View original document

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

* FEDERAJ^RESERVE BANK j6F)riCHM 0ND

June 1956

BUSINESS LOANS AT DISTRICT MEMBER BANKS
BY SIZE OF BUSINESS BORROWER *
LOANS OUTSTANDING OCTOBER 5,1955

* A s measured by total assets.

h e second Fifth District report on the Busi­
ness Loan Survey begins on page 3. This sur­
vey of the characteristics of business loans and bor­
rowers was conducted on a nation-wide basis as
of October 5, 1955. This second article presents
the District findings as to differences among the
various size-groups of borrowers and among the
types of borrowers in each size group.

T




Also In This Issue - -

-

First Quarter Banking
in the Fifth D istrict__________________ Page

6

W hat’s Happening Down
On the Farm ? _______________________ Page

7

Business Conditions and P r o s p e c ts _____ Page

9

Fifth District Statistical D a ta ___________ Page 11

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

F

D

if t h

T

is t r ic t

r e n d s

NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS

DEPARTMENT STORE SA LES
225

175

150

150

125

100 t

75

125

n T

A
125

\A

j

A

75

v

/

w

100

75
(Seasonally Adju ted)
(1947-1949 *1 DO)
..................

]

1948

Complete District new passenger car registrations for March
show that month up 17% from February and 4 % under a year ago,
with the first quarter up 5 % . Three states and the District of
Columbia registrations for April were 1% higher than March, 11%
smaller than a year ago, with the first four months down 1% .

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

j

1955

1956

Department store sales, seasonally adjusted, in April dropped 4 %
from March but were 4 % ahead of April 1955. In the first four
months of the year sales showed an increase of 5 % . Department
store inventories in April, adjusted, dropped 1% from March but
were 9% higher than a year ago.

BUSINESS FAILURES

RETAIL FURNITURE STORES NET SALES
150

150

100

A
A /
f
A V % *T
V \b

125

j i

125

A / V1
A

V

/V

100

w T

75

75
(Seo sonally Adji sted)
(19 47-1949*1

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

™

i

1956

Perhaps there was a dearth of accounting periods falling due in
April when businesses knew they were broke; whatever the reason,
April failures dropped 50% from those in March on a seasonally
adjusted basis. April failures were 16% under a year ago, but the
first four months of the year were up 11%.

Sales of retail furniture stores in the District during April de­
clined 4 % from March, on a seasonally adjusted basis, which left
April’s level 5 % higher than a year ago and the first four months
of the year up 9 % . Adjusted inventories of furniture stores were
down 7% from March to April, and the April level was 2 % under
a year ago.

COTTON CONSUMPTION

NEW BUSINESS INCORPORATIONS

140

140

jJ
A

120
100
80

A

120

X . /7
W
i

100
80

60

60

(Seasonally Adjusted)
(1947-1949=100)

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

;

1956

Seven hundred and forty-two new business concerns were in­
corporated in March in the Fifth District, which was 1% higher
than in February and 3% higher than in March 1955; the month
brought the first quarter to 7 % ahead of a year ago. This is an
all-time high level for new business incorporations.

Average daily, seasonally adjusted, consumption of cotton in Fifth
District mills rose 6% from March to April, and April was 6%
higher than in April 1955; this brought the four months’ total 7%
higher than a year ago. Actual consumption of cotton in April
was down 1 % % from March, which was less than a normal sea­
sonal drop of something better than 4 % .




i 2 y

June 1956

Loan Survey Results . . .

Size of Business Borrowers at District Member Banks
banks have been called the department
stores of finance. Their borrowing customers do,
indeed, come from all walks of economic life, and the
proceeds of their loans reach into every area of economic
activity. W ithin this over-all diversity of interests—
consumers, farmers, home buyers, other financial in­
stitutions, security dealers, and an infinite variety of
business firms— each major category contains a further
complexity of purposes and needs. The business borrow­
er category, however, is without a doubt the most hetrogeneous of the lot. Not only are business interests so
varied as to defy cataloguing, but new interests are
constantly appearing. T o meet these constantly evolv­
ing needs, the banker himself has been forced through an
evolutionary process in the provision of bank services.
Modifications and new ideas are constantly appearing
and, in fact, the banker of the mid-1950’s, though
fundamentally little different from his cousin of the
early 1900’s, is garbed in cloth of so different a cut as
to bear little outward resemblance to his distant relative.

1956 issue of the Federal R eserve Bulletin published
by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.

o m m e r c ia l

C

TABLE 1
B U S IN E S S B O R R O W E R S A T M E M B E R B A N K S
Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5, 1955
Amount
Outstanding
Total Assets of Borrower
(In thousands of dollars)

Thousands
of Dollars

% of
Total

103,624
41,917
97,898
249,536
305,282
302,056
87,087

8.7
3.5
8.3
21.0
25.7
25.5
7.3

347
196
834
3,071
10,132
30,441
32,877

0.4
0.3
1.1
3.9
13.0
39.1
42.2

1,187,400

100.0

77,898

100.0

100,000 and over _________
25,000-100,000 ____________
5,000-25,000 ____________
1,000-5,000 ________________
250-1,000 __________________
50-250 ____________________
Less than 50 _____________
All

Borrowers

Number
of Loans

______

Number

% of
Total

This second report, as the title indicates, examines
the characteristics of business loans as they vary among
the different sized borrowers, size being measured by
total assets. Table 1 reports the total dollar amount
outstanding and the number of loans within each bor­
rower size group on the survey date. It is of particular
interest that the very smallest firms (assets under
$50,000) had received two-fifths of the total number
of loans on the books of Fifth District member banks
on the survey date. The table also brings to sharp focus

Because of these changing patterns in commercial
bank lending practices, a nationwide survey of business
loans at member banks was undertaken as of October
5, 1955. This is the second report on the District find­
ings of this survey, the first having appeared in the
April 1956 issue of this M onthly Review. A na­
tional summary of the findings appeared in the April

TABLE 2
D IS T R IB U T IO N OF B U SIN E S S B O R R O W E R S BY S IZ E OF B A N K
Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5, 1955
Bank Size (Total Deposits in Millions of Dollars)
Total Assets of Borrower
(In thousands of dollars)

Over
250

100-250

50-100

20-50

10-20

2-10

than 2

Amount Outstanding— Thousands of Dollars
100,000 and over ....
25,000-100,000 ______________
5,000-25,000 _________ ____
1,000-5,000 __________________
250-1,000 ____________________
50-250 ________________________
Less than 50 ________________

. - - -............................
....................
__________________ ____________
______________ _
______
_
____________________ _________ _
________________ _______________

