View original document

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

Atlanta, Georgia
August • 1963

Also in this issue:
M IS S I S S I P P I'S
ST IL L

ON

S IX T H

ECONOM Y

THE

MOVE

D IS T R IC T

S T A T IS T IC S

D IS T R IC T

B U S IN E S S

C O N D IT IO N S

New Dimensions in the
Mortgage Market
M o rtg a g e m a rk ets, b o th n a tio n a l and reg io n a l, are ta k in g o n n e w d im en ­
sio n s in th e cu rren t reco v ery . M o rtg a g e d eb t co n tin u e s to e x p a n d
v ig o r o u sly , ex te n d in g th e p er io d o f g ro w th th at b eg a n 3 0 m o n th s ago
after th e b u sin e ss-c y cle trou gh o f F eb ru a ry 1 9 6 1 . H e r e to fo r e, la rg e e x ­
p a n sio n s h a d o ccu rred m a in ly in th e la te sta g es o f r e ce ssio n s an d in the
early sta ges o f r e co v eries. A lo n g w ith th is su sta in ed m o rtg a g e cred it
ex p a n sio n , co n tra ct term s, in clu d in g rates o f in terest and o th er ch a rges
o n lo a n s, h a v e b e c o m e in crea sin g ly g en ero u s. M o reo v er, in an effort to
u tilize a g ro w in g v o lu m e o f h ig h -c o st fu n d s, c o m m e r cia l b a n k s h a v e
a p p a ren tly d e cid e d to p a rticip a te m o re in b o th d irect m o rtg a g e le n d ­
in g an d in th e field o f m o rtg a g e b a n k in g . S p ecia liz ed m o rtg a g e len d ers,
su ch as sa v in g s an d lo a n a sso cia tio n s an d m u tu a l sa v in g s b a n k s, h a v e
a lso b e e n u n d er g ro w in g p ressu res to in crea se th eir len d in g v o lu m e to
o ffse t risin g ta x es, h igh er o p era tin g c o sts, and a sh arp ly e x p a n d in g
v o lu m e o f len d a b le fu n d s.
S o m e o b serv ers v iew th ese d e v e lo p m en ts as ev id e n c e o f su cc e ss in
stim u la tin g c o n tin u e d e c o n o m ic e x p a n sio n th ro u g h e x te n d ed e a sy m o n e y
p o lic ie s. O th ers w e lc o m e th em as a sign th at th e fin a n cia l sy ste m is n o w
serv in g h o u sin g n e e d s h ereto fo re n o t fu lly m e t e v e n in th e m o st b u o y a n t
p h a se s o f m o rtg a g e cred it availa b ility . A n d , still o th ers ra ise d isq u ietin g
q u estio n s b ea rin g u p o n th e q u ality o f m o rtg a g e cred it. H o w e v e r v ie w ed ,
th ese fin a n cia l tren d s h a v e h a d su b sta n tia l im p a ct u p o n th e o u tp u t o f
n ew h o u sin g , b o th n a tio n a lly an d in th e S ix th F ed e ra l R e se r v e D istrict.
B e fo r e su rv ey in g D istric t h o u sin g tren d s, le t’s lo o k at so m e o f th e m ain
d ifferen ces b e tw e en th e cu rren t reco v ery and th o se o f th e re cen t p a st.

The P a s t ...

S

e d

e ra f

ffy s e r w

IB

j

a n lt g f

7$ t/ a r ? ta




T h e c y c lic a l b eh a v io r o f resid en tia l b u ild in g and m o rtg a g e cred it e x ­
p a n sio n fo llo w e d a rather w ell-d e fin e d p a th d u rin g th e 1 9 5 0 ’s. R e d u c e d
to its sim p lest term s, b u ild in g and m o rtg a g e cred it w ere sh arp ly re­
stricted w h en o th er secto rs o f th e e c o n o m y w ere at ex p a n d e d le v e ls and
b ein g restrain ed b y tigh ter m o n eta ry p o lic y . W h en m o re stim u la tive
m o n eta ry m a n a g em e n t rep la ce d restraint, p rev io u sly cu rta iled n e e d s for
co n stru ctio n cred it w ere a m o n g th e first to b e m et. T h u s, resid en tial
b u ild in g ro se d u rin g recessio n s and d ec lin ed w h en o th er ty p es o f
e c o n o m ic a ctiv ity w ere b o o m in g .
T h e se sharp sw in gs in m o r tg a g e -m o n e y availa b ility , occu rrin g in re­
sp o n se to c h a n g in g p ressu res o f o th er secto rs u p o n th e su p p ly o f cred it,
se rio u sly im p e d e d p la n n in g an d co n tin u ity o f o p era tio n s in th e b u ild ­
in g in d u stry. T h u s, m a n y b u ild ers co u ld n o t stren gth en th eir ca p ital
p o sitio n s or p lan fo r ord erly e x p a n sio n o f their o rg a n iza tio n s. A s a re­
su lt, n e w cro p s o f b u ild ers sp ran g u p lik e m u sh ro o m s in th e larger
m etro p o lita n areas at th e b eg in n in g o f a g en era l re c o v ery p erio d and
w ilted w ith th e return o f cred it restriction s. M e a n w h ile , “m ista k e s” o f

