war, to allow for higher production of civilian
goods. However, the level of business fixed investment, as projected in the current survey,
has concerned many analysts because of the
inflationary forces presently at work in the
economy. With the advent of peace in VietNam, it is hoped that business investment will
be high in order to meet the ever-widening
needs of the civilian economy.
RAYNAL HAMMELTON

dist,·ict highlights
The seasonally adjusted Texas industrial production index in March, at 169.9 percent of its
1957-59 base, was fractionally above the level
in the preceding month. Total manufacturing
and mining accounted for the advance, as utilities were unchanged. In manufacturing, a moderate increase in durable goods more than offset a fractional decline in nondurable goods.
Two durable goods sectors - electrical machinery and transportation equipment - exhibited notable strength with identical gains of
2.9 percent. Other durable goods sectors
showed only slight changes. Among the nondurable goods, a strong gain in petroleum refining and a moderate rise in leather and leather
products were more than offset by decreases in
the other sectors. The expansion in mining activity was caused by an increase in crude petroleum production.

On the basis of the year-to-year comparison,
industrial production in the State in March was
4.1 percent higher. Total manufacturing and
utilities showed gains tllat exceeded the overall
increase in industrial production, but mining
output declined nearly 5 percent from a year
earlier. In manufacturing, the stone, clay, and
glass products sector and the "other nondurable
goods" category exhibited the largest gains. A
decrease in crude petroleum production accounted for all of the decline in mining output.

Nonagricultural wage and salary employment
in the five southwestern states rose seasonally to
total 6,061,400 persons during March. ManUfacturing employment showed a stronger gain
than would be attributable to seasonal inflUences. The less-than-normal increase in non-

manufacturing employment was due largely to
the contraseasonal decline of employment in
the construction industry. In other nonmanufacturing sectors, changes were moderate and
were about in line with seasonal trends. On a
year-to-year basis, total nonagricultural employment in the five states increased 5.1 percent in March. Both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing employment posted the same
percentage advance. The percentage gains in
mining and construction were well above the
rise in total employment.

million, respectively, compared with gains of
, $26 million and $14 million a year ago.

Combined registrations of new passenger
~utomobijes in the major metropolitan reportIng areas of Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and
San Antonio during the first 3 months of 1969
Were down 6 percent from the same period in
1968. Dallas was the only center showing an
increase. March registrations for the four areas
Were 9 percent under those a year ago.

On the liability side of the balance sheet,
total demand deposits advanced $304 million
as gains of $147 million, $89 million, and $61
million were recorded in the deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations, deposits of the U.S. Government, and deposits due to
other banks, respectively. In the comparable
5 weeks last year, total demand deposits were
up $245 million.

Department store sales in the Eleventh District during the 4 weeks ended April 26 were 8
percent higher than those during the corresponding period in 1968. Cumulative sales thus
far in 1969 were 10 percent above the comparable period last year. During the similar
span in 1968, cumulative sales were also 10
percent above the 1967 period.
Primarily reflecting seasonal factors, all the
major balance sheet items except total time and
savings deposits increased at the District's
weekly reporting commercial banks in the 5
Weeks ended April 16. Large negotiable certifiCates of deposit continued to decline, but at a
reduced pace.
Spurred by a $70 million rise in business
loans, loans adjusted advanced $108 million. In
the corresponding period last year, business
loans increased $94 million, accounting for the
major portion of the $162 million expansion in
~oans adjusted. Real estate loans and consumer
Instalment loans were up $8 million and $13

As a result of the $34 million rise in holdings
of municipal securities, total investments increased more than $7 million during the 5week period. This is in contrast to a $20 million
decline in total investments a year earlier. U.S.
Government security holdings fell $35 million,
50 percent of which was due to a decrease in
Treasury bills. However, Treasury notes and
bonds maturing in 1 to 5 years were up $3
million.

