View original document

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

- F E D ik jrfR E SERVE BANK /^RICHM OND

7

August 1956

CHANGE IN PER ACRE VALUE OF FARM LAND, 1950 -1955

% Increase
Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina

41
29
I3
30
28

Fifth District
United States

♦ Independent cities. Seporote data not available.
Source:

Bureau of the Census.




% Increase
75 and Over
50 - 74.9
25 - 49.9
10 - 24.9
Under 10
Decrease

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

F

if t h

D

T

is t r ic t

r e n d s

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDS

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDS
40 0

400

1
R ISIDENTUM.

300

300

A A A
Aw M f1 \
v U
A
V

V i r\A
\

i

200

100

200

¥

100
(Sea >onally Adju sted)
(I9< 7-1949 = 1 >0)
C

1948

Sizable increases in contract awards for factory construction and
for educational buildings were responsible for offsetting losses in
other segments of the construction industry. Result: seasonally ad­
justed total awards in June were 1% higher than May and at the
same level as a year ago. For the first half they were down 14%.

1949

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

Contract awards for residential buildings dropped 22% in June
compared with May on a seasonally adjusted basis. Apartments
and hotel awards were down 60% and one- and two-family houses
awards 12% during the month. June awards were 8 % under a year
ago and the first half-year was down 19% .

DEPARTMENT STORE SALES

BUSINESS FAILURES

1948

Business failures in the Fifth Federal Reserve District rose sub­
stantially in June on a seasonally adjusted basis— up 63% from May
and 49% from a year ago. For the first half-year the increase was
17%.

1950

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

Department store sales (adjusted) slipped 1 % in June from May.
This left the sales level on the plateau that has prevailed since
September 1955. June sales were 9% higher than a year ago and
the first half-year was up 5 % .

BUILDING PERMITS

RETAIL FURNITURE STORES NET SALES

(V A L U E )

150

150

125

i

(A

125

i

100 7
A

A
V k
/

r
V

u

\ K
V

r f A

\

A
%

i/v

100

u w

r

75

75
(Sea sonolly Adjuste d )
(19 47-1949*1
1

3 Ft Dtitdi*.
6 i h i rc t »
f s
Building permits in 36 Fifth District cities dropped 37% (after
seasonal correction) in June compared with May. June permits
were 35% smaller than a year ago, and the first half-year showed
a decline of 12%.




1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

Sales of retail furniture stores declined 2 % on a seasonally ad­
justed basis from May to June. June was, however, 9 % higher
than a year ago, and the first half-year sales were up 10% .

August 1956

/fonMA//fanac?-

What Keeps Farm Land Values Up?
and farm income is unusual and therefore surprising.
What has happened to upset the usual and logical rela­
tionship? Several factors, the relative importance of
which is difficult to evaluate, have been influencing the
land market and thus offsetting the expected depressive
effects of reduced income.

of farm land have done it again— that is, step­
ped up in the face of declining farm income. W ith
increases occurring in all Fifth District states, the
March 1, 1956 index was 139 (1 9 47 -4 9= 10 0) or 5%
above the year-ago level and at a new record high. The
national index also set a record and at 138 was 4 %
higher than in March 1955.
This striking departure from the normal relationship
between land values and farm income has been going
on for more than two years— in fact, since the postKorean low in land prices in late 1953. W hat’s the
explanation of this apparent paradox?
Adequate answer to the query— if there is one— is
of considerable significance, especially to those who re­
gard the price of farm land as a barometer of the
economic health of agriculture. Actually, the book
value of land and buildings accounts for over half the
current market value of total farm assets. Changes in
land prices, therefore, are watched closely by all who
are interested in agriculture— particularly by farmmortgage lenders and by those planning to buy or sell
farms.
r ic e s

P

Perhaps the most significant factor has been the
strong demand by farmers for land to enlarge existing
farms. Census data show that Fifth District farms in
1955 averaged 3 acres larger than in 1950 and that the
number of farms 500 acres and over has increased 5% .
Caught in the cost-price squeeze, many farmers have
found that more land will permit more efficient opera­
tions with a resulting improvement in profitability. In­
creased productivity per acre and delay of sales in order
to qualify for Social Security benefits have also been
price-sustaining factors.
T o some extent, the old-fashioned but still widelyheld belief that farm land is a sound long-term invest­
ment has helped sustain demand. Widespread business
prosperity has indubitably contributed to this confidence.
Land is tangible, and many people— both farmers and
nonfarmers— consider it an asset which offers security
in case of cyclical change, of inflation or depression.

Looking Backward

T o gain perspective, let’s look at the record. It re­
veals that a hand-in-hand relationship between land
values and farm income has existed for the 45 years of
record. During this long and changeful period, there
were only four times when this relationship did not
prevail. Prior to the current divergence, the disparities
lasting longer than one year occurred during some very
unusual situation, such as the outbreak of W orld W ars
I and II and the crash of 1920. There was no period
similar in length to the present one in which land values
increased as farm income declined.
The beginning of W orld W ar II set off the longest
upward movement in land values since records were
started in 1912. Values of farm land, responding to
an even faster climbing farm income, more than doubled
by early 1949, then dipped slightly in response to the
mild recession of that year.
Then came K orea! Prices of farm real estate jump­
ed again, continuing to a new high 30% above preKorea and nearly 60% above the 1920 peak. Land
values at that point again slipped but not nearly as much
as farm income which had turned downward earlier.
Then the unusual developed. Prices of farm land
firmed and began to rise while farm commodities slip­
ped. This strengthening continued through early 1956,
even though farm income was declining, and current
values stand 9% above the 1953 low.