p lan n in g, lo c a tio n , an d c o st-to -v a lu e ratios o f n ew h o u s­
in g u nits co u ld be and o fte n w ere a b so rb ed by c o n tin u e d
stron g d em a n d and risin g resa le p rices.
D u rin g p erio d s o f cred it restraint, n o n -sp e c ia liz e d
m o rtgage len d ers fo u n d g ro w in g a ttraction in fin an cial
a ssets o d ier than m o rtg a g es. A t th e lo c a l le v e l, this m ean t
that co m m ercia l b an k s, as a ru le, w ere a g g ressiv e m o rtg a g e
len d ers o n ly o n a tem p o ra ry b asis. A t th e n a tio n a l m o r t­
g age m ark et le v e l, it m ea n t th at re d u ced in ter-reg io n a l
Hows o f m ortgage cred it su p p lies w ere c o n fin ed to the
stron gest ex istin g ch a n n els. I n e s e c o n siste d o f m o rtg a g e
b an k in g firm s, b o th sp e c ia liz e d an d o th erw ise, th at w ere
geared to serve m erch a n t build ers p rim arily th rou gh F H A v A m ortgages.
T h e se builders w ere co n cen tr a te d m a in ly in the larger
m etro p o lita n cen ters. M o re o v e r , it w a s p r e c isely in th ese
cen ters th at the su p p ly o f lo c a l sa v in g s h e ld by sp ecia liz ed
fin an cial in stitu tio n s, su ch as sa v in g s an d lo a n a sso c ia tio n s,
w as g row in g m o st rap id ly. H o w e v e r , fe w o f th ese lo c a l
in stitu tio n s w ere ab le to p u sh o u t in to le ss-c o n ce n tr a te d
areas o f h o u sin g d em a n d b e ca u se o f h ig h er len d in g and
servicin g c o sts, trad ition , an d reg u la tio n .
T h ere w ere ex c e p tio n s to this g en era l p attern , o f co u rse.
S o m e m o rtg a g e b an k ers b eg a n o p e n in g p erm a n en t branch
offices in sm aller cities as ea rly as th e m id -fifties an d c o n ­
tin u ed to se e k p rofita b le o u tle ts. T h e y also co o p e r a te d in
th e V o lu n ta ry H o m e M o rtg a g e C red it P ro g ra m . G o v e r n ­
m en ta l a g en cies also e x p a n d e d d irect len d in g fa cilities.
D u rin g th e latter p art o f th e d e ca d e , th e F e d e r a l H o m e
L o a n B a n k S y stem in a u g u ra ted th e M o rtg a g e P a rtic ip a ­
tio n P rogram fo r its m em b ers. Its m ajor o b je c tiv e w a s to
p ro v id e ad d itio n a l fa c ilitie s fo r a d ju stm en ts in th e su p p ly o f
and d em a n d fo r m o rtg a g e cred it b e tw e en sp ecific lo c a tio n s.
W h ile th ese efforts to e x te n d th e d istrib u tio n ch a n n els
fo r m o rtg a g e cred it w ere o f so m e sig n ifica n ce, th ey w ere
largely co u n tered b y o th er tren d s. In sp ite o f th e in n o v a ­
tion o f u p w ard flex ib ility in F H A m o rtg a g e c o n tra ct rates
in the late 1 9 5 0 ’s, m a n y n a tio n a l m o rtg a g e len d ers b eg a n
to shu n this m ajor m o rtg a g e m a rk et in stru m en t. M o rtg a g e
b an kers rea cted b y in crea sin g their o u tp u t o f co n v en tio n a l
m ortgages o n resid en tia l an d co m m e r c ia l p ro p erties. T h e
search for larger lo a n s and lo w er c o sts o f serv icin g led
m a n y o f th em to in crea se their se rv ices b y d iv ersify in g the
ty p es o f m o rtg a g es o rig in a ted rather th an b y e x p a n d in g
their territories. T h e p attern o f m etro p o lita n co n cen tra tio n
o f m o rtgage cred it su p p lies w a s th u s m a in ta in ed .

