View original document

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

1991
a

e
0

0

e

m

a

m

*

e

a

A N N U A LRE'










N T E N T
ge from the

CRA and the 1990
Moving beyond
Sixth District Highlight

.............................

2

..........................
.................................

3
9

Directors

14

Officers

16

Financial Statements

18

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
February 14,1992
The 1991 annual report of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta features some of our accomplishments for
the year along with the consolidated financial statements of the Atlanta, Birmingham, Jacksonville, Miami,
Nashville, and New Orleans branches. The names of all directors and officers who served the Sixth District
during the past year are listed as well.
In addition to the review of the year’s developments, this report includes a discussion of the ongoing debate about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which intensified with the release of the 1990 Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data in October 1991. On the surface, the summary HMDA figures suggest
that lenders discriminate against minorities in approving home purchase loans. Many bankers counter that
the HMDA data do not tell the whole story, failing to state systematically why loan applications were rejected.
The essay addresses ways in which Congress, community groups, and banks can move beyond the tensions
that have persisted for so long and achieve a working relationship in implementing this important public policy.

I would like to express my appreciation to all of the Sixth District’s directors for their valuable counsel
throughout the year. In particular, I want to acknowledge those directors whose service ended in 1991, including branch directors Roy D. Terry and Shirley A. Zeitlin, who both served for six years.
My special thanks go to outgoing Chairman of the Atlanta Board of Directors Larry L. Prince, who
served for two years in that position and three years as deputy chairman. I also wish to recognize Virgil H.
Moore, Jr., who ended his six-year tenure as a head office director.

n

Robert P. Forrestal
President and Chief Executive Officer




CRA AND THE

1990 HMDA DATA:
MOVING BEYOND THE /MPASSE
By Robert P. Forrestal
It has been fourteen years since Congress enacted
the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), mandating
banks to help meet the credit needs of all segments of
the communities they serve. By doing so, Congress in
a sense passed judgment on the banking industry, although CRA was just one title within more general legislation aiming to revitalize deteriorated urban and
rural communities. Lawmakers were responding to
complaints that banks were discriminating against
residents of low- and moderate-income areas.
Despite more than a decade of experience with
CRA, bankers, regulators, and community groups continue to disagree on how the law should be interpreted.
Lawmakers and regulators have sought to clarify
norms and procedures and to facilitate the communication process among all parties, but in spite of these
efforts CRA has become a more, rather than less, heated issue. Because mergers and acquisitions are occurring more frequently during this period of banking
industry consolidation, CRA-based protests lodged by
community activists have taken on new significance.
Such protests seek the strongest action against banks
deemed to fall short of CRA obligations-the denial by
regulators of a proposed merger or acquisition. These
protests have heightened media interest in CRA and, in
turn, intensified the public debate.
Many banks have responded earnestly and creatively to the spirit of CRA; others have continued to
criticize the legislation, especially for the perceived
uncertainties in the regulatory standards and for the
implicit pressures banks feel toward credit allocation.
The law’s intentional vagueness, meant to encourage
local solutions to local problems, has proved to be a
mixed blessing because it has helped to perpetuate the




debate about what the law does and does not require
of financial institutions.

HMDA DATAREKINDLE
CONTROVERSY

Release of the 1990 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
(HMDA) data in October 1991 served to refuel the
ongoing debate. Although banks’ CRA examination
summaries are publicly available, a bank’s mortgagelending record, as documented for HMDA, has become in the minds of many a proxy for a bank’s CRA
record. A vast expansion in the scope of HMDA data,
as mandated by the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), heightened the public’s expectations for revelations about
lending practices of financial institutions.
On the face of it, the summary HMDA figures appear shocking and clearly, for some, raise the issue of
whether banks and other lenders discriminate against
minorities in approving loans. According to the data
for the nation as a whole, blacks, for example, were
turned down for mortgages two-and-a-half times more
often than whites. This imbalance holds true even for
blacks with higher incomes, who were turned down
twice as often as whites in the same income bracket.
Additionally, the numbers indicate that banks are receiving relatively few applications from blacks: only
4.3 percent of the applicants were black-far fewer
than their 12 percent share of the U.S. population. It
is understandable that many representatives of community groups, the media, and Congress see the data
as proof positive that banks discriminate in a major
area of lending-home mortgages.

Many bankers counter that the HMDA data do not
“speak for themselves.” The data indeed do not tell the
whole story. In particular, they fail to state systematically why loan applications were rejected. The data do
not even lend themselves to deriving meaningful inferences along these lines because important information is
omitted-for example, there are no Sgures for applicants’ overall indebtedness as a percentage of income or
for applicants’ assets that could be used as downpayments. It should also be kept in mind that the approved
mortgage loans covered in the 1990 HMDA data do not
represent the entire residential mortgage market. Despite recent expansions in scope to encompass nondepository lenders that extend home loans, including
independent mortgage companies, a number of institutions are not covered. Depository institutions with less
than $10 million in assets and those operating outside
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) are not represented, for example. Whatever the implications of HMDA
figures, at best the data are not all-encompassing.
Nonetheless, whether lending discrimination occurs
or not, there is the perception of a problem. The questions raised are serious ones that deserve attention. Individual bankers are certainly justified in turning down
mortgage applications when applicants’ overall debt is
too high, credit history is bad, or other factors indicate
poor creditworthiness. CRA in no way mandates banks
to give short shrift to safety and soundness principles,
recognizing that no long-range social good can come of
asking banks to compromise prudent lending standards.
However, from a public policy point of view, pointing
the finger at the possibility that disparities in indebtedness follow racial lines only begs the question of credit
discrimination. Such arguments detract attention from
the broader issues that are the real problem.
It would be helpful, of course, if the HMDA data
were to include more complete information-specifically, for loan officers routinely to include the reasons
for turning down applicants. Doing so would shed further light on this important consideration and would
also better educate consumers on the tenets of creditworthiness. However, further research into the HMDA
data cannot be the main solution, nor can lending ratios defined by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act be
the standard by which an institution’s responsiveness
to credit needs be judged. Ultimately, the answers to




the social problems on which CRA has focused attention rest with changes in attitudes and actions. Congress, community groups, and banks must work
together to achieve an operating consensus on both
CRA’s broader, albeit perhaps implicit, goals and its
day-to-day implementation.