All Borrowers ...................... _________________

___________

39,152
14,034
35,445
62,971
53,107
23,791
2,371

39,640
19,269
33,624
96,323
101,029
74,365
10,017

10,970
3,458
9,543
41,587
49,727
39,659
10,048

230,871

374,267

164,992

13,596
4,890
12,386
33,655
45,378
57,570
15,754

266
266
5,508
11,882
34,762
41,354
12,705

0
0
1,392
2,775
20,788
60,505
33,596

0
0
0
343
491
4,812
2,596

183,229

106,743

119,056

8,242

Number of Loans
100,000 and over ............ ........
25,000-100,000 ______________
5,000-25,000 . ___________ _
1,000-5,000
_________________
250-1,000 ___________________
50-250 ................................ ..........
Less than 50 ------------------------

_____ ________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
___

All Borrowers -------------------

130
53
153
561
1,452
3,348
1,236

86
69
161
948
2,028
4,278
3,516

6,933

11,086

33
13
65
417
1,460
3,495
2,960

95
58
367
925
2,610
6,624
6,261

3
3
65
107
1,077
3,455
5,466

0
0
23
96
1,442
8,479
11,890

0
0
0
17
63
762
1,548

8,443

16,940

10,176

21,930

2,390

Average Size of Loan— Thousands of Dollars
______________________
100,000 and over .............. _
25,000-100,000 ______________
5,000-25,000 ______ ____
____ ____________ __ ____________
1,000-5,000
____________
260-1,000 - ... . _____________ ________________________________
5C-250 ________________________ ________________________________
Less than 50 __________ ____
All Borrowers _____

____ ________________________________




301.2
264.8
231.7
112.2
36.6
7.1
1.9

460.9
279.3
208.8
101.6
49.8
17.4
2.8

332.4
266.0
146.8
99.7
34.1
11.3
3.4

143.1
84.3
33.7
36.4
17.4
8.7
2.5

88.7
88.7
84.7
111.0
32.3
12.0
2.3

0
0
60.5
28.9
14.4
7.1
2.8

0
0
0
20.2
7.8
6.3
1.7

33.3

33.8

19.5

10.8

10.5

5.4

3.4

* 3 y
{

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

that nearly three-fourths of the dollar amount of busi­
ness loans outstanding on October 5, 1955 was to firms
with total assets ranging from $50,000 to $5,000,000.
Almost three-fifths of the total dollar amount was to
firms with total assets under $1,000,000. These firms
— with assets under $1,000,000— accounted for 94%
of the number of loans on the member banks’ books.
Table 1 also brings into sharp focus the relative posi­
tion of the larger firms (those with assets in excess of
$5,000,000). These firms accounted for one-fifth the
dollar amount of business loans outstanding but for less
than 2% of the actual number of loans.

million. The smaller banks (deposits under $10 mil­
lion) had no loans to business firms with assets above
$25 million; and the very smallest group of banks (de­
posits under $2 million) had no loans to firms with
assets above $5 million.
O f particular interest in Table 2 is the overwhelming
numerical superiority of relatively small firms (assets
under $5 m illion). Over 98% of all business loans of
District member banks on the survey date was to these
smaller firms. Four-fifths of the total dollar amount
of these loans was to these firms. Although the large
banks are the principal sources of bank credit to the
very large firms, this is not to say that they do not also
meet the credit needs of their smaller business cus­
tomers. The largest banks (deposits over $250 mil­
lion) had over 60% of the dollar amount of their busi­
ness loans outstanding on the survey date to firms with
assets under $5 million. In all the remaining bank
size groups, business firms with assets under $5 million
accounted for three-fourths or more of the dollar
amount of loans outstanding.

Table 2 distributes the loans of each size of business
borrower among the different sized member banks in
the District. The very clear pattern is that the larger
borrowers are found predominantly in the large banks
and the smaller borrowers in the smaller banks. T w ofifths of loans to firms with assets of less than $50,000
were in banks with total deposits under $10 million.
Three-fourths of loans to firms with assets of $100 mil­
lion or more were in banks with deposits above $100

TABLE 3
TY P E S OF B U SIN E S S B O R R O W E R S B Y S IZ E O F FIR M
Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5, 1955
Total Assets of Borrower-—Thousands of Dollars
100,000
and Oi'er

Business of Borrower

25,000100,000

5,00025,000

1,0005,000

2501,000

50250

Less
than 50

All
Borrowers

Amount Outstanding—-Thousands of Dollars

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

9,617
2,087
10,831
360
0

7,734
7,046
975
316
0

5,031
11,998
4,564
6,465
4,948

11,794
44,130
5,399
4,496
20,306

14,919
9,206
8,627
3,551
27,467

9,919
7,130
6,010
2,710
19,587

1,478
946
1,891
1,952
4,727

60,492
82,543
38,297
19,850
77,035

Trade
Wholesale
... __________ . Retail
...................................

— - ........- ............... ...... ..
- --

0
14,430

1,443
1,278

1,214
6,963

20,074
29,617

47,788
52,745

25,488
84,461

4,955
34,977

100,962
224,471

Other
Commodity dealers _ . ....................................................................
Sales finance companies
...................
Transportation, communication, and other public utilities
Construction -------------------- -------------- ---------------------------------Real estate . . ----- -----------—................................... - - —
Service firms ------- --------- ------------------------------------------------------All other nonfinancial .................................................... . ...........

6,941
33,800
22,393
754
193
1,483
735

754
6,939
6,233
0
6,364
391
2,444

749
19,793
6,073
11,104
12,220
1,950
4,826

7,891
16,475
11,019
20,606
33,865
14,845
9,019

16,338
21,920
8,775
25,077
38,206
16,998
13,665

11,973
6,107
14,223
24,527
43,422
31,220
15,279

765
90
2,947
7,066
5,101
14,262
5,930

45,411
105,124
71,663
89,134
139,371
81,149
51,898

All Borrow ers--------------------------_ --------------------------------------

103,624

41,917

97,898

249,536

305,282

302,056

87,087

1,187,400

Number of Loans
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 -------------------------------

24
5
17
2
0

21
25
12
2
0

24
61
46
27
29

95
274
62
53
183

357
288
278
131
870

737
435
665
506
1,974

733
296
838
941
1,222

1,991
1,384
1,918
1,662
4,278

Trade
Wholesale ______________________ .___________________________
Retail ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------

0
81

9
29

30
101

260
569

1,323
2,722

2,471
12,198

1,355
13,011

5,448
28,711

Other
Commodity dealers — . _ .
................. ........ .......
Sales finance companies
.... .... ..
Transportation, communication, and other public utilities
Construction _____________ .
... .. ------------------------------Real estate .... ............... ..................... .
. . . . . _____ ..
Service firms
.........................
.............. ..........
All other nonfinancial ____________________ __________ _____

9
109
81
7
2
3
7

6
33
14
0
21
13
11

9
108
69
23
157
82
68

41
68
132
224
492
276
342

160
185
364
797
1,340
735
582

174
202
801
2,126
2,463
4,031
1,658

112
22
1,127
2,121
849
6,547
3,703

511
727
2,588
5,298
5,324
11,687
6,371

347

196

834

3,071

10,132

30,441

32,877

77,898

All Borrowers _____




.