. . . a n d the Present
S avers in the p resen t r e c o v ery h a v e fa c e d a m a rk ed slo w ­
in g o f final d em a n d fo r fu n d s. F in a n c ia l in stitu tio n s, a ct­
ing as m id d lem en in th e a ctiv e e m p lo y m e n t o f m o n ey ,
h a v e seen their ran ge o f c h o ic e o f ea g er b o rro w ers n ar­
row ed . B u sin e ss cred it n e e d s fo r w o rk in g c a p ita l, as w ell
as for m ore p erm a n en t fa c ilities, h a v e gro w n m o re slo w ly
th an in th e 1 9 5 0 ’s. C o n su m er b o rro w in g s h a v e also put
less p ressu re o n th e to ta l flo w o f sa v in g s. A lth o u g h recen t
ex p a n sio n o f co n su m e r cred it h as b e e n stron g, th e return
flow o f n e t n ew savin g s fro m c o n su m ers o u t o f cu rren t in ­
c o m e s h a s also grow n . L ik e b u sin e ss, co n su m ers h a v e p ro ­
v id ed a gro w in g flow o f fu n d s th rou gh am o rtiza tio n p a y ­
m en ts o n d u rab les and h o u sin g . T h e g ro w in g p referen ce
o f in d iv id u a ls fo r fix ed d o lla r-v a lu e fo rm s o f savin gs also



h a s stim u la ted in cr e a se d sa v in g s flo w s to fin a n cial m id d le ­
m en . M o r e o v e r , b o rro w in g b y th e g o v e r n m e n t secto r for
n ew sp en d in g , th o u g h in crea sin g , h a s n o t o ffset th e slack
ca u se d b y a sw e llin g v o lu m e o f fu n d s an d le ss aggressive
u se o f th em .
T h e se co n tin u in g tren d s h a v e c a u se d fin a n cia l m id d le ­
m en to m a k e m o re fu n d a m en ta l a d ju stm en ts th an th ey did
d u rin g th e sh orter c y c le s o f th e r e ce n t p a st. A s it h a s b e ­
c o m e m o re e v id e n t th at th e cu rren t p er io d is lik e ly to c o n ­
tin u e fo r so m e tim e as a “b o rr o w e r’s ” rath er th an a
“le n d e r ’s m a r k e t,” p r e v io u s le n d in g an d in v e stm e n t p a t­
terns o f fin a n cia l in stitu tio n s h a v e b eg u n to ch a n g e. T h e
m o rtg a g e m a rk et h a s fe lt th e im p a c t o f th is ch a n g e to a
greater e x te n t th an p erh a p s any o th er m ajor fin an cial sector.

Effects o n H o u s in g a n d M o r t g a g e
D e v e lo p m e n ts in the S ix th District
Previous Recoveries

M o s t area e c o n o m ie s serv ed by
m em b er b an k s in this F e d e r a l R e se r v e D istrict en jo y ed
su b sta n tia l gro w th d u rin g th e 1 9 5 0 ’s. A lm o s t all o f th em ,
h o w e v e r , c o u ld h a v e u se d m o re fu n d s th an th eir lo c a l sa v ­
in gs p o o ls p ro v id ed . T h eir resu ltin g ca p ita l-d eficit status
n o t o n ly d icta ted th e m o st efficien t u se o f sca rce lo c a l
fu n d s, but also m a d e th e im p o r ta tio n o f sa v in gs d esirab le.
M a n y fin a n cia l in term ed ia ries, in clu d in g co m m ercia l
ban k s, h a d ab u n d a n t g ro w th o p p o r tu n itie s thru st u p o n
th em in their p u rely lo c a l ro le. O th ers w ere activ e in im ­
p ortin g fu n d s fo r b u sin e ss an d in d u stria l u ses and for
fin an cin g e sse n tia l G o v e r n m en t-p u r c h a se d serv ices. Still
oth ers h e lp e d to im p o rt th e su p p lies o f m o rtg a g e cred it
n e e d e d fo r a d eq u a te b u sin ess, c o m m e r c ia l, and fa m ily
h o u sin g . A su b sta n tia l ca p ita l im p o rt gap rem a in ed , h o w ­
ever, p articu larly in r esid en tia l h o u sin g n e e d s. T h is gap
w as filled by th e sp ec ia liz e d m o rtg a g e b a n k er th ro u g h h is
su c c e ssfu l m erch a n d isin g o f F H A - V A m o rtg a g es to a
w id en in g c lie n te le o f in v esto rs.
M o rtg a g e b a n k ers, w h eth er o p e r a tin g as sp ecia lists or
as m o re d iv ersified fin a n cia l m id d le m e n , serv ed as the
c y c lic a l buffer in th e im p o r ta tio n p r o c e ss. E x p a n sio n o f
n a tio n a l cred it d em a n d s d id n o t p r o c e e d v ery far b efo re
F H A - V A resid e n tia l m o rtg a g es e n c o u n te r e d an in terest
ceilin g barrier. In th e D istr ic t, th e p a ttern o f d isco u n ts,
in cr ea se d b o rro w in g co sts, r e d u ce d p rofit m argin s, and
sh rin k age o f b u ild e r s’ m a rk ets p a r a lle led n a tio n a l trends.
T h e c h ie f e ffect w as ra tio n e d cred it flo w s in to th e D istrict,
w h ich se v e r ely lim ite d all e x c e p t th e la rg est, b o ld e st, and
m o st efficien t m er c h a n t b u ild ers in o u r larger m etro p o lita n
cen ters. A s th e rela tiv e ly sh o rt c red it c y c le s to p p e d o u t
and d isc o u n ts w ere red u ced u n d er g ro w in g flo w s o f im ­
p orted m o rtg a g e cred it, th e se larger m e tr o p o lita n cen ters
still b en efited m o st fro m th e b la n k et len d er p r o tectio n o f­
fered b y th e F H A - V A m o rtg a g e. T h e y a lso c o u ld attract
fu n d s fo r e x p a n d in g th e v o lu m e o f c o m m e r c ia l an d apart­
m en t b u ild in g s. M a n y u rb an and sm a ller c o m m u n ities in
this D istr ic t w ith g o o d gro w th r e c o rd s and p r o sp ects w ere
thus fa c e d w ith a c o n tin u in g b ra k e o n fu rther h o u sin g
ex p a n sio n .

