Full text of Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) : March 1971
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Business Review
-
Distribution of IncomePrice Increases Slow
Gains in Real Income
Cost of LivingMetropolitan Living
Cheaper in Texas Than
In Most Other States
March 1971
"., '
...........
-
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
Distribution of Income-
Price Increases Slow
Gains in Real Income
Personal income in the United
States increased at a compound
annual rate of 7.2 percent from
1960 to 1970. But personal tax
payments increased an average of
8.6 percent, reducing the annual
gain in after-tax income to 6.9
percent. And advances in prices
a~eraged 2.4 percent a year, cuttIng the annual gain in real disposable income to an average of
4.5 percent.
There were significant differences between the first and second
halves of the decade, however, in
growth of income, rate of price
increases, and taxes on personal
income. Taken as a whole, the first
half of the decade was a period of
fairly sustained economic growth
and generally stable prices. From
1960 to 1965, annual advances in
personal income averaged 6.1 percent in current dollars and 4.9
percent in constant dollars.
But with the rapid increase in
economic activity after mid-decade,
inflationary pressures became
strong and the gap between money
income and real disposable income
widened. Beginning in 1965, the
rate of gain in personal income
Spending on personal consumption
rose 90 percent in the 1960 ' s
but inflation took two-fifths o'f the gain
NONDURABLES
DURABLES
SERVICES
CURRENT
-
nUs'lUess Review I March 1971
quickened, averaging 8.3 percent
for the five-year period.
The step-up was dissipated,
however, by a faster increase in
prices. In constant dollars, the rate
of gain in personal income changed
little, averaging 4.8 percent in the
second half of the decade compared
with 4.9 percent in the first half.
(The annual increase in consumer
prices averaged 3.5 percent, compared with 1.1 percent in the first
half.) But tax payments were also
on the increase in the second half
and the advance in disposable '
income averaged 4 percent, compared with 5 percent in the first
half.
Disbursement of income
Personal income is derived primarily from wages and salaries but
also includes proprietors' incomes,
interest, dividends, and rent, and
transfer payments. Individuals
disburse this income into three
channels-personal taxes (including
all nondiscretionary payments to
government), personal consumption, and personal saving.
Personal taxes-Of the three,
the share of personal income going
for tax payments increased the
fastest in the 1960's, rising from
12.7 percent in 1960 to 14.5 percent in 1970. And payments of
federal income taxes made up the
largest share of these nondiscretionary payments. Since income
taxes vary with earnings, federal
income tax payments increased
rapidly. On the average, they rose
8.2 percent a year over the decade.
Not all this increase was due to
changes in personal income, of
course. Some of the increase was
due to changes in tax rates. Federal
income tax rates were lowered in
1964, but a 10-percent surtax was
1
added in 1968. Then, at the beginning of 1970, the surtax was
lowered to 5 percent. At the middle
of the year, the surtax was discontinued altogether.
State and local taxes were on
the upswing throughout the 1960's,
increasing much faster than federal
income taxes. State and local tax
payments rose an average of 10.5
percent a year over the decade.
Personal consumption-Payment
of personal taxes leaves consumers
with disposable income, most of
which goes for purchases of goods
and services and the remainder
being saved. The level of consumer
spending, then, depends in large
measure on the size of personal
income and the amount of personal
taxes consumers must pay.
The physical volume of personal
consumption, however, is also related to movements in consumer
Spending on durable goods grew
faster than total expenditures .. .
prices (the ratio of expenditures
prices. When prices are rising
sharply (as they were in the second at current prices to expenditures at
constant prices) increased at the
half of the 1960's), much of the
very moderate average annual rate
increase in consumption expendiof 1.2 percent, compared with 2.2
tures reflects higher prices rather
than a greater volume of consumer percent in the 1950's. But with the
rapid increase in economic activity
purchases.
in the second half of the 1960's,
In current dollars, increases in
expenditures on personal consump- consumer prices began to rise more
sharply. From 1965 to 1970, the
tion averaged 7.3 percent a year
implicit consumer price deflator
in the second half of the 1960's,
rose at an average annual rate of
compared with 5.9 percent in the
3.5 percent-about 60 percent faster
first half. But in constant dollars,
these expenditures increased at an than the average for the 1950's
and more than three times as fast
average annual rate of only 3.7
as in the first half of the 1960's.
percent in the second half of the
Personal saving-The personal
decade after increasing at an
saving rate is the percentage of
annual rate of 4.7 percent in the
disposable income saved. Usually
first.
The rate of increase in consumer ranging between 5 and 7 percent
of disposable income, the saving
prices usually varies with major
changes in economic activity-often rate tends to decline during
recessions as individuals try to
widely. From 1960 to 1965, the
maintain their consumption
implicit deflator for consumer
... while spending
on nondurables grew slower
1970
CURRENT
CONSTANT
2
-
patterns. Conversely, the percentage of income saved often increases
during economic recoveries. During
the recession of 1960-61, for example, the saving rate fell to 4.5
percent of disposable income in
the fourth quarter of 1960. But by
the fourth quarter of 1961, when
the economy began to expand
again, the rate had risen to 6.2
percent.
. SUdden changes in disposable
lUcome also affect the saving rate
as individuals take time to adjust
their consumption to new income
levels. R etroactive increases in
federal wage and salary levels and
Social Security payments in the
spring of 1970, for example, caused
an unusually sharp increase in
?isposable income. Disposable
Income in the second quarter last
Year was $18.3 billion more than
in the first quarter, and the saving
SerVice spending grew fastest,
but inflation affected it most
1970
CURRENT
--
nUs'lIless Review I March 1971
rate jumped from 6.7 percent to
7.5 percent.
Components of consumption
Expenditures on personal consumption are channeled into three major
categories-durable goods, nondurable goods, and services. Spending on consumer durables increased
an average of 7.0 percent a year in
the 1960's, which was above the
6.7-percent average annual rise in
total personal consumption. As a
result, the proportion of total
personal expenditures allocated to
durable goods increased from 13.9
percent in 1960 to 14.5 percent in
1970.
Spending on consumer nondurables increased an average of
5.8 percent a year, which was well
below the pace of consumption
expenditures overall. Spending on
this component slipped from 46.5
percent of t he total in 1960 to 42.9
percent in 1970. This was in sharp
contrast to earlier periods. At the
end of World War II, purchases of
nondurable goods had accounted
for more than half of all personal
consumption.
