Full text of Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta : 1982 Annual Report

View original document

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

'1
-L

-.'
1

-L

k..

Evolution/R'uol'tion
in Banking

'-4
I--

Even before ancient Egyptians began
faShblling bOllZe "rkg fllOWf
7,000
years ago, traders used items as diverse as
shells, tea bricks and tobacco braids to
facilitate the exchange of goods and
services. Today, such primitive forms of
money have been supplanted by demand
deposits that can be transferred by checks,
credit cards, debit cards and even by elec
tronic messages. Yet the evolution suggested by the cover of w r annual report
has continued, not only in w r payments
systems but in the financial services
industry that has grown up to serve the
needs of a modern nation. This year's
annual report addresses the evolution that
has taken place in financial services in
general and in the Sixth Federal Reserve
District in particular. It looks at the
legislation and market forces that are
reshaping the District's depository institutions-and it looks at how that evolution
has affected the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta its contributii to monetary policy,
its operations and its people. Helping to
illustrate this year's report are rare numismatic exhibits from the Atlanta Fed's
monetary museum, celebrating its 10th
anniversary this year.

Contents
2

From the Boardroom

Evolution and Monetary Policy

The Monetary Museum Story

The Southeastern Economy
Atlanta Fed Operations
Directors and Officers
Branches
Financial Statements

FROM THE BOARDROOM

For the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, as
for our District’s financial services industry,
1982 proved to be another exciting year.
The industry, which has been undergoing
evolutionary change for years, recently has
witnessed changes that seem almost revolutionary. With provisions of the Depository
Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Con
trol Act of 1980 still being phased in, last
year saw Congress approve further banking
legislatiowthe Garn-St Germain Depository
Institutions Act of 1982.
Those two laws have introduced formal
deregulation to an industry already experiencing de facto deregulation brought about
by a changing marketplace. That transition
had begun even before Congress started
dismantling basic regulatory barriers that
had stood for decades. Local institutions, for
instance, have found themselves contending
not only with out-of-state banks venturing
onto their turf, but with aggressive nonbank
competitors ranging from brokerage and
insurance companies to departMent store
retailers and steel company subsidiaries.
Financial institution mergers and acquisitions also are reshaping the industry under
the combined pressures of increased competition, a deep national recession and other
stresses from an inflated economy that the
Federal Reserve helped cool during 1982.
The industry has responded through such
measures as interstate acquisitions of
troubled institutions, the creation of shared
automated teller netwcrks the establishment of
discount brokerage operations in banks, the
adoption of sweep accounts, and even
mergers between banks and %Ls.
Recent banking legislation represented
one government response to the changing
market environment The Garn-St Germain
bill, for example, incorporated reforms designed to help banks and %Ls compete
against money market mutual funds and
other recent challengers. The introduction of
a new money market account with no
interest ceiling and limited checking privileges
brought a rush of depositors into banks and
S&Ls late in 1982. A similar account-the
so-called Super-NOW account introduced
early in 1983-promised depositors both
high interest rates and unlimited checking.
The Garn-St Germain bill affects the
Atlanta Fed less directly than did the
Monetary Control Act of 1980 (informally

Chairman William A Fickling, Jr. (seated), Deputy Chairman John H. Welnauer, Jr.,
and President William F. Ford.

labeled “MCA-80”). Designed to move the
financial services industry toward a “level
playing field,” MCA-80 actually created a
new competitive environment for both
financial institutions and the Federal
Reserve System.
While we agree philosophically with the
deregulatory goal of stimulating competition
in the financial industry, we also observe
that the new legislation-like the marketinduced innovations that have helped speed
regulatory change-thrust many institutions
into unfamiliar roles. For the Atlanta Fed, for
example, MCA80 created a new relatihip
with nonmember banks, S&Ls and credit
unions within our Sixth District-a region
encompassing all or part of Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Tennessee.
MCA-80 also mandated that the Federal
Reserve Banks begin direct pricing of
services, for the first time, to recover the
costs of services that we traditionally had
provided banks without explicit charges. The
directibe from Congress was unmistakably
clear. Since Congress voted MCA-80 into
law, we have responded by phasing in
charges on such serviceslas check
processing, securities and noncash collee
tion, wire transfers and net settlement
services, and transportation costs in our
cash services area

We believe that our entry into the
marketplace will prove beneficial to both the
public and its financial institutions. When
we began charging for our services, as
Congress instructed us to do, commercial
banks in our District jumped right in to
challenge us in the marketplace. They have
enjoyed some success. Although we have
now stabilized our volume, the Atlanta Fed
early on saw about 12 percent of our
sizable check business shift to commercial ,
banks. Although that volume loss was
significant to us, it was well below the 20
percent loss sustained by Federal Reserve
Banks Systemwide. We were able to limit
our business volume losses by being highly
cost-effective, a performance documented
by the Fed‘s internal cost-accounting measurements. Our cost effectiveness naturally
translates into competitive prices, just as it
does in the private sector.
<
The Atlanta Fed‘s ambitious automation
program also has helped us to do our job
efficiently. We are coping with the highest
check volume and one of the busiest wire
transfer networks in the Federal Reserve w
System, even as we continue to reduce
staff. We have been trimming personnel for
years as automation enhanced ow operations,
but the trend accelerated last year as we
tightened our belts in response to declining
volume. By year-end 1982, our staff had

‘

6
.

declined to just over 2,000, counting our
branches in Birmingham, Jad<sonville, Miami
Nashville and New Orleans. That’s down
from a year-end 1981 total just under
2,200 and a 1975 peak of about 2,850
employees.
We went into the new year with a
streamlined management structure reorganized
in 1982 to face our rapidly changing
environment The major organizational changes,
designed to implement a threeyear strategic
plan, have already begun to strengthen our
Bank and to redirect its resources more
effectively in carrying out our evolving
missions. The changes effectively split the
Bank into a priced service organization and
an organization that attends to our traditional
central banking responsibilities-with a
“Chinese wall” separating the two to ensure
that our competitive and regulatw activities
don’t create either the appearance or the
substance of a conflict of interest.
To prepare our staff to function more
effectively in a competitive environment, we
also initiated a series of intensive training
programs. These have included training
programs for the Bank‘s marketing repre
sentatives and operations managers and a
series of customer relations training programs
that has continued into 1983.
Our various initiatives helped us through
a challenging year of transition, made more