In addition, more liberal lending policies were adopt­
ed by several of the major institutional lenders in 1954.
Appraisal values for loan purposes were raised and dol­
lar loan limits were increased. These changes in loan
policies doubtless contributed to the upward movement
in land prices.
The continued brisk demand by city people for parttime farms and rural residences has also contributed to
the strength in the farm real estate market. This is
evidenced by the nearly 10,000 increase between 1950
and 1955 in the number of District farms under 10 acres.
O f this number, more than 5,000— a near 75% upturn
— were farms of less than 3 acres. This influence is
particularly exhibited in the Carolinas and Virginia.
Urban and industrial expansion has also added
strength to the asking prices for farm land. Farm real
estate sold for such uses brings prices well above that
sold for farming purposes and thus produces an indirect
upward effect on land prices in surrounding communi­
ties. A prime example of this is evident in Barnwell
and Aiken Counties, South Carolina— counties nearest
the Savannah River Plant of the Atom ic Energy Com­
mission— where land values per acre more than doubled
from 1950 to 1955.
Another factor which has undoubtedly helped to prop
up farm land prices is the theory that, with a growing
population and a fixed supply of land, there will be an

Factors Sustaining Land Values

Historically, then, this disparity between land values



(Continued on page 10)

i 3 y

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Treasury Financing-Fiscal ’56 Results and ’57 Prospects
November offering of 2^6% Certificates of Indebted­
ness due December 1, 1956, and 2^$% Treasury Notes
maturing June 15, 1958, in exchange for $12.2 billion
of Notes and Certificates maturing on December 15,
met a less favorable reception. Cash redemptions
amounted to 13.1% of the maturing securities held
outside of the Federal Reserve Banks. In the March
refunding of $8.5 billion of 1-H$% Treasury Notes due
March 15, 1956, and $1 billion of 1^2% Treasury Notes
due April 1, 1956, total cash redemptions were only 3%
of the amount held outside of the Federal Reserve Sys­
tem. Over-all cash redemptions in fiscal 1956 refund­
ings amounted to 3.8 % of total maturities compared to
4.5% in fiscal 1955. The
Treasury issues which ma­
tured during fiscal 1956
TREASURY SECURITIES
were refinanced at higher
M ATURING OR C A L L A B L E
interest rates than in 1955
so that interest payments in
fiscal 1957 will increase
some $200 million over
fiscal 1956.

fourth balanced budget in twenty-four years and
the first under the present Administration produced
a surplus of $1.75 billion for the 1956 fiscal year which
ended June 30. This surplus in the administrative
budget exceeded the mid-year estimate by roughtly $1.5
billion and was made possible by rising revenues derived
from the increased level of business activity. Revenues
were $68.14 billion and expenditures $63.39 billion.
Existence of a surplus in the face of increased ex­
penditures by the armed services and for farm price
supports continues the pattern of fiscal 1955 when the
deficit was less than estimated because of the greater
rise in revenue than in expenditures after initial
projections had been made.

T

he

In recent years the cash
budget has run a greater
surplus or a smaller deficit
t h a n t h e administrative
budget by about $2 or $3
billion, reflecting the great­
er excess of receipts over
expenditures in government
trust funds, which are not
taken into account in the
administrative budget. The
cash surplus of $5.1 billion
in fiscal 1956 permitted a
reduction of the national
debt by the end of June to
• Excluding the weekly rollover of Treasury Bill
$272.4 billion, bringing it
under the permanent debt
limit of $275 billion. Con­
gress has approved a temporary ceiling of $278 billion
for fiscal year 1957 to permit the cash borrowing neces­
sary in the first half of fiscal 1957 before the concentrated
flow of revenues begins in the January-June period. On
June 30 the Treasury’s General Fund balance was $6.5
billion (compared with $6.2 billion a year earlier)
which should provide a comfortable working margin for
the immediate future.

New money borrowing of
approximately $6 billion, as
compared with $13.6 billion
in fiscal 1955, was concen­
trated in the first half of
fiscal 1956. The principal
source of funds was the sale
of two issues of T ax Antici­
pation Certificates of In­
debtedness. In July $2.2
billion of 1 ^ % Certificates maturing March 22, 1956,
were sold and in October $2.97 billion of 2^4% Certifi­
cates due June 22, 1956. The July sale of $821 million
of 3 % , 40- year bonds, a reopening of the issue first
offered in February 1955, modestly implemented the
Treasury objective of broadening the distribution of the
debt. Treasury officials regarded the successful flota­
tion of this security as evidence of a permanent market
for long-term bonds among pension funds, trusts, col­
leges, and some corporations. Effect of this new money
borrowing on the debt level was counteracted, of course
by the use of the cash surplus to reduce the debt before
June 30, 1956.

Exclusive of the rollover of Treasury bills, which
since July 1955 has proceeded at a weekly level of $1.6
billion, total refundings undertaken by the Treasury in
fiscal 1956 amounted to a little over $30 billion as com­
pared to $43.7 billion for fiscal 1955 and a projected
$44.1 billion for the current fiscal year. The very suc­
cessful refunding in July 1955, of $8.5 billion of 1^6%
Certificates of Indebtedness through an optional ex­
change offering of 2% Tax Anticipation Certificates of
Indebtedness maturing June 22, 1956, or 2% Treasury
Notes due August 15, 1956, involved cash redemptions
of only $150 million or about 5.4% of the amount held
outside the Federal Reserve System. In contrast, the



Treasury Needs in Fiscal 1957

January budget estimates for fiscal 1957, generally
regarded as conservative, forecast a modest surplus
in the administrative budget, with receipts of $66.3 bil­
lion and expenditures of $65.9 billion and a $2.4 billion
cash surplus. W hile no official revision has been an­
nounced, it is quite possible that both receipts and ex­
i 4 y

August 1956

penditures will be higher. Fiscal 1956 receipts of $68.1
billion and expenditures of $66.4 billion exceed official
projections for fiscal 1957. Federal agencies began the
current fiscal year with $519 million more appropria­
tions than the budget projected for those requests al­
ready acted upon by Congress. On the other hand, the
failure of the President’s program for school construc­
tion and the prospective cut in foreign aid may offset
this factor. Neither the new superhighway system nor
the increased excises to finance it were included in the
original budget.

diminish the risk of substantial attrition resulting from
anticipation of superior terms in the future. On July
16 subscription books were opened for 2 % % Notes due
August 1, 1957. These notes were offered in exchange
for the 2% Treasury Notes maturing August 15 and
the 1^ % Treasury Notes due October 1, which to­
gether totaled $12.9 billion.
The September redemption of the 2^4% , partially
tax-exempt Treasury Bonds of 1956-59 is in line with
the Treasury’s practice of calling securities with taxexempt features. The bonds will be redeemed for cash.