Of the three major components
of pers~nal .consumption, spending
on servIces Increased fastest.
Starting from a base that
accounted for 39.6 percent of
personal consumption in 1960
spending on services increased at
an average annual rate of 7.4 percent. By 1970, this type spending
accounted for 42.6 percent of personal consumption. At that rate of
increase, consumers will soon
spend more on services than on
nondurable goods.
Consumer durables-Much of the
increase in spending on consumer
durables in the 1950's could be
attributed to the release of consumer demand pent up during the
war. The increase in the 1960's
was doubtlessly due to the general
uptrend in personal income, and
this was reinforced by other factors
stimulating demand: in the first
half of the decade, by the continuation of the housing boom started
in the 1950's and, throughout the
decade, by the high rate of family
formations. Purchases of furniture
and household appliances accelerated in the early 1960's. The postwar rise in automobile purchases
which had peaked in the 1950's, '
also showed renewed strength in
the early 1960's.
The implicit price deflator for
durable goods increased an average
of only 0.8 percent a year in the
1960's. By contrast, the deflator
rose an average of 2.3 percent a
year for nondurable goods and
2.9 percent a year for services.
With prices of durable goods
rising slowly, the increased expenditures for durable goods mainly
reflected an increase in real consumption. This was particularly
true in the first half of the decade
when purchases of consumer
'
3
durables increased an average of
7.9 percent a year in current dollars
and 8.2 percent in constant dollars.
Although prices of consumer
durables fell during the first half
of the decade, causing real consumption of these goods to increase
faster than current-dollar purchases, the trend was reversed in
the second half. With the general
rise in prices beginning in 1965,
the average annual increase in
durable goods purchases slowed to
6.2 percent in current dollars and
4.3 percent in constant dollars.
But while the long-term trend
in purchases of consumer durables
has been strong, these purchases
have also been highly sensitive to
cyclical variations in economic
activity. This, of course, reflects
the fact that purchases of durable
goods can often be postponed when
reductions in income and employ-
Net effect was a shift
from spending on nondurables
to durables and services
CURRENT
4
ment threaten. In line with the
current slowdown in economic
activity, sales of consumer durables
have shown almost no growth in
the past two years.
Consumer nondurables-Unlike
outlays for durables and some
services, spending on such necessities as food, fuel, and some clothing
cannot be postponed. To pay for
nondurables during periods of
declining income, consumers may
have to draw on their savings or
even borrow.
Increases in prices of nondurable
goods (and some durable goods)
were dampened by increases in
productivity resulting from technological advances and gains in
economies of scale. Taken as a
whole, prices of nondurable goods
increased at the same rate in the
1960's as the implicit price deflator
for total consumer expenditures.
NONDURABLES
DURABLES
SERVICES
Of the nondurable goods, food is
still a category of major importance, even though the percentage
of household budgets allocated to
food has declined as incomes have
risen. Food prices increased an
average of 2.6 percent a year in
the 1960's, or about in line with
the average increase in consumer
prices.
Prices of clothing, especially for
men and boys, rose a little faster
than consumer prices overall, with
most of the increase being attributed to higher prices of footwear.
Although fuel prices drifted
slowly downward throughout most
of the decade, they began to rise
again in 1969-and at accelerating
rates. With the steady substitution
of natural gas for coal and fuel oil,
total increases in fuel and utility
costs averaged less than 1 percent
a year for most of the decade. But
with the rising demand for fuel,
supplies began to dwindle, putting
pressure on fuel and utility prices.
Overall, between 1960 and 1965,
consumer spending on nondurables
increased an average of 4.8 percent
a year in current dollars and 3.6
percent in constant dollars. Spending increased with the rise in prices
in the second half of the decade,
averaging advances of 6.7 percent
a year. In constant dollars, however, the average increase in consumption slowed to 3.1 percent.
Consumer services-In sharp contrast to the increased personal
consumption of goods, much of the
increased spending on services was
accounted for by rapid advances
in service prices. The difference is
due largely to the nature of services. Being highly personalized,
they do not lend themselves to
mass-production techniques such
as those that allow many goods
producers to realize economies of
scale. As a result, increases in the
productivity of service industries
tend to be limited and there are
stronger cost-push pressures on
prices of services than on prices
of goods.
The rise in prices of public trans-
lars, and the rate of real increase
deteriorated even further in the
In point. Fare increases resulted
second five-year period. Although
primarily from the rising costs of
current-dollar purchases of services
Operating passenger services.
increased at an average annual
Nationwide, local transit fares
rate of 8.4 percent in 1965-70, the
ballooned almost 50 percent in the rate of increase in constant dollars
last half of the 1960's, even though slipped to an average of 4.2 percent
the number of commuters declined a year.
?-hnost 10 percent. Taxicab fares
As consumption increased in the
Increased an average of 30 percent. 1960's, consumers shifted the
Intercity carriers did not inallocation of their expenditures,
crease their fares as sharply.
spending proportionately more on
Average bus fares between cities
durables and services and proporstill rose slightly more than 25
tionately less on nondurables.
Percent, however, and air and rail
Much of the increased spending on
fares advanced about 17 percent.
services, however, was accounted
The rise in prices of hospital
for by rapid advances in service
services provides an even more
prices, while the increase in durable
~triking example of the cost-push
goods mainly reflected a greater
I~~uence on service prices. The
volume of goods purchased. In real
rISIng cost of equipping hospitals
terms, then, consumption of dura~ccounted for much of the increase bles rose much faster than conl~ hospital costs. And added to the sumption of either nondurables
rIse in equipment costs were higher or services.
s~laries for medical staffs and
With prices of services expected
~gher costs of hospital constructo continue rising, much of the
tIon. Reflecting these higher costs, future growth in buying power will
ayerage rates for semiprivate hosdepend on what happens to prices
~Ital rooms rose nearly 90 percent
of goods. If monetary and fiscal
In the second half of the 1960's and policies succeed in slowing the rate
~hsts of operating rooms rose more of increase in prices of goods, conan 70 percent.
sumers can expect a greater proporIn Current dollars, purchases of
tion of their spending to go into
services increased an average of
real consumption rather than price
6.4 percent a year in the first half
increases.
of the decade. But they increased
Only 4.6 percent in constant dol-Edward L. McClelland
~ortation services provides a case
nUs·!ness Review I March 1971
5
Cost of Living-
Metro' olitan Living Cheaper
p
In Texas Than in Most Other States
It is cheaper to live in Austin than
in any other metropolitan area
in the United States. And it is
cheaper to live in Dallas and
Houston than in most other metropolitan areas.