ACCORDING
T O T H E 1990

HMDA

DATA, MINORITIES W H O APPLY FOR HOME
P U R C H A S E L O A N S ARE R E J E C T E D AT A

H I G H E R RATE

THAN W H I T E S .

T H E DATA ARE INCOMPLETE.

HOWEVER,
FOR E X A M -

PLE, THEY DO NOT ENCOMPASS T H E E N TIRE MARKET FOR HOME MORTGAGES,
NOR DO THEY INCLUDE FIGURES FOR APPLICANTS’ OVERALL INDEBTEDNESS AS A
PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.

Home-Purchase Loan Application Denials
In the United States, by Race

c

Bla&

L 0%

P U B L I C PROBLEMS
I N PRIVATE HANDS
Congress bears some of the responsibility for the
ongoing tension surrounding CRA. As they have
tended to do for other social problems, lawmakers
have “privatized” the issue of housing affordability
for the working poor. There is certainly merit in an
approach that produces affordable housing without
significant government subsidies. However, it is

unrealistic to expect a single industry-banking-to
shoulder the burden successfully.
This transfer of responsibility for social problems
to private industry can be traced in large measure to
fiscal policy constraints that have arisen from the
huge federal budget deficits of the last decade. With

H I G DH
EBT

LEVELS C A N PUT HOME

O W N E R S H I P OUT OF REACH FINANCIALLY
FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES, BUT DIFFERENCES I N DENIAL RATES BETWEEN RACES

has become accepted practice to ask private industry
to solve public problems.
Financial institutions are in a unique position, however, being called on to shoulder the majority of the
burden in correcting housing problems. The “social
compact” under which banks operate4n return for
unique subsidies such as deposit insurance and their
federal and state charters, banks are highly regulated-places them under obligations not required of other private enterprises. Because of this special role in the
U.S. economy, banks have been handed social problems
with which society has grappled unsuccessfully to date.

H O L D EVEN AT H I G H E R I N C O M E LEVELS.

CLEARLY,
THE

DATA RAISE COMPLEX QUES-

TIONS. S U C H DIFFICULT AND LONG-STANDING
ISSUES DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO SIMPLE SOLUTIONS.

Home-Purchase Loan Application Denials
In the United States, by Income and Race
(based on median 1980 M S A income)

-30%

Low Inco
(Less than 80%)

Moderate Inovlllr;
(80.120%)
Y

(120+%)

the government already so heavily in debt and voters
unwilling to increase taxes, new programs designed to
solve social ills are not an option, and some existing
ones, such as federal housing subsidies, have been
disbanded. Yet, the problems persist and, in many
instances, have grown. In response, lawmakers have
turned to the private sector, requiring businesses to
provide some health-care benefits, for example. It




DISCRIMINATION’S
LEGACY
An unfortunate reality is that the long history of
discrimination in the United States has resulted in
ongoing economic hardships for minorities. Many of
these problems have their roots in de facto job discrimination in the past that means minorities today
often have the least seniority and are the most vulnerable when businesses must lay off employees during times of economic downturn or longer-term
industry changes. Because it is usually the newest or
least-skilled workers who receive the pink slips, minority employees tend to be disproportionately affected. A series of laws begun in the 1960s have not
been enough to counter discrimination along with the
ills it has set in motion, and Congress is still passing
civil rights legislation to t r y to protect minorities’
rights. The chief legacy of such tenacious discrimination is poverty: a significantly larger percentage of
blacks and Hispanics than whites have low incomes.
In 1990 some 32 percent of blacks and 28 percent of
Hispanics were below the poverty level, as opposed to
11percent of whites.
Not surprisingly, people with low incomes often
have fewer assets and live in neighborhoods with fewer amenities such as good schools, factors that figure
into the issues surrounding home-purchase loans. Additionally, any given level of debt will have a greater
proportionate impact on lower-income households . It
is, of course, true that consumer debt rose to relatively high levels in the 1980s. Consumer installment
credit grew from 14112 percent of disposable personal
income at the end of 1980 to 17314 percent in the

fourth quarter of 1990, and the latter figure does not
indicate the post-1986 run-up in home equity loans
for purchases like autos. When combined with lower
incomes and assets, high debt levels can put home
ownership out of reach financially.
A study for a group of Atlanta banks that formed the
Atlanta Mortgage Consortium corroborates this argument. The supervision and regulation staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, which did the study for the
consortium, found that a large proportion of the consortium’s mortgage applicants, most of whom were minorities, had adequate income but their levels of outstaninstallment debt were too great to allow approval for a
mortgage loan under current market standards.
Even for those minorities who do own their
homes, it is harder to trade up in housing because
houses tend to appreciate less and more slowly in
many minority neighborhoods. Often these neighborhoods are stunted by poor schools, a lack of amenities such as shopping convenience, less adequate
police protection, and other characteristics that
would enhance property values. Because the equity
in a home is usually a person’s or family’s largest asset, minorities are left with fewer assets. (For instance, the median net worth of a black household is
estimated to be less than 10 percent that of a white
household.) Even so, very poor living conditions may
drive some minorities to submit marginal mortgage
loan applications and risk having an application rejected. Trying to establish home ownership as an investment toward improving a neighborhood or to
move into a new neighborhood may be worth the risk
simply because the alternative-staying in a neighborhood that does not have good schools, for example-has become unbearable. If so, overreaching
their circumstances may partially account for minorities’ higher loan rejection rate. In any case, it seems
clear that the greater incidence of loan rejections is
only a symptom of the underlying socioeconomic
problems such communities face.

THE ROLE OF

POLICYMAKERS

Clearly, the problems facing both minorities and
banks called on to serve them are complex and frustrating. It will be impossible for banks alone to pro-




vide the nswer, although they certainly c n help.
Achieving an effective and lasting antidote to the social ills, such as housing affordability and discrimination, that affect a large portion of the U.S. population
will require a strategic and comprehensive approach
involving many facets of society. Such a solution to

MORTGAGE
APPLICATION
I N THE

SOUTHEAST
ARE

NATIONALLY.

HMDA

DENIAL RATES

SIMILAR TO RATES

DATA AT THE

MSA

LEVEL HAVE NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY EXPLORED, BUT FURTHER STUDY AT ANY LEVEL
IS NOT THE MOST PRESSING NEED.