As the only major balance sheet item showing a decline in the 5 weeks ended April 16,
total time and savings deposits were held down
primarily by the $48 million runoff in large
IPC certificates of deposit. "Other" large CD's,
however, rose $3 million. !PC savings deposits
dropped $16 million, and deposits of states and
political subdivisions decreased $14 million. In
the year-earlier period, total time and savings
deposits increased almost $4 million.
Wet fields have delayed planting of crops in
many areas of the Southwest, and heavy rainfall
and flooding in some sections will necessitate
replanting of crops. In other areas, corn and
sorghum planting is making good progress.
Winter wheat production in the five southwestern states, as of April 1, is placed at about
205 million bushels, or 6 percent smaller than
the output in 1968. A substantial year-to-year
gain is expected for Arizona, and Oklahoma's
crop prospects are virtually unchanged; but

business review/ may 1969

indications are that production will be smaller
in Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas.
Prices received by Texas farmers and ranchers for all farm products in the January-March
period averaged 4 percent ~bove th~ corresponding quarter of 1968. Pnces for livestock
and livestock products showed a 13-percent increase, but crop prices were 6 percent lower.
Daily average crude oil production in Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas rose
2.7 percent in March, but output in these
southwestern states was 3.2 percent below a
year earlier. Output in Louisi~a ~howed the
most notable month-to-month gam; 1ll contrast,
New Mexico showed a slight decrease. For the
fifth consecutive month, the oil allowable in

Texas will be higher in May and has been set at
53 .8 percent of the Maximum Efficient Rate of
production, which is the highest rate since the
Middle East crisis during the summer of 1967.
The major reason for the latest increase is that
crude oil inventories have been below desired
levels. The Louisiana oil allowable for May also
has been raised, following two previous monthly
advances. Allowables in New Mexico and Oklahoma are unchanged for the month.
Toward the end of March, Oklahoma's
deepest well was completed and has the distinction of being the second deepest producing
well in the world. The 24,453-foot depth was
reached after 15 months of drilling. The well is
located in the deepest part of the Anadarko
basin, an area with both oil and gas reserves.

The Baytown State Bank, Baytown, Texas, a nonmember bank located in the
territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
was added to the Par List on its opening date, March 14, 1969. The officers
are: C. J. Bailey, Jr., Co-Chairman of the Board; Dr. George L. Walmfley, CoChairman of the Board; B. E. Greer, President; L. R. Whitman, Cashier; and
Kenneth Tilton, Vice President (Inactive) .
The Missouri City State Bank, Missouri City, Texas, an insured nonmember
bank located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, April 10,
1969. The officers are: J. G. Waller, Chairman of the Board; Morris 1. Waller,
President; and David T. Joyner, Executive Vice President and Cashier.

new
PUI

bunks

The Tensas State Bank, Newellton, Louisiana, an insured nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, was added to the Par List on April 17, 1969. The officers are: F. R.
Burnside, Chairman of the Board; W. E. Hawkins, President; C. D. Doyle,
Cashier; W. B. Hudnall, Assistant Cashier; and Mrs. Hilda Bradley, Assistant
Cashier.
The Pelican State Bank, Pelican, Louisiana, all insured nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, was added to the Par List on April 22, 1969. The officers are: L. E.
Fincher, President; L. M. Webster, Vice President; and F. N. Gallaspy, Cashier.
The North Central State Bank, Dallas, Texas, an insured nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, April 22, 1969. The
officers are: J. Alex Blakeley, Chairman of the Board; Thomas G. White,
President; Roscoe L. Eoff, Vice President and Cashier; and O. C. Bevill, Assistant Cashier.

STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENT
to the

BUSINESS REVIEW

May 1969

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DAllAS

CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS

RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
E)eventh Federal Reserve District

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

(Averages of daily flgures. In thousands of dollars)

(In thousands of dolla rs )

Item

Apr.30,
1969

Mar. 26,
1969

May 1,
1968

4 weeks ended
Apr. 2, 1969

Item
RESERVE CITY BANKS

ASSETS

Total reserves held •• . .........

Net loans and discounts . . ... ..........•.......
Valuation reserves . ........ .......•........ . .
Gross loan s and disco unts .. ... .•..............

6,269,161
119,415
6,388,576

6,307,405
119,311
6,426,716

5,496,772
107,65 9
5,604,431

Currency and coin ...••......
Re quired reserves .•...••......
Exc ess reserves • ... . . . .... • . ..
Borrowing s.... ..... .•... .....
Free reserves •.........••.....