But while this should be good
news to Texans-since living costs
in these centers are indicative of
costs in other cities of the statethere is also some disappointing
news in a budget study recently
released by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The study shows living
costs in these three cities have been
rising about 6 percent a year, or
at about the rate of other metropolitan areas.
Nationwide, household budget
costs increased 18.5 percent between the spring of 1967 and the
spring of 1970. During that period,
budgets rose an average of 18.9
percent in Dallas, 17.4 percent in
Austin, and 16.7 percent in
Houston.
and intermediate. For the lowincome budget, the manner of
living differs from the intermediate
and high levels primarily in the
specification that the family lives
in rented housing without air
conditioning, performs more
Living costs in Austin were lowest of all metropolitan
in the spring of 1970, regardless of budget
6
a~eas
THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUALLY
SELECTED AREAS
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
ANCHORAGE,ALASKA
HONOLULU, HAWAII
NEW YORK-NORTHEASTERN N.J.
MILW AUKEE, WIS.
SAN FRANCISCO- OAKLAND, CALIF.
BUFFALO, N.Y.
WASHINGTON, D.C.-MD.- VA.
CHICAGO,ILL.- NORTHWESTERN IND.
1-&-"-'-..&.111;~~~!J
LOS ANGELES- LONG BEACH, CALIF.
U.S. METROPOLITAN AVERAGE
Basis of comparison
In estimating the cost of living in
various areas, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics developed standard
budgets for a family of four living
in each of 40 metropolitan areas.
The budgets, therefore, are only
indicative of living costs in certain
areas. They apply precisely only
to urban families like the one
used in the stUdy-an employed
husband and his wife, their 13year-old son and eight-year-old
daughter. The family is assumed to
have typical inventories of clothing, home furnishings, and major
durables.
Based on annual costs of specific
types and amounts of goods and
services in an area, the budget
illustrates the cost of living at three
broad income levels-high, low,
services for itself, and uses free
community recreation services. The
high-income budget specifies a
larger proportion of homeownership than the intermediate budget,
more household appliances and
equipment, and still more pur-
t::::::::::::::::~~~~al
PHILADELPHIA, PA.-N.J.
SEATILE- EVERETI, WASH.
GREEN BAY, WIS.
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA
PORTLAND, MAINE
PITISBURGH, PA.
DURHAM, N.C.
DALLAS, TEX.
Q LOW BUDGET
D'l INTERMEDIATE
u BUDGET
I I HIGH BUDGET
BATON ROUGE , LA.
CINCINNATI, OHIO- KY.-IND.
NASHVILLE, TENN .
HOUSTON, TEX.
ATLANTA, GA.
U .S. NONMET. AVERAGE
AUSTIN, TEX.
SOUTH , NONMET . AVERAGE
9
SOURCE : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
15
17
19
21
chases of services. For most items
common to all three budgets, both
the quantity and quality are
assumed to increase from the low
to the high budget.
Budget estimates were prepared
only for families in selected metropolitan areas with a central
city.of at least 50,000 population.
RegIonal averages were estimated
for urban areas with populations
of less than 50,000 but more than
2,500.
AVERAGE ANNUAL LIVING COSTS FOR THREE BUDGETS
--
.
Spring
1970
Low budget
Metropolitan areas
Austin ., .
Dallas
.. . .. . ..
Houston
United States . ... . ...
Nonmetropolitan areas
.. .. . .... .
South , ... ..
United States ' . . . . . . . .
Intermediate budget
Metropolitan areas
. .. .. .. . ...
Austin ..... . .
Dallas ..... . .... . ... . .......
Houston . . ...........
.. . ... ..
United States ..
Nonmetropolitan areas
..... . . .
South
United States . . , .....
High budget
Metropolitan areas
Austin . . . . . . . . .
Dallas .. . .... . .. . .....
' . . . , . .
.. ..
Ho uston .. . ,
United States .. .. . . . . . ......
Nonmetropolitan areas
South . . , . .....
United States
BUdget outlays
COmparison of the budgets shows
~hat of the 40 metropolitan areas
Included in the study, the most
expensive places to live were
~nch~~age~ A~aska, and Honolulu,
aWall. WIthm the continental
~nited States, living costs tended
l Obe ~ghest in the Northeast and
oWest m the South. Living costs
were also slightly lower in the
smaller metropolitan areas. Thus,
a combination of advantages
a?crued to Austin, a small southern
CIty.l
Of the large metropolitan areas,
?nly Atlanta was cheaper to live
In than Dallas or Houston. It was
Ben cheaper to live in Dallas or
ouston than in most small metro~olitan areas outside the South.
.nd although data were not com~lled for such areas as El Paso,
~r~ ~orth, and San Antonio, costs
o livIng in these cities were also
probably well below those in most
other metropolitan areas.
b For the lower level of living,
1udget costs in Austin were about
2 percent less than the national
;vhrage for metropolitan areas.
Ii ey were 8.2 percent less in
)) Ouston and 5.4 percent less in
h. allas . For the intermediate and
~gh levels, budget costs in these
CIt· Were even further below the
les
nat·lonal metropolitan averages.
Spring
Budget level
and area
1967
$6,197
6,683
6,481
7,061
$5,237
5,607
5,542
5,994
6,150
6,512
5,224
5,564
17.7
17.0
9,212
9,894
9,645
10,933
7,952
8,345
8,301
9,243
15.8
18.6
16.2
18.3
9,041
9,600
7,784
8 ,322
16.1
15.4
13,337
14,471
13,917
15,971
11,299
12,157
11,897
13,367
18.0
19.0
17.0
19.5
12,643
13,459
10,909
11 ,640
15.9
15.6
Percent
change
18.3%
19.2
16.9
17.8
SOURCE: U.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics
They were roughly 16 percent
lower in Austin, 12 percent lower
in Houston, and 9 percent lower
in Dallas. 2
Budgets calculated as average
for nonmetropolitan towns in the
South were about 6 percent less
than the national average for such
towns. These budgets, which are
probably the closest indicators of
the cost of living in most small
towns of the Eleventh Federal
Reserve District, show living costs
in the nonmetropolitan South
were lower than in Austin. Compared with Austin, nonmetropolitan living costs in the South
averaged 1 percent less for the low
budget, 2 percent less for the
intermediate budget, and 5 percent
less for the high budget.