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

< 4 }*

/fm M //fanm?-

June 1956

According to Table 3 all of the principal classes of
borrowers at Fifth District member banks were repre­
sented by a preponderance of relatively small firms
(total assets under $1 m illion). Over 97% of the
number of loans to retail merchants were to these small­
er firms, and 77°/o of the dollar amount of their loans
outstanding on the survey date were in this group.
Almost identical relationships were found for whole­
sale merchants. Loans to sales finance companies were
concentrated in loans to firms with assets in excess of
$1 million; 44% of the number of the loans and 73%
of the dollar amount of the loans were to these larger
firms.

rowers having total assets of less than $50,000 bor­
rowed a slightly larger proportion on long-term. In
both the short- and the long-term loan categories, more
than 94% of the number of loans were to firms having
total assets of less than $1 million, and these firms ac­
counted for more than half of the dollar amount of both
short- and long-term borrowing.
TABLE 5
B U S IN E SS L O A N S B Y

Total Assets of
Borrower
(In thousands of
dollars)

TABLE 4
B U SIN E SS L O A N S B Y FO RM OF B U SIN E SS
O R G A N IZ A T IO N

(In thousands of
dollars)

Amount Outstanding
(Thousands of Dollars)
Incorpo-Unincorporated
rated

Unincorporated

100,000 and o v e r _____
25.000-100,000
5.000-25,000__
1.000-5,000
250-1,000 _____________
50-250 .................... ........
Less than 5 0 _________

99,764
37,372
84,932
215,051
216,077
156,836
17,783

3,860
4,545
12,966
34,485
89,205
145,220
69,304

335
145
535
1,914
5,640
11,461
4,855

12
51
299
1,157
4,492
18,980
28,022

All Borrowers_____

827,815

359,585

24,885

53,013

(over one
year)

Short-term
(one year
or less)

Long-term
(over one
year)

83,978
33,295
82,892
198,764
239,798
218,273
59,510

19,646
8,622
15,006
50,772
65,484
83,783
27,577

231
168
648
2,324
7,918
24,028
23,554

116
28
186
747
2,214
6,413
9,323

916,510

270,890

58,871

19,027

Table 6 shows the average interest rates, by size of
borrower, for both short- and long-term credit in the
Fifth District. It also gives the rates for incorporated
and unincorporated businesses under both classes of
borrowing. Interest rates on loans for one year or less
charged all sizes of borrowers were lower than rates
on long-term loans with one exception: the average
long-term rate on loans to incorporated firms having
assets of $5-25 million was lower than either the in­
corporated or unincorporated short-term rate for firms
of the same size. Both short-term and long-term rates
were lower for incorporated than for unincorporated
businesses in most cases. There were three exceptions
in the two largest size group of borrowers where unin­
corporated rates were lower than the corporate rates.
In the case of these borrowers, loans to unincorporated
businesses accounted for a very small proportion of
total borrowing.

Table 4 indicates that while two-thirds of the dollar
amount of District member bank business loans was to
incorporated firms, these firms accounted for less than
one-third of the total number of loans. Loans to the
larger size borrowers were predominantly in the in­
corporated group. The larger the size of the firms, the
greater the proportion of corporate to total borrowing.
In the case of borrowers with total assets of $100 mil­
lion and over, 96% of the dollar amount of their loans
was to incorporated firm s; in the smallest size group
(those with assets of less than $50,000) incorporated
firms accounted for only 20% of the total amount out­
standing. The greatest number of loans both in the
incorporated and unincorporated groups were to the
smaller size borrowers. M ore than 88% of all corpo­
rate loans and 97% of unincorporated loans were made
to borrowers having assets of less than $1,000,000.
These firms accounted for almost half of the dollar
amount of loans to corporations and over four-fifths of
the loans to unincorporated firms.

TABLE 6
A V E R A G E IN T E R E S T R ATES B Y S IZ E OF B O R R O W E R
Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5, 1955
Total Assets of
Borrower
(In thousands of
______ dollars)______

Short-term
Long-term
(one year or less)
(over one year)
------------------------------------- -----------------------------------Incorpo- Unincorpo- Incorpo- Unincorporated
rated
rated
rated

100,000 and over ._____3.19
25,000-100,000 __ _____
_
3.16
5,000-25,000 _____ _____
3.85
3.97
1,000-5,000 ______ _____
4.38
250-1,000 _________ _____
4.68
50-250 ___________ _____
5.47
Less than 50 ____ _____
All Borrowers ______ 4.10

On October 5, 1955, more than three-fourths of total
business loans had maturities of one year or less, ac­
cording to Table 5. The size of the borrower had very
little effect on the proportion of short-term credit held
in member banks of the District, although those bor­



Long-term

(one year
or less)

All Borrowers __

Number of Loans

Incorporated

Short-term

100,000 and over __
25,000-100,000 ..........
5,000-25,000 .......... ....
1,000-5,000 ______ __
250-1,000 _______ 50-250 ___________ ....
Less than 50 ... ....

Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5, 1955
Total Assets of

M A T U R IT Y

Fifth Federal Reserve District
Estimated— October 5, 1955
Amount Outstanding
( Thousands of Dollars)
Number of Loans

i 5 j*

2.93
2.98
3.88
4.12
4.49
5.16
5.74
4.92

3.24
4.46
3.76
4.29
4.75
4.87
6.23
4.50

3.25
3.50
5.44
4.69
4.87
5.59
6.88
5.53

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

First Quarter Banking in the Fifth District
assets of Fifth District member banks
amounted to $7.9 billion 011 April 10, 1956, more
than $250 million above the amount held at the com­
parable call date last year. W hile total assets of Dis­
trict member banks fell in the first quarter of 1956, the
decline was no more than that experienced in the same
period of 1955 and was only two-thirds of the decline
in the first three and a half months of 1954. The ac­
companying charts show changes in principal accounts
of District member banks from December 31 to the
April call in each of the past three years.
o ta l

T

1954 when loans increased only nominally. The bulk
of the drop in the current quarter was about equally
divided among bills, certificates of indebtedness, and
nonmarketable bonds. In the first quarter of 1955,
most of the decline was in holdings of Treasury certifi­
cates of indebtedness and short-term bonds, which were
offset to a large extent by increases in holdings of
Treasury notes and longer-term bonds.