Co mmercial and ind ustria l loans •.............
Agricultural loans, excluding CCC
certificates of interest •••...... . .. .... . .. .

3,117,771

3,070,509

2,684,231

110,766

105,871

100,662

28,1 76
60,401

1,001
74,966

25,086
20,512

339
392,832

400
412,113

335
338,184

With Fe deral Reserve 8ank ....

Loans to brokers and dealers for
pu rchasing or carrying:

U.S. Government securities ................
Other securities ....... . ............... . .
Other loans for purcha sing or carrying:

U.S. Government securities • ......... . .....
Other securities .. ............... .. . . . .. .
loans to nonbank Anancial institutions:
Soles Anonce, persona l Anance, factors,
and other business credit compani es .......

COUNTRY BANKS
Total rese rve s held . . .... ... .. .
With Federal Reserve Bonk . ...
Currency and coin ...........
Require d reserves ....... •. .. ..
Excess reserves . . .•.. .... .•. . •
Borrowing s...•.........••....
Free reserves •................

ALL MEMBER BANKS
Total res erves held . • ...•.... . .

With Federal Reserve Bank • •..
148,320
391,417
623,396
129,732
6,621
661,359

130,589
413,447
616,372
256,761
7,637
647,046

135,253
286,854
544,906
269,470
5,195
569,975

Other loan . ...... . ..... . .................

0
717,446

0
690,004

2,754,561

2,716,523

1,057,422
71,582
0

1,079,412
86,641
0

1,148,705
46,767
0

118,950
669,636
197,254

123,576
667,969
201,226

233,366
619,774
248,798

64,099
1,385,434

33,701
1,352,509

15,947
1,134,785

144,183
103,423
1,252,329
768,242
81,034
485,789
5,233
396,044

154,482
96,419
986,554
793,240
84,560
472,982
6,250
377,784

107,273
77,893
980,210
679,243
78,323
416,763
4,978
370,116

TOTAL ASSETS ....................... . . 12,012,393

11,745,298

10,5 11 ,008

738,083
687,347
50,736
743,829
- 5,746
43,800
-49,546

741,387
689,590
51,797
740,265
1,122
45,414
-44,292

699,388
651,800
47,588
692,992
6,396
3,743
2,653

758,203
583,037
175,166
731,720
26,483
13,078
13,405

766,901
591,715
175,186
736,284
30,617
10,534
20,083

700,282
536,850
163,432
665,286
34,996
5,061
29,935

1,496,286
1,270,384
225,902
1,475,549
20,737
56,878
-36,141

1,508,288
1,281,305
226,983
1,476,549
31,739
55,948
-24,209

1,399,670
1,188,650
211,020
1,358,278
4 1,392
8,804
32,588

2,484,603

Total U.S. Government se curities •••....•..••.•

4 weeks ended
Apr. 3, 1968

0
623,768

Total investments •..•••...............••..•..

Curre ncy and coin ... . . ..••..
Require d reserves .... . ...... ..
Exc ess reserves ..••..•. . ...•..
Borrowing s. ......•...........
Free rese rve s......•..........

4 weeks ended
Mar.5,1969

Other •••.•••••.•••.••••••.••.••.•••••.
Rea l estate loan s•.....••.•.........•......
loan s to domestic commercial banks • .. . .......
loons to foreign banks ................•..•.
Consumer instalm ent loon s•••••..••....•.....
loons to foreig n governments, ofAcial
institutions, central bonks, international
institution s••••••••••..••.•.•••.••••.••••

Trea.ury bill ••• ••• •••• ••• •• ••• • .••.•.•••
Treasury certiAcates of indebtedness .•••••••
Treasury notes and U.S. Government
bonds maturing:
Within 1 year .• •. ........••..• ••••.••
1 year to 5 ye ars .•.. ••.•••• ••.•. •.. ..

After 5 years ••• •••••••••• • •• •••••••••
Obligation s of states and political subdivisions:
Ta x warrants and short·term notes and bill s ••

All other ...............................
Oth er bonds, corporat e stocks, and securities:
Participation certiAcotes in Federal
ag ency loon s...............•.........