Where costs differ
Budget costs for food in Texas
cities were significantly lower than
the national metropolitan average.
Housing costs were also lower, as
were costs of social insurance and
personal income taxes. All three
costs were about equally important
in reducing the low-level budget.
For intermediate and high budgets
there were still important savings'
on food but most of the difference
was in lower costs of housing and
social insurance and personal
income taxes.
The lower overall tax cost
resulted, obviously, from Texas
having no state or city income
taxes. The lower cost of housing
probably resulted from the lower
density of population, which helps
hold down land prices, and the
fairly moderate climate, which
helps hold down building costs.
All major categories of expenditures were lower in Austin than
the national average, regardless of
budget level. Most categories
1. Sixteen .tates were taken t ogether ns t he Sout h onl y one of f our broad r egionlll g \,oups used in t he st udy . Because of the r elatively smnll snmple u sed
lllOl 'C
precise r eg ion ul gr ouping s wer e n ot
fensibl~.
f
2. I" .ese compnrison s do not imply thnt people live better in t hese cities t hnn in ot hel' met ropoli tl1 n ar ens. They r eveul only t hnt n mll·t iculnr level of
'l'h
IV
lng costs less in t hese cities t hnn in t he a vernge m etr opolita n aren.
nu' Review I
Slness
March 1971
7
ANNUAL COST SAVINGS IN SELECTED BUDGET ITEMS, SPRING 1970,
FOR TEXAS AREAS COMPARED WITH NATIONAL AVERAGES
Budget level
and
metropolitan area
Low budget
Austin
Dallas
. . . . . ......
Houston
Intermediate budget
Austin ........
Dallas
Houston
High budget
Austin
Dallas
Houston ........
Food
Housing
Social
Insurance,
personal
Income
taxes
$207
162
148
$244
95
171
$274
159
205
276
205
180
719
439
553
526
394
451
315
239
208
1,001
491
788
1,042
752
897
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
were also lower in the state's two
largest cities. There were notable exceptions, however. Medical
costs in Dallas, for example, were
among the nation's highestabout 16 percent higher than the
national average. Medical costs in
Houston were about 3 percent
higher than average. Except for
the high-level budget, transportation costs were also slightly higher
in Houston.
So, while living costs in these
three metropolitan areas were
rising rapidly, they were still far
below the national average-
regardless of the level of living.
Furthermore, incomes in these
centers were probably increasing
even faster than living costs.
Information on per capita income
for 1970 is not available yet for
individual cities. For Texas as
a whole, however, per capita personal income rose about 28 percent
between the spring of 1967 and the
spring of 1970-roughly half again
more than the average increase in
living costs in these three
metropolitan areas.
-Leonard G. Bower
New par bank
The Mont Belvieu State Bank, Mont Belvieu, 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, February 8, 1971.
The officers are: Robert McCorquodale, President; H. H. McCollum, Vice
President (Inactive); and Lloyd H. Brown, Jr., Cashier.
8
•
Research Department
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Station K, Dallas, Texas 75222
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
March 1971
Statistical Supplement to the Business Review
-
:rhe seasonally adjusted Texas
Industrial production index was
essentially unchanged in January
frorn the level in December. At
:~2 ..0 percent of its 1957-59 base,
f e Index was up only 0.2 percent
horn December and 0.4 percent
orn January 1970.
Slight month-to-month gains
Were shown in the manufacture of
b~t? durable and nondurable goods,
raISIng total manufacturing to a
~vel1 percent higher than in
ecember. The total was still
beady 2 percent lower than a year
t efore, however. Production of
ransportation equipment and
jlectrical machinery was particuarly weak.
Bolstered by a high rate of outPut in petroleum refining, the
tnanufacture of nondurable goods
adVanced nearly 4 percent over a
~ear before, largely offsetting the
ecline in durable goods.
n Utilities showed no change from
. ecember and about a 5-percent
Increase over a year before.
Total nonagricultural wage and
salary employment in the five
S~uthwestern states declined
~ghtlY in January but was still
gher than a year before. A
seasonal decline from December
was expected in all areas of employ~ent. But most declines were less
an expected, and employment in
finance showed a slight gain. Trade
~cco.unted for much of the overall
ecline. Manufacturing employtnent continued its slow downtrend,
feaching a level more than 5 percent
OWer than in January 1970.
°fiI allowables in producing states
? the Southwest were unchanged
~ March from the high levels in
ebruary. In Texas, allowables
were held at 82.1 percent of the
maximum efficient rate of production, halting the slow decline from
November's record level of 87.3
percent. Other Eleventh District
states are still producing at their
record levels.
Since production in Texas serves
to even out surpluses and shortages
in the nation's supply of crude
petroleum, the outlook for Texas
allowables depends to an extent on
the unpredictable international
petroleum situation. World supplies
tightened over the past year as an
important Middle Eastern pipeline
to the Mediterranean was closed,
North African production was cut
back, and tanker space grew scarce.
The pipeline was reopened recently,
however, and the world's leading
petroleum companies are negotiating price agreements with major
exporting countries, raising the
possibility that international markets-and, thereby, the nation's
supply-will soon return to normal.
Preliminary planting intentions for
1971 in states of the Eleventh District indicate a 14-percent increase
in sorghum acreage over 1970 and
about 10-percent increases in corn,
oats, and soybean acreages. The
prospective upland cotton acreage
is about the same as last year, but
extra-long staple cotton acreage
is expected to be 35 percent larger.
The sharp rise in expected plantings
of extra-long staple cotton is in line
with an increase in the Government-allotted acreage resulting
from short supplies in 1970.
Grazing conditions are about
normal in Louisiana, but the forage
available for grazing in other areas
of the District has been below
average. The prolonged dry weather
has limited dryland wheat grazing,
and growth of irrigated wheat was
slowed by the cold weather in early
January.
Because.o~ poor grazing, livestock conditIOns have slipped below
average over much of the five-state
area. As a result, considerable
supplemental feeding is required. In
Texas, there has been some culling
of older cows.
Texas retained its position last
year as the nation's third largest
cattle feeding state, surpassed only
by Iowa and Nebraska. Feedlots in
Texas marketed 3.1 million head of
cattle-432,000 head more than in
1969. At 16 percent, however, this
.
gam represented considerably less
growth than the 37-percent increase
in marketings in 1969.