CONGRESS
CO
, MMUNITY

RATHER,

GROUPS, AND

BANKS MUST MOVE BEYOND THE CURRENT
DEBATE OVER DATA AND WORK TOGETHER
TO F I N D MORE EFFECTIVE WAYS OF ADDRESSING THE UNDERLYING ISSUES.

Home-Purchase Loan Application Denials
In Selected Southeastern MSAs, by Race

20%

0%

Nashvillc

-0%

New Orleans

the deep-seated problem of inadequate housing for the
poor-and it bears repeating that a disproportionate
share of minorities are poor-will require a readjustment of the nation’s fiscal status, not so much to fund
housing but more importantly to improve the nation’s
educational system and make other investments in

human capital that attack the roots of poverty.
However, given the fiscal discipline that must be
pursued for the foreseeable future, it is necessary to
seek interim improvement from other quarters.

THE ROLE

OF
COMMUNITY GROUPS

Community groups can have a vital role in achieving success through the Community Reinvestment Act.
The law’s intentional vagueness about specifically how
credit needs are to be met is designed to foster local solutions, as noted above. In addition, the federal government’s fiscal constraints have reinforced the need
for cpmunity-based solutions to community problems. State and local governments have been forced to
become more accountable for achievements of their
housing programs, and housing priorities are being refocused to a needs-based strategy. New programs introduced through the National Affordable Housing Act
of 1990 require or encourage community needs assessments and call for matching funds from local communities and private enterprise. These programs also
continue a recent bent toward special set-asides for
, community-based development organizations. In addition, other recent federal programs, including housing
and tax legislation such as low-income housing tax
credit, special funds in the new HOME program, and
terms for disposing of properties held by the Resolution Trust Corporation, have preferential policies for
such organizations.
Community groups can also help surmount the
continuing controversy surrounding CRA by making
further progress toward ending what was, until recently, an overemphasis on single-family homes as the
solution to the question of housing affordability. In
some parts of the country these groups are attempting
to develop and request many different types of housing and forms of ownership, such as co-ops and mutual housing. It is certainly time to recognize that the
suburban standard of a free-standing house and a
yard is probably unrealistic for many poor families
and to move beyond insisting on acquisition of singlefamily homes as a goal. In other industrialized nations, particularly in Europe, a percentage of the
population comparable to that in the United States




owns their own home. However, some form of multifamily housing, such as row houses or condominiums,
tends to be more common than it is among U. S .homeowners, who favor detached dwellings. Community
advocates throughout the nation might better serve
minorities’ needs by devoting more of their energies to
forms of credit besides home mortgage loans-smallbusiness lending, for example. Unfortunately, the
HMDA data, with their focus on mortgages, divert attention away from progress toward recognizing the
need for a broader, more achievable alternative such
as communal housing and narrow the focus again to
single-family housing.
Some community groups have begun to search for
different answers, and they are to be commended for
having pioneered new programs over the years, such
as credit counseling and “due diligence” investigations
that help establish for bankers the soundness of a potential loan. When nonprofit community organizations perform these functions, they save lending
institutions time and resources, and, on balance, increase the likelihood that more credit will be directed
toward lower-income and minority neighborhoods.

THE ROLE O F

BANKS

Banks, however, cannot simply sit back and wait
for changes on the part of Congress and community
groups. Both lack the resources to make quick and
dramatic changes. Meanwhile, banks can do more
than they are doing now, working in the context of
CRA to find solutions to the problems highlighted by
the HMDA data. Indeed, banks probably have to
take the leadership role.
In an effort to meet the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act, some banks and mortgagelending consortiums, like that in Atlanta, have tried
lowering their credit standards. Only the very largest
and best capitalized banks can afford to consider taking this risk. Even if an institution can afford it, this
type of “stand-alone” initiative is not the ideal approach. Any programs promulgated under these circumstances cannot begin to achieve the scale needed
to address fuUy this nation’s housing needs. Significantly lowering loan standards and proffering loans to
applicants who would otherwise have no chance to

qualify is not a realistic solution, either for banks
or for those in need, as demonstrated by the Atlanta
Mortgage Consortium’s ‘experience.The consortium
found that in its first round of loans, for which lending standards were liberalized, it had a past-due ratio
of 9.6 percent at the end of December 1989, eighteen months into the program. During the first year
and a half of a new loan program, past dues are usually nonexistent. At the end of October 1991, forty
months into the program, the past due ratio was approximately 12.3 percent-more than twice the typical rate of past dues. Clearly, no one benefits when
loan obligations cannot be met.
If lower credit standards are not the answer, what
can banks do? First, as implied by the other titles in
the Housing and Community Development Act of
1977, CRA is meant to encourage partnerships or
joint ventures incorporating government programs
and other public subsidies to meet the needs of those
outside the economic mainstream. Banks’ involvement in tandem financing, for example, using lowinterest-rate public loans or subsidies, is likely to be
a much more effective solution than lowering credit
standards. Structuring this type of arrangement requires that unique relationships be developed and
new technical expertise be acquired, some beyond the
present scope of a financial institution. Determining
the boundaries of this gray area constitutes the current dilemma.
In addition to sorting out matters directly related
to the nature of loans, it is imperative that banks get
to know low- and moderate-income and minority
communities better if they are to serve them adequately. Many banks have reached out to accomplish
this task by forming community development corporations, delegating community development responsibilities to a line of staff, establishing community
development lending as a line of business with their
brightest underwriters, or forming community development banks. In whatever way works best for an organization, depending on its particular expertise and
business plan, developing an internal knowledge of
its surrounding communities is a critical point if a financial institution is to become an active participant
in the growth of those communities.




Banks must also remember that CRA encompasses more than housing. Credit needs in any community are diverse, and the most pressing need could be
for water and sewage treatment, small or minority
business credit, or education financing. After all,
CRA requires banks to help meet the general credit
needs of their communities, not just housing credit.
Such synergistic credit offerings could catalyze economic development at a variety of levels.
The days when banks were simple financial intermediaries are over. Banks can no longer play the role
of order-takers, simply accepting or turning down
loan applications. Like department stores, telephone
companies, and airlines, banks are being squeezed financially to find more new business, and, more generally, to redefine their role in the economy. At the
same time, banks are operating under a “social compact” that prompts them politically and morally to
“do the right thing.’’ It will become increasingly necessary for banks to learn how to market their services
to the fullest, finding profit opportunities with lowerincome credit seekers.