Present Recovery

R e sid e n tia l c o n str u c tio n co n tra cts in
this D istrict h a d d ec lin e d m o re sh arp ly th an th e n a tio n a l
avera g e b e tw e e n 1 9 5 9 and 1 9 6 0 . T h e o u tlo o k fo r r e c o v ­
• 2 •

ery seemed somewhat bleak. Metropolitan mortgage lend­
ers and major mortgage bankers, replying to a survey con­
ducted by this Bank in the autumn of 1960, expected the
usual reversal from scarce, high-priced mortgage money
to more abundant supplies. However, one significant dif­
ference in opinion was prevalent, namely that lack of
housing demand, in spite of more available mortgage
money and gradually declining rates, would bar rapid re­
covery. As it turned out, however, by autumn of 1961 the
District’s level of construction contracts had recouped the
deep decline of late 1960.
A major feature of this recovery was a pronounced
swing within the District toward multi-family housing,
which increased about 35 percent from 1960 to 1961,
compared with a 2-percent rise for one- and two-family
housing units. This pattern continued during 1962, as
multi-family contracts gained about 44 percent, compared
with 10 percent for total residential contracts.
By the end of 1962, however, the volume of multi­
family construction had begun to diminish, and a new
trend appeared. This latest trend has been toward a sharp
renewal of growth in total construction volume, with major
gains in one- and two-family units. Some prominent
metropolitan areas of the District, however, have been
exerting a net drag on total contract volume. For example,
housing contract totals through June 1963 in the nine
largest metropolitan areas of the Sixth District were down
9 percent over the same period in 1962. In contrast, hous­
ing contract volume outside these metropolitan areas was
up 35 percent from the previous year. However, a strong
surge of multi-unit contracts occurred within the District
in June, restoring this type of construction to growth-rate
leadership. Total construction contracts for the six months
through June of this year were in excess of $ l 3 billion
/4
or 18 percent higher than for the same period of 1962.
The District picture may be summarized as follows: As a
whole, the District states are in the midst of a boom year in
residential construction. Many large metropolitan centers
appear to have matched or exceeded current demand for
new housing, both in individual units and in multi-family
structures. Areas formerly leading in housing production
have relinquished the leadership to areas that are less popu­
lous, less concentrated in large metropolitan centers, and
less able to finance their needs from local flows of savings.
Why the Difference? Strengthened housing demand in
many small urban communities that are responding to
continued economic growth is one important reason.
Greater availability of less expensive mortgage funds, both
from the national capital markets and from local savings
flows, is another. Closely associated with this factor is the
increased competition of mortgage lenders and the broad­
ening of mortgage banking channels, which is bringing
more and more capital importing communities in contact
with outside capital flows.
Opposing these factors, which have tended to stimulate
the rate of real estate activity, potentially less favorable
factors have had to be dealt with. FHA and VA mortgages,
the chief instruments of inter-regional, mortgage credit
flows, have carried a triple burden. First, the maximum
contract rates were lowered early in the current recovery.
Fortunately, adjustment to this change was rapid because



rates on alternative investments also came down. Second,
the impact of the Executive Order of November 24, 1962,
was concentrated upon these instruments of national hous­
ing credit flows and required rapid and continuing adjust­
ments. Finally, rising delinquencies and foreclosures have
appeared to be most pronounced in FHA-VA financed
residential properties. Some of this differential between
FHA and conventional delinquency rates is more illusory
than real because of the ease with which a delinquency
on an open-end conventional may be cured by increasing
the loan. Moreover, the FHA insurance program has built
up substantial reserves capable of coping with a higher
rate of foreclosure on high loan-to-value and longer-term
mortgages. And, although a few of the District’s major
metropolitan areas have experienced difficulties with fore­
closures, the District as a whole appears to have held
FHA-VA delinquencies and foreclosures well in line with
national rates.
Adjustments of savings flows within the District to
changing types and locales of housing demand have also
presented difficulties. This shifting demand has made it
necessary for many local mortgage-lending institutions to
extend their lending and servicing territories. Others have
had to increase their buying of mortgage participations
and whole mortgages to employ their growing flows of
savings and repayments. In still other instances, increased
competition for available mortgages and higher operating
costs have forced many institutions to reduce rates paid for
savings and to accept a potentially slower rate of growth.