Number of Employees, Sixth Federal
Resewe District

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500
-

- -

difficult as the nation endured a frustrating
recession throughout 1982. As in 1981, last
year brought continued headlines prodaiming
rising unemployment, troublesome business
failures and weak demand for the economy‘s
output Our Sixth District, which had
weathered a 1980 slowdown rather painlessly, felt the full brunt of the latest
recession, with some District states among
those reporting the nation’s highest
unemployment rates.
Since our southeastern states remain
dependent on national and international
markets, our recovery hinges on increasing
demand at home and abroad for the
products we generate. Still, we believe the
Southeast retains basic economic strengths
that should help the region profit quickly
from the rebound that seemed to be
developing early in 1983.
The national recession and the host of
new instruments being introduced by finan
cia1 institutions complicated the Federal
Reserve’s conduct of monetary policy in
1982. Monetary policy was further complicated by a fiscal explosion that blasted the
federal budaet deficit to the $1 10 billion
level, claimhg an unhealthy share of th
nation’s credit supply. However, private
demand for credit collapsed under
weight of the recession, so interes
eased despite the Treasury’s huge
With interest rates declining going into
1983, it has become possible to shape
monetary policy to provide a base for a
stable recovery without an immediate resurgence of inflation. Yet, with the possibility of
&en larger deficits looming in the next few
years, the stability of recovery could be
endangered unless we move with caution.
As the private sector‘s demands for credit
grow, the conflict between public and
private credit needs could trigger strong
upward pressure on interest rates. An
excessively liberal injection of credit by the
Fed could reawaken inflationary fears,
laying the groundwork for a recession even
more serious than the one we are now
shaking off.
The-latest recession and the transformation in financial services have affected
the banks and thrift institutions in our
District as well as across the nation.
Nationally, 34 banks failed 01 merged with
regulatory assistance during 1982, including

five within our District The savings and
loan industry has had a rougher time of it:
14 S&Ls in our District either were
liquidated or disappeared through an assisted
merger.
Gwen the importance of the transformation
taking place in financial services, our Bank
has sought to shed light on the subject We
have tried to accomplish that through a
visiting speakers’program for Bank directors
and Southeast business leaders, through our
Research Department publiqtions, and
through a series of nationally significant
conferences. For instance, our conferences
on the financial services industry and the
U.S. payments system in 1981 and on
supply-side economics in 1982 each attracted 300 to 400 visitors from across our
District and beyond. We followed in March
1983 with a conference on growth
industries. Those conferences have helped
to establish our Bank as a respected
forum for financial subjects and other
selected issues of concern to business
people in our District
Our distinguished guest speakers for
1982 included Federal Reserve Board
Chairman Paul Volcker, who addressed
Bank directors at a meeting in Knoxville;
Preston Martin, appointed in 1982 as
Federal Reserve Board vice chairman; Albert
Cox, president of Merrill Lynch Economics;
William A Niskanen Jr., a member of the
President’s Council of Economic Advisers;
Edwin L Harper, who spoke to us as
deputy director of the Office of Management
and Budget but now is assistant to the
Resident for policy development C.T. Conover,
comptroller of the currency; U.S. Treasurer
Angela M. Buchanan; Karen Horn, president
of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland;
and John F. Fisher, senior vice president of
Banc One Corporation of Ohio.
Other major changes during 1982 included
the election of Bernard F. Sliger, president

of Florida State University in Tallahassee, to
the Bank‘s board of directors for a threeyear term. Dr. Sliger succeeds Jean McArthur
Davis, president of McArthur Dairy, Inc. of
Miami, whom we would like to thank for her
respected counsel as a director. Philip F.
Searle, chairman and chief executive officer
of Flagship Banks of Miami, was also
appointed by directors of the Atlanta Fed to
serve as the Sixth District’s representative
on the Federal Advisory Council for 1983.
He succeeds Robert Strickland, chairman of
Trust Company of Georgia, of Atlanta, who
also leaves the “Fed family” with our best
wishes.
With the counsel of our new directors, we
expect our Bank to retain its traditional
leadership in efficiency while coping with
the new challenges posed by a changing
financial services industry. We are confident
that, with the commitment and dedication of
our employees in Atlanta and our branches,
we will be able to cope with tomorrow’s
challenges just as we have responded to
the forces for change of the recent past.

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

Chairman Fickling, Deputy Chairman Weitnauer with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker at Knoxville
directors’ meeting

WILLIAM A FICKLING, JR
CHAIRMAN

M&Lgr.
JOHN H WEITNAUER, JR
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

R&&e

WILLIAM F FORD
PRESIDENT
v

EVOLUTION AND MONETARY

mum

The evolution of financial institutions is
clearly visible in our fast-changing world of
Super-NOWs, interstate banking, and the
marketing of financial services in supermarkets and department stores. Evolution may
be less visible in monetary policy, but it,
too, has been changing. So has the Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s role as a
contributor to the process of shaping
monetary policy.

A Regional Reserve BanWs Role
in Monetary Policy
It’s almost 11 o’clock on a weekday
morning at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta, and research director Donald L
Koch and research officer Robert E Keleher
have just joined Resident Ford in his firstfloor office. After they have reviewed briefly
the latest economic and financial developments, the conference telephone rings and
they are in touch with the Board of
Governors staff in Washington and the
“open market desk at the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York. The open market desk,
which acts as the Federal Reserve System’s
agent in carrying out monetary policy,
initiates such “morning calls” daily to be
sure its actions are fully consistent with the
spirit of the monetary policymakers’ current
directive.
Monetary policy is shaped by the Federal
Open Market Committee (the FOMC), which
consists of the seven members of the Board

Research Director
Donald L Koch

of Governors, the president of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, and, on a
rotating basis, four of the other 11 Reserve
Bank presidents. President Ford, who completed a oneyear term as a voting member
of the FOMC in March 1983, has been on
call for these daily telephone conferences
for two six-week periods during that term,
alternating with the other four voting
presidents. Even as a nonvoting president,
Ford will continue to attend the regular
FOMC meetings and to participate fully in
the discussions prior to a vote.
The FOMC takes its name from the
System’s “open market operations”-purchases and sales of Treasury Department
securities on the open securities market.
When the System buys, it pays by crediting
the reserve accounts of depository institutions, increasing their ability to make loans
and thereby adding to the nation’s money
supply. When the System sells, the reverse
occurs, tightening available reserves and,
ultimately, money. The System can and
does also implement monetary pdicy through
changes in the discount rate (the rate that
Federal Reserve Banks charge on loans to
depository institutions) or in reserve require
ments. But it uses those instruments rather
infrequently. Open market operations, on the
other hand, are carried on daily and are the
System’s principal policy tool.
The FOMC obviously is an influential
committee with an important assignment
that demands superb professional support
To provide the FOMC and individual presidents with current, accurate information on
which to base decisions, each Reserve Bank
maintains an ongoing economic research
program At the Atlanta Fed, for example,
huge volumes of data stream into the