CONCLUSION

It is time for all parties involved in CRA to achieve
a working relationship in its implementation. The
HMDA data for 1990 may not tell the whole story,
but neither can they be dismissed. Realistically,
Congress is unlikely to provide financial support for
housing for many years because the federal budget
deficit has been excessive for so long. The fiscal constraint that is necessary also augurs poorly for more
general programs for overcoming the poverty that
underlies many of the disparities in lending. In the
interim, community groups need to continue widening their scope of issues and solutions and generally
building their capacity to foster local development.
Banks too, however, need to become more resourceful and creative in their compliance with CRA. Banks
have much to lose by not doing a better job with
CRA-most importantly their social credibility,
which is already shakier than it was in decades
past-and much to win if they succeed in reaching a
segment of society too long neglected.

SIXTH
DISTRICT
HIGHLIGHTS
FINANCIAL
SERVICES
Volumes and Prices. The Sixth Federal Reserve
District experienced a year of mixed growth in the
volume of priced financial services. Automated clearinghouse (ACH), funds transfer, and bookentry volumes continued growth patterns consistent with prior
years. Check-processing volume increased slightly
from 1990 levels. Defintive safekeeping and noncash
collection volumes decreased, reflecting the continuing contraction of these paper-based services industrywide.
The District’s six offices-in Atlanta, Birmingham, Jacksonville, Miami, Nashville, and New Orleans-together processed approximately 2.9 billion
checks in 1991, far exceeding volumes processed by
any other Reserve District. Basic transaction volume
for funds transfers grew about 4.9 percent over
1990, ACH volume rose approximately 11percent,
and, in securities services, online bookentry transfer
volume decreased approximately 14 percent. Noncash collection volume fell approximately 21 percent, and definitive securities safekeeping volume
dropped 28 percent. The Sixth District fully recovered the $88.5 million cost of providing these services (including the private sector adjustment factor)
in 1991 while offering the various products at prices
that continue to be among the Federal Reserve System’s lowest.
Noncash Collection and Definitive Safekeeping
Consolidation. The Atlanta Fed’s Jacksonville
Branch is one of four sites that will serve as the
Federal Reserve System Regional Noncash Collection processors after consolidation. In January the
Jacksonville Branch began processing noncash
items-such as coupons and bonds-for paying
agents in the San Francisco District. (These items had
been processed by the Minneapolis Fed for several
years.) In October Jacksonville began processing
items for paying agents in New Mexico, part of the
Kansas City District.
To reduce processing costs and raise operational
efficiencies during the phaseout of definitive safekeep-




ing services, the Atlanta District consolidated this serand Birmingham-during
vice in two office-Atlanta
1991.
Check Collection. In January the District began
offering electronic delivery of payor bank services
information-for example, MICR key account data-through the Fedline customer terminal system. In
August the District offices successfully implemented
the Federal Reserve System’s new payor bank services pricing structure, which had been approved in
1989 for implementation by all Reserve Banks by January 1992. The change to the new structure provides
for consistent pricing among Districts as well as offices
and also encourages the use of electronic delivery
methods. Over the year a total of eighty-six District
institutions converted to electronic delivery of payor
bank service information. The District also began offering electronic delivery of regional check advice
statements through Fedline in July.
Fiscal Services. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta implemented two new systems in the savings
bond area during 1991. Under the Savings Bond Regional Delivery System issuing agents are no longer allowed to inscribe bonds; the new system requires that
all over-the-counter bond applications be processed
through a central location-in this District, the Birmingham branch. The District also implemented the
WHH redesign for savings bonds intended to improve
operational efficiencies in handling savings bonds.
Cash Services. The District successfully completed
the development of new computer software to automate various cash functions in 1991 and installed the
system in New Orleans and Atlanta. In addition, the
District coordinated a comprehensive study of currency quality for the System.

SUPERVISION

AND

REGULATION

Bank Supervision. Weak economic conditions
added impetus to the banking industry’s consolidation
in 1991, affecting both large and small institutions in
the District and presenting a number of challenges

for bank supervisors. The number of troubled institutions rose, largely as the result of continued deterioration in real estate. The Bank’s supervision and
regulation department sought to facilitate the orderly
resolution of problem institutions in various ways.
Requests for assistance on special projects and examinations outside the Sixth District rose to all-time
highs, and the department devoted more than the
equivalent of three staff years to fulfilling such requests and to supporting various federal criminal investigations. The bank holding company applications
section processed an increased number of applications
related to emergency acquisitions by Sixth District institutions of failed thrifts and banks. Additionally,
applications continued to become more complex because of deterioration in financial factors and a
greater number of protests by individuals and community groups.
Legislative interest in banking supervision and regulation was intense throughout the year: Congress
considered a series of bills to restructure the banking
industry and increased its scrutiny of examination
procedures in light of several large bank failures and
concerns over the availability of credit. The department responded to several congressional requests for
information and provided testimony before the House
Banking Committee concerning foreign bank agencies
operating in the Sixth District.
The department devoted considerable resources to
assist in the development and local implementation of
the Board of Governors’ expanded training program
for new examiners.
Consumer and Community Affairs. The consumer
affairs staff assisted in the processing of greatly expanded 1990 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
data from Sixth District state member banks and
mortgage companies. Release of the data and a continued interest in the publication of Community Reinvestment Act ratings focused increased attention on
bank lending patterns, and the department devoted a
substantial amount of examination time to a thorough
exploration of lending issues.
In addition to giving presentations and workshops
on the Community Reinvestment Act, the department
began publishing a quarterly newsletter highlighting
issues raised and initiatives developed in response to




1

the legislation. The completion in 1991 of a multiyear
automation project enables more efficient preparation of tailored responses to constituent requests for
information.
Discount and Credit. Lending by the Federal Reserve has been subject to greater scrutiny by Congress
and the press during this period of consolidation and
readjustment of the banking industry. Congressional
concerns that extended lending could delay the closure of insolvent banks has led to the enactment of
legislative measures limiting the amount and duration
of advances. The Federal Reserve System’s role in
the speedy resolution of Southeast Bank, N.A., was
something of a test case for the Federal Reserve’s
lending role in prompt resolution of troubled institutions. In its investigation of the Federal Reserve’s
lending practices, Congress requested lending records
dating back to 1985 on all failed institutions.
Through a series of five reductions-on February 4, April 30, September 13, November 6, and December 20-the discount rate was lowered from 6.5
percent to 3.5 percent during the course of the year.