Registrations of new passenger
automobiles in Dallas, Fort Worth,
Houston, and San Antonio were
5 percent lower in January than in
December. There were wide
variations in the four centers however. Registrations increased 19
perc~nt in San Antonio and 12 percent m Dallas. But they declined
16 pe.rcent in Houston and 24 percent m Fort Worth. Total registrations were 3 percent lower than in
January 1970.
Department store sales in the
Eleventh District were 8 percent
higher in the four weeks ended
February 27 than in the corresponding period a year earlier.
Cumulative sales through that date
were 9 percent higher than a
year before.
~redit at weekly reporting banks
m the Eleventh District declined
less than usual in the four-week
period ended February 24, in line
(Continued on back page)
CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING COMMERCIAL BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
-
(Thousand dollars)
Feb. 24,
1971
Jan. 27,
1971
Feb. 25,
1970
681,027
6,601,660
7 16,130
6,586,896
348,150
5,970,685
3,1 77,783
3,171,189
3,011,646
119,010
115,689
106,535
ASSETS
Fe b. 24,
1971
LIABIlITIES
Total d eposits.. • . ... ••. . .. . .. .... .. . .. . ... ..
f e d e ral fund s sold and se curities purchase d
und er agree ments to rese ll •• • • ...•• •• . ••• . ..
Other loans and di scounts, gross . . . . ... . . ... .. . .
Comm ercial a nd Indu strial loans . • ........ . . ..
Agricultu ral loans, exclud ing CCC
certifleates of intere st •••• ••. • .•. • ••.••....
----
loan s to brokers and deal e rs for
pu rcha sing or ca rrylng l
U.S . Gove rn me nt securilies .. • .. .... . . .... ..
Oth e r se cu riti es . . • .. .... . . .. .......• .. ...
500
43,928
509
52,313
500
42,111
1,645
429,629
1,606
433,811
944
382,994
O ther loans fo r purcha sing or carrying:
U.S. Gove rnm ent secu rities ..... . ... . . .. . . ..
Oth er se curiti e s . . • . . . .... . .. . ... . ..... . . .
loans to non bonk flnoncial institutions:
Sales Anance, personal flnance, factors,
and oth er busin ess credit compani es • • .. ...
189,818
438,467
653,373
13,832
10,386
733,026
Real estate loans •• •••••... . ... .••••... . .. .
loans to dom estic comm ercial banks. ..... .. •..
loans to foreign banks• • • • .•• . ....... . . • •...
Consum er Instalm ent loan s... .•.•• . . . .. . .. .. .
Loans to foreign governm ents, offlcia l
in stitution s, central banks, and international
institution s•... .• . . .. •.• .••.....• •. . . •. . .
Oth er loan s•. ••• . •... ..... .••••... ....... .
Total investm ents• • • • •• •.. . . . . • ••••••. ..... .•
182,578
447,980
652,044
16,448
9,572
736,322
131,585
310,390
612,862
16,099
10,02 1
727,163
0
790,263
2,893,075
Other ••• • ••• ..•• •. •• • ••• .• • ••• ••• •...•
0
766,835
2,929,039
750
617,085
2,500,217
---989,159
----
Total U.S. Gove rnm ent securities ........•.....
Trea sury bills..•.... .. ... . • ... •... . . . . ..
Trea sury ce rtiflcat es of ind e btedn ess • • . .. ...
Trea sury not es and U.S. Governm ent
bonds maturing l
97 8,602
123,093
0
Within 1 year •• • . ••• • ••.••• . •••• . • ••••
174,252
512,003
169,254
220,311
531,757
11 1,128
69,995
1,647,225
3,843
1,468,099
91,793
143,224
1,171,427
917,362
88,482
572,826
7,998
86,076
136,584
1,238,025
876,386
92,712
532,240
9,682
50,308
67,277
936,850
612,406
86,000
428,708
7,916
467,803
---11,385,934
6,067,081
4,111,296
330,823
166,128
1,328,883
Individual s, partn erships, and corporati ons. ...
States and political subdivisions . ..... . .. •. .
U.S. Governm ent .. . . . . . .. . . • ... . .. .. . . ..
Banks In th e United States • • • •• .•• •• .. .• •..
Foreign:
Gove rnm ents, offlcial institutions, central
banks, and int ernational institution s. .. ...
Comm ercial bank s .. •.... .• ... . . . .. • . . .
CertiA ed and ofAce rs' ch eck s etc . . . .. . . . ....
,
Total time and saving s de posits• • • . .. .. . . . .• . .
Individua ls, pa rtn ership s, and corporation s:
Saving s d eposits. ••. . .... ....... ... . .. .
Oth er tim e d epo sits . .. . . ...... .. .... ...
States and political subdivisions ... . . . .• ... .
U.S. Gov ernm ent (including postal saving s) • ...
Bank s in th e United Stat es • ... . .. • ... .• . .. .
Forei gn:
Governm ents, offlcio l institutions, centra l
banks, and int ernational Institutions .•. ...
Comm e rcial banks . ....•• . •..• ••• ..• •. .
Fed eral fund s purcha se d and se curities sold
und e r agree ments to repurchas e . • . • .. . . • .....
Other liabilities for borrow ed mon ey . .. . • ..• . .. .
Other lio bllities •• •••• •••• .• •• •. . . •••• . . • • ... •
125,963
0
910,690
43,915
0
Rese rves on loan s• •. . .. .. .... •• .. . . ...• .. •...
Rese rves on securities.•. . . . • ..... . ..... • ......
Tota l capita l accounts •. • • . . ..... . · • ········ · ·
1 year to 5 years.•.•.. . ••. . . •• .••••.. .
After 5 years • •• • • ••• •••• ••••• .••••• ••
All other ••• • • • •• ••• • . •••• •••• •. ••• • ••••
Other bond s, corporate stocks, and securiti esl
Certiflcates re presenting participations in
f ed eral agency loans • . ••.. .. • •....• •• .
All oth er (including cor~orate stocks) •• •• •• • • •
Ca sh items in process of col ection • . •••.• .• ... . ..
Rese rves with Federal Reserve Bank .. . . ...•.....
Currency and coin • •..•...... . . .. • .•• • •. • • •••
Balanc es with banks in the United States • . .... . . .