All other (incl ud ing corporate . tocks) ••.•. ••.
Cash items in proc ess of collection . ••• ••• • •.••.•
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bonk .............
Currency and coin .••.•...•.•••.••.••.•.•••••

Balances with banks in the Unite d States .•••••••.
Balances with bonks in foreign countries ••• •.....
Other assets •••....•............ . ....••.....

CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DAllAS
(In thousands of dollars )
April 30,
1969

Item
Total gold certiAcate reserves••••.•• •• .. .•• .
Discounts for member banks . ••••••••.•..•..
Other di scounts and advances •••• •••• ...• • .
U.S. Government securities . ••• . •.•• . ...••..
Total earning a ssots ........ ....•••. . ...• ..
Member bonk re se rve doposits• •••. ... . . ....
Federal Rese rve notes in actual circulation ••••.

March 26,
1969

279,326
122,172

379,795
95,096

2,214,592
2,336,764
1,271,674
1,536,775

2,111,555
2,206,651
1,274,108
1,5 17,219

May 1,
1968
216,807
48,179
855
2,132,504
2,181,538
1,125,876
1,418,606

CONDITION STATISTICS OF All MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District

LIABILITIES
Total deposits ..............................
Total demand deposits , ••.•••••••••••••.•••
Individuals, partn ership s, and corporations •• • •
States and political sub division s ...•..•... •.
U.S . Government •......... •••••.•••.•.••

Banks in the United States .................
Foreign:
Governments, ofAcial institutions, central
banks, in ternational institutions ..... .. .•
Commercial banks ........••........•.•
CertiAed and ofAcers' checks, etc ......... ..
Total tim e and savings d e po sits ••...........•
Indivi dual s, partn erships, and corporation s:
Savings deposits ... ..•..•• .. .. ........
Oth er time deposits ••.... ....... .•. . ...
States and politic al sub divi sions .. .• ..... .. .

U.S . Government (including postal savings) •••
Banks in the Unite d States ••••••• ••••. • •• , .
Foreign:
Gov ernments, officiol institutions, central
bonks, international institutions .•.... •• .
Comm ercial banks .. ...... • .....•... . ..
Bills ba ya bl e, re discounts, and other
110 illties for borrowe d money • ..•... ...... ••

(In millions of dollars)
9,742,404

9,578,402

8,913,439
5,355,810
3,599,744
369,679
179,805
1,083,583

5,957,042
3,985,348
364,737
298,162
1,180,165

5,729,107
3,974,620
304,388
163,210
1,180,314

4,204
25,318
99,108
3,785,362

3,672
24,029
78,874
3,849,295

3,055
24,002
95,942
3,557,629

993,021
2,006,770
737,729
11,446
28,906

1,015,121
2,038,785
749,286
10,983
27,530

1,077,874
1,842,881
599,322
7,655
24,397

feb. 26,
1969

Other securities ..............••.......•
Rese rves with Federal Reserve Bonk ...... • .
Cash in vau lt • • .. •••. • •••. ....••.... •. .
Balanc es with banks In th e United States. . ..
Balances with bonks in foreign countries e ....
Co sh ite ms in proce ss of colloction ........•
Other o ssetse •••..•.... ................

11,054
2,403
3,237
1,274
255
1,184
9
1,115
698

11,027
2,466
3,141
1,236
258
1,155
7
1,129
616

9,502
2,562
2,704
1,216
240
1,125
7
1,001
462

TOTAL ASSETse ••••••••• •• ..•••..•..

21,229

21,035

18,819

1,484
8,770
7,732

1,408
8,778
7,730

1,369
8,148
6,966

Borrowings •....... ..... •..• ..... ......
Oth er liabilities o ......... ....... . .. ....
Total capital account so • •..• . ... ... . .. . . •

17,986
980
591
1,672

17,916
885
568
1,666

16,483
433
339
1,564

TOTAL L1A8ILITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe .•••.••..•••.•.•..•••.

21,229

21,035

18,819

Item
ASSETS
loons and discounts••........•......•...

U.S. Government obligations •••.. • •••..•••

LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCO UNTS
Demand deposi ts of banks •.••.• • ••.•••..
Other de mand deposits • • • .•.. " .••••..••
Time deposits ••• •.... . .. ....• • .•.... •..