RESEARCH
Research. Economic uncertainty caused by the
Persian Gulf War as well as continuing changes in the
financial services industry in the United States and
abroad amplified the need for the Bank’s research department to conduct research in support of President
Forrestal’s participation in monetary policy decisions.
Staff presented to policymakers, scholars, and the
general public insights on the impact of the oil price
shock that followed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, on the
economic and financial implications of the impending
unification of the European Community in 1992, and
on the effects of the globalization of equity markets.
The professional stature of the Atlanta Fed’s
research department continued to grow as staff contributed to the U.S. Treasury Department’s proposals for restructuring the financial services industry,
had articles published in prestigious academic journals and reprinted in financial industry guidebooks,
and made numerous presentations to academic and
Federal Reserve System conferences. The Atlanta
Fed-Emory University Workshop series, which

brings economists from around the nation to report
on work in progress, continued into its fifth year.
The department further extended its work in financial market institutions and instruments. Staff
contributed to the understanding of policy-related issues by exploring the economic value and consumer
benefits of bank mergers and acquisitions. Secondary
and derivative markets formed another focus of interest, resulting in publication of several introductory
articles on products such as forwards, futures, swaps,
and options and their uses in financial engineering. In
the area of regional economics, a major initiative was
begun to make analysis and forecasting more rigorous
and to link results more closely with the work of the
macropolicy team.
The macropolicy group, too, moved to fortify its
analytical and forecasting efforts, and economists
evaluated the policy implications of specific Federal
Reserve System activities. Work centered on domestic monetary issues, including a study of the efficiency of monetary policy operating procedures, the use
of consumer confidence surveys in policy analysis,
and the improvement of the Fed’s discount window
as a tool of monetary control-an inquiry undertaken by a visiting scholar. The department’s international economists produced studies on subjects
including the information contained in the forward
rate in foreign exchange markets, bank regulation
across countries, the process of financial liberalization in developing countries, and the effectiveness of
policy coordination strategies.
Public Affairs. Conferences and seminars for
bankers, business economists, educators, staff, and
the public were an important focus of educational
activities in 1991. With support from the financial
services division, supervision and regulation department, and the EFT product management office, the
department organized a banking conference featuring prominent industry figures. The public affairs
department also worked closely with research staff
in cosponsoring a National Association of Business
Economists roundtable on southeastern financial
and economic conditions.
In addition, the department hosted a colloquium
in New Orleans on current issues in economics and
finance for college professors in Alabama, Louisiana,




and Mississippi. Staff worked with supervision and
regulation to present a seminar for Atlanta-area
senior citizens on banking issues. Department managers also offered three series of informational seminars for support staff on the activities of the System,
the Bank, and the research division as well as on resources for responding to public inquiries.
Publications staff redesigned the department’s
three newsletters-Economics Update, Financial Update, and Regional Update-as well as the Economic
Review. The use of recycled paper in all new and
reprinted publications was implemented. Department
staff, in collaboration with economics teachers in all
six District states, produced and distributed a curriculum supplement to accompany the 1991 outlook
issue of Regional Update.
Statistical Reports. The Atlanta Fed’s statistical
reports department introduced electronic filing of
several weekly depository institution reports via the
Fedline electronic communications system, making it
possible for reporting banks to calculate their reserve
requirements from actual and estimated data over
Fedline and enhancing the department’s ability to receive other reports via diskette. The department
supported the Bank’s expanded responsibilities for
processing Home Mortgage Disclosure Act reports
with data-entry and project-planning assistance. Staff
also refined data for Sixth District institutions included in the data base for a newly established National
Information Center, containing information on the
structure, characteristics, and regulatory relationships of U.S. financial institutions. Staff conducted extensive contingency planning and testing of capacity to
recover and perform statistics and reserve accounting
mainframe processing from the System’s Culpeper,
Virginia, contingency processing center from a local
remote site. Such abilities help ensure that data flows
to the Board of Governors would not be adversely affected by an emergency in the Atlanta facility.
Secretary’s Office. The Bank’s Distinguished
Speakers Series had an international orientation in
1991, as Jaime Serra-Puche, Mexico’s Secretary of
Trade and Industry, Council of Economic Advisors
member John Taylor, and economists Judith Kipper
and C. Fred Bergsten all addressed issues in the
global economy. Banking consultant Lowell Bryan

and economists Henry Kaufman and Francis Schott
discussed domestic financial industry and economic
concerns. Federal Reserve Governor Edward Kelley
spoke to a joint meeting of the Sixth Federal Reserve
District’s head office and branch directors. The Advisory Council on Small Business, Agriculture, and
Labor held two meetings in which members exchanged views with President Forrestal and Atlanta
Fed staff on business and credit conditions in the region. President Forrestal also met twice with the Financial Institutions Advisory Committee, which
represents commercial banks, thrifts, and credit
unions, to discuss Community Reinvestment Act compliance, the prospects for federal banking legislation,
future plans for the electronic funds transfer system,
and other topics.