DEMAND DEPOSITS
(1st Quarter Changes)
M i l l i o n s

LOANS AND DISCOUNTS
(1st Quarter Changes)
M i ll io n s

-200

-100
'

1

0

+100

- 3 0 0

- 2 0 0

- 1 0 0

0

+ 1 0 0

--------------------1
--------------1
-------------1
--------------- 1
--------------1

19 6
5

+ 200

H H H IH ilH
■■■■■■■

1955

1

1 9 5 6

1 9 5 4
1 9 5 5

1
■

■

1 9 5 4

Demand deposits held by District member banks de­
clined 4.5% in the first quarter of 1956— the decline
being about the same as that experienced in the first
quarter of 1955, but only about two-thirds that of the
comparable 1954 period. Half of the current over-all
shrinkage occurred in deposits of individuals, partner­
ships, and corporations. Declines in interbank deposits
and certified and officers’ checks accounted principally
for the rest of the reduction. U. S. Government de­
posits rose moderately.

r

Total loans rose appreciably over the first quarter of
1956, but the increase was less than half that experi­
enced in the same quarter of 1955. Even so, at $3.1
billion, loans outstanding at member banks in the Dis­
trict on April 10, 1956, were at their highest peak. All
categories of loans rose in the quarter, with the excep­
tion of loans for purchasing or carrying securities. Busi­
ness loans and real estate loans increased at about half
the rate of the year-ago period and consumer loans at
about two-thirds the rate.

TIME DEPOSITS
(1st Quarter Changes)

U. S. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES

M illio n s

(1st Quarter Changes)

- 1 0 0

0

+ 1 0 0

r
i
1 9 5 6

1 9 5 5

1 9 5 4

_

1

+ 2 0 0

........................1

m

r
F

The increase in time deposits during the first quarter
of 1956 was slightly above that of the first quarter of
1955 and about equal the increase in the comparable
1954 period. The increase in all three periods was
principally in deposits of individuals, partnerships, and
corporations. States and political subdivisions in­
creased their deposits moderately in all three periods,
while deposits of the U. S. Government declined slight­
ly in each period.

During the first quarter of 1956, Government securi­
ties holdings of member banks were reduced by 3 % .
This reduction was slightly more than that of the first
quarter of 1955, but it was just a little over half the
reduction which took place during the first quarter of
Note: Charts and other data based on December 31 and April call
reports.




- 2 0 0

i 6 j-

June 1956

What's Happening Down On the Farm?
The N ew Look

u p p o s e your local T V station announces a feature
story, titled “ Down on the Farm,” as its top show
for the evening. Y ou twist the dial, settle back in your
favorite easy chair, and the show is on.

5

There are other indications of type-of-farming
changes, but the roving T V camera comes into play and
you find yourself on an extensive tour of the farming
areas of the District— from the Eastern Shores of M ary­
land and Virginia across to Northern Virginia and
Maryland; through the Shenandoah Valley down
through Southwest and over to Southside Virginia;
and then through the Coastal Plains, Piedmont, and
Mountain areas of the Car­
olinas.

“ This offering,” the commentator begins, “ is the
story of the big changes taking place on Fifth District
farms. It features the latest facts and figures brought
together from official sources and will bring you on-thespot farm scenes filmed in the fields.”
Specialization Increasing

In the background as he
S O M E C H A N G E S IN F I F T H D I S T R I C T
A s your TV-guided tour
speaks are two type-ofF A R M IN G
continues, you sense the
■
farming maps of the Dis­
fact that many of the Dis­
trict— both based on the
trict’s f a r m s— and farm
T,
Census of Agriculture, one
homes— have taken on a
for 1950 and the other for
“ new look.” And the “ new
1955. Y o u
immediately
look” is striking! On view
spot the tobacco, cotton,
are new or late model auto­
buildings—
Value of land
peanut, o t h e r field-crop,
mobiles, tractors, trucks,
farm, do
Average
dairy, poultry, and otherirrigation equipment, and
acre, doll,
Average
type farms. Comparing the
other pieces of machinery
farms, acres
rigated land
two maps, you notice that
which serve to make the
reporting
gphones, f
there’s been a definite shift
farm a more efficient unit.
reporting
:tricity, f;
in the type of farming car­
Electric power and tele­
H om e freezers, farms reporting
ried on in some states.
Motortrucks, farms reporting
phone lines seem to form a
Specialization is on the in­
Tractors, farms reporting
vast farm network; televi­
crease.
Automobiles, farms repor
sion aerials dot the land­
W orking off the farm, c
This is particularly no­
scape. A s the T V camera
tors reporting .............
ticeable among dairy, poul­
takes you inside many farm
Farms with a value of pr
try, and field-crop farms.
homes— some of them new
sold—
For example: W ith the aid
— you notice the many home
$25,000 or more
of the legend on the 1955
freezers and other electrical
$10,000 to $24,999
map, you see that there are
$5,000 to $9,999
household appliances, to say
fewer dairy farms in V ir­
nothing of piped running
ginia and Maryland— down
Source: Bureau of the
water, all of which serve to
5% and 10% , respectively.
lighten the work of the farm
By contrast, dairy farm
wife and make for abundant living.
numbers in W est Virginia and the Carolinas are up,
with increases ranging from about 10% to roughly 20%
Seeing these evidences of a higher standard of living
and increased farm facilities and equipment, you are
over 1950.
not surprised when the commentator says: “ A fourth
Decreases in the number of poultry farms range from
of all District farms have telephones and more than
as low as 6% in W est Virginia to almost 20% in Mary­
nine out of ten farms have electricity. Almost half
land. Meanwhile, poultry farm numbers have in­
the farm homes are equipped with running w ater; near­
creased in the Carolinas— up 6 % in the Palmetto State
ly a fourth have a home freezer; and roughly 30%
and about 25% in the Tar Heel State.
have a television set, most of them having been pur­
chased since 1950.” N or are you too surprised to learn
Accompanying these shifts in dairy and poultry farms
that 60% of all District farmers own automobiles, near­
has been a decided change in the number of field-crop
ly 40% have tractors, and a third own trucks.
farms. There are 17% more of this type farm in
“ The proportion of District farms with these farm
and home facilities and equipment is still somewhat
smaller than the national average,” you are told. “ The
rate at which these facilities have been acquired since

Maryland, and there are almost two-fifths more in
WT Virginia. A t the same time, there are 4 % , 7 % ,
est
and 13% fewer such farms in Virginia, North and
South Carolina, in that order.