Balances w ith banks in foreign countries •• . ...•. ••
Oth er a sse ts (Including Investm ents in subsidiaries
6,228,547
4,171,008
290,716
204,393
1,419,977
-
8,761,963
5,475,24~
3,832,53
302,36 6
155,695
1,077,3 10
3,871
26,003
11 2,579
4,548,552
3650
26:274
77,411
3,286,723
974,688
2,496,561
1,057,337
30,581
95,015
948,906
2,509,390
966,198
18,481
86,692
1,615,2 1~
12,685
1,100
17,785
1,100
12,60 0
1,350
999,089
68,222
401,159
138,439
19,471
1,032,548
1,012,322
73,802
397,006
139,403
20,418
1,028,863
TOTAL LIABILITIES, RESERVES, AND
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS •• • • . ••• •• ••••••• •• 13,393,976
Obligations of states and political subdivisionsl
Tax warrants and short· term note s and bill s. •.
10,777,099
----
Fe b. 25,
1970
2,819
28,972
98,160
4,667,967
153,830
627,561
85,384
32,882
1,646,574
10,735,048
Total d e mand d e posits •••... . .. ....... . •....
Jan . 27,
1971
---~
915,97 8
724,00
2086
15:486
756,80~
375,53
364,94 4
135,298
13,28 4
978,10 1
-
1hl 85. $
CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
-
(Million dollars)
TOTAL ASSETS •• ••••••• ••• •• •• •• • • •• ••• .
460,119
---13,393,976
---13,448,913
495,002
Dec. 30,
1970
Jan. 28,
1970
Loans and di scounts, gross• •. • ... . •• ..... .
U.S. Government ob ligations •• • • ...• . .. .•.
Oth er securities . • .. • • .. •• • . .• • • .. .• ...•
Re serve s with Fed eral Res erve Bank ••• • .. ••
Cash in vault . •• •• .• ••• . • • • .. •• • ••. • •••
Balances with banks in the United State s• . ••
Balances with banks in foreign countri es e ... .
Ca sh ite ms In proce ss of collection • . . • ... •.
Other assetse .•••• . • • .. . • •.••• • •... •• ..
12,878
2,280
3,834
1,461
282
1,407
12
1,418
882
13,211
2,268
3,742
1,400
296
1,457
10
1,405
956
11 ,498
2,151
3,267
1,309
269
TOTAL ASSETse ••••• • ••• ••• • . • •••• . •
nat consolidated) • • •••••• • ••••••••••• •• ••••
Jan. 27,
1971
24,454
24,745
1,834
9,468
9,130
1,861
9,792
8,895
20,432
1,113
1,071
1,838
20,548
1,229
1,126
1,842
Item
----------~~---------------------------------ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
D emand d e posits of banks • . . • •. . . . . . .. ••
Other d e mand deposits • •••• • • • •• •• •• •. • •
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
Tim e de posits••.. •• .. ..... ... •. . . •.. . ..
(Averages of daily figures. Thousand dollars)
Item
4 weeks end ed
Fe b. 3, 1971
Total d e posits •• •• •• •• • •••• •• ••••• • . .
5 w eeks end ed
4 w eeks ended
Jon.6,1971
Feb.4,1970
820,983
764,630
56,353
817,634
3,349
0
3,349
806,799
747,167
59,632
825,028
- 18,229
0
- 18,229
759,270
704,669
54,601
735,1 17
24,153
28,555
-4,402
858,082
658,507
199,575
828,250
29,832
214
29,618
825,823
633,558
192,265
815,23 1
10,592
0
10,592
801,841
6 10,848
190,993
771,212
30,629
14,255
16,374
1,679,065
1,423,137
255,928
1,645,884
33,181
214
32,967
1,632,62 2
1,380,725
251,897
1,640,259
-7,637
0
-7,637
1,56 1,111
1,315,517
245,594
1,506,3 29
54,782
42,810
11,972
Borrowing s• ..•••. . .. .. .. . . • ......... • .
Other lIabilities e . • .. . ..... . ..••. • .. .• . .
Total capital accounts e . • • .. ••• .. •• . • ... •
COUNTRY BANKS
Total reserves held ••• • •.•. • • . •
With Fed eral Rese rve Bank •• • .
Currency and cain • • •... ••. ..
Required rese rves .. . . .. • . .. . ..
Exce ss reserVes • • ..... . •......
Borrowing s. . .• ... • •. .... ••. ..
Fre e rese rves • • •.. •.•. . • • • •• . .
All MEMBER BANKS
Total rese rves held • • •. . .... . . .
With Federal Reserve Bank .. ..
Currency and coin • . . .. • .... •
Required reserve s .. .• • . . . .• ...
Exce ss rese rves • • .. . .•. ...•. . .
Borrowing s• .. ... . .... ....... .
Free reserves •. .•. . . •• ... •• . ..
1,235
801
-
~
1,456
8,880
7,079
-
17,415
1,637
961
1,732
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAP IT Al
ACCOUNTSe • ••• • ••• • • ••• •• •• • .•• •
RESERVE CITY BANKS
Total re serv es held . . • ...• • .. ..
With Fed eral Reserve Bank ....
Currency and cain •• • ••• ... .•
Required reserve s • ••• •• •... •••
Excess rese rve s .. • . •• ... . •••• .
Borrowing s• • .. .. .•• • •. .. •• .. .
Free reserves •. ...•.•....• • ...