Research Department to be analyzed and
interpreted by our economists. The economists distill the data into a policy document
that is discussed with President Ford at a
briefing session prior to each FOMC
meeting. Between meetings, our senior
economists keep him updated for those
“morning calls.”
Sophisticated computers have been added
recently to the Atlanta Fed‘s research
operation to speed the process of collecting
and refining data Automation assures that
the information is more current and that the
economists spend legs time on statistical
processing, leaving them more hours for
thoughtful interpretation. The Atlanta Fed‘s
regional database has been expanded, and
access to both regional and national data
has been improved, through a system of
graphics-oriented computers. During 1982,
portable mini-computers were also added
and staff members are encouraged to take
them home when necessary, further facilitating their work
Some of the most significant input,
however, comes not in the form of statistical
data but in well-researched reports on local
economic conditions provided by our Banks
44 directors from cities and towns thrwghout the District. Reserve Bank directors are
selected for their experience, judgment, and
ability to detect economic developments
before they have affected the statistics. At
each monthly meeting of the Atlanta Fed‘s
board, for example, our visiting branch and
head office directors provide President Ford
valuable guidance on conditions within the
various geographic regions and diverse
businesses in which they live and work
daily.

Monetwy Policy Meeta a New
ChaUenge in a New Way

lhe evolution of monetary policy took a
dramatic tum with the Federal Reserve
Board‘s announcement of a shift in strategy
on October 6,1979. On that date, the
b a r d announced it would turn its attention
from controlling money primarily through
interest rates to controlling money primarily
through reserves.
Federal Resenre governors had decided to
undertake a bold new strategy for contending with inflation, a festering problem that
was eroding the integrity of the dollar,
undermining the American tradition of thrift
and, ultimately, sapping the nation’s cornp e t i t i i in the world marketplace.
Inflation, of course, is a national affliction
that occurs when money is created at a
faster rate than the supply of real goods
and services produced by our economy. The
chain of events that led up to the outburst
of inflation we experienced in the 1970s
and early 1980s looked something like this:
0 In small doses,inflation was tolerated
easily by post-Wd War II decisionmakers
with painful memories of the Great Depression. But it gracluatty became embedded in
the nation’s thinking and planning Subtly,
the nation’s concept of an “acceptable” level
of inflation rose from 1 or 2 percent in the
1950s and 1960s to 4 or 5 percent in the
early 1970s. By the end of the decade, we
crossed that threshold and experienced
double-digit inflation for the first time in
many years.
.The incentive to save also withered, as
Americans concluded that next year‘s prices
inevitably would be higher. Regulatary
ceilings on the interest rates paid on their
savings would prevent them from
offsetting inflation’s bite, they concluded
And, since interest income was taxable
anyway, why save?

The reduced savings rate stunted growth
of the nation’s pool of credit And persistent
federal budget deficits demanded more and
more credit, making relatively less available
to finance improvements in the nation’s
plants and equipment. Consequently, productivity growth turned sluggish.
0 There were, however, increased incentives
to borrow. Since interest payments were tax
deductible, the reasoning went, why not
borrow to buy now in anticipation of next
year‘s price hikes? Consumers, business
people, and the U. S. Treasury were then
bidding against each other for credit, putting
upward pressure on interest rates.
0 When key interest rates edged above
targeted lev& the Fed occasionally supplied
additional reserves. This tended-for a
t i m e t o hold interest rates in check,
although it also tended to accelerate the
growth of the nation’s money supply.
0 Despite the Fed‘s best efforts, interest
rates strained upward Long-term lenders, in
particular, could see the bad arithmetic of
lending at rates that failed to compensate
for inflation. But the inflation rate was by
then in the double-digit range, with the
CPl’s annual average growth peaking at
13.5 percent in 1980. The incentive to
borrow was even stronger, the incentive to
save weaker.
0 Because Regulation Q kept a tight lid on
the rates that depository institutions could
pay to bank depositors, they began looking
for ways to protect themselves against
inflation and to enjoy some of the benefits
of higher market rates. The scene was then
set for unregulated financial institutions to
create innovative accounts to attract rate
sensitive funds. And attract them they did.
Money market mutual funds reached the
$230 billion level in 1982 before they
began to decline.
With the demand for credit strong, excess
reserves were quickly converted into demand
deposits as banks put more and bigger

loans on their books. More items moved
from the public’s wish-list to the shopping
list But productivity lagged. Prices rose
more and more rapidly, until double-digit
rates finally sounded the alarm to mobilize
a counterattack Some have said that high
interest rates contributed to the current
recession. Yet interest rates were high
because the inflation rate was high. Inflationary acpectations forced lenders to charge
and depositors to demand ever higher rates.
The Fed‘s revised monetary policy strategy,
then, focused on inflation’s roots rather than
its nettlesome interest-rate thorns.

InfZationRemains the Underlying
Problem

As Chairman Volcker has said repeatedly,
interest rates will not come down to
acceptable levels until the inflation rate has
been brought down to stay. Any attempt to
force interest rates down now would likely
fail and almost surely would plant the seeds
of a future recession with roots similar to
those of the present slowdown.
From December 1981 through December
1982, the nation’s inflation rate slowed to
3.9 percent from 8.9 percent in 1981, as
measured by the closely watched consumer
price index. By other measures, too, the
inflation rate slowed encouragingly; the
gross national product deflator for the fourth
quarter of 1982 registered a 4.6 percent
rise from the previous year, compared to an
8.9 percent jump during 1981, and the
producer price index for December 1982
edged up 3.5 percent from a year earlier,
compared with a 7.2 percent increase in
1981.
So Fed officials will continue to reiterate
the Chairman’s message: Inflation remains
the underlying problem, and controlling it is
the only way to attack the related problems
of high interest rates and sluggish economic
activity.

c -

Recent largescale transfers of funds
between various types of accounts, both old
and new, have temporarily distorted the
traditional money stock measures and sent
out confusing signals of Federal Reserve
intentions. But the underlying focus of
rnmtaty policy should not be misunderstood:
Inflation remains the basic problem Progress
on the inflation front reinforced the Fed's
credibility in 1982. To let that progress slip
now, in an effort to force interest rates
down and speed the recovery, would be to
invite more problems down the road. The
financial markets, in particular, must continue
to have faith that the Fed's word is its
bond, and that the fight against inflation will
not be abandoned.
As Chairman Volcker told the 58th
meeting of the New England Council in
Boston late in 1982:
"Obviously, further reductions in interest
rates would be welcome. But we also want

Inflation

U.S. Producer Price Index All Cornmodlies
(Percent Change)

A-

I-

1980

1981

to be sure that lower rates can continue so
that the recovery will last. Therein lies the
challenge for economic policy-and for
monetary policy specifically: We need to
combine recovery with further progress
toward stability or we would risk losing
both."