CORPORATE S E R V I C E S
Payments System Reliability. As another step toward providing continuous availability of its mainframe computer, which makes electronic payments
services available to financial institutions and their
customers via the Federal Reserve’s telecommunications network, the Atlanta Fed divided its computer
system into multiple images to isolate the environment for electronic payments processing. The Bank
also initiated maintenance of duplicate copies of critical payments information to serve in case of hardware failure.
The Federal Reserve System announced a plan to
consolidate all general purpose mainframe computers
into centers to be located in Richmond, Dallas, and
East Rutherford, New Jersey. Consolidation will not
only raise efficiency in the long run by eliminating redundant operations and resources but also improve
the reliability of the Federal Reserve payments services. It will also allow the System to provide a more
uniform level of customer service. Initial plans call for
the transition to take place over a two- to four-year
period.
Payments System Risk Initiatives. The Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta implemented the Federal Reserve’s payments system risk policy changes in January 1991. During the year, three phases of software
releases were implemented along with a new version of




the Funds software, which contains the required ,
changes for monitoring institutions posting securities
collateral for bookentry daylight overdrafts. Additionally, the Risk Reduction Manual and District Procedures were revised to incorporate the 1991 policy
changes, and seminars were conducted for large District institutions to provide an overview of proposed
posting and policy changes.
Software Development Projects. The Atlanta Fed
continued the development of a new computer software system for the Federal Reserve’s expense accounting system, known as PACS (Planning and
Control System). During 1991 the user group, composed of representatives from all twelve districts,
completed the establishment of requirements for the
new system. Atlanta’s automation staff completed the
system’s general design, which the users approved
during December 1991, and made plans to conduct
software programming during 1992. The PACS software will be the System’s first major application to
use a platform consisting of both mainframe and PC
software.
In support of the Federal Reserve System’s automation objectives, the Atlanta Fed is in the process of modifying the System customer-billing
(accounts receivable) software so that it will process
all districts’ billing operations at a single site using
one software application.
Programming of a Cash Automation System (CAS)
was completed in 1991. The software operates on IBM
AS1400 midrange computers and automates numerous
functions in the District’s cash services that include
currency, coin, and food coupon processing, distribution, and redemption. The New Orleans and Atlanta
Branches implemented the automated system in 1991,
with remaining Branch implementations planned for
the first half of 1992.
The District continued its leadership in a Systemwide project to enhance financial payments data
security using Message Authentication Code (MAC), a
form of digital signature that ensures the integrity of
a message by indicating whether or not it has been
modified.
Facilities Planning. With the assistance of a facilities consultant a long-term facilities study for the Atlanta office was conducted focusing on options for the

next twenty-five years. A final strategic decision was
deferred to allow clarification of three System-level
issues-automation consolidation, the future role of
the supervision and regulation division, and the
check collection same-day settlement policy-that
will potentially have a significant impact on future facilities needs.
In the interim the facilities strategy includes leasing sufficient space to accommodate operations during the next ten years. An additional floor has been
leased at 55 Park Place, site of the supervision and
regulation division, to accommodate additional examination staff, to provide staging space for the ongoing
Bank renovations program, and to house the auditing
and statistical reports departments, which are being
temporarily relocated.
In addition, a number of leaselpurchase options
are under evaluation to meet needs for space to house
the Atlanta Fed’s payments operations over the next
ten years.
Human Resources. In recent years the Sixth District, like most other employers, has seen an increase
in work force diversity. In line with this diversity the
Atlanta Fed and its branches have seen a significant
rise in the number of minorities and women in officer and management ranks. Since 1984 the number
of blacks in management has increased 89 percent
(from 27 to 51); and the number of Hispanics and




I

other minority individuals, by 92 percent (from 12 to
23). The number of women in management positions
has increased 84 percent (from 76 to 140) over the
same period.
As a supplement to the Bank’s ongoing supervisory1
management training efforts in all offices, two special
programs were introduced in 1991 to strengthen management effectiveness. A new program in leadership
was offered for those in presupervisory positions,
and a series of workshops and group sessions was
held with line managers to stress their role in maintaining an effective employee relations environment.
The program, in which approximately 250 staff members participated, covered such topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, Workforce 2000 issues,
and progressive discipline.
The Sixth District announced a new Flexible Spending Account benefit option for employees. Under this
program staff may establish medical and dependent
care accounts that will allow significant tax savings. In
addition, the District’s change to self-insured Workers
Compensation coverage resulted in significant cost savings in 1991 that promise to continue.
To ensure sound compensation philosophy and
pay systems, the Sixth District appointed a special senior officer task group to conduct a comprehensive
review of compensation programs and to recommend
improvements.

6 O A R D OF
LARRY L. PRINCE
CHAIRMAN
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Genuine Parts Company
Atlanta, Georgia
EDWIN A. HUSTON
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Senior Executive Vice President-Finance
Ryder System, Inc.
Miami, Florida
LEO BENATAR
Chairman and President
Engraph, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia

Chairman and President
Sherman International Corp.
Birmingham,Alabama
VIRGIL H. MOORE, JR.
Chairman
First Farmers and Merchants National Bank
Columbia, Tennessee
ANDRE M. RUBENSTEIN
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Rubenstein Brothers, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana

JAMES B. WILLIAMS
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
SunTrust Banks, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia

FEDERAL
ADVISORY
C O U N C I L MEMEER

E.B. ROBINSON, JR.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Deposit Guaranty National Bank
Jackson, Mississippi

W.H. SWAIN
Chairman
First National Bank
Oneida, Tennessee

SAUNDRA H. GRAY
Co-owner
Gemini Springs Farm
DeBary, Florida

6RANCH

J. THOMAS HOLTON

DIRECTORS

BIRMINGHAM
ROY D. TERRY
CHAIRMAN
President and Chief Executive Officer
Terry Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Roanoke, Alabama

JULIAN W. BANTON
Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer
SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A.
Birmingham, Alabama

WILLIAM F. CHILDRESS
President
First American Federal Savings and
Loan Association
Huntsville, Alabama

S. EUGENE ALLRED
Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer
Frit Industries, Inc.
Ozark, Alabama

ROBERT M. BARRETT
Chairman and President
The First National Bank of Wetumpka
Wetumpka, Alabama

NELDA P. STEPHENSON
President
Nelda Stephenson Chevrolet, Inc.
Florence, Alabama

DONALD E. BOOMERSHINE
President
Better Business Bureau of Central
Alabama, Inc.
Birmingham, Alabama

JACKSONVILLE
HUGH M. BROWN
CHAIRMAN
President and Chief Executive Officer
BAMSI, Inc.
Titusville, Florida

HUGH H. JONES, JR.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A.
Jacksonville, Florida

PERRY M. DAWSON
President and Chief Executive Officer
Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union
Tampa, Florida

LANA JANE LEWIS-BRENT
Vice Chairman, president, and
Chief Executive Officer
Sunshine-Jr. Stores, Inc.
Panama City, Florida

MERLE L. GRASER
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
First National Bank of Venice
Venice, Florida