* 7 y
{

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

1950 has been far greater in the District than in the
nation, however.
“ Nearly 40% more District farms have telephones
than five years earlier. Biggest increases have occur­
red in the Carolinas. Still the proportion of farms
with telephones is lower in these two states than any­
where else in the District. Twelve per cent more farm
homes are wired for electricity than in 1950. Here
again the Carolinas lead the rate of increase. There
are three times as many home freezers as in 1950, 30%
more trucks, half again as many tractors, about 10%
more autos, and 15 times as many farmers reporting
irrigation.
“ In each of these fields except electricity, North Car­
olina farmers have set the pace, followed closely in most
instances by those in South Carolina. Virginia farm­
ers ran second in the irrigation field, while the W est
Virginians took the number two spot in the tractor
race.”
Fewer but Larger Farms

A t this point— and with the aid of flannelgraphs—
your T V commentator points out that census takers
found about 67,000 fewer farms in this five-state area
in 1955 than in 1950 and nearly 4 million acres less
land in farms, but the average size of farms was 3 acres
larger. “ This trend,” he says, “ was widespread
throughout the District and the nation, except the na­
tional trend to fewer and larger farms was faster.”
F or the District, you note that this is the smallest
number of farms since 1890 and the fewest acres of
land in farms since before the W ar Between the States.
Most of the decline since 1950 has been in farms of 10 to
100 acres. Large farms and those under 10 acres have
increased in number. There are some 60,000 fewer farms
in the 10- to 100-acre group but nearly 10,000 more in
the under 10 category and around 550 additional farms
in the 500-acre and over class.
“ A number of factors,” adds the commentator, “ have
been responsible for these changes of the past five years.
The combination of farms, resulting largely from the
disappearance of units operated by tenants, has been
important in the decline of farms of 10 to 100 acres in
size. W ith the pull of jobs in cities and industry,
many tenants have quit farming altogether; others have
made the successful climb up the agricultural ladder to
farm ownership. H ow many have left the farm or how
many have become owners, the census doesn’t reveal.
It seems significant, however, that the decrease in ten­
ancy has equaled 45% of the total net decline in farm­
ing units. This trend has varied considerably among
District states but is particularly evident in the Caro­
linas where corresponding decreases in tenancy repre­
sent 57% of the total in North Carolina and 87% in
South Carolina.
“ There’s also been a growing combination of farms
in order to utilize modern power and equipment more



fully and effectively. A s farm mechanization has in­
creased, farmers have found themselves able to handle
more land. A t the same time, there’s been a 5% in­
crease in the number of farms of 500 acres and over.
Biggest District change to this size farm was the 10%
increase in Maryland.
“ Accompanying this growth in size of farm has been
an upturn in the acreage of cropland harvested. This
was especially true of farms harvesting 100 acres and
more of cropland.
“ The increasing importance of part-time and resi­
dential farming, particularly in Virginia and the Caro­
linas, has been largely responsible for the nearly 10,000,
or 13% , upturn in farms of less than 10 acres. And
more than half this increase,” he adds, “ is accounted for
in farms smaller than 3 acres. Automobiles, better
roads, and other facilities like electricity and telephones
in rural areas have encouraged farmers and others to
live in the country and drive to jobs in nearby towns
or factories.”
You notice further proof of this in the chart, Farm
Operators Reporting Off-Farm W ork. Nearly half
(4 7 % ) of all District farmers now work off their farm,
either at nonfarm jobs or on someone else’s farm for
pay, and almost a third work 100 days or more per year
off the farm. This is in contrast to 1950 when not quite
40% did any kind of off-farm work and about 27%
worked as much as 100 days off the farm.
Y our commentator continues: “ It is significant per­
haps that while the number of farms was declining, the
average value of District farms was going up. In fact,
value of land and buildings per farm jumped 27% dur­
ing the five years, from $7,072 to $8,952. On a peracre basis, the increase was somewhat less— from $83.42
to $101.98, or 22% .
“ The rate at which farm real estate values rose varied
considerably throughout the District. Values climbed
fastest in Maryland, and in some counties, particularly
those adjoining large metropolitan areas, farm land
values skyrocketed.”
H igh-Incom e Farms Increasing

“ M ore accurate, probably more dramatic,” says your
program narrator, “ in showing the trend to larger farms
are data on gross income.” A t that instant the T V
camera focuses on a chart, titled Commercial Farms by
Income. A footnote tells you that, in general, all farms
with a sales value of products amounting to $1,200 or
more are classified as commercial.
A s you look at the chart, you notice that there are
five classes of commercial farms, each determined by
the amount of total sales. The number of District com ­
mercial farms in 1955 was actually somewhat smaller
than in 1950; however, the proportion classified as com­
mercial equaled 46% as against 42% five years earlier.
There were decreases during this period in both the
(Continued on page 11)

8 V

June 1956

Business Conditions and Prospects
weekly reporting banks have continued to move higher
since early March. They were at an all-time high
level around the middle of May, and the increase since
the year-end has been more rapid than in 1955 and
contraseasonal for the past six weeks.
“ All other” loans, which had shown a leveling off
tendency since early April, rose to a new high level in
the week of May 16. Real estate loans have moved
moderately higher in the last two weeks after showing
practically a flat trend since last January.

conditions in the Fifth Federal Reserve
District during April continued to show mixed
trends, with mining and awards for new construction
moving up, after seasonal correction, and manufactur­
ing and trade activity moving down. Employment in
manufacturing industries was up in Virginia and W est
Virginia from March to April but down in the Carolinas. Nonmanufacturing employment rose in each of
the four states. The labor supply situation in the Dis­
trict during May remained unchanged from March, and
unemployment in the District again turned downward
after showing an increase in April. Purchases of life
insurance continued to show strength, with April 24%
ahead of a year ago and the first four months up 21% .
Business failures, which were at a seasonally adjusted
high level in March, dropped 50% in April to a level
16% below a year ago. Conditions are still favorable
for the organization of new businesses in the District
and new incorporations in March were 1% higher than
in February and 3% higher than a year ago, with the
first quarter up 7 % . First quarter farm income was
2% below a year ago. Electric power output in March,
adjusted, was at an all-time high level. Bank debits,
seasonally adjusted, after backing down during Feb­
ruary and March, rose to a new high level in April.
Loans and investments of all member banks in April
declined moderately, but loan demand increased sharply
and was more than offset by a reduction in security
holdings. Live births in the District in the first three
months of 1956 were 1.3% higher than a year earlier,
and marriages were 7.5% higher.
u s in e s s

Trade
The trade level in the District eased somewhat from
March to April. Department store sales were down
4 % during the month and furniture store sales down
4 % , both after seasonal correction. New passenger
automobile and truck registrations and household ap­
pliance store sales, without seasonal adjustment, showed
less rise from March to April than has been customary.
Department store sales in April, after correction for
the shift in Easter, difference in trading days, and sea­
sonal factors, were down 4 % from March but 4%
ahead of April 1955, and the first four months of the
year were 5% higher.
On a straight dollar change basis sales in April de­
clined 8% from a year ago. The decline was ac­
counted for mainly in the apparel departments, though
many other major departmental classifications showed
losses from a year ago. Domestic floor coverings moved
contrary to the trend and rose 6 % from last year, and
radios, phonographs, and televisions were up 9 % .
Department store inventories, which had risen some­
what more rapidly than sales over the last half of 1955,
declined in both March and April on a seasonally ad­
justed basis. Inventories are still on the high side in
relation to sales, and a rising tendency in inventories
relative to sales has been noted in a rather large num­
ber of departments, including cotton yard g o o d s ; house­
hold textiles; domestics, muslins, sheetings; blankets,
comforters, spreads; small w ares; notions; silverware
and jew elry; stationery; women’s and misses’ ready-towear ; corsets and brassieres; infants’ w ear; women’s
and children’s shoes; juniors’ coats, suits, and dresses;
blouses, skirts, and sportswear; men’s and boys’ shoes
and slippers; housewares; toys and games.