E m i s t Mary Rosenbaum and research analysts Joe Ooyle and Bob Goudreau prepare Wifing materials

for FOMC.
1-

1982

THE MONETARY MUSEUM STORY

The Evolution of Money

At the end of World War II, the
Hungarian monetary system was ravaged
in what became a textbook case of
inflation gone wild.
A showcase of that era is on display
with other rare numismatic items at the
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s Mone
taw Museum, celebrating its 10th anniversary this year.
The thirdfloor museum incorporates an
exhibit that features a 1946 Hungarian
note for 100 million “bilpengos.” Since
“bilpengo” translates to a trillion pengos,
the note was actually for 100 quintillion
(or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000) pengos
Before the war, one of the central
European nation’s pengos was worth
about 18 US. cents. After the war, this
100 quintillion pengo note was worth only
about 30 cents. Like such other museum
exhibits as the ill-starred German mark of
the 1920s, the bilpengo episode provides
a chilling glimpse of inflation running out
of control.
The Atlanta Fed‘s museum serves as a
textbook on the evolution of money, from
extreme examples of inflation such as the
pengo to an outline of the Federal Reserve
System’s own mechanisms for controlling

Chinese money tree

ac.

Mtng dynasty paper note

the money supply. The museum’s display
cases feature diverse items-shells, tea
bricks, tobacco-braids as well as coins
and notes-that have served as money
during mankind‘s long search for ways to
facilitate trade and to provide better lives
for more and more people. The story
begins with barter and goes on to demand
deposits and electronic transfers.
Back in the 192Os, a few far-sighted
people at the Atlanta Fed realized there
was an important story to be told about
money, and that actual notes and coins
could help tell that story. At that time, the
nation’s cash supply included gold coins
and gold certificates, silver certificates,
United States notes, national bank notes,
and Federal Reserve Bank notes as well
as Federal Reserve notes. Still other types
of currency-even fractional notes dating
back to the Civil War-occasionally came
to the Fed in regular cash deposits. But
the handwriting was on the wall: Many of
those types of currency were already
disappearing, and the need for others no
longer existed. So Atlanta Fed staffers
began selecting a few specimens of each,
building a collection they hoped would
form the nucleus of a future display.
A committee of three was appointed in
1968 to determine whether any kind of
money museum would be a feasible and
justifiable undertaking for a Federal
Reserve Bank The committee’s report
was affirmative: members concluded that
such aproject could be undertaken
successfully by a Reserve Bank, and

would be justifiable if it had a serious
educational objectivecontributing significantly to a better public understanding
of money and its function. The same
committee was then given authority to
make it happen.
Money museums already existed at
New York’s Chase Manhattan Bank and
at the National Bank of Detroit, and the
national numismatic collection was enshrined at the Smithsonian Institution’s
Museum of History and Technology in
Washington. After visiting these and
interviewing their helpful curators, the
committee conceived its own, unique
approach. Our museum would tell the story
of the evolution of money as a medium of
exchange, and its concept of money would
be broad enough to include what some
other museums did not even recognize as
money-demand deposits, those intangible
claims on credit at depository institutions
that represent the latest product of monetary
evolution. And the museum wwld also
suggest future evolution in the electronic
age just dawning.
The Atlanta Fed‘s Monetary Museum,
which opened in the spring of 1973, offers
many thought-provoking items to show to
visitors-who can make reservations by
calling (404) 586-8747. Exhibits include
a real gold bar weighing about 27 pounds,
an uncut sheet of a dozen $100,000 gold
certificates, and an extremely rare 1794
silver dollar.
Recently, the museum added an eight
foot
photomural of a $1 silver certificate

issued in 1896 as part of an “educational
series” generally considered the most
beautiful currency series ever produced by
our nation. The photomural highlights an
exhibit featuring “The At of the Engraver.”
The Monetary Museum’s greatest significance, though, is not for numismatists,
but for educators and the general public.
By telling the story of where monetary
evolution has led us, it sets the visitor to
thinking about where we’re going.
For instance, the museum also features
that Hungarian note with its astronomical
denomination of 100 quintillion pengos.
Similarly, it offers examples of the
German mark weakened by rampant
inflation during the Weimar Republic. And,
significantly, it also includes an assurance
of the Federal Reserve’s resolve that the
same thing won’t be allowed to happen in
our country.

Statechartered banks issued their own notes
until Civil War legislation imposed a tax on
them.

THE SOUTHEASTERN ECONOMY

Disney Worlds Epcot Center is stimulating Florida tcurism.

After another year of recession, southeastern states entered 1983 generally
well-positioned to take advantage of a
national rebound. States in the Sixth
Federal Reserve District possess basic
economic strengths that should help the
region benefit quickly from even a cautious
national recovery.
The national outlook remains vitally
important to the Sixth District-a region
that encompasses all or part of Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi
and Tennessee-because so many of its
manufacturers and growers are dependent
on national and international markets.
Therefore, according to Federal Reserve
Bank of Atlanta economists, the District
cannot expect significant improvement
until consumers at home and abroad
increase their demand for products.
Early in 1983, the long-awaited national
recovery seemed to hinge significantly on
interest rates, whose downward movement
late in 1982 had introduced a measure of
optimism in such recession-battered industries as homebuilding and automobile
manufacturing., Both of those industries
are important, either directly or indirectly,
to workers in the District who labor in
plants producing everything from bricks to
upholstery fabric.
The widespread gloom of 1982 seemed
to be relieved only by an encouraging
decline in interest rate levels and a
cheering slowdawn in the national inflation
rate, good news for consumers, hardpressed businessmen, farmers carrying
heavy indebtedness, and others.
Atlanta Fed economists note too that a
continued decline of interest rates would
help consumers buy houses, autos and a