The projected surplus obviously anticipates continued
high level tax receipts derived from high and moderate­
ly rising income levels, which more than counteract ris­
ing expenditures. The actual increase in fiscal 1956
expenditures and the projected increases in expendi­
tures for fiscal 1957 over the original fiscal 1956 budg­
et reverse the pattern of decrease over the past three
years. Slightly over half of the increase in expendi­
tures over the fiscal 1956 budget is allocated to national
defense and related items, reflecting, in the President’s
words, “ in large part, the cost of keeping our forces
modern.” The remainder is scheduled for a wide range
of nondefense programs. The largest single proposed
increase in nondefense programs is $400 million for the
new soil bank program, but this is offset by a roughly
comparable decrease in other farm price and income
stabilization programs. Other increases, e.g., for pub­
lic health and community development, are substantial
if viewed in the aggregate.
Revenue estimates assume continuation of existing
tax rates, enactment of higher postal rates, a slight in­
crease in personal income, and a slight decline in the
rate of corporate profits.
Outside of the weekly rollover of bills, the Treasury
faces the task of refunding $36.9 billion of maturing se­
curities and $7.2 billion of callable bonds. O f the total
$6.3 billion of securities callable in September, $982
million of 2^4% Bonds maturing September 15, 1959,
have been called, the remainder being callable again on
the next succeeding interest payment date, March 15.
In the first half of fiscal 1957, three maturing issues
and one callable bond issue, totaling $23.0 billion, are
scheduled for disposition. Approximately $9 billion of
these securities are held by the public, of which nonfinancial corporations hold roughly $4 billion of the 2%
Notes due in August, $400 million of the 2 ^ % Bonds
callable in September, and $2 billion of 2 £^% Certifi­
cates of Indebtedness maturing in December.
In recent years the Treasury has frequently combined
several refundings into a single operation in part to




O f the major issues maturing during the JanuaryJune period of fiscal 1957, only the May 1 ^ % Treas­
ury Notes come due during the period of large cash
surplus from the latter half of March to the end of June.
O f the total $21.1 billion of maturing or callable debt
in the January-June period, $14.9 billion is held outside
of the U. S. Government investment accounts and the
Federal Reserve Banks. Although the total refinanc­
ing in the January-June period is smaller than that
scheduled for the preceding six months, the proportion
of maturing securities held by the public is much greater.
Virtually all of the May 1^6% Treasury Notes are held
by the public.
The smaller increase in the temporary debt ceiling
for the current fiscal year indicates that new money bor­
rowing will be under the approximate $6 billion bor­
rowed last year. New money needs, following the pat­
tern of recent years, will be concentrated in the JulyDecember period.
Fiscal 1955 marked the end of the acceleration of
corporate income tax payments under the Mills Plan.
The final result placed corporate income tax liability
on a calender year basis payable in the January-June
period following the close of the taxable year. Begin­
ning in fiscal 1956 a five-year plan to even out corporate
tax payments in excess of $100,000 went into effect.
Although only 5% of the taxable corporations are sub­
ject to this plan, an estimated 85% of the total cor­
porate tax liability is affected. In the fiscal year just
ended corporations filed estimates of taxes due on 1955
income and paid an estimated 5% in September, 5% in
December, and approximately 45% in both March and
June. Each year the tax liability due in September and
in December will increase by 5% of the total liability in
excess of $100,000, the increases being shifted back from
March and June. By 1959 payments due in each quar­
ter will be approximately 25% of the total. Once the
evening-out process is complete, the Treasury’s season­
al borrowing problem will be reduced.

1 5 Y

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Loan Survey Results . . .

Business Loan Maturities A t Fifth District Member Banks
ties, because of heavy capital investment and stable
T T ow are business loan maturities related to type of
revenues, were able to borrow over 55% of their funds
l l borrower, form of business organization, interest
through long-term notes. Service firms were also
rates, and size of lending bank ? Answers to these ques­
strongly dependent upon long-term loans, particularly
tions are important to both commercial bankers and
those with maturities of over four years.
economic analysts. T o the commercial banker their im­
portance lies in the provision of a yardstick against
Maturities by Form of Business Organization
which to measure his own banking practices. For the
A s indicated in Table 2, unincorporated businesses
economic analyst such information means a better basis
depended slightly more upon term loans as a credit
for monetary policy by adding to his knowledge con­
medium than did incorporated businesses, probably be­
cerning the operation of the banking system.
cause of the greater access of the latter to other supplies
In order to obtain this and related information the
of long-term funds. In the
Federal Reserve System, in
case of incorporated busi­
cooperation with member
nesses, only 21% of the dol­
banks, undertook a sample
'
"i
A V E R A G IE
IN T E R E S T
R A T E S O N
B U S IN E S S L O A N S
lar amount of loans and
survey of business loans
FIFTH DISTRICT MEMBER BANKS
23% of the number of loans
outstanding on October 5,
(October 5, 1955)
were long-term as compared
1955. Part of the Fifth Dis­
Motuntv
4 34%
Demand
[_
with corresponding percent­
trict results already have
1month or Jess |
4 7 1%
13
ages of 27% and 25% for
been released in April, June,
4 18%
1-3 month* |
3 - 6 months |
4 12%
unincorporated firms. A s
and July Monthly Review
6 - 9 month* [
4 27%
9 months* lyeor |
might be expected with such
5 46%
articles reporting loan char­
......... i
1 - 2 years
£
6 08%
i
s li g h t differences, there
acteristics according to size
2 - 3 yeors
1
5 6 7%
................. “ i
3 ~ 4 yeor*
|
5 69%
were s e v e r a l variations
of bank and borrower, busi­
......... ................ l
4 31%
4 ~ 5 **o r«
[
within maturity categories.
ness of borrower, and simi­
5 -10 iva rt [
4 32*
..........
J
Over 10 year* [_
4 49%
For example, among the
i
larity to 1946 loan patterns.
Averoqe
£
4 4 8%
.' ■
i
short-term loan maturities,
This article concentrates on
unincorporated b u s in e s s e s
another aspect of the survey
acquired larger percentages
— the relationship of loan
of both the dollar amount of demand loans and the num­
maturities to business of borrower, form of business
ber of three- to six-month loans than did incorporated
organization, average interest rate, and size of bank.
firms. There were also exceptions among long-term
Maturities by Business of Borrower
maturities where incorporated businesses had heavier
percentage concentrations of four- to five-year loans.
Table 1, a breakdown of loan maturities by business
of borrower, demonstrates the banks’ continuing roles
Average Interest Rates for Different Maturities
as short-term lenders. Around two-thirds of the loans,
The above chart, which shows weighted average inter­
both in dollar amount and in number of loans, had ma­
est rates for each maturity, reveals some interesting re­
turities of less than six months, and less than onelationships between the pattern of loan maturities and in­
fourth had maturities of more than one year. Even in
terest rates. Average rates for short-term loans amount­
the long-term category only a few loans had maturities
ed to 4.34% as compared with an average of 4.2%
as great as ten years.
reported for all districts in the April issue of the Federal
Am ong different classes of borrowers there were sub­
Reserve Bulletin. Fifth District average long-term rates
stantial variations in maturity, suggesting that banks
were also higher than the national average— 4.87% as
tailor their loans to fit individual needs. For example,
against 4.2% . There were probably several reasons for
commodity dealers and sales finance companies, both
these differentials. Possibly the most important was the
traditionally heavy short-term borrowers, obtained over
high percentage of Fifth District loans made by small
95% of their bank funds with short-term loans (one
banks, banks that were shown in the April 1956 issue of
year or less). Food, liquor, and tobacco manufacturers,
the Monthly R eview to charge somewhat higher rates
wholesalers, and construction firms also were relatively
than did larger banks. Another important reason was
heavy short-term borrowers. A t the other extreme,
the high percentage of the dollar total of Fifth District
transportation, communication, and other public utili­
loans made to small businesses. The fact that alterna­