Implications for the Future
Some of the new mortgage market dimensions that are
currently visible may be summarized as follows:
1. Growing availability of locally generated funds.
2. Broadened and apparently more permanent access
to national savings pools.
3. Mortgage bankers’ growing backlog of experience
in making rapid adjustment to changes in type or
location of housing demand and in redirecting flows
of mortgage funds.
4. Experience in and awareness of the continuing need
for minimizing deterioration of existing values in
real property and in mortgage obligations through
better underwriting and servicing of mortgage loans.
5. Higher cost levels for mortgage intermediaries and
lower financing costs for builders and borrowers.
These developments, if carefully husbanded, have the
potential for further stimulating sustainable growth in
this region. As the search proceeds for new equilibrium
of costs and interest rates, sector allocation of funds, and
competitive position among mortgage market institutions,
some of these trends will intensify. If our overall economy
succeeds in achieving a more dynamic rate of growth in
investment, employment, output, and consumption, the
problems of a relative oversupply of mortgage funds should
quickly recede. The experience of the 1950’s might then
furnish the most likely guide to probable developments.
If it does not, then a better guide to the nature of potential
problems might be found in the longer history of real
estate and mortgage credit cycles in this country. But that,
hopefully, is another story.
T
T
T T
T
^

j

H ir a m

•3 •

J. H o n e a

Economic Indicators —Mississippi

1111m1111111111i i 11111111111111i i 11111111111i i 11111111111111
L 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = IOO
1
'
*
J

Mississippi’s Ecom
Mississippi’s economy has pushed ahead rapidly during
the past year. The advance, moreover, has been broadly
based. Although many forces have contributed, some ob­
servers are citing continued strength in manufacturing
activity as one of the highlights of the overall expansion.
This, they argue, is especially encouraging in view of the
critical role that manufacturing must play in the state’s
long-run economic development.

M fg . P a y r o l l s

Manufacturing Employment Strong
Manufacturing, which is gaining on agriculture in the
number of workers employed, accounted for 30 percent
of the 10,600 new non agricultural jobs added in the last
year. This brought total nonagricultural employment to
436,300 at the end of June. Sparked by strength in manu­
facturing, nonagricultural employment, after adjustment
for seasonal variation, has chalked up gains in seven of
the last twelve months.
Apparel, the largest manufacturing employer, con­
tinued to be the standout performer. Employment in ap­
parel manufacturing during June was 6 percent higher
than a year ago and has moved up 3 percent since the
end of 1962. Gains in both men’s and women’s clothing
have contributed to the overall increase.
Food processing and lumber, Mississippi’s other two
large industrial employers, have not enjoyed such growth.
Employment in food processing during June closely ap­
proximated the level of the corresponding period in 1962,
and gains since the end of 1962 have been no more than
would be expected on seasonal grounds. Lumber and
wood products manufacturing, consisting principally of
logging and sawmill operations, employed slightly fewer
workers in May than they did a year ago.
Outside manufacturing, construction employment has
added substantially to the state’s wage rolls. The number
of persons engaged in construction activity rose 2,700 in
the past year, representing an increase of 11 percent. The
bulk of this increase occurred in the Pascagoula area. In
addition, several other nonmanufacturing types added jobs
during the past year: Government employment rose 2.6
percent; retail trade, 1.6 percent; and employment in ser­
vices, 2.9 percent.

M fg . E m p l o y m e n t

P e r s o n a l In c o m e

B a n k D e b its

D e p a rtm e n t S to re

*

#

S a le s *

M e m b e r B a n k Lo an s*

M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s it s

F o r Sixth D istrict portion of state only.




Income and Spending Rack Up Gains
Sizable advances in personal income, perhaps the best
overall measure we have of economic activity, testify to
the state’s economic improvement. After modest declines
earlier in the year, the index of personal income (on a
1957-59=100 base) rose to 134.6 percent in May. This
represented a solid 7-percent gain over the year-ago level,
although per capita income is still low, relative to that of
other states.
One source of the increase in personal income was, of
course, the earnings of new jobholders. This is illustrated
by the rise in total payrolls of manufacturing industries,
which during May were 7 percent higher than in May
1962. The gain resulted from higher hourly pay and a
longer workweek for employees, as well as from a larger
number of workers.
. 4 .