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
10
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

host of. retail products. Renewed buying
by consumers would deplete merchants’
shelves and encourage them to reorder,
spurring additional production in southeastern plants either closed by the
recession or working on curtailed shifts.
Our economists believe that the chain
reaction, though it may prove slow at first,
should build momentum as 1983 progresses
Of the six states in the District, Florida
and Georgia appear likely to continue
outperforming both the nation and neighboring southeastern states. The outlook
for other District states seems less
predictable, as they are dependent on the
recovery of such industries as autos,
housing and energy.
Those trends point out what is more
obvious to Southeasterners than to outsiders who lump the District states
together into the catch-all category of
“the Sunbelt”: the region is a diverse one,
not an economic monolith, and the recession has underscored the strengths and
weaknesses of individual states.
Despite the recession’s varying impact
on District states, every one faces a long
road back to solid economic growth. They
look back on a year that was marked by
headlines proclaiming corporate bankruptcies, forced mergers of financial
institutions and, of course, relentlessly
rising joblessness.
By January 1983, states in the Sixth
District were reporting a seasonally adjusted
unemployment rate of 11 percent-slightly
higher than the national average and a full
3.6 percentage points higher than the rate
for July 1981, official starting date for the
recession. Alabama was reporting one of the
highest jobless rates in the nation and only

two District states-Florida and Georgiashowed rates below the national average.
What’s more, that rate was expected to
continue edging higher before it could
begin a slow return to more normal levels.
Still, some economists found reason for
encouragement.
For example, the whole services-producing sector has held up well throughout the
recession. That has proven a godsend to
such serviceoriented metropolitan areas
as Atlanta, whose strength during 1982
helped Georgia maintain the lowest unemployment rate in the region. As a national
recovery gains momentum, even more jobs
should be created in wholesale and retail
trade, finance, insurance, and real estate,
as the multiplier effect of higher workers’
incomes ripples through the economy.
Construction was gaining strength going
into the new year, with residential building
permits increasing in response to declining
mortgage rates. Before that upturn began
in September, actual construction had
fallen about 26 percent from the previous
year in measured units.
lbe construction uptum is being watched
closely by related industries such as wood
products and textiles. A construction
revival normally is felt rather quickly in
the Southeast, and the recovery that
seemed to be developing early in 1983
appeared to be no exception. If interest
rates continue to decline, construction
should provide renewed strength to the
southeastern economy.
Entering 1983, there was evidence that
the outlook was improving even for
manufacturing firms, as consumers began
spending a bit more freely. Much of the
region’s joblessness has been attributable
to hard-hit durable goods industries, a
factor that helps to explain the recession’s
impact on Alabama with its steel mills
and other heavy industry. However, nondurable goods important to the r e g i o w
such as textiles, apparel, paper and
chemicals-also suffered in 1982.
Tourism activity, given a shot in the
arm last year by the Worlds Fair in
Knoxville, should be stimulated this year
by Walt Disney Worlds Experimental
Prototype Comnunity of T m c w (EPCOT)
attraction in central Florida, which opened
last October. Late in 1982, more visitors
began arriving or booking airplane or hotel

‘

reservations in Florida; other states
throughout the Southeast seem likely to
join in the rebound as potential tourists
find more money in their pockets.
Although most public spending remained
in a slump going into 1983, defense
spending seems certain to stimulate the
region's economy this year. Defense production jobs, particularly in electronics
and transportation equipment, are expected
to gain strength during the year.
District depository institutions found
themselves squeezed by new competition
and other factors accompanying continued
deregulation of the financial services
industry. Five banks within our District
failed or merged with regulatory assistance
in 1982, as did 14 savings and loan
associations. Still, new money market
accounts introduced by banks and %Is
near yearend brought new optimism as
well as a flood of new deposits to the
institutions; total deposits in the new account had grown to more than $300 billion
by March 1983.
Slow international trade growth appears
likely to inhibit southeastern mining activity in 1983, with coal exports likely to
level off or decline slightly from 1982. The
stagnation of European, Canadian and
Japanese economies may limit the growth
of paper, transportation and public utilities
Southeastern ports also may see a loss in
trade share if they maintain close ties to
debt-burdened Latin American countries.
The region's farmers, still trying to pick
up the pieces after years of drought, had
to cope with low prices and rising costs
during 1982. Nevertheless, they are hope
ful of reducing indebtedness this year if
nature and their creditors will cooperate.

Unemployment Rate, Sixth District States -1 982
(Percent)
20
-

15
10
5
-

15
10

Sixth District Residential Construction (Thousand Units)
(12 month cumulative rate)
400

300

200

100

ATLANTA l?ED OPERATIONS

Evolution Throughhrganizzation
Although the pressures for some kind of
major financial change had been emerging
for some time, the Monetary Control Act
of 1980 still hit the financial world with
explosive force. More than two years
later, in fact, its reverberations continue to
rattle around the nation’s banking system
In our corner of that system, the act‘s
major bombshell was its requirement that
the Federal Reserve Banks price their
services to depository institutions.
These services, previously prwided fre
include the transportation of currency and
coin, check clearing and collection, wire
transfer, automated clearinghouse (ACH)
transfers, net settlement services and,
finally, securities safekeeping and transfer.
Federal Reserve “float” also is scheduled
for pricing, and a charge is to be assessed
on any new service, including electronic
payments. The act also directed the 12
district Reserve Banks to make these
services available to all depository institutions.
To carry out the MCA-80 mandate,
Reserve Banks across the nation were
required to make a great leap forwardthey needed to enter the competitive
market from which they had always been
sheltered.
In Atlanta, we made this change by
reorganizing and splitting the Bank into
two separate organizations: priced services and central banking services. Under
priced services we developed new staffs
for sales, pricing, product development,
and wholesale marketing We also strengtb
ened our automation and planning departments. We have insulated these priced
services from our traditional central banking duties: supervision and regulation,
discount and credit, and economic policy
research.

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
12
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4’

System-wide committees help the Federal Reserve respond to rapid changes in the nation’s banking system.

Priced Services Into the

overhead and interest on items credited
prior to actual collection-what we call

Wardlyn Bassler, Robby Robinson, and Barry Chalfailt confer on priced semces.