-{ 6

August 1956

Table 1
M A T U R IT Y OF B U SIN E SS L O A N S BY T Y P E OF B U SIN E S S
Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5 1955
Maturity of Loans
Business of Borrower

Demand

Manufacturing and mining
Food, liquor, and tobacco ______
Textiles, apparel, and leather __
Metal and metal products - - Petroleum, coal, chemicals, and
rubber
. _ _ _ __
..............
All other manufacturing and
mining _ ______ ___ _
_
Trade
Wholesale ...................... .....................
Retail
.
_ ...........................
Other
Commodity dealers
....................
Sales finance companies ..........
Transportation,
communication,
and other public u tilitie s____ _
Construction _______ ____________
Real estate .................. .........
Service firms _____ _ ......................
All other nonfinancial ___________
All Borrowers

_

.... _...........

1 mo.
or less

1-3
mos.

3-6
mos.

18,807
37,512
19,349

18,619
15,083
1,307

6-9
mos.

9 mos.1 yr.

1-2
yrs.

2-3
yrs.

3-4
yrs.

4-5
yrs.

5-10
yrs.

Over
10 yrs.

414
4,750
3,752

2,430
5,684
1,714

88
966
399

Total

Amount Outstanding— Thousands of Dollars
9,702
5,459
4,007

5,028
7,824
3,678

522
2,021
1,844

288
417
137

3,853
1,238
856

181
218
677

560
1,371
577

60,492
82,543
38,297

6,282

1,111

5,205

2,741

311

1,099

737

118

333

1,057

607

249

19,850

9,473

8,482

24,792

10,599

1,112

1,512

2,484

3,252

1,521

5,102

8,149

557

77,035

13,114
32,937

20,930
27,336

27,042
65,366

18,462
29,759

1,394
5,669

6,020
8,882

1,371
10,201

1,581
7,563

990
4,096

900
7,593

8,161
22,075

997
2,994

100,962
224,471

33,897
24,927

1,724
5,324

4,973
37,827

3,388
33,637

0
1,224

281
372

0
400

83
413

78
1,000

946
0

41
0

0
0

45,411
105,124

12,457
21,626
36,350
11,785
9,387

2,278
6,659
7,796
6,051
3,905

3,371
21,907
27,501
18,563
9,873

2,715
20,703
10,973
8,827
7,596

6,570
3,234
3,437
1,733
1,766

4,407
2,348
8,661
2,703
2,523

7,253
6,660
8,970
4,668
916

7,803
830
3,957
3,295
1,663

2,303
2,461
435
1,403
748

14,476
282
9,248
5,235
5,522

6,642
1,582
19,478
15,378
7,391

1,388
842
2,565
1,508
608

71,663
89,134
139,371
81,149
51,898

231,403

108,126

322,088

184,409

30,837

39,650

49,607

31,634

17,876

59,277

99,332

13,161

1,187,400

32
44
64

19
45
85

23
71
115

136
64
83

26
5
3

1,991
1,384
1,918

Number of Loans
Manufacturing and mining
Food, liquor, and tobacco ______
Textiles, apparel, and le a th e r__
Metal and metal products ____ .
Petroleum, coal, chemicals, and
rubber __________ _ -------- -------All other manufacturing and
................................
mining
Trade
Wholesale _________ „ ________
Retail ....................................................
Other
Commodity dealers _________ ___
Sales finance companies ___ _ _
Transportation, communication,
and other public utilities _
Construction ____________________
Real estate ________-______________
Service firms
_
... ...............
All other nonfinancial ...

108

70

326

501

484

1,504

714
2,882

903
3,329

1,664
9,616

344
102

7
35

214
824
882
1,128
583

All Borrowers ...............................

9,042

476
116
168

152
108
279

528
625
590

316
126
96

36
31
65

100
57
61

147
92
309

412

54

297

244

68

19

18

45

1

1,662

596

84

240

255

170

75

104

243

22

4,278

698
3,415

63
1,074

376
2,212

458
2,518

136
1,081

54
615

70
481

248
1,245

64
243

5,448
28,711

78
309

37
224

0
17

12
30

0
3

6
6

15
1

6
0

6
0

0
0

511
727

183
597
459
1,047
466

282
1,668
1,473
2,860
1,630

181
694
527
1,342
1,338

98
150
177
305
300

191
312
281
1,145
783

727
704
195
1,835
378

449
60
113
726
190

77
36
61
184
80

82
47
252
391
193

85
137
818
614
369

19
69
86
110
61

2,588
5,298
5,324
11,687
6,371

8,119

23,153

10,002

2,454

6,097

7,865

3,145

1,366

1,853

4,093

709

77,898

tive sources of funds may not have been as readily avail­
able in this District may have contributed also to the
higher rates. The most reasonable explanation for the
greater differential between short- and long-term rates
seems to be that long-term borrowing here was not as
heavily confined to industries that paid low interest rates
as was the case for the country as a whole.
The most interesting relationships, however, can be

found by comparing Fifth District interest rates and
loan maturities since these figures appear on superficial
examination to be somewhat unreasonable. For ex­
ample, rates on demand and very short-term loans were
higher than rates on four- to ten-year loans, and rates
on one- to two-year loans wT the highest of all. What
ere
is the explanation? Shouldn’t long-term bank rates be
higher than short-term rates because of the greater risk

Table 2
M A T U R IT Y OF B U SIN E SS L O A N S B Y FORM OF B U S IN E SS O R G A N IZ A T IO N
Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5, 1955
Maturity of Loans
Type of Business
Organization

Demand

1 mo.
or less

1-3
mos.

3-6
mos.

6-9
mos.