Banking
Loans and investments of all member banks in the
Fifth District amounted to $6,006 million on April 25,
a decline of $3 million from a month earlier, but a gain
of $198 million over a year ago. Loans and discounts
during the month were up $31 million, while holdings
of U. S. Government securities were down $29 million
and holdings of other securities down $5 million. Loans
and discounts were $354 million higher than a year ago,
other security holdings were up $20 million, and hold­
ings of U. S. Government securities were down $176
million.
Total deposits in April were unchanged from March,
but $196 million higher than a year ago. Time deposits
rose $7 million, but this gain was offset by a loss of
$7 million in demand deposits. Time deposits were
$54 million higher than a year ago and demand deposits
were $142 million higher.

Retail furniture stores showed an adjusted sales drop
of 4 % from March to April, but sales were 5% ahead
of April last year, and the first four months were up
9 % . Cash sales in the first four months were up 1%
from a year ago, while credit sales were up 10%. A c ­
counts receivables in April were 12% higher than a
year ago; collections were up 3 % . In the first four
months, accounts receivables averaged 13% ahead of
a year ago, collections averaged 9% higher. Furniture
store inventories, seasonally adjusted, were down 7%

Reserves with the Federal Reserve Bank dropped
$14 million during the month and borrowings from the
Reserve Bank increased $10 million, while borrowings
from others declined $4 million.
Commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans of the



i 9 y

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

from March to April and 2% under a year ago.

up 10.6%, transportation equipment up 2 % .
In the nondurable goods industry from March to
April the food industries increased 2.3% ; tobacco drop­
ped 2.6% , but cigarettes remained unchanged; textile
mill products down 2.9% , with yarn and thread mills
and knitting mills standing the brunt of the fall; ap­
parel down 2.9% ; paper down 1.4% ; chemicals down

Complete registrations of new passenger automobiles
for all states of the District and the District of Colum­
bia for March were 17% higher than February and 4%
under March 1955, with the first quarter up 5% . In
three states of the District and the District of Columbia
new passenger automobile registrations for April were
1% higher than March and 11% under April 1955, with
the first four months of the year down 1% . Registra­
tions for 34 states in April were down 14% from a year
ago, and in the first four months these 34 states showed
a drop of 9% from last year.
New commercial car registrations in four District
states and the District of Columbia in April were up
18% from March and 4% from a year ago, with the
first four months up 17% . Thirty-nine states report­
ing thus far show April commercial car registrations up
3% from last year, and four months up 12%.
Sales of household appliance stores in the District in
April were 5% higher than March, without seasonal
correction, and 13% higher than a year ago, with the
first four months up 6 % .

0.6%.
On a seasonally adjusted basis cotton consumption in
April in the District’s mills was 6 % higher than March,
6% higher than in April 1955, and the first four months
of the year were up 7 % .
The number of hours the cotton spindles of the Dis­
trict were run during April was 4% higher than March,
on a seasonally adjusted basis, and 7% higher than in
April 1955, with the first four months up 6 % .

Manufacturing

On a man-hour basis, manufacturing activity in the
Fifth Federal Reserve District has been trending down­
ward since the Fall of 1955, with the major part of
the drop accounted for by the textile industries. Manhours in Maryland showed a moderate decline from
November to January, but leveled off through March.
In W est Virginia they declined from September to
January and have since been rising moderately. In
Virginia a decline continued from November through
M arch; April was at the same level as March. In the
Carolinas the trend is still downward.
W ith Maryland missing, man-hours in all manufac­
turing industries of the District were down 1.3% from
March to April but 4.1% ahead of a year ago. W est
Virginia was the only state to show an increase (1 .3 % )
from March to April. North Carolina man-hours were
down 2.9% , South Carolina down 1.0%, and Virginia
down 0.1% .
In the durable goods industries, man-hours for the
four states were down 0.2% from March to April, but
up 5.2% from a year ago. Virginia showed no change
from March to April, W est Virginia rose 2.1% , North
Carolina was down 1.3% , and South Carolina down
2.3% .
In the nondurable goods industries, man-hours were
down 1.8% from March to April, but April was 3.5%
higher than a year ago. From March to April W est
Virginia showed an increase of 0.3% , while other states
declined as follow s: Virginia 0.3% , North Carolina
3.4% , and South Carolina 1.0%.
Operations by industry, though somewhat variable
among the states, showed lumber up 6 % , furniture
down 3.4% , stone and clay up 0.5% , primary metals
down 1.3% , fabricated metals down 1.5% , machinery



National rayon and acetate shipments during April
of 84.7 million pounds were 15% lower than in March
and 23% lower than April a year ago, with the first
four months down 8 % . Filament yarn shipments in
April dropped 12% from March and were down 25%
from a year ago. Staple and tow shipments in April
were down 22% from March and were 20% under a
year ago.
Cigarette production in the District during March,
after seasonal correction, was down 8% from February
and 1% under March 1955, but the first quarter was
up 5% . Production in Virginia during April, accord­
ing to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, was down
11.2% from March but 2.5% higher than a year ago,
with the first four months up 4.1% .
Construction

Total construction contract awards in the Fifth Dis­
trict in April rose 6% on a seasonally adjusted basis
from March. April awards, however, were 27% under
April last year, and those for the first four months were
down 23% . All types of construction showed a better
than seasonal increase from March to April with apart­
ments and hotels, commercial and manufacturing awards
showing substantial increases on a percentage basis.
One- and two-family houses also rose more than sea­
sonally— up 8% from March on an adjusted basis to 1%
ahead of a year ago, but the first four months’ awards
were down 15%. Relative to a year ago apartments
and hotels were up 102%, commercial awards down
15% , manufacturing awards down 33% , one- and twofamily houses up 1% , public works and utilities down
56% , and total residential up 4 % .
In the first four months of 1956 factory construction
awards were at the same level as a year ago. A ll others
were down from 15% to 33% .
GI home loans closed in the District during March
were down 21% in value from February and down 21%
from a year ago, with the first quarter down 9 % .
Nonfarm mortgage recordings in the District of
$20,000 or less in the first quarter of 1956 were 1.6%
higher in value than a year ago.