*-t

below full cost in certain situations to
provide an adequate level of service
nationwide. We can change fee schedules-with advance notice-to be responsive to markets. We can design the fee
structures and service arrangements both
to improve the utilization of Federal
Reserve services and to reflect long-run
improvements in the nation's payments
system. And we are responsible for
developing policies that explain exactly
how our prices will be set

'72 '77 '80 '81 '82

Thus far our experience with pricing
has been about as we expected, with the
volume of checks processed by the
Federal Reserve System initially dropping
about 20 percent as we entered the
competitive arena Most of that loss can
be attributed to improved efficiency in the
nation’s payments system. With more
local and regional clearings, checks pass
through fewer hands. Over time, we
expect further structural losses as smaller
demsitcq institutions are absorbed through
mergers-and acquisitions by holding companies. When that happens, of course,
more of their checks become “on us”
items that are cleared within the larger
banks.
k t competition is not just in checks.
Since we began offering a sameday net
settlement service for the private Bankwire
system, the Bankwire has slashed its
prices for local and interregional transfers
to challenge our wire transfer dominance.
We also expect competition in ACH as
private networks are developed. In the
securities area, large money center banks
and securities depositories are now competing with us for the government securities transfer business.
MCA-80 has given us an added incentive to be more cost conscious and more
customer oriented. It has also suggested
that we broaden our thinking about new
services. It has allowed us to be more
creative, and that has translated into
benefits for those we serve.
Hundreds of employees throughout the
Sixth District got a first-hand glimpse of
the new orientation during two major
training programs conducted by the Human
Resources department. The first, which
ran from May through July, was a
marketing training program for Bank
officers, operation managers, and marketing representatives. The program, intended
to improve basic marketing skills and
strategies throughout the Bank, included
the development of product profiles for
each of the Banks key services.

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
14
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1
3.

J
In September, the Bank launched a
comprehensive training program in customer relations. This continuing series,
designed for the almost 500 employees
who deal regularly with financial institutions and the public, represents a concentrated effort to provide clients with
professional, responsive and cooperative
service. Besides training in interpersonal
and telephone skills, the program has
expanded each employee’s knowledge of
Bank organization and of the products and
services affected by MCA-80.

Central Bank Responsibilities

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

Huge, bulging briefcases-the classic
symbol of the bank examiner-also symbolize many of our central bank responsibilities. Along with economic policy
research (detailed earlier in this report),
these central bank services include bank
supervision and regulation, discount and
credit operations, and statistical reports.

In an effort to lighten the burden of
regulation and reduce the amount of
intrusive time spent examining the member
banks and bank holding companies we
supervise, we developed and tested a new
examination approach in 1982. This pilot
program, based on a team approach, used
a new off-site analysis report that proved
very successful. As a result, we will be
adopting this strategy for all regular
examinations and inspections. The new
concept should reduce field time and
enhance our supervisory effectiveness.
Evolutionary forces changing the financial industry produced more activity in
supervision and regulation. The number of
existing and approved bank holding companies based in the District jumped 59
percent, from 249 at year-end 1981 to
398 at the end of 1982. Applications filed
by bank holding companies to acquire
bank or nonbank firms-or applications to
create new bank holding companies-rose
18 percent. International financial organizations in the District rose from 83 in
1981 to 106 in 1982.
Early in 1983, the Atlanta Fed reached
an agreement with the Louisiana State
Banking Department to provide for alternating examinations of state-chartered
Federal Reserve member banks in the
Pelican State.
Like similar agreements we signed in
1981 with banking authorities in Georgia
and Alabama, the agreement with
Louisiana is designed to provide savings
for Atlanta Fed and state regulators as
well as for the commercial banks being
examined. The previous agreements have
convinced us that we can achieve these
savings without affecting the quality of
examinations.
Under the new agreement, we will
alternate with the Louisiana department's
staff in examining five member banks in
the southern portion of the state and will
share information and costs. The Dallas
Fed reached a similar agreement with
Louisiana covering member banks in the
northern portion of the state.

3ank Holding Companies
lumber of Applications Received
Iederal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

400
200
-

e-.

'77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82

DISCOUNT AND CREDIT
Lending activlty in the Sixth District
was relatively low throughout most of
1982. During the first half of the year,
daily borrowings averaged $40.5 million,
more than double the very low second half
average of $15.1 million. Average daily
borrowings for the entire year were $27.8
million. Federal Reserve credit was extended by this Bank to 122 depository
institutions in 1982. The discount rate
was reduced seven times between July
and December, lowering the rate from 12
percent to 8.5 percent at year end
Since MCA-80 extended access to the
Fed's Discount Window to all depository
institutions offering transaction accounts
and to nondeposit~ryinstitutions in emergencies, the Atlanta Fed's Discount and
Credit department expanded its data
sources to m e r the new institutions.
Microcomputers simplified the task by
providing easy access to data on the new
borrowers and by allowing expanded
analyses and faster preparation of daily,
weekly, and monthly reports.

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
16
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

STATISTICAL REPORTS
The forces of deregulation powerfully
affected the Statistical Reports department again this year. New accounts
associated with the changing environment necessitated several special surveys
of depository institutions during 1982. The
growth of holding companies and foreign
banking activity in the District kept this
department operating at full tilt
At the same time, the department
participated in an ongoing effort to reduce
the burden of reporting requirements. The
report burden associated with collecting
consumer credit data was reduced 50
percent systemwide In our District, we
eliminated one consumer report, reduced
two others and eliminated three other
reports during the year. We reduced the
staff in the Atlanta Statistical Reports
department by five from the previous year.

The Sixth District Long Range Automation Plan, developed in 1980, outlined a
gradual conversion from decentralized data
-j
processing in each office to centralized
processing using Systemwide standard
p;i((
software in the Atlanta office The importance
of the new automation strategy
e-)
become even more apparent in 1982 as
-9
the Bank moved to cope with MCA-80’s
2 wideranging effects.
The conversion moved ahead in 1982
with the installation of a new IBM 4341-2
mainframe computer and the beginning of
4
live operations for the FRCS-80 (Federal
84
Reserve Communications System) netwwk
We also began the multi-year process of
4
converting the Fedwire network to the
new centralized system. A central Aut@
&-,
mation Information Center was developed
to provide consulting services to all
departments using the mainframe, mini, or
personal computers.
A major new development in automation
was the expanded use of microtu
computers throughout the Bank Micros
i
spread into several areas, including
t’
Research, Planning, Supervision and
Regulation, and Discount and Credit. The
* micros enabled employees to respond
Y
faster to inquiries from financial institutions and the public. They also provided

broader access to mainframe computers
and outside data sources.
In Supervision and Regulation, for
example, the micro (or personal) computer
opened up a whole new era By substituting “desk-top” financial analysis for onsite inspection, the micro promises to
reduce our presence in the banks while
improving the quality of examinations.
Instant graphics help boil down a complex

financial situation to the key relationships.
Rapid development of scenarios provides
a bank or an examiner with a much
broader look at the range of options. By
the end of 1983, we expect to have
portable terminals with examiners in the
field, providing an almost completely
automated system. As helpful as these
changes are, however, we don’t expect the
computer to eliminate the need for on-site
examinations. But we do expect the
micros to reduce substantially the time
our examiners spend in each local bank