9 mos.1 yr.

1-2
yrs.

2-3
yrs.

3-4
yrs.

4-5
yrs.

5-10
yrs.

Over
10 yrs.

11,879
5,997

41,488
17,789

57,140
42,192

5,823
7,338

827,815
359,585

402
964

728
1,125

1,243
2,850

166
543

24,885
53,013

Total

Amount Outstanding— Thousands of Dollars
Incorp orated__________ __ ________
Unincorporated ..................... .............

153,698
77,705

72,604
35,522

239,355
82,733

139,998
44,411

24,245
6,592

24,270
15,380

Incorporated ______________ ________
Unincorporated ____________________

3,092
5,950

2,809
5,310

8,419
14,734

2,617
7,385

697
1,757

1,573
4,524

35,453
14,154

21,862
9,772

Number of Loans




i 7 y

2,109
5,756

1,030
2,115

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Business Loans by Bank Size

involved in long-term lending ? Partial explanation can
be found in the changing interest rate levels that ob­
scured normal relationships between short- and long­
term rates. For example, it seems clear that the rela­
tively high rates on demand and very short loans can
be attributed to the comparatively high rates of the
period during which the loans were negotiated. Some
of the one- to three-month notes probably also bore these
higher rates, but since part of these loans were dated
before the rise in interest rates occurred, the average
rate for the group was somewhat lower despite the
longer maturities.
Average rates for loans between three months and
two years varied directly with maturities, probably be­
cause many of these loans were extended between O cto­
ber 1953 and July 1955, when loan rates were fairly
stable. Rates on maturities ranging from two to four
years seem to have borne a reasonable relationship to
most short-term rates, considering the differences in
maturities. It appears that the relatively low interest
rates reported for maturities exceeding four years
were strongly influenced by the low interest rates
before 1950 when a number of these loans probably were
negotiated. In addition, the tendency of industries
capable of commanding a low term rate to resort to
long-term borrowing may have lowered the long-term
average. In summary, the figures do not seem to
damage seriously the concept that interest rates vary
directly with maturities.

Table 3 shows that banks of different sizes varied
widely in their policies concerning business loan ma­
turities. A s might be expected, the smallest banks—
those with deposits of less than $2 million— had pro­
portionately less of their loans, both in amount and in
number, in long maturities than did any of the other
groups. They also concentrated most of their short­
term loans in maturities of less than three months.
Strangely enough, however, such term loans as they
had were grouped most heavily in maturities running
from four to ten years. A t the other extreme, the pic­
ture differs from the expected— the largest size banks
did not extend the highest percentage of term loans
by either number or by dollar amount. They were,
however, relatively the heaviest lenders in maturity
ranges of over four years. The strongest concen­
tration of term loans is found in the medium-size banks
— those with deposits from $10 million to $50 million.
Within this group the $10 million to $20 million banks
had the highest percentages, by dollar amount, of both
total term loans and those with maturities of five years
or more.

They were surpassed in the percentage of

term loans by number, however, by the $20 million to
$50 million banks, which had 30% of their loans in
long-term maturities.

Table 3
M A T U R IT Y O F B U SIN E S S L O A N S B Y S IZ E O F B A N K
Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5, 1955
Maturity of Loans
Bank Size
(Total deposits in millions
of dollars)

Demand

1 mo.
or less

1-3
mos.

3-6
mos.

6-9
mos.

9 mos.1 yr.

1-2
yrs.

2-3
yrs.

3-4
yrs.

4-5
yrs.

5-10
yrs.

Over
10 yrs.

Total

Amount Outstanding— Thousands oi Dollars
250-500 _____________________________
100-250 ..........
....................................
50-100 ______ _____ _________ ________
20-50 ......................... ...............................
10-20 _______________________________
2-10 ............... ...........................................
Less than 2 .............
- ----------Total

-------------------------------------------

44,611
82,561
30,829
35,783
16,668
17,496
3,455

8,345
33,214
18,118
19,435
12,918
15,717
377

62,540
95,348
51,554
56,814
25,963
28,517
1,351

46,611
58,194
21,521
23,083
11,920
22,106
974

3,536
11,768
4,786
3,441
3,194
4,050
61

4,808
11,176
4,056
4,933
7,354
6,684
638

6,143
20,436
4,771
7,504
4,265
6,156
332

2,632
9,574
4,775
5,649
5,378
3,506
123

5,111
3,535
2,113
1,078
1,851
4,111
75

17,515
25,820
6,902
4,362
900
3,446
334

26,026
21,376
13,266
17,740
14,354
6,202
369

2,993
1,265
2,301
3,407
1,978
1,065
153

230,871
374,267
164,992
183,229
106,743
119,056
8,242

231,403

108,124

322,087

184,409

30,836

39,649

49,607

31,637

17,874

59,279

99,333

13,162

1,187,400

Number of Loans
250-500 ____________________________
100-250 __________________ _________
50-100 ______________________________
20-50 _______________ ______ ______ _
_
10-20 ____________________________ __
2-10 ____________ ___________________
Less than 2
................ - ..................
Total

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




498
1,345
1,151
1,678
1,113
2,647
610

404
1,195
1,069
2,218
845
2,291
98

3,353
3,518
2,709
5,181
2,350
5,443
598

635
1,220
803
1,263
1,431
4,060
590

92
332
267
273
523
895
73

469
763
451
1,242
1,363
1,662
149

349
954
633
2,530
1,001
2,286
112

151
438
293
1,013
481
745
24

74
198
109
262
148
566
9

252
462
318
279
59
451
31

524
583
546
802
750
796
90

132
78
94
199
112
88
6

6,933
11,086
8,443
16,940
10,176
21,930
2,390

9,042

8,120

23,152

10,002

2,455

6,099

7,865

3,145

1,366

1,852

4,091

709

77,898

^ 8 y

August 1956

Business Conditions and Prospects
higher than a year ago, and first half sales were up 10%.
Furniture store sales are at a high level, but no further
forward progress has been shown since March. Credit
sales have accounted for practically all of the increase
for the past year and a half. W ith the normal lag in
collections, their rise has been at the same rate as re­
ceivables. N o inventory problem appears in this group
— the June level was 1% higher than in May (after
seasonal correction) and 1% above a year ago. The
1% increase over last year compares with a 9 % increase
in sales.
New passenger automobile registrations in three
states of the District and the District of Columbia during
June were 4% lower than in May, 17% under June
1955, and the first half-year was down 5% . W est V ir­
ginia was the only state to show an increase during the
month, year, and the first half. Registrations in the
first half-year (dow n 5% from a year ago) compare
with a drop of 11% for 24 states reported thus far.
New commercial car registrations, which had shown
considerable strength earlier in the year, dropped 20%
from May to June to a level 17% under June 1955. For
the first half, however, they were up 7 % .