i 10 y

June 1956

What’s Happening Down On the Farm?
(Continued from page 8)

number and proportion of farms with sales totaling
$1,200 to $2,499, a slight increase in farms with value
of sales amounting to from $2,500 to $4,999, and huge
gains in the three largest classifications.
In 1955 there were 49,119 farms, or one out of every
twelve, with a value of farm products sold equal to from
$5,000 to $9,999. The number of such farms was 36%
greater than in 1950. Farms with farm-product sales
ranging from $10,000 to $24,999 totaled 18,082 and
represented 3% of all farms. They also increased 36%
during the five-year period. Though only one out of
every 100 District farms in 1955 had a value of sales
equal to $25,000 or more, the number in this group was
40% above 1950.
A Summing Up

“ From these data and the quickie tour of on-the-farm

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 S IT A C C O U N T S*
(000 omitted)
April
April
4 Months
4 Months
1956
1955
1956
1955
Dist. of Columbia
Washington ______ $1,474,911 $1,261,386 $ 5,992,617 $ 5,235,247
Maryland
Baltimore _______
1,737,313
1,508,119
6,779,232
6,032,671
26,514
24,398
103,897
Cumberland ------93,365
Frederick ______
25,885
23,209
100,412
90,217
47,307
43,622
Hagerstown
186,399
166,410
33,168
Salisbury** _____
34,666
138,636
127,801
Total 4 Cities
1,837,019
1,599,348
7,169,940
6,382,663
North Carolina
Asheville
____
69,641
64,810
284,782
264,746
Charlotte ______ ..
435,146
381,440
1,795,739
1,597,745
Durham _______
79,875
78,601
338,583
314,531
152,702
140,871
Greensboro __ __ ....
632,030
571,827
50,578
Hight Point**
52,615
221,039
197,721
21,324
Kinston _________
20,967
88,895
89,570
Raleigh _________
237,794
212,026
957,183
872,029
54,285
209,714
207,714
Wilmington ____
53,696
19,272
19,973
84,630
82,316
Wilson __________
667,702
180,491
159,882
766,575
W inston-Salem
1,132,511
5,158,131
4,668,180
1,250,285
Total 9 Cities
South Carolina
92,254
87,731
367,836
331,462
Charleston ______
195,614
789,392
696,131
Columbia ----------197,537
575,927
505,094
137,645
127,881
Greenville _______
63,640
280,246
262,277
Spartanburg ___
65,211
1,794,964
474,866
2,013,401
Total 4 Cities
492,647
Virginia
Charlottesville
35,972
35,637
148,171
142,469
36,732
38,549
171,977
155,677
Danville ________
61,344
53,731
245,647
209,058
Lynchburg .......—
245,393
213,408
62,295
55,137
Newport News ..
1,213,984
296,554
276,556
1,114,925
Norfolk _________
149,683
37,395
34,703
141,877
Portsmouth __
2,731,916
2,542,994
612,917
672,805
Richmond ______
125,543
593,867
497,037
_
144,163
Roanoke _ _____
_
5,500,638
5,017,445
1,349,077
1,230,956
Total 8 Cities
West Virginia
222,117
171,625
42,415
51,046
Bluefield _______
678,914
717,192
166,006
164,799
Charleston _____
159,612
140,607
36,802
34,909
Clarksburg ------338,073
315,689r
80,694r
83,196
Huntington ____
123,818
145,093
32,898
35,143
Parkersburg
1,582,087
1,430,653
355,715
372,193
Total 5 Cities
$6,776,132 $6,054,782r $27,416,814 $24,529,152r
District Totals
* Interbank and U. S. Government accounts excluded.
** Not included in District Totals,
r Revised.




scenes,” remarks your narrator, “ it is clear that big
changes are taking place down on the farm. The Dis­
trict’s entire rural economy is changing. Y et there is
room for still further change if maximum income bene­
fits are to be achieved in the years ahead.
“ Many, especially small farmers caught in the pinch
of the cost-price squeeze, will be faced with three major
decisions: Should and can they expand their farming
operations? Should they join the growing ranks of
part-time farmers? Should they choose nonfarm work
entirely? Those who continue in farming— as well as
beginning farmers— will find it helpful to consider the
strong forces at work in our changing economy and
organize, or reorganize, their plans accordingly. All
will find it profitable to do more homework on their
farm management decisions.”

a n k in g

S

t a t is t ic s

W EEKLY

R E P O R T IN G M E M B E R B A N K S
(000 omitted)

Item
Total Loans ______

Change in Amount from
May 16,
Apr. 11,
May 11,
1956
1956
1955
__________ $1,808,030** + 22,000
+202,379

Bus. & Agric. _______________
836,476
Real Estate Loans ___________
333,516
All Other Loans _____________
663,571
Total Security Holdings _______ 1,586,735

+
+
+

U. S. Treasury Bills _________
40,210
U. S. Treasury Certificates__
15,456
U. S. Treasury Notes _______
287,997
U. S. Treasury Bonds _______
976,419
Other Bonds, Stocks & Secur.
266,653
Cash Items in Process of Col. ..
374,091
Due from Banks ________________
168,490*
Currency and Coin _____________
75,961
Reserve with F. R. Banks _____
529,290
Other Assets ___________________
72,273
Total Assets _________________ $4,614,870

_

Total Demand Deposits _______ $3,453,561
Deposits
Deposits
Deposits
Deposits
Certified

of Individuals _____ 2,563,322
of U. S. Government
143,367
of State & Local Gov.
218,200
of Banks ___________
459,404
& Officers’ Checks __
69,268*

Total Time Deposits ___________
Deposits of Individuals ______
Other Time Deposits ........... .....

759,654
679,481
80,173

Liabilities for Borrowed Money
16,800
50,054
All Other Liabilities ___________
Capital Accounts ____________ _
334,801
Total Liabilities _____________ $4,614,870

-

—
—
—

—
+
—
—
—
+
-

19,243
2,785
47
78,082

+ 110,170
+ 18,420
+ 77,149
L83,243

41,201
2,248
15,259
9,851
9,523
45,726
577
5,443
12,700
25
29,051

_

— 20,543

+

64,086

— 37,727
+ 41,470
— 1,738
— 36,953
+ 14,405

+
+
+
+
+

18,881
31,535
684
4,089
8,897

_

1,785
23
1,808

_
—
+

4,641
4,923
282

_
8,700
2,555
+
2,278
+
— 29,051

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

*{ 11 V

21,328
35,221
—
76,649
—
49,915
—
130
+ 56,832
4,120
+
— 4,692
— 3,205
1,073
+
+ 73,264
—

+
—
_

+
+
+

21,500
5,025
27,438
73,264

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

F if t h

S t a t is t ic a l

d is t r ic t

F U R N IT U R E SAL ES*
(Based on Dollar Value)
Percentage change with correspond­
ing period a year ago
STATES
April 1956
4 Mos. 1956
— 8
Maryland ...................... ....................
0
Dist. of Columbia ______________
+ 5
+ 1
Virginia _____ ____ _______ _______
— 9
0
+ 41
West Virginia __________________
+21
North Carolina _________________
— 8
+ 8
— 11
South Carolina . ____ _ _ _ . _
+ 2
— 1

District ............ ...............................