JOAN D. RUFFIER
Member
Florida Board of Regents
Orlando, Florida




SAMUEL H. VICKERS
President and Chief Executive Officer
Design Containers, Inc.
Jacksonville, Florida

MIAMI
DOROTHY C. WEAVER
CHAIRMAN
Executive Vice President
Intercap Investments, Inc.
Coral Gables, Florida

A. GORDON OLIVER
President and Chief Executive Officer
Citizens and Southern National Bank
of Florida
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

ROBERTO G. BLANC0
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Republic National Bank of Miami
Miami, Florida

JOSE L. SAUMAT (resigned)
President
Greater Miami Trading, Inc.
Miami, Florida

R. KIRK LANDON
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
American Bankers Insurance Group
Miami, Florida

STEVEN C. SHIMP
President
0-A-WFlorida, Inc.
Owen-Ames-KimballCompany
Fort Myers, Florida

PAT L. TORNILLO, JR.
Executive Vice President
United Teachers of Dade
Miami, Florida
MICHAEL T. WILSON
President
Vinegar Bend Farms, Inc.
Belle Glade, Florida

NASHVILLE
SHIRLEY A. ZEITLIN
CHAIRMAN
President
Shirley Zeitlin & Co. Realtors
Nashville, Tennessee
WILLZAMS E. ARANT, JR.
President and Chief Executive Officer
First National Bank of Knoxville
Knoxville, Tennessee
HAROLD A. BLACK
Professor and Head
Department of Finance
College of Business Administration
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee

JAMES D. HARRIS
President and Chief Executive Officer
Brentwood National Bank
Brentwood, Tennessee
VICTORIA B. JACKSON
President and Chief Executive Officer
Diesel Sales and Service Co., Inc., and
ProDiesel, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee

EDWIN W. MOATS, JR. (resigned)
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Metropolitan Federal Savings and
Loan Association
Nashville, Tennessee
MARGUERITE W. SALLEE
President and Chief Executive Officer
Corporate Child Care Management Services
Nashville, Tennessee

WILLIAM BAXTER LEE I11
Chairman and President
Southeast Services Corporation
Knoxville, Tennessee

N E W ORLEANS
JAMES A. HEFNER (resigned)
CHAIRMAN
President
Jackson State University
Jackson, Mississippi
JO ANN SLAYDON
CHAIRMAN
President
Slaydon Consultants and
Insight Productions and Advertising
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
JOEL B. BULLARD, JR.
President
Joe Bullard Automotive Companies
Mobile, Alabama




VICTOR BUSSIE
President
Louisiana AFL-CIO
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

STANLEY S. SCOTT (resigned)
President
Crescent Distributing Company
Harahan, Louisiana

EARL W. LUNDY
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
First National Bank of Vicksburg
Vicksburg, Mississippi

A. HARTIE SPENCE
President
Calcasieu Marine National Bank
Lake Charles, Louisiana

KAY L. NELSON
Managing Director
Nelson Capital Corporation
New Orleans, Louisiana
LUCIMARIAN T. ROBERTS
President
Mississippi Coast Coliseum Commission
Pass Christian, Mississippi

OFFICERS
HEAD O F F I C E
ROBERT P. FORRESTAL
President and Chief Executive Officer

JACK G U Y " '
First Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer

W. RONNIE CALDWELL'
Executive Vice President

S E N I O R VICE P R E S I D E N T S
PATRICK K. BARRON
Senior Vice President (transferred)
RICHARD R. OLIVER
Senior Vice President and
System EFT Product Manager

SHEILA L. TSCHINKEL'
Senior Vice President and
Director of Research

EDMUND WILLINGHAM
Senior Vice President and
General Counsel

JOHN M. WALLACE*'
Senior Vice President and
General Auditor

* Management Committee

H. TERRY SMITH'
Senior Vice President

** Advisor to Management Committee

VICE P R E S I D E N T S
LOIS C. BERTHAUME
Vice President

WILLIAM C. HUNTER
Vice President

FRANCIS J. CRAVEN, JR.
Vice President and
Director of Human Resources

ZANE R. KELLEY
Vice President

ANNE M. DeBEER
Vice President
ROBERT E. HECK
Vice President (retired)

JOHN R. KERR
Vice President
B. FRANK KING
Vice President and
Associate Director of Research

BOBBIE H. McCRACKIN
Vice President and
Public Affairs Officer
JOHN D. PELICK
Vice President
MARY S. ROSENBAUM
Vice President
RONALD N. ZIMMERMAN
Vice President

A S S I S T A N T VICE P R E S I D E N T S
JOHN H. ATKINSON
Examining Officer

ALBERT E. MARTIN 111
Assistant General Counsel

RONALD J. ROBINSON
Assistant Vice President

JOHN R. BRANSCOMB
Assistant Vice President

NANCY R. McCRUMMEN
Assistant Vice President

MELINDA J. RUSHING
Assistant Vice President

CHRISTOPHER G. BROWN
Assistant Vice President

RUTH W. MEDNIKOW
Assistant Vice President

ROBERT T. SEXTON
Assistant Vice President

JENNIFER H. BUDDIN
Assistant Vice President

AMELIA A. MURPHY
Ex~aniningOfficer

GENE D. SULLIVAN
Research Officer (retired)

DAVID F. CARR
Assistant Vice President

ALVIN L. PILKINTON, JR.
Assistant General Auditor

LARRY D. WALL
Research Officer

CHAPELLE D. DAVIS
Examining Officer

TED G. REDDY 111
Assistant Vice President

JESSIE T. WATSON
Assistant Vice President

WILLIAM B. ESTES I11

MARION P. RIVERS 111
Examining Officer

ADRIENNE M. WELLS
Aa?jstant V i F'resident and
Aa?jstantEFTproductManager

Examining Officer
JAYNE FOX-BRYAN
Assistant Vice President and
Corporate Secretary




WILLIAM T. ROBERDS
Research Officer

DAVID D. WHITEHEAD
Research Officer (retired)

BRANCHES
ATLANTA
DONALD E. NELSON
Senior Vice President and
Branch Manager
WARDLYN M. BASSLER
Vice President and
Assistant Branch Manager