Board of D k c f @ m1982
WILLIAM A FICKLING, JR., CHAIRMAN
Chairman and Chief Executive,
Charter Medical Corporation
Macon Georgia

JOHN H. WEITNAUER, JR,
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Richway
Atlanta Georgia

DAN B. ANDREWS
Resident,
First National Bank
Dickson, Tennessee

HAROLD B. BLACH, JR.
President,
Blachs, Inc
Birmingham, Alabama

GUY W. B O T S
Chairman of the Board,
Barnett Banks of Florida, Inc
Jacksonville, Florida

JANE C. COUSINS
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Merrill Lynch Realty/Cwsins
Miami, Florida

JEAN McARTHUR DAVIS
President,
McArthur Dairy, Inc.
Miami, Florida
(standing left to rigM) Blach, Thompson, Cousins, Andrews, Strickland.
(seated left to right) Davis, Wilkon, Botts

HORATIO C. THOMPSON
President,
Horatio Thompson Investment, Inc.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

HUGH M. WILLSON
President,
Citizens National Bank
Athens, Tennessee

Federal Advisory Council
Welcome
BERNARD F. SLIGER,

President, Florida state
University, Tallahassee, Florida, has been elected to a
three-year term on the Board of Directors of this
Bank

PHILIP F. SEARLE, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Flagship Banks Inc., Miami, has been
appointed by w r Board of Directors to serve as the
Sixth Federal Resetve District's representative on the
Federal Advisory Council for 1983.
We look forward to a pleasant association with these
distinguished men.

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
18
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ROBERT STRICKLAND
Chairman,
Trust Company of Georgia
Atlanta Georgia

Senior O f i e r s
WILLIAM F. FORD

Management Committee
ROBERT P. FORRESTAL

President

First Vice President

ROBERT P. FORRESTAL

ARTHUR H. KANTNER

First Vice President

Executive Vice Resident

ARTHUR H. KANTNER

W. R CALDWELL

Executive Vice President

Senior Vice President

W. R CALDWELL

JACK GUYNN

Senior Vice President

JACK GUYNN
Senior Vice President

B. H. HARGEll
Senior Vice President

Senior Vice President

B. H. H A R G E l l
Senior Vice President

DONALD L KOCH
Senior Vice Resident and
Director of Research

DONALD L KOCH
Senior Vice President and
Director of Research

HARRY C. SCHlERlNG
General Auditor

HARRY BRANDT
Corporate Secretary and
Assistant to the President

WILLIAM N. COX, Ill
Vice President and
Associate Director of Research

FRANK CRAVEN
Vice President

W. M. DAVIS
Vice President

ROBERT E. HECK
Vice President

JOHN R. KERR
Vice President

ELY S. MAllERI
Vice President

RICHARD OLIVER
T
3

Vice President

H. TERRY SMITH
Vice President

*'
*

I*:

JOHN M. WALLACE

(standing left to rigM) Koch, Hargett, Schiering '
(seated left to right) Caldwell, Guynn, Forrestal, Kantner

Vice President

EDMUND WILLINGHAM
Vice President and
General Counsel

-4

BRANCHES

i s

kfi

rjmnch M a w e l t
Pelmar Harrison
Vice President

Bmnch Manugelt
Fred R Herr
Vice President

Jacksonville
cy,
Bmnch Manageq
Charles D. East
IVicePresident

Irm

1982 Directors

WILLIAM H. MARTIN, Ill
CHAIRMAN
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Martin Industries, Inc
Florence, Alabama

C. GORDON JONES
President and Chief Executive Officer,
First National Bank of Decatur
Decatur, Alabama

SAMUEL RICHARDSON H I L l JR.
President,
University of Alabama in Birmingham
Birmingham, Alabama

HENRY A LESLIE
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Union Bank & Trust Company
Montgomery, Alabama

MARTHA MclNNlS
Executive Vice President,
Alabama Environmental Quality Association
Montgomery, Alabama

WILLIAM M. SCHROEDER
Chairman and President,
Central State Bank
Calera Alabama

LOUIS J. WILLIE

Welcome. . .
to incoming
Bmnch directors

1982 Directors

COPELAND D. NEWBERN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman of the Board,
Newbern Groves, Inc.
Tampa, Florida

GORDON W. CAMPBELL
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Exchange Bancorporation, Inc.
Tampa Florida

LEWIS A DOMAN
President,
Citizens and Peoples National Bank
Pensacola Florida

JEROME P. KEUPER
President,
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Florida

WHITFIELD M. PALMER, JR.
Chairman,
Mid-Florida Mining Go.,
Ocala Florida

JOAN W. STEIN
Chairman,
Regency Square Properties, Inc.
Jacksonville, Florida

BILLY J. WALKER

Executive Vice President,
Booker T. Washington Insurance Company
Birmingham, Alabama

President,
Atlantic Bancorporation
Jacksonville, Florida

G. MACK DOVE

ROY G. GREEN

President,
AAA Cooper Transportation Company
Dothan, Alabama

President,
First Federal Savings and
Loan Association of Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Florida

* - -

GRADY GILLAM
Resident and Chief Executive Officer,
The American National Bank
Gadsden, Alabama

E. F. KEEN, JR.
Vtce Chairman and President,
Ellis Banking Corporation
Bradenton, Florida

E. WILLIAM NASH, JR., CLU
Resident,
South-Central Operations
Prudential Life Insurance
Company of America
Jacksonville, Florida

Bmnch Managen
Patrick K Barron
Vice President

Nashville
Branch Manaaen
J e m J . Wells
Vice President

New Orleans
Branch M a m e l t
Jcimes D. Ha&m
Vice President

1982 Directors

EUGENE COHEN, CHAIRMAN

CECELIA ADKINS, CHAIRMAN

LESLIE B. LAMPTON, CHAIRMAN

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Coconut Grove, Florida

Executive Director,
Sunday School Rblishing Board
Nashville, Tennessee

President,
Ergon, Inc.
Jackson, Mississippi

MICHAEL T. CHRISTIAN

JERRY W. BRENTS

President and Chief Executive Officer,
Commerce Union Bank Greeneville
Greeneville. Tennessee

President and Chief Executive Officer,
First National Bank
Lafayette. Louisiana

SUE McCOURT COBB
Attorney,
Greenberg, Trauris Askew, Hoffman,
Lipoff, Quentel and Wolff, P.A
Miami, Florida

1982 Directors

DANIEL S. GOODRUM

CHARLES J. KANE

PATRICK A DELANEY

Senior Executive Vice President,
Sun Banks of Florida, Inc.
Fort Lauderdale, F!orida

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
Third National Bank in Nashville
Nashville, Tennessee

Chairman and President,
Whitney National Bank of New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana

M. G. SANCHEZ

JOHN RUTLEDGE KING

PAUL W. McMULLAN

President and Chief Executive Officer,
First Bankers Corporation of Florida
Pompano Beach, Florida

President,
The Mason and Oixon Lines, Inc
Kingsport, Tennessee

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
First Mississippi National Bank
Hattiesburg, Mississippi

ROY VANDEGRIFT, JR.