+

IN DIVID UAL CITIES
Baltimore, Md. _________________
— 8
Washington, D. C. _____________
+ 5
Richmond, Va. _________________
— 8
Charleston, W . Va. ___ ___ ___
— 6
Greenville, S. C. ______________
— 9
* Data from furniture departments of department stores
furniture stores.

4

+
—
+
+
as

0
1
5
4
1
well as

W H O L E SA L E TRADE

LINES
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
Apr. 1956
compared with
Mar.
Apr.
1955
1956
0
— 8

Stocks on
Apr. 30, 1956
compared with
Apr. 30,
Mar. 31.
1955
1956
— 5
+ 8

+13

+

9

+

6

+

+

— 2

+

2

— 3

4

+24

6

0

+ 14

+11
NA

— 5
NA

+ 6
NA

0
NA

+ 1
—28
— 3
+ 9
+ 6

— 8
—24
— 17
+ 8
— 3

+ 7
NA
NA
+29
+ 11

0
NA
NA
+ 9
+ 2

+

1

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

data

B U IL D IN G P E R M IT :F IG U RES
Apr.
1956
Maryland
Baltimore ____ $ 3,932,965
Cumberland __
410,125
Frederick ____
108,365
Hagerstown __
128,650
Salisbury ____
441,232
Virginia
Danville _____
1,807,945
Hampton _ __ 1,068,009
Hopewell _____
111,547
Lynchburg
478,875
Newport News
179,008
Norfolk ______
1,588,607
Petersburg
244,900
Portsmouth __
249,990
Richmond ____ 7,095,292
Roanoke _____ 2,667,050
Staunton ____
257,420
Warwick _____
545,140
West Virginia
Charleston
826,965
Clarksburg
242,230
Huntington __
738,398
North Carolina
Asheville _____
287,026
Charlotte ____ 2,418,660
Durham _____
806,589
430,250
Gastonia _____
1,190,546
Greensboro
High Point ....
340,825
Raleigh ______
1,562,490
Rocky Mount ..
248,118
Salisbury
122,495
_ 1,288,175
Wilson ______
W inston-Salem
704,270
South Carolina
164,593
Charleston
554,226
Columbia ~ . .
Greenville ____ 1,007,495
238,570
Spartanburg ..
Dist. of Columbia
Washington __ 3,179,719
District Totals ..$37,666,760

Apr.
1955

4 Months
1956

4 Months
1955

$ 7,781,235
224,483
209,750
221,785
209,150

$ 19,801,115
542,150
410,665
531,445
1,022,761

$ 27,549,292
653,291
696,205
715,020
970,167

703,531
868,097
291,492
960,614
118,391
984,951
89,500
280,930
2,466,223
1,265,184
193,775
686,272

3,103,956
3,258,880
554,329
4,868,010
967,701
4,687,288
954,400
1,229,148
11,938,435
10,446,657
1,028,286
2,545,540

3,091,911
6,693,128
1,291,163
3,546,617
612,752
4,382,67.8
1,403,400
1,250,840
6,999,108
4,106,843
1,201,055
3,270,956

561,515
181,118
440,923

1,814,098
545,487
1,530,934

2,180,971
673,313
1,491,871

355,972
1,535,750
694,484
459,600
982,125
638,611
666,828
299,266
131,060
171,500
1,006,482

2,664,437
8,309,591
2,780,171
2,187,750
4,971,056
2,244,544
4,170,064
1,270,881
629,965
2,367,525
4,597,219

1,076,287
9,961,946
5,587,873
2,591,900
3,618,105
3,112,729
7,236,014
1,282,711
380,468
1,481,675
4,950,404

236,338
663,012
820,350
330,477

745,042
3,770,656
2,851,476
1,149,128

775,221
2,683,114
2,275,148
831,445

3,265,493
$30,996,267

16,932,449
$133,423,239

23,380,260
$144,005,881

F IF T H D IS T R IC T IN D E X E S
D E P A R T M E N T STO R E O P E R A T IO N S
(Figures show percentage changes)
Other
Wash. Cities
Rich. Balt.
— 8

Sales, Apr. ’56 vs Apr. ’55 _
Sales, 4 Mos. ending Apr.
30, ’56 vs 4 Mos. ending
Apr. 30, ’55 ----------- -------

+

4

Stocks, Apr. 30, ’56 vs ’55 _

+

4

— 7

Outstanding Orders
Apr. 30, ’ 56 vs ’55 ------- .

+ 11

0

Seasonally Adjusted: 1947-1949 = 100
Dist.
Totals

— 7

— 10

— 8

+

+

+

Apr.
1956

7

6

5

4

+ 14

+ 17

+ 11

+21

+ 14

-

+ 13

+

8

Open account receivables Apr.
1, collected in Apr. ’56 —

30.3

46.5

41.7

34.6

39.3

Instalment receivables Apr.
1, collected in Apr. ’56 __

11.3

13.7

12.9

15.5

13.2

Md.

D.C.

Va.

W .V a.

N.C.

S.C.

— 4

— 7

— 9

— 2

— 14

— 12

Sales, Apr. ’56 vs Apr.
’55 ___________________




New passenger car registra­
tion* _________________________
Bank debits __________________
Bituminous coal production*__
Construction contracts ---------Business failures— number ____
Cigarette production __________
Cotton spindle hours ..................
Department store sales _______
Electric power production __
Manufacturing employment* „
Furniture store sales __ ___ . .
Life insurance sales ___________

192
106
203
153
127
131

_
125
219

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

i 12 y

Mar.
1956

Apr.
1955

% Chg.Latest Mo.
Prev.
Yr.
Mo.
Ago.

178
179
105r
191
307
99
122
137
198
111
130
219

191r
167
96r
279
183
94
119
126r
179
108r
119
177

+ 17
+ 7
+ 1
+ 6
— 50
— 8
+ 4
— 4
+ 3
0
— 4
0

— 4
+15
+ 10
—27
— 16
— 1
+ 7
+ 4
+ 11
+ 3
+ 5
+24

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