was a “ down month” in District trade, mining,
and most construction areas. Several large manu­
facturing and educational construction projects in V ir­
ginia and Maryland were, however, sufficient to raise
total construction volume (after seasonal adjustment)
1% from May to June.
Total nonagricultural employment rose fractionally,
with increases being shown in both manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing areas. Man-hours in all manufac­
turing industries of the District, excluding Maryland,
edged up 0.1% from May to June, due to gains in the
Carolinas.
Sentiment in the textile industry remains hopeful of
an expansion in business following a long period of
working down backlogs. Textile prices are being firmly
held at reduced levels, an optimistic indicator for the
period immediately ahead.
New savings improved substantially in the savings
and loan associations in June compared with May and
other forms of savings improved with the exception of
purchases of U. S. Savings Bonds which declined
$800,000 from May to June. Deposits of mutual sav­
ings banks in Maryland rose $3 million during the
month, savings and loan associations in all states ex­
cluding W est Virginia were up $23.3 million, and time
deposits were up $16.8 million in all member banks of
the District.
Total deposits of member banks rose 2% from May
to June, reserves with the Federal Reserve Bank were
5% higher, and both loans and investments continued
to expand during the month. Bank debits, however,
declined 5% from May to June (after seasonal correc­
tion), which meant the June level was back near the
March low though 6% above June 1955.

/

une

Construction

A s a result of a sharp rise in contract awards for new
manufacturing and educational buildings, total construc­
tion contract awards in June seasonally adjusted were
1% higher than in May, at the same level as June 1955,
and 14% under a year ago during the first half-year.
Other types of construction dropped from May to June,
after seasonal correction, with apartments and hotels
down 60% , one- and two-family houses down 12% , to­
tal residential construction down 22% , commercial
awards down 28% , public works and utilities down
13%. Relative to a year ago, apartments and hotels
were 17% higher but still at a relatively low level. On
the other hand, public works and utilities were up 85%
and at a very high level. Commercial awards were
down 53% , manufacturing building awards down 56% ,
one- and two-family houses down 2 0% , total residential
down 8 % . In the first half-year, awards for public
works and utilities were the only category to show an
increase from last year—-up 11%. All other types were
down from 9% to 31% .
Federal aid for highway construction under the new
law will give Fifth District states and the District of
Columbia $3,157,000,000 during the 13-year program.
An estimated $649,000,000 will be available in the next
three years.

Trade

The trade level in the District during June was mod­
erately under May, taking seasonal factors into account.
Sales of department stores slipped 1%, furniture stores
were off 2 % , and new passenger automobile registra­
tions were down 4% without seasonal correction.
Department store sales (adjusted) were, however,
9% higher than June last year, and for the first six
months were up 5% . On the basis of weekly returns
for the first three weeks in July, the July (seasonally
adjusted) index will set a new all-time high. Depart­
ment store inventories rose 4 % on a seasonally adjusted
basis to a level 13% ahead of a year ago. Outstanding
orders in June were 26% higher than in May and 11%
higher than a year ago. Instalment receivables showed
no increase from May to June but were 19% ahead of a
year ago, and collections were not running far behind.
Retail furniture store sales were off 2% (after sea­
sonal correction) from May to June, but June was 9%



Manufacturing

Cotton consumption in Fifth District mills during
June was 7% smaller than in May on an average daily
O

f

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

seasonally adjusted basis. June was also 3% lower
than a year ago, but the first half-year was up 4 % .
Cigarette production in the District during May was
2% higher than April (on a seasonally adjusted basis),
1% higher than a year ago, and the first five months
were up 6 % . June output in Virginia declined 5%
from May and 7.2% from a year ago.
Man-hours in all manufacturing industries of the Dis­
trict, excluding Maryland, were up 0.1% in June over
May but down 0.8% from a year ago. Gains were
shown in the Carolinas and losses in the Virginias.
Durable goods industries man-hours during June were
down 0.2% from May and 0.3% from a year ago.
Gains were shown in the Carolinas and losses in the
Virginias.
Man-hours in the nondurable goods industries of
these states rose 0.2% in June over May but declined
1.1% from a year ago. Virginia and South Carolina
had small increases, North Carolina a loss, and W est
Virginia held even.
Increases in man-hours from May to June occurred
in the lumber, primary metals, fabricated metals, food,
tobacco, and apparel industries. Broadwoven fabrics
mills showed a decline of 1.9% ; yarn and thread mills,
0.4% ; but knitting mills rose 1.9%, with most of the
gain in the seamless hosiery industry.
Banking

Total assets of all member banks in the Fifth District
rose $125 million during June. Loans and investments
were up $58 million; reserves, cash, and bank balances
up $69 m illion; and other assets off $2 million. Loans
and discounts were up $42 million during the month,
U. S. Government obligations up $15 million, and other
security holdings up $1 million.

Total deposits of member banks increased $138 mil­
lion during the m onth; borrowings were down $11 mil­
lion, other liabilities were unchanged, and capital ac­
counts were down $2 million. Time deposits rose $17
million, other demand deposits were up $113 million,
and deposits of banks were up $8 million.
Commercial and industrial loans of the weekly re­
porting banks declined moderately during July, possibly
a belated seasonal movement. Other loans, largely
consumer loans, are at their all-time peak; while real
estate loans, which had been inching upward, seem to
have leveled off.
Agriculture

Cash income from farm marketings during May rose
20% over April in Fifth District states. The May
level, however, was 3% under May 1955, and the first
five months were off 3 % . Income from crops in May
was up 38% from April and due to recent price
strength, was 1% above a year ago. Livestock and
products income rose 13% during the month. Despite
an increase of 16% in slaughter of meat animals, it was
down 5% from a year ago.
Farm prices in June were higher in all states of the
District than in May except Maryland. A ll states ex­
cept North Carolina showed prices higher than a year
ago.
As a consequence of the miners’ holiday and pre­
liminary efforts to meet the impending steel strike,
bituminous coal output in the District during June was
down 8% from May on an average daily basis. June
output, however, was 16% higher than a year ago, and
the first half-year was up 18% . Export demand for
coal continues strong and the outlook is favorable.