Still on the Move
Farmers’ incomes have also contributed to strength in
personal incomes. As illustrated by the chart showing farm
cash receipts, farm income fluctuates widely from month
to month, but the total has been averaging near the high
levels of the past two years.
According to most measures, total spending has added
its thrust to the state’s economy. Bank debits, or check
payments, have risen irregularly since the middle of 1961.
The total so far this year has been 7 percent higher than
in the comparable period last year. While suggested by
the debits figures, the increase in total spending is con­
firmed by the 9-percent rise in sales tax receipts by the
state of Mississippi. Sales tax receipts, of course, repre­
sent a measure of spending, as well as a source of reve­
nue for the state.
Mississippians not only spent some of their higher in­
comes but, like citizens throughout the country, supple­
mented these earnings by borrowing for the purchase of
autos and other durable goods. Instalment loans outstand­
ing at member banks in the state were 20 percent higher
at the end of March, the latest month for which data are
available, than they were a year earlier. Loans for the
purchase of automobiles increased 35 percent over this
period, and loans for purchasing other durable goods, such
as refrigerators, rose 29 percent.
Activities at the state’s banks have mirrored the rise in
general business activity. Both loans and deposits of mem­
ber banks have risen sharply and steadily for the past
two years. Loans, for example, were 9 percent higher
in March than in March 1962. Deposits increased 11 per­
cent over the same period. Judging by monthly data
available for member banks in the District portion of the
state, both loans and deposits continued to rise sharply
through June.

How Local Areas Have Fared
The rate of economic advance has varied from one part
of the state to the other, although most areas appear to
have shared in the increase. Judging from available em­
ployment data and banking information, the Pascagoula
area has experienced the fastest rise. Much of this in­
crease stemmed from several large construction projects,
some of which are nearing completion. Most notable was
a large refinery built by the Standard Oil Company.
The accompanying map illustrates how the gain in nonfarm employment was distributed among the local-office
areas of the Mississippi Employment Security Commis­
sion. This agency is the source of employment information
for the state.
Although falling short of Pascagoula’s rapid pace, the
Tupelo and Corinth areas in the northeastern corner of
the state have enjoyed substantial increases in employ­
ment. Gains in both areas were slightly over 10 percent.
In each case, expansion in manufacturing activity sparked
the increase.
Four of the local areas reported fewer persons em­
ployed in nonfarm jobs during May than in May 1962.
All of the declines were smaller than 2 percent, however.
The Vicksburg area, comprising four counties, reported



Changes in Nonagricultural Employment, by A re a ’
[Corinth]

Oxford
jClarksdale
West!
Point:

Cleveland
[GreenII wood

A
berdeen

Columbus:

ILexing"

iton*

KosciBusko
IvicksV burg

Louisville

Newton
M e r id ia n

Jacksoni
Hazlehurst
• Laurel
Natchez

Brookhaven
Hattiesburg
McCombs

Percent Change, May 1963 from May 1962
m
feU i

+5.!%-+IO%

jf lU

Picayune

More than +10%

0-+5%

I

Gulfport

I -0.1%
--2%

♦Local office areas of Mississippi Employment Security Commission.

the largest decrease, most of which reflected a cutback in
Government employment. The decrease may be temporary,
however, since a pickup in Government employment is
anticipated in the next few weeks as revetment work on
the river gets underway.

Prospects
How Mississippi’s economy fares in the future depends,
in part, on how well business activity in the nation holds
up. The strength of national demand for apparel is espe­
cially critical, since apparel manufacturing is an important
segment of the state’s manufacturing industry.
Future growth in the state’s economy also depends
heavily on a continued expansion in new manufacturing
jobs. Some indication of future trends in manufacturing is
given by the volume of current announcements of new
plants and expansion of existing ones. The Mississippi
Agricultural and Industrial Board keeps track of such
plant announcements and has reported that 32 new plants
and 20 expansions were announced during the first half
of 1963. This number represents a dollar investment of
$32 million and a potential source of about 5,100 new jobs.
The economic future is never clear, but judging from
the visibility that exists, the outlook for continued ex­
pansion in the state’s economy is good.
W . M. D a v i s
This is one of a series in which economic developments in
each of the Sixth District states are discussed. Develop­
ments in Georgia’s economy were analyzed in the May
1963 R e v i e w , and a discussion of Louisiana’s economy
is scheduled for a forthcoming issue.
•5 •

Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts
In su re d C o m m ercial B a n k s in th e S ix th D istrict
(In Thousands of Dollars)

A REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI'S ECONOMY,

1960-63
A compilation of articles devoted to Mississippi's economy
June
1963

May
1963

June
1962

2,646,812
47,396
981,516
39,505
40,583
111,343
319,435
197,370
28,570
62,374

2,964,430
51,267
1,087,413
43,471
41,545
113,831
375,300
228,007
32,447
73,628

2,432,898
46,855
900,857
39,446
37,438
82,344
295,028
180,519
27,508
60,822

— 11
—8
— 10
—9
—2
—2
— 15
— 13
— 12
— 15

+9
+1
+9
+ 0
+ 8
+35
+8
+9
+4
+3

+10
+6
+9
+6
+ 10
+27
+ 11
+13
+8
+9

FLORIDA, Totalf
Bartow* . . . .
Bradenton* . . .
Brevard County*
Clearwater* . . .
Daytona Beach*
Delray Beach* . .
Ft. Lauderdale*
Ft. MyersNorth Ft. Myers*
Gainesville* . . .
Jacksonville . . .
Key West*
. . .
Lakeland*
. . .
M ia m i......................
Greater Miami*
Ocala*
. . . .
Orlando . . . .
Pensacola
. . .
St. Augustine* . .
St. Petersburg . .
Sarasota*
. . .
Tallahassee*
. .
Tampa
. . . .
W. Palm-Palm Bch.*
Winter Haven* . .