C. WARREN NEEL

SHARON A PERLIS

President,
Roy Van, Inc
Pahokee, Florida

Dean,
College of Business Administration
The University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee

Attorney,
Metairie, Louisiana

STEPHEN G. ZAHORIAN
President,
Barnett Bank of Fort Myers, N.A
Fort Myers, Florida

E. LLYWD ECCLESTONE, JR.
President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Investment Company
West Palm Beach, Florida

JAMES F. SMITH, JR.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Park National Bank
Knoxville, Tennessee

ROBERT C.H. MATHEWS, JR
Managing General Partner
RC. Mathews, Contractor
Nashville, Tennessee

BEN M. RADCLIFF
President,
Ben M. Radcliff Contractor, Inc
Mobile, Alabama

ROO S EVELT STEPTOE
Professor of Economics,
Southern University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

D. S. HUDSON, JR.

CONDON S. BUSH

THOMAS G. RAPIER

Chairman,
First National Bank and Trust Comoanv of Stuart

President,
&Ish Brothers and Company
Dandridge, Tennessee

President and Chief Executive Officer,
First National Bank of Commerce
New Orleans, Louisiana

SAMUEL H. HOWARD

TOM B. SCOlT, JR.

Vice President and Treasurer,
Hospital Corporation of America
Nashville, Tennessee

President and Chief Executive Officer,
Unifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association
Jackson, Mississippi.

OWEN G. SHELL JR.
President and Chief Operating Officer,
First American Bank of Nashville, N.A
Nashville, Tennessee

E w . C I A L STATEMENTS

-- I

Statement of Condition
,

December 31,1981

December 31,1982

$ 436,000,000

$ 402,000,000

Special Drawing Rights Certificate Account

98,000,000

161,000,000

Coin

42,972,353

44,194,297

Loans and Securities

4,393,389,758

3,687,078,836

Cash Items in Process of Collection

1,570,787,869

1,664,272,191

34,084,092

34,126,927

528,467,974

553,324,567

$7,103,702,046

$6,545,996,818

Assets
Gold Certificate Account

Bank Premises
Other Assets
Total Assets

Liabilities
$3,141,810,668

$3,295,669,393

Deposits*

1,874,454,588

1,693,965,667

Deferred Availability Cash Items

1,359,725,246

1,006,723,764

99,414,889

54,540,363

433,838,855

277,367,931

Federal Reserve Notes

Other Liabilities
lnterdistrict Settlement Account

*2
?-

Total Liabilities

$6,909,244,246

$6,328,267,118
k

capital Aecarnts

4.-

$ 97,228,900

$ 108,864,850

97,228,900

108,864,850

Total Capital Accounts

$ 194,457,800

$ 217,729,700

Total Liabilities and Capital Accounts

$7,103,702,046

$6,545,996,818

Capital Paid In

Surplus

'Includes 0ep~ita-yInstitution Accounts. collected Funds Due to Other FR. Banks U.S. Treasurer - General AecaJnt.

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
22
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

, : .?

Statement of Earnings

1982

1981
Total Current Earnings

$546,041,876

$502,835,679

78,896,211

91,190,879'

$467,145,665

$41 1,644,800

-26,892,362

-9,400,341

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

51 1,246

Earnings Crediis Usetl by Depository Institutions' *

4,735,700

4,745,200

Net Earnings before Payment to U.S. Treasury

$435,006,357

$397,499,259

Dividends Paid

Assessment for Expenses of Board of

Governors

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

5,637,025

6,237,573

422,218,382

379,625,736

+7,150,950

+11,635,950

$435,006,357

$397,499,259

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

Total Earnings Distributed

surdus Account
Surplus Jawary 1

Transferred to Surplus - as a b e

Surplus December 31

90,077,950

97,228,900

7,150,950

11,635,950

97,228,900

$1 08,864,850

'of this f i r e 54,379,560 is 'cost ot mnps credit"
**Inchidesgains/bsses m sale3 d U.S Goremment sscurities and foreign a w e transactims
**'Cmtinpent l i l i in the amowlt of 5242,499 the to daposiay M i i .

*
Summary of Operations
$'
%r

r
1981
$

m
c
e
sto Depository lnstiitions

(millions)

1982
items
(thousands)

(millions)

items
(thousands)

Clearing and Collection Services
Checks handled:
U.S. Government checks
Postal money orders
All Other
ACH payments processed

61,975
1,023
1,108,364
52,017'

86,392
17,907
1,996,354
37,677'

65,828
1,098
1,078,369
89,921

84,673
18,228
1,852,387
46,142

Wire transfers of funds

4.267,524

4,784

5.495,273

5,407

Y .

Cash Services
Total cash receipts
Total cash payments
Currency processed
Coin processed

18,44 1
12,635
-

Loans to depository institutions, daily average
Securities Services
Wire transfer of securities
Noncash collection

4,069,549'
6,029,455'
1,367,994
2,720,750

18,864
13,618
28

U S savings bonds issued and redeemed by qualified issuing and
paying agents

Other Treasury securities issued, serviced and redeemed
Deposits to Treasury Tax and Loan accounts
Food coupons destroyed

'
L

287,968
808

188
588

526,442
772

233
519

Setvices to U.S. Treasury
U S savings bonds issued serviced. redeemed by Federal Reserve Bank

4,723,734
6,221,927
1,442,968
2,666,369

365

1,998

368

1,958

1,072

15.520

922

11,597

144,777

219

109,970

254

41,416

1,280

23,231

982

1,658

432,400

1,548

403,569

t l

.Revised

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24

For additional copies, write ta
rc
4 ’

information Center
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
P.O. Box 1731
Atlanta, Georgia 30301-1731
(4041586-8788)

Full text of Annual Report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta : 1982 Annual Report

FRASER