1,2n
e-
Estimated
CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
(Thou sand dollars)
Jan. 27,
1971
BANK DEBITS, END.OF.MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
Four Southwestern States
-
(Dollar amounts In thousands, seasonally adjusted)
DEMAND DEPOSITS'
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
January
1971
(Annual-ra te
basb)
January 31,
January
December
1970
1970
1971
1971
1970
6,B72,26B
3,031,020
9,625,152
882,240
2,123,808
6,1 B3,792
9,364,008
6,147,288
1,999,416
5,960,268
437,928
135,685,008
7,485,504
23,188,524
3,204,000
110,810,196
906,120
3,698,988
1,675,440
1,977,240
1,594,548
1,395,168
18,752,364
1,082,628
1,311,312
2,288,940
3,001,620
2,408,484
-2%
2
2
-5
- I
9
1
- 6
-3
- II
-3
10
0
- I
15
6
-14
-16
-5
-11
3
-2
2
-10
-7
- 1
4
4
16%
17
-2
-7
4
2
10
2
10
16
8
19
8
13
8
18
8
7
5
5
-7
14
9
3
-3
4
3
5
$ 234,457
91,623
267,200
39,425
102,127
158,136
330,827
249,401
78,734
284,130
31,458
2,183,068
236,127
660,246
118,945
2,514,420
41,346
158,227
101,210
132,451
96,771
69,914
646,127
66,910
70,581
95,371
116,773
118,802
29.5%
33.8
37.3
22.1
20.3
38.7
28.0
24.7
25.6
21.2
13.9
62.0
30.7
34.9
27.6
44.8
21.8
22.6
16.6
14.9
17.2
19.3
28.8
16.7
18.3
23.2
24.6
20.6
30.5%
34.5
37.0
23.5
20.2
35.3
28.8
26.9
26.4
23.3
14.4
55.5
30.4
35.5
25.1
41.7
25.0
25.4
17.3
16.7
17.4
19.9
28.1
18.6
19.3
22.8
23.4
20.0
25.9%
30.6
40.8
24.7
21.3
37.8
31.4
25.2
25.5
24.8
14.1
52.9
29.6
32.6
26.7
38.5
21.7
23.0
16.5
14.3
23.5
17.5
27.8
18.3
19.2
23.9
24.8
20.3
$373,093,272
5%
15%
$9,294,807
40.2%
38.1%
36.7%
$
~~s~~~!~ .: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
: e aumont.Port Arthur· Orange ........... . . ... .
rownsville-Harlingen-Son Benito ••••.. .. . . ..•..
~~~:t:;:··
. . . : . · . .· . .·.. :
H elveston -Tex a s City .... .. ... ..... ....... .. .
t~bt~~:·:·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :
~cAlien-Pharr-Edlnburg • . .. ..• ...••...... . .. .
r~~:~~~~~{L .~;~ ~ ~ ~ ii~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ iii ~ ~ i
~ex arkana (Texa s.. Arkonsas) ................. .
'i~;~: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :: :
,chlta Falls •••••••.•......••.••....••....•
Total_28 centers .••••••..••... •.••.. ....... ... ...
Decemb er
January
Standard metropolitan
statistical area
tRIZONA, Tucson ___________ .......•.• .. ... ... ••. .
OUISIANA, Monroe ....... . ..... ....... .. •... .. ...
N
Shreveport •....• .•. . . .....•• .•.... ..••
TE~~S~~:ICO' Roswe ll' .•.•... ... .. ••.......•••.. . .
Annual rate of turnover
Percent chang e from
January
1970
---~--------------------------~~------~~~~~~------------------------------~
; gepoSlts of Individuals partnerships, and corporations and of states and pOlitical subdivisions
ounty baSis
'
VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
(Million dollars)
January
1971
1970
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'.
Residential building .•...•...
BUILDING PERMITS
Decemb er
Area and type
546
225
227
94
4,383
1,631
1,711
1,041
553
290
173
90
4,974
2,045
1,693
1,235
Nonresi dentia l building •• . • .•
---
Nonbuilding construction • •••••
VALUATION (Dollar amounts In thousands)
UNITED STATES • . • ..•• . ...• ··
Residential building • . .• •. .. .
Nonresidential building . . • . . .
Percent change
NUMBER
----
Nonbuilding construction • • •• ••
January 1971 from
January
January
January
Dece mber
4,299
-54%
TUcson
357
$
-68
-92
78
13
-10
274
76
184
-37
_45
222
3
664
456
45
-58
10
-41
9
156
279
76
304
~onroe_ West Monroe ••••..•
TeX ...~·veport • . ••••••••••••••
125
445
1,903
2,461
-68
-30
~bllene ........ ..... ..... .
'a Falls ••....••......
36
91
380
115
84
838
1,631
36
396
373
72
3,415
78
117
51
63
57
54
1,303
73
41
169
61
300
1,124
14,814
749
380
4,090
23,440
474
7,567
4,329
1,961
36,847
1,467
5,737
256
542
257
350
5,732
892
804
1,293
1,120
-3 8
-76
-21
33
- 80
162
- 19
379
-2 6
15
229
-1 8
586
36
-73
-44
122
-70
-39
22
393
112
40
~6cities . . . ......... ..
10,461
$123,188
"'~~I~~la • . •... .•..•.. ... ..
:.aum~~t: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
C~W~:ville: . .' ••.•••••. ••••
Dalras Ch"''' ••••.• .•.• . .•.
D I ••••• • ••••••••••••••
EI·P .on •• . •.... . •.•....•..
F 0 50 •• •. .• • .. • . . • • • . . . .
or
G : Worth • .. . ...•......••
Ha Veston • . ••••.....•....•
l:r~~on .......... ..... .. .
lubb 0 •••••••••••••••••••
"'Idl~~k .•. . .. .•.• ..•.••.•
~od.llad
..• : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
S rt Arthur .. .. .... ... .... .
S~~ ~ng e l.o .......... . • . . •
Sh ntonlo .•..... ..••.. . •
Termon • . .....•.•.. .....•
WX,arkono ............... .
W~h~t"'" ....•... . ..•...
1970
553
227
199
128
5,145
1,947
1,701
1,497
January
1970r
622
190
224
208
4,825
1,426
2,188
1,211
Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico , Oklahoma, and Texas
r - Revised
NOTE. - Delalls may nol add to lotals because of rounding .
SOURCE: F. W. Dodge, McGraw-Hili, Inc.
-38
-55
1970
1970
1971
1971
... RIZON A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Are a
lOUISIA~~"""" " """ •
Novem ber
-21%
1
-8%
3%
GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Averages of dally figures. Million dollars)
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
Date
Total
Reserve
city banks
1969, January ..•
1970, January . . •
10,752
10,793
10,530
10,658
10,684
10,843
11,271
11,532
4,935
4,910
4,816
4,885
4,860
4,899
5,161
5,236
Augu st . ...
Septemb er.
Octob er ...
November ..
December .•
1971 , January • •.
TIME DEPOSITS
Country
banks
Total
Reserve
city banks
Country
bank.
5,817
5,883
5,714
5,773
5,824
5,944
6,110
6,296
7,627
7,108
7,783
8,088
8,317
8,622
8,825
9,038
3,135
2,568
2,926
3,162
3,305
3,476
3,554
3,635
4,492
4,540
4,857
4,926
5,012
5,146
5,271
5,403
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
(Thousand barrels)
(Seasonally adjusted Indexes, 1957-59
Percent change from
January
January
FOUR SOUTHWESTERN
STATES .. .... . ......•• · .
louisiana .... .... ... ... .