6,039,000
21,875
45,746
125,426
61,862
63,161
22,551
218,302

6,742,818
27,594
49,256
134,044
71,956
68,142
24,528
235,954

5,715,794
n.a.
50,460
n.a.
n.a.
57,374
n.a.
206,362

— 10
— 21
—7
—6
— 14
—7
—8
—7

+6
n.a.
—9
n.a.
n.a.
+ 10
n.a.
+6

+8
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
+ 10
n.a.
+ 2

50,080
59,744
858,539
17,216
78,375
968,736
1,410,304
42,488
288.171
95,675
14,618
204,391
79,515
75,786
446,093
154,524
38,820

58,859
56,590
966,221
19,070
92,936
1,101,376
1,612,979
43,244
313,197
97,362
15,032
222,645
81,487
85,289
508,960
164,706
45,611

n.a.
48,980
824,453
15,179
84,909
961,671
1,399,464
n.a.
267,603
89,264
n.a.
215,484
79,128
65,886
440,503
154,065
n.a.

— 15
+6
— 11
— 10
— 16
— 12
— 13
—2
—8
—2
—3
—8
—2
— 11
— 12
—6
— 15

n.a.
+22
+4
+ 13
—8
+ 1
+ 1
n.a.
+8
+7
n.a.
—5
+0
+ 15
+ 1
+0
n.a.

n.a.
+14
+ 1
+3
+5
+ 5
+5
n.a.
+ 11
+ 7
n.a.
—4
+ 15
+10
+ 5
—1
n.a.

GEORGIA, Totalt • •
Albany
. . . .
Athens* . . . .
Atlanta . . . .
Augusta . . . .
Brunswick
. . .
Columbus . . . .
Dalton* . . . .
Elberton . . . .
Gainesville* . . .
Griffin* . . . .
LaGrange* . . .
M acon ......................
Marietta*
. . .
Newnan . . . .
Rome*
. . . .
Savannah . . . .
Valdosta . . . .

4,766,336
60,334
46,524
2,660,797
137,005
30,208
120,275
58,159
10,663
56,793
21,583
16,453
144,709
42,686
22,120
51,565
179,539
3 2 ,8 24t

5,116,364
65,349
50,649
2,845,110
144,455
38,534
135,017
62,647
12,263
59,623
22,241
16,811
152,444
44,952
20,700
54,528
201,938
37,278

4,406,968
57,694
44,178
2,445,592
126,448
31,171
118,268
52,922
12,254
53,836
21,219
17,866
139,389
36,345
22,460
48,584
179,977
31,759

—7
—8
—8
—6
—5
— 22
— 11
—7
— 13
—5
—3
—2
—5
—5
+7
—5
— 11
— 12

+8
+5
+5
+9
+8
—3
+ 2
+10
— 13
+5
+2
—8
+4
+17
—2
+6
—0
+3

+11
+5
+ 1
+ 16
+ 11
+7
+2
n.a.
+4
+5
+6
—5
+8
+ 18
—1
+3
+5
+ 0

LOUISIANA, To talt**
Abbeville*
. . .
Alexandria* . . .
Baton Rouge . . .
Bunkie* . . . .
Hammond* . . .
Lafayette* . . .
Lake Charles
. .
New Iberia* . . .
New Orleans . . .
Plaquemine*
. .
Thibodaux* . . .

2,787,840
7,081
85,235
309,240
4,657
23,428
76,666
82,091
22,903
1,504,836
6,676
15,572

3,108,333
8,013
88,092
363,305
4,701
27,800
86,351
93,837
26,397
1,663,264
6,881
15,209

2,640,573
n.a.
81,616
289,462
4,724
n.a.
68,657
88,093
n.a.
1,499,848
6,981
14,119

— 10
— 12
—3
— 15
—1
— 16
— 11
— 13
— 13
— 10
—3
+2

+6
n.a.
+4
+7
—1
n.a.
+ 12
—7
n.a.
+ 0
—4
+ 10

+9
n.a.
+ 5
+ 11
n.a.
n.a.
+ 11
+1
n.a.
+4
n.a.
n.a.

866,096
65,063
37,331
348,781
27,199
46,659
27,360

998,136
71,368
39,879
413,668
31,492
58,049
27,128

853,096
58,128
39,322
347,487
28,776
46,817
24,909

— 13
—9
—6
— 16
— 14
— 20
+ 1

+2
+ 12
—5
+ 0
—5
—0
+ 10

+6
+ 11
—2
+ 4
+ 1
+ 10
+9

35,463
23,427
23,050

40,260
27,918
21,568

n.a.
23,136
n.a.

— 12
— 16
+7

n.a.
+1
n.a.

n.a.
+8
n.a.