JAMES L. BROWN
Assistant Vice President

ROBERT I. McKENZIE
Assistant Vice President

ROBERT A. LOVE
Assistant Vice President

WILLIAM R. POWELL
Assistant Vice President

FREDERIC L. FULLERTON
Assistant Vice President

JAMES M. McKEE

BIRMINGHAM
FREDERICK R. HERR*
Senior Vice President and
Coordinating Branch Manager
ROBERT G. DOLE
Assistant Vice President and
Assistant Branch Manager

EDWARD B. HUGHES
Assistant Vice President

* Management Committee

JACKSONVILLE
JAMES D. HAWKINS*
Senior Vice President and
Coordinating Branch Manager
ROBERT J. SLACK
Assistant Vice President and
Aasistant Branch Manager

RICHARD L. BERRY
Assistant Vice President

JEFFREY L. WELTZIEN
Assistant Vice President

LEE C. JONES
Assistant Vice President

* Management Committee

MIAMI
JAMES T. CURRY
Vice President and Branch Manager

VICKI A. ANDERSON
Assistant Vice President

JUAN DEL BUST0
Assistant Vice President and
Assistant Branch Manager

FRED D. COX
Assistant Vice President

ROBERT de ZAYAS
Assistant Vice President

NASHVILLE
MELVYN K. PURCELL
Vice President and Branch Manager

WILLIAM W. DYKES
Assistant Vice President

E. CHANNING WORKMAN, JR.
Assistant Vice President and
Assistant Branch Manager

MARGARET A. THOMAS
Assistant Vice President

JOEL E. WARREN
Assistant Vice President

N E W ORLEANS
ROBERT J. MUSS0
Vice President and Branch Manager

AMY S. GOODMAN
Assistant Vice President

WILLIAM H. SMELT
Assistant Vice President and
Assistant Branch Manager

WILLIAM E. THOMPSON I11
Assistant Vice President




PATRICIA D. VAN de GRAAF
Assistant Vice President

S T A T E M E N T O F CONDITION
Assets

Gold Certificate Account

December 3 1,1990
$

Special Drawing Rights Certificate Account

465,000,000

December 31,1991
$

479,000,000

303,000,000
53,559,550
8,442,763,252

9,115,275,522

581,434,267

895,199,642

58,207,950

56,962,197

Other Assets

3,533,589,537

3,003,780,411

Interdistrict Settlement Account

2,887,248,610

1,987,388,156

$916,324,803,166

$15,886,915,563

$11,768,411,002
3,739,887,575

$11,425,796,490

225,759,680

792,359,948

99,730,709

81,241,610

$15,833,788,966

$15,401,317,563

coin
Loans and Securities
Items in Process of Collection
Bank Premises

Total Assets

303.000.000
I

,

46,309,635

Liabilities
Federal Reserve Notes
Deposits*
Deferred Credit Items
Other Liabilities
Total Liabilities

3,101,919,515

Capital Accounts
Capital Paid In

$

Surplus

245,507,100

$

242,799,000

245,507,100

242,799,000

491,014,200

$ 485,598,000
$15,886,915,563

Total Capital Accounts

$

Total Liabilities and Capital Accounts

$16,324,803,166

*Includes depository institution accounts, collected Iunas aue to other Federal Reserve Banks, U.S. Treasurer-General a o
count, other and miscellaneous deposits




STATEMENT
OF EARNINGS
A N D EXPENSES
Eamhgs and Expenses

December 3 1 , 1 9 9 0

December 3 1 , 1 9 9 1

$1,098,795,378

$997,067,482

123,553,422

129,128,941

12,996,381

13,482,866

$ 962,245,575

$854,455,675

211,986,696

38,592,616

10,157,200

10,430,300

Federal Reserve Currency Cost

5,840,582

11,484,999

Cost of Unreimbursed Treasury Services

6,915,174

6,844,689

$1,151,319,315

$864,288,303

14,123,790

$ 14,806,390

1,110,510,675

852,190,013

26,684,850

(2,708,100)

$1,151,319,315

$864,288,303

Surplus January 1

$ 218,822,250

$245,507,100

Surplus December 31

$ 245,507,100

$242,799,000

Current Income
Current Expenses
Cost of Earnings Credits
Current Net Income
Net Additions (Deductions)*
Assessment for Expenses of Board of Governors

Net Income before Payment to U. S . Treasury

Distribution of Net Earnjngs
Dividends Paid
Payments to U.S. Treasury (Interest on Federal Reserve Notes)
Transferred to Surplus
Total Income Distributed

$

Surplus Account

*Includes gainsflosses on sales of U.S. government securities and foreign exchange transactions




S U M M A R Y OF O P E R A T I O N S
1990

Services to
Depository Institutions

Items
(thousands)

1991
Percent
Change
From One
Year Ago

Items
(thousands)

Percent
Change
From One
Year Ago

Check Clearing

U.S. Government Checks Processed
Commercial Checks Processed

74,069

1.2

69,034

-6.8

2,815,922

8.3

2,894,449

2.8

236,344

20.1

261,681

10.7

9,075

6.8

9,522

4.9

Electronic Payments
ACH Commercial and Government
Payments Processed
Wire Transfers of Funds
Cash Services
114

-3.4

98

49

-10.9

48

-2.0

1,606

-12.3

1,878

16.9

59

-6.3

51

-13.6

Noncash Items Processed

-20.8

628

-21.1

Definitive Safekeeping Receipts

-28.4

95

-27.5

6,783

-17.7

6,954

328

22.4

251

-23.5

Currency Orders Processed
Coin Orders Processed

-14.0

Loans to Depository Institutions
Loans Processed*
Securities Services
On-Line Bookentry Transfers

Services to U.S. Treasury

U.S. Savings Bonds Issued
U.S. Savings Bonds Redeemed

2.5

Other Treasury Issues
89

-15.2

68

-23.6

5

-28.6

3

-40.0

Deposits to Treasury Tax
and Loan Accounts

829

-2.4

747

-9.9

Food Coupons Destroyed

460,273

Issued
Redeemed

*Numbers shown are actua, not tnousands.




28.4

490,224

6.5




EDERAL RESERVE
BANK O F ATLANTA




For additional copies contact:
Public Affairs Department
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
104 Marietta Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713
MI521-8020

printed on recycled paper