New Mexico ..
0 •••
•••
••••
Oklahoma .•.....•.... · .
Texas .... .. .. .. . ... ..•.
Gulf Coast ... ....•..•.
West Texas . ... ...... .
East Texas (proper) . ••..
Panhandle •. •• .. .••• ..
Rest of state .•.... .....
UNITED STATES ........... .
December
January
December
January
1971
1970
1970r
1970
1970
7,296.0
2,760.8
342.9
641.5
3,550.8
737.2
1,669.4
239.0
78.8
826.4
10,019.8
7,265.5
2,758.0
339.0
610.5
3,558.0
733.6
1,685.8
235.2
79.1
824.3
10,008.3
6,724.8
2,366.4
358.4
595.9
3,404.1
689.3
1,614.2
194.0
79.3
827.3
9,467.0
0.4%
.1
1.2
5.1
-.2
.5
-1.0
1.6
-.4
.3
.1%
8.5%
16.7
-4.3
7.7
4.3
6.9
3.4
23.2
-.6
-.1
5.8%
r - Revised
SOURCES : American Petroleum Institute
U.S. Bureau 01 Mines
Federal Reserve Bank 01 Dallas
December
November
1971p
Area and type of index
Area
-
= 100)
1970
1970
182.0
201.2
204.5
199.1
137.5
274.6
181.6
199.3
202. t
197.4
139.6
274.6
179.4r
194.2r
198.7
191.2r
142.8r
266.2r
181.2r
205.6
226.7r
191.6
130.9r
262.0
165.1
162.7
157.5
169.2
140.1
244.0
164.0
161.6
155.6
169.0
139.6
242.0
161.5r
158.7r
151.5r
167.7
140.8r
238.7r
170.4r
170.2r
169.7r
171.0
131.7r
230.1
TEXAS
Total industrial production ..••••
Manufacturing ••• .. ...•.• .....•
Durable . ........ .. ......... .
Nondurablo • .. .... . ....... . ..
Mining •••... ...... . ...........
Utilities ..... ..................
UNITED STATES
Totol industrial production .... ..
Manufacturing ... • . . . ..........
Durablo •. '" ................
Nondurable .. .. .. . . . ... ..... .
Mining •••• .•. ..•••••••••..... .
Utilities ........... .... ....... .
----------------------------------------------------p - Preliminary
r - Revised
SOURCES: Board 01 Governors 01 the Fede ral Rese rve System
Federal Reserve Bank 01 Dallas
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
LIVESTOCK ON FARMS AND RANCHES, JANUARY 1
Five Southwestern States'
(I n thousands)
,...,.
Percent change
January
Dec.
1970
1970r
1970
6,356,700
1,131,600
5,225,100
232,100
384,600
6,229,200
1,187,000
5,042,200
231,600
366,700
-1.5% 0.5%
- .9 -5.5
-1.7
1.9
-.7
-.5
-2.4
2.3
448,600
1,468,100
322,400
1,001,100
1,291,200
450,900
1,533,800
322,000
1,006,600
1,295,100
446,500
1,432,700
312,700
985,500
1,266,500
-.5
-4.3
.1
-.6
- .3%
December
1971p
stat es l
United States
Species
Manufacturing ..•.. ••••••
Nonmanufocturing • • ••. •••
Mining ..•.•.••.•..••..
Construction ••••.• •• •.•
calves .. .. . .
Transportation and
public utilities . ..•....
Trade .. ••. . ......••••
Finance •••••••••••••••
Service ••....•••.•....
Government ••••••• ••. •
Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
p - Preliminary
r - Revised
SOURCE: State employment agencies
1
with a less than seasonal outflow
of deposits. The reduction in bank
credit took the form of declines in
both bank loans and bank holdings
of securities.
The fall in bank loans, however,
was slightly less than in comparable periods of recent years, primarily reflecting strength in the
demand for business and real
estate loans and loans to financial
institutions other than banks. The
demand for business loans was
probably associated with the
recovery of economic activity and
the further cut in the prime rate.
.5
2.5
3.1
1.6
2.0%
Milk cows ... . •
Beef cows•••. .
Sheep ........
Stock sheep.
Feeders . ...
Hogs2 ....••• •
Chickens 3 ••••
---
1970
1971
1970
1971
1970
12,578
355
5,791
3,789
3,510
279
1,419
17,267
1,747
12,212
354
5,556
3,708
3,408
300
959
17,096
1,077
22,029
757
9,891
5,239
4,822
417
2,323
28,320
' 1,805
21,590
765
9,611
5,212
4,75 1
461
1,676
28,450
' 1,117
114,568
12,445
37,557
19,560
16,937
2,623
67,540
442,783
7,462
112,303
12,578
36,404
20,28 8
17,411
2,877
56,65 5
433,6 40
6,769
All cattle and
Total nonagricultural
wage and sa lary workers ••
---
1971
1970
6,259,000
1,121,900
5,137,100
230,400
375,300
Texas
Jan.
Janua ry
Type of employment
Five southw estern
Jan. 1971 from
Number of persons
•
Turkeys .. .....
---
1 Arizona, LoUisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas
, Data are lor December of preceding year.
'
Excludes commercial broilers
• Excludes Arizona and New Mexico which were combined with Florida, IdahO,
Montana, and Wyoming to avoid disclosure of Individual state operations
SOURCE : U.S. Department 01 Agricu lture
:l
The rise in real estate loans probably reflected recent reductions in
mortgage rates and increased
construction activity.
The decline in security holdings
was also less than usual in
February, apparently because
banks took into portfolio longterm U.S. Government securities
acquired in the late-January
Treasury refunding. Bank holdings
of other securities fell substantially
more than usual, however, reflecting a sizable decline in short-term
municipals. This was the first
such reduction in bank holdings
of municipal securities since mid1970.
The fall in bank deposits was
due entirely to a larger than usual
decline in demand deposits. Time
and savings deposits other than
large CD's rose sharply in
February. In light of these ample
inflows, banks added only nominally to their CD's outstanding.
On balance, however, they
increased their borrowings from
nondeposit sources. This increase
was reflected largely in a rise
in borrowings in the Eurodollar
market.
@FedFRASER