7,000
490

7,100
490

5,300
200

Other 1I0bllities •• •••••.• •.••• • ..•• • •••••••••

1,047,908
268,280

957,705
264,170

460,253
230,971

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS ••.•.••••.••.•.•..•••...

953,801

945,021

906,345

TOTAL LIABILITI ES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 12,0 12,393

11,745,298

Totol deposits ••••..••..••••.••.•••.•

10,5 11,008
e -

-::;:.
Mar. 27,
1968

Mar. 26,
1969

Estimated .

BANK DEBITS, END-OF-MQNTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts in thousands, seasonally adiusted )

~
===================================================================
DE81TS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'

DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change

Standard met ropolitan
stati stical are a

Annual rate
of turnover

March 1969 from

March
1969
{Annual-rat e
ba.I.,

Fe bruary
1969

March
1968

3 months,
1969 from
1968

1
7
9

14
14
10
17
12
4
56
4
7
4
-2
35
16
10
2
17
20
12
15
18
19
14
8
11
15
14
12
13
21

Sherman· De nison •• • •• •• ••••• • ••••••••••••••• •
Texarkana (Texa s- Arkansas) •.. ... .. •. .. .... . .. .
Tyler •••.••••.••••.••••••••.•••••• • •••••..• •
Waco ........ . ... . .... . ... . ...... .... ......
Wichita Falls •• •. .•••••••••••••.••• ••••• •••••

4,974,444
2,583,396
7,456,128
787,296
1,976,748
4,978,428
8,696,052
5,691,384
1,580,71 2
4,307,244
410,136
108,502,224
6,211,704
19,241,448
2,484,780
88,206,300
833,748
4,051,224
1,540,824
2,017,920
1,483,728
1,214,808
15,543,396
997,056
1,579,200
1,957,380
2,541,024
2,156,916

0
-4
2
1
2
-9
7
10
3
2
-3
6
4
12
2
5
7
11
6
8
5
5
-3
-4

20
24
19
27
12
7
76
3
12
1
-8
39
15
9
-5
17
23
16
15
25
24
24
15
13
20
13
11
11

Total_28 centers ••••. •• •.•••••••. • ....••••.•••..•••

$304,005,648

ARIZONA: Tucson ..•.• . •••.•••• .• •...•.•••••... . ••.•
LOUISIANA: Monroe .. ...................... .. .. .. ..

Shrev eport .••................ . . . .. ••.. .

NEW MEXICO: Ro.well ' ....... ..... ..... _...........
TEXAS: Abilene •.••..••.. •••••••.•....•••...• •. .••..
Amarillo .•••.•••..•••..•••••••..••.•••..••.•
Austin ......................................
Beaumont·Port Arthur· Orang e ....... ... . . .. . . . .
Brownsvill e· Harling en·S an Benito ... • ... .• ••.... .

Corpus Christi . .. •................... . . ..... ..
Corsicana 2 •••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Dallas •••...••..••• • ••• •• ••••.•••.••..••..• •
EI Paso .................... . ....... . ........
Fort Worth ..................................
Galveston-Texas City .•...................... ,
Houston ••••.•..•... • ••.•••.. • ••.•••..•••• ••

Lare do ...•.•.••••.. •• ...• • . •. ••• .•. .. •••.. •
LUbbock ••••...••.••••.•••••.••..•••.••••..•
McAlien-Pharr-Edinburg ............. . ...... . . ..
Midland .•••.. • ••. •• ..• •.. .•••.• •••.••.. ••. .
Odessa ••••.••..•••.••••..••..•••••••.••.•..
San Ang elo ••••. •• • ••••••••••• •• •••••••.• •.•
San Antonio .••..•••.•••••.• •.• ••.••.. .. •.• ..