What Keeps Farm Land Values Up?
(Continued from page 3)

increasing demand for land to feed our people. This
idea has been reflected in the limited supply of land on
the market— voluntary sales and trades have been at or
near their lowest point in history— and has played a
dominant role in setting asking and offering prices.
A final word of caution : The potential capacity of our
farm plant and contributions that technology is likely




to make in the future toward meeting increased food
and fiber needs should not be overlooked. Failure to
do so can result in expectations of future earnings from
land which may not be realized. The real basis for farm
land values in the long-term future, as in the past, must
be the level that can be supported by long-term earnings
from the land.

i 10 1
*

ffw izu jL

August 1956

F if t h

STATES
Maryland
Dist. of Columbia
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina _
District

_____

D is t r ic t

S t a t is t ic a l

F U R N IT U R E SAL ES*
(Based on Dollar Value)
Percentage change with correspond­
ing period a year ago
June 1956
6 Mos. 1956

---------------_____ _. - .

+10
0

B U IL D IN G P E R M IT F IG U R E S
June
1956

+ 2
+2
+ 4

---------------------______________
----------------------

+14
— 4
+ 9

---------------- -----

+12

+

----------------

+ 6

+ 5

+14

+10
5

IN D IV ID U AL CITIES
Baltimore, M d .___________
+10
Washington, D. C. _____
0
Richmond, Va.
+ 16
Charleston, W . Va.
+ 9
+10
Greenville, S. C. _
_
* Data from furniture departments of department stores as well as
furniture stores.

W H O L E SA L E TRADE

LINE
Auto supplies _
_
.
Electrical, electronic and
appliance goods
. . _
Hardware, plumbing, and
heating goods ____________
Machinery equipment sup­
....................... ........
plies
Drugs, chemicals, allied
products__________________
Dry goods _______ _ _ ____ ____
Grocery, confectionery,
meats ____________________
Paper and its products ........
Tobacco products _. _ ____
Miscellaneous
_______ .. ...
District total
. ....

Sales in
June 1956
compared with
June
May
1955
1956
— 2
+ 1

Stocks on
June 30,, 1956
compared with
June 30,
May 31,
1955
1956
— 7
+ 7

+29

+

6

NA

NA

— 1

+

7

NA

NA

+21

+

4

+41

+

+ 8
NA

+ 1
NA

+ 8
NA

— 1
NA

—
+
+
+
+

—
—
+
—

+ 1
NA
+ 2
+23
+ 17

— 2
NA
— 7
— 3
— 1

4
9
7
7
8

3
6
2
2
0

2

Sales, June ’56 vs June ’55 _
Sales, 6 Mos. ending June
30, ’56 vs 6 Mos. ending
June 30, ’55 .........................

+12

+ 13

+

6

+

3

+

3

+

6

+ 8
+12

+

+

+17

+11

+ 11

+10

+53

+18

7

Open account receivables, June
1, collected in June ’56 _
30.5

50.7

44.2

38.3

42.0

Instalment receivables June
1, collected in June ’56 _

13.9

13.5

15.6

13.4

Md,.
Sales, June ’56 vs June
’55 ______ ____________




+

8

D.C.

Va.

W .V a.

+12

+13

+18

N.C.

S.C.

+

+13

7

1,045,348
789,287
515,100
602,100
117,594
780,399
180,000
1,740,190
1,660,440
1,005,560
182,673
1,009,238

468,263
1,370,821
398,929
2,106,720
411,475
1,284,093
179,000
244,900
3,282,184
1,422,771
296,950
1,193,220

4,708,591
4,547,731
1,369,658
5,875,935
1,207,266
14,685,700
1,440,050
3,191,929
15,563,553
12,724,815
1,456,589
4,127,360

3,810,284
8,525,903
2,009,636
6,202,518
1,261,501
7,349,452
1,746,400
1,794,715
12,727,949
6,510,124
1,666,305
6,484,785

1,883,654
487,260
450,681

513,266
205,000
1,652,842

4,408,371
1,190,692
2,555,775

3,403,415
1,063,464
3,674,068

437,075
2,515,177
806,589
476,950
1,490,014
326,705
726,783
322,852
89,825
193,378
1,627,523

333,003
1,604,583
806,268
565,750
1,205,523
424,845
2,031,469
236,541
293,215
180,500
722,186

3,357,821
17,410,539
4,525,860
3,372,900
8,844,025
3,112,609
6,453,168
1,946,414
1,344,950
2,793,453
8,412,991

1,657,080
15,175,558
6,958,257
4,187,700
5,832,947
4,211,864
11,375,348
1,889,186
799,378
1,851,275
7,311,203

1,152,053
908,860
355,735
534,202

393,152
631,177
817,266
265,990

2,085,224
6,051,580
3,736,961
3,020,188

1,675,777
4,420,117
4,194,012
1,136,690

Dist. of Columbia
Washington
3,364,539
District Totals ..$34,567,308

+11

10.7

6 Months
1955

$11,014,340$ 27,113,583 $ 54,610,222
101,600
928,505
903,291
375,000
3,351,910
1,543,175
113,375
744,825
1,444,260
213,677
1,213,518
1,246,276

15,650,780
26,801,657
44,098,400
$53,010,674$215,676,696 $244,752,535

May
1956

June
1955

%
Chg.—
Latest Mo.
Prev.
Yr.
Mo.
Ago

171
190
110
228
172
107
125
135
111
129
228

202
170
87r
229
188
101
121
123
109r
116
204

— 2
— 5
— 8
+ 1
+ 63
+ 2
— 5
— 1
0
— 2
0

Dist.
Totals

7

+28

6 Months
1956

F IF T H D IS T R IC T IN D E X E S

+

8

4,389,697
73,450
2,127,660
84,084
114,633

June
1955

Seasonally Adjusted: 1947-1949 = 100

+ 10

Stocks, June 30, ’56 vs ’55
Outstanding orders
June 30, ’56 vs ’5 5 --------

Maryland
B a ltim ore ____ $
Cumberland _ _
F re d e ric k ____
H agerstow n__
Salisbury ____
Virginia
Danville ______
H am pton_____
Hopewell ____
Lynchburg ___
Newport News
N o r fo lk ______
Petersburg___
Portsmouth___
Richmond ____
Roanoke _____
Staunton _____
Warwick ____
West Virginia
Ch arleston___
Clarksburg___
Huntington _ _
North Carolina
A sheville_____
Charlotte_____
Durham _____
Gastonia _____
Greensboro ___
High Point
Raleigh ______
Rocky Mount _
Salisbury ____
W ils o n _______ :
Winston-Salem
South Carolina
Charleston ___
Columbia ____
Greenville ____
Spartanburg _

N A Not available.
Source: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

D E P A R T M E N T STORE; O P E R A T IO N S
(Figures show percentage changes)
Other
Rich. Balt.
Wash. Cities

D ata

June
1956
New passenger car registra­
tion* ___________ ____________
Bank debits ------------------------------ 180
Bituminous coal production* _ 101
Construction con tracts________ 230
280
Business failures— number
Cigarette production ------119
Cotton spindle hours ------ Department store sales ____ —— 134
Manufacturing employment * _
126
Furniture store sales __ Life insurance sa le s----------------- 228

_

* Not seasonally adjusted,
r Revised.
Back figures available on request

-i i i v

— 13
+ 6
+ 16
0
+49
+ 1
— 2
+ 9
+ 3
+ 9
+ 12

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

F

if t h

d is t r ic t

B

D E B IT S TO D E M A N D D E P O SIT A C C O U N T S*
(000 omitted)
1956
1955
1955
1956
6 Months
June
6 Months
June
)ist. of Columbia
Washington ______ $1,498,503 $1,429,062 $ 8,989,244 $ 7,996,299
Maryland
9,380,646
Baltimore ________ 1,863,437
1,707,905
10,427,806
162,014
30,090
150,807
Cumberland ______
29,497
140,557
Frederick ................
27,659
26,319
156,222
256,228
50,047
44,376
285,245
Hagerstown ___ _
37,258
215,744
201,000
Salisbury** ______
39,288
9,928,238
Total 4 Cities ___. 1,970,640
1,808,690
11,031,287
North Carolina
435,230
A sheville______
75,720
66,956
394,519
2,426,250
432,009
420,786
2,662,778
Charlotte ____
483,111
87,144
Durham _______
92,557
515,007
868,757
152,461
962,909
160,478
Greensboro ___
298,755
57,102
52,701
334,132
High Point** .
133,515
22,458
133,352
K i n s t o n ______
22,876
1,287,248
230,010
1,406,325
233,937
Raleigh __ _
313,522
54,910
320,045
56,409
W ilm in g to n __
118,763
17,413
126,312
21,943
Wilson ________
1,019,969
184,941
1,152,123
200,606
W inston-Salem
7,045,654
1,237,079
7,714,081
1,296,035
Total 9 Cities
South Carolina
553,268
497,580
Charleston ______
92,613
83,675
185,941
197,370
1,179,765
1,063,816
Columbia
146,094
136,029
765,359
865,585
G reenville_______ _
420,684
Spartanburg —
69,875
64,319
390,518
469,964
Total 4 Cities___
505,952
3,019,302
2,717,273
Virginia
39,684
Charlottesville
42,756
231,287
219,462
42,281
40,626
232,513
Danville__________
256,235
61,211
Lynchburg _ _
62,942
370,589
323,000
66,107
59,265
329,812
Newport News __
377,376
313,499
Norfolk
_
315,846
1,856,325
1,717,263
NA
27,525
32,985
NA
Petersburg**____
37,545
38,509
226,491
Portsmouth
____
216,972
701,534
715,005
4,143,871
3,895,603
R ichm ond_______ _
162,746
138,854
920,142
Roanoke _ _____
767,095
1,406,653
8,382,316
7,701,720
Total 8 Cities ___ 1,431,757
W est Virginia
50,230
Bluefield ................
59,791
342,055
265,224
181,882
168,053
1,092,396
1,012,124
C h arleston ______ _
Clarksburg ______
43,384
38,681
244,595
214,195
79,767r
H u n tin g to n _____
89,218
515,802
475,651r
37,697
33,814
220,468
189,870
Parkersburg_____
370,545r
2,415,316
2,157,064r
Total 5 C ities_._ 411,972
$7,114,859 $6,721,993r $41,551,546 $37,546,248r
District Totals ____ —
* Interbank and U . S. Government accounts excluded.
** Not included in District Totals,
r Revised.
N A Not Available.




a n k in g

s t a t is t ic s

W E E K L Y R E P O R T IN G M E M B E R B A N K S
(000 omitted)
Change in Amount from
Items
_
Total Loans _________ _

July 18,
1956
$1,831,681**

Bus. & Agric....................
Real Estate Loans .
All Other Loans ............
Total Security Holdings

832,323
335,061
690,615
1,596,502

U. S. Treasury Bills
U. S. Treasury Certificates __
U. S. Treasury Notes _

____
____

U. S. Treasury Bonds _
Other Bonds, Stocks & Secur.
Cash Items in Process of Col. _
Due from Banks _________
Currency and Coin _____
Reserve with F. R. Banks
..................
Other Assets
____ _____
Total Assets
Total Demand Deposits__
Deposits
Deposits
Deposits
Deposits
Certified

____
____

46,759
10,570
293,127
979,290
266,756
348,802
168,635*
79,042
551,646
71,030
$4,647,338

____ $3,484,139
___

of Individuals
. 2,628,400
of U. S. Government
104,790
of State & Local Gov.
202,418
of Banks __
491,311*
& Officers’ Checks__
57,220

Total Time Deposits ____
Deposits of Individuals
Other Time Deposits _----------

767,353
690,142
77,211

Liabilities for Borrowed Money
14,550
46,157
All Other Liabilities ........
335,139
Capital Accounts _________
Total L iabilities______ ---------- $4,647,338

— 7--------' '

\

June 13,
1956
+ 19,387

July 13,
1955
+181,094

1,074
784
18,110
42,205

+ 101,553
5,013
+
+ 78,714

42,367
— 7,548
— 2,459
+ 11,440

3,162
+
— 7,480
— 57,655
— 42,215
1,791
+
591
+
— 20,971
— 3,364

+
+
+
—

—
1,271
— 20,550
— 13,250
—
480
+ 30,634
— 3,243

— 102,397

29,707

+
+
+

5,423
2,340
62,716

— 44,366

+

45,678

— 41,665
1,719
+
— 27,629
+ 27,489
— 4,280

+ 42,070
110
+
— 16,154
+ 22,592
— 2,940

-

+
+
+

12,521
10,254
2,267

+
+
+

_

4,050
+
—
673
+
— 1,239
+
.
— 29,707 V +

* Net figures, reciprocal balances being eliminated.
** Less losses for bad debts.

12,557
8,647
3,910
26,400
5,496
25,385
62,716


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102