March 31,
1969

March
1969

February
1969

March
1968

$ 215,960
79,813
228,611
35,884
99,608
148,133
281,689
233,864
72,096
205,780
31,985
2,184,756
216,383
636,804
99,178
2,369,572
38,189
146,617
89,032
130,645
77,843
64,933
595,788
59,952
70,965
94,958
118,129
114,980

23.3
31.6
32.7
22.9
20.1
33.6
31.7
24.6
21.9
21.1
12.8
50.6
29.0
30.8
24.3
36.6
21.6
27.2
17.2
15.5
19.2
18.6
25.5
16.8
22.1
21.0
22.4
18.4

23.4
27.9
29.5
23.6
20.0
35.2
30.5
24.5
21.9
23.7
12.4
47.2
28.1
31.3
23.9
35.2
20.6
24.5
17.0
14.8
18.4
17.0
24.1
15.0
21.8
20.5
23.6
19.2

23.9
27.2
28.0
19.5
19.0
35.1
21.3
24.7
18.7
22.0
15.9
42.0
26.8
32.1
27.0
35.2
20.0
24.4
16.4
13.0
18.4
16.0
24.3
16.5
20.7
20.4
20.3
17.0

34.8

33.3

31.5

---$8,742,147

.~ Doposit s of individuals, partnerships, and corporations and of states and political subdivisions .

.. COunty basis .

GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District

BUILDING PERMITS

(Averages of dolly flgures. In millions of dollars)
VALUATION {Dollar amounts in thousand.,

"""=-

TIME DEPOSITS

GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
Reserve
city banks

Total

----!ate
1967. March .....
I .
968: March •• • ••
October • ••
November ..
19
Docemb er ..
69, Januory •••
Fobruary ...
March •••.•

Country
bank.

4,106
4,388
4,751
4,776
5,007
4,935
4,734
4,781

4,845
5,122
5,450
5,589
5,675
5,817
5,594
5,487

8,951
9,510
10,201
10,365
10,682
10,752
10,328
10,268

Percent change

Total

Reserve
city banks

Country
banks

6,183
6,935
7;394
7,498
7,598
7,627
7,707
7,722

2,738
2,863
3,116
3,145
3,185
3,135
3,091
3,042

3,445
4,072
4,278
4,353
4,413
4,492
4,616
4,680

WINTER WHEAT PRODUCTION
(In thousonds of bu . hels)

""'==

1969,
indicated
April 1

1968

1967

le)t~s~~Q.·,: : : ::: : : ::: : :::: :

Okl h e.lco .............. ...

3,420
1,665
4,032
121,877
74,232

2,704
2,112
7,625
122,383
84,150

2,450
2,600
3,948
88,689
53,216

Total
--:.,............ .. ......

205,226

218,974

150,903

--Aritollo

lou"

Area

•.•• ..•..••.••..• •. •

Ne:IMO ...................

March 1969
from

NUMBER
Area

March
1969

ARIZONA
Tucson . ..... ..
615
LOUISIANA
Monroe-West
Monroe . . •..
67
428
Shreveport ••.•
TEXAS
Abilene ••• • •.•
34
Amarillo ......
113
Austin ........
426
Beaumont .....
126
8rownsvllle • •••
47
Corpus Christi..
264
Dalla ......... 2,061
Denison .... . . .
31
EI Paso ••. •••.
465
Fort Warth ••.•
524
Galveston .. . . .
84
Houston ... ... 3,289
Lare do .••••••
33
111
Lubbock ••• •••
Midland ...•. •
42
Od essa .......
62
Port Arthur ••• •
90
45
San Ang elo •••
San Antonio. , . 1,115
Sherman ......
84
Texarkana .. ' .
30
Waco ........
247
Wichita Fall • ••
74
Total-26 cities • • 10,507

March
1969

3 mos.
1969

1,617

3,038

192
1,198

702
4,902

107
434
1,261
311
158
885
5,535
95
1,276
1,450
262
7,856
107
352
187
160
204
159
2,979
189
81
643
217

2,972
921
17,276
972
627
3,501
24,400
413
5,891
6,892
5,002
41,591
149
5,490
381
2,604
2,422
227
7,924
764
1,556
1,963
534

27,915

$143,114

3 mos.
1969

3 month.,
1969 from
1968

Mar.
1968

7,913

-12

3,463
11,480

-60
18

-58
99

- 19
88

4,381
162
248
4,964 -41 -58
42,525
14
107
3,084
-8 -21
3,902
108
87
6,320
161
74
74,367
11
18
1,513 -36
8
25,112 -56
7
26,293
3
19
5,921
840
305
122,681
5
13
1,193 -81
6
10,383
69
265
1,331 -23 -71
4,272
100
281
3,012 1,037
692
1,281 -64 -62
24,539
24 -10
1,753
14
128
2,040
323
855
19
5,132
-1
4,834 -76 -23

Feb.
1969

192
-20
48
-24
225
-44
36
145
18
44
150
7
170
102
-53
170
274
-34
-40
98
68
3
158

$403,689

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agrlculturo.

VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL

(In millions of dollars)

(In thousands of barrels)
January-March

March
1969

Area and type

February
1969

January
1969

1969

Percent change from_

March
1969

1968r
Area

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' ••••••.•.•••...•
Residential building ... •.••
Nonresidential building . ...
Nonbuilding construction . ••
UNITED STATES • • ••••..•..•
Re sidential building •.••• ..
Nonresidential building . ...

Nonbuilding construction ...
1

517
233
148
136
5,003
1,957
1,772
1,274

588
237
164
187
4,766
1,746
2,145
875

568
220
214
135
4,802
1,820
1,885
1,097

1,667
687
525
456
14,510
5,505
5,767
3,238

1,406
640
418
348
12,784
5,161
4,417
3,205

Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

r -

Revised.

NOTE. - Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE, F. W. Dodge, McGraw·Hill, Inc.
I

FOUR SOUTHWESTERN
STATES .................
Louisiana . ••••.•••••••••

New Mexico ..... . . .. ....
Oklahoma . . ............
Texas ............. . ... .
Gulf Coast ............
West Texas ...........
East Texas (proper) .•...
Panhandle .......•... .
Rest of State • •.. ...•..
UNITED STATES ......... . ..

February

6,312.7
2,279.1
353.1
625.6
3,054.9
592.2
1,426.1
126.0
95.2
815.4
9,430.2

1969

March
1968

February
1969

March
1968

6,147.0
2,183.0
356.0
614.0
2,994.0
584.8
1,413.7
134.8
90.0
770.7
8,960.0

6,519.4
2,274.9
353.1
625.0
3,266.4
656.4
1,517.2
159.1
94.2
839.5
9,316.8

2.7
4.4
- .8
1.9
2.0
1.3
.9
-6.5
5.8
5.8
5.2

-3.2
.2
.0
.1
_6.5
-9.8
-6.0
-20.8
1.1
_2.9
1.2

SOURCES, American Petroleum Institute.
U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

Five Southwestern States'

(Seasonally adiusted indexes, 1957·59
Percent change

Mar. 1969 from

Number of persons

Type of employment
Total nonagricultural
wage and salary workers ••

Manufacturing . ••.....•..
Nonmanufacturing . •......
Mining ... ............
Construction . • . •...... .
Transportation and
public utilities ••.•••••
Trade ••.•..•... ..••••
finance .••. ... •.......
Service •..••..• • .....•
Government • .•..••..•.

March
1969p

February
1969

March
1968r

Feb.
1969

Mar.
1968

6,061,400
1,131,400
4,930,000
230,600
388,300

6,032,400
1,121,300
4,911,100
231,300
389,200

5,766,700
1,076,500
4,690,200
215,300
360,200

0.5
.9
.4
- .3
-.2

442,100
1,356,400
296,200
927,900
1,268,000

432,100
1,303,600
282,900
883,600
1,212,500

-.2
.8
.5
.6
.3

2.1
4.8
5.2
5.7
4.9

March
1968r

5.1
5.1
5.1
7.1
7.8

441,300
1,366,700
297,600
933,600
1,271,900

Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas .
Preliminary.
r - Revised.
SOURCE, State employment agencies.
1

p -

----------~~------------------------------------------163.3
181 .9
197.1
171.8
126.5
215.6
163.0
164.6
168.2
160.0
126.2
198.0

-----------------------------------------------------------Preliminary,
p -

r - Revised.
SOURCES, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
~ Dalla l Head Olflce Territory
IIJII]] HOU l ton Branch 1er,1I0,y
1
;:;:;:;:;:1Son Antonio Branch Terrllory
~ EI Paso Branch Terrllory

= 100)

==========================~===============================~=~

Full text of Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) : May 1969

FRASER