2,480,262
54,492
382,851
50,746
86,405
270,929
900,328

2,582,355
60,206
381,869
52,529
96,494
289,713
937,435

2,330,712
56,325
344,743
50,015
93,171
270,188
826,295

—4
—9
+ 0
—3
— 10
—6
—4

+6
—3
+ 11
+1
—7
+0
+9

+7
+3
+8
+8
—1
+5
+8

SIXTH DISTRICT, Total 19,586,346
11,792,357
Total, 32 Cities

21,512,436
12,958,789

18,380,041
11,239,524

—9
—9

+7
+5

+9
+8

299,600,000 318,100,000 291,800,000

—6

+3

+8

that a p p e a re d in this Bank's M onthly Review during 1960-63,
together with revised monthly figures of major business in dica­
tors for Mississippi. The articles em phasize various aspects of
Mississippi's economic

scene

and

often

consider

longer-run

developm ents. Copies of this booklet, as w ell as copies of
A Review of G e o rg ia 's Econom y, 1960-63, the first publication
in this series, a re

a v a ila b le

upon

request to the

Research

Departm ent, Federal Reserve Bank of A tlan ta, A tlan ta, G e o r­
gia 30303.

B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts
On July 1, the First National Bank of Margate, Mar­
gate, Florida, a newly organized member bank, opened
for business and began to remit at par for checks drawn
on it when received from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Officers are Walter A. Hobbs, Jr., President; M. G.
Sanchez, Vice President and Cashier; and G. Russell
French, Vice President. Capital is $400,000, and sur­
plus and other capital funds, $200,000, as reported by
the Comptroller of Currency at the time the charter
was granted.
The Bank of Nor cross, Nor cross, Georgia, a non­
member bank, began to remit at par on July 1. Officers
include Clifford Jones, President; Allen M. Johnson,
Vice President; and J. S. Nesbit, Cashier.
On July 12, The Bank of Central Florida, Haines
City, Florida, a newly organized nonmember bank,
opened for business and began to remit at par. Officers
are E. E. Martin, Chairman of the Board; R. M.
Willingham, President; R. V. Phillips, Vice President;
and Franklin L. Vaughan, Cashier. Capital is $360,000,
and surplus and undivided profits, $180,000.
The Pineland State Bank, Metter, Georgia, a non­
member bank, began to remit at par on July 15. Offi­
cers include G. H. Rountree, President; K. L. Kendrick,
Vice President; and Richard N. Marsh, Cashier.
On July 27, the Indialantic Beach Bank, Indialantic,
Florida, a newly organized nonmember bank, opened
for business and began to remit at par. Officers are
James H. Pruitt, Chairman of the Board; William
Fletcher, President; Harry E. Reichart, Executive Vice
President; A. T. Rossetter, Vice President; and Bobby
Sullivan, Cashier. Capital is $250,000, and surplus and
undivided profits, $100,000.



Percent Change
Year-to-date
6 Months
June 1963 from
1963
from
June
May
1962
1962
1963

ALABAMA, To talt
Anniston . . . .
Birmingham . .
Dothan
. . . .
Gadsden . . . .
Huntsville* . .
Mobile
. . . .
Montgomery . .
Selma*
. . . .
Tuscaloosa* . .

.
.
.
.
.

M ISSISSIP P I, T o talt**
Biloxi-Gulfport*
.
Hattiesburg . . .
Jackson . . . .
Laurel*
. . . .
Meridian . . . .
Natchez* . . . .
PascagoulaMoss Point* . .
Vicksburg
. . .
Yazoo City* . . .
TEN N ESSEE, To talt**
Bristol* . . . .
Chattanooga . . .
Johnson City* . .
Kingsport* . . .
Knoxville . . . .
Nashville . . . .

UNITED STATES
344 Cities
. .

.

*Not included in total for 32 cities that are part of the national debit series main­
tained by the Board of Governors.
fPartly estimated.
n.a. Not available.
**Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state.

•6 •

Sixth District Statistics
Seasonally Adjusted
( A ll d a t a a r e in d e x e s , 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 =

Latest Month
(1963)

One
Month
Ago

Two
Months
Ago

39,861r
122
131
115
130
125

39,384r
127
153
110
123
122

37,533
106
101
108
118
117

June
June

165
151

153
148

169
149

156
134

June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June
April
April
April
May
June
June

111
109
131
104
112
102
93
107
98
94
114
111
101
87
3.9
40.7
131
139
132
146
136
99
164

111
109
132
104
111
102
93
107
lOOr
94
113
111
103r
89
3.8
40.9r
131
141
129
150
134
98 r
163

111
109
131
104
111
103
93
105
99
95
115
111
101
84
3.7
40.7
131
124
122
125
131
98
158r

109
107
127
102
106
104
93
104
96
97
106
109
96
88
4.1
40.9
126
139
116
158
130
104r
144

June
July

154
145

150
147

149
142

136
131

June
July
June

133
125
143

130
128
135

130
123
140

Bank Debits**

7,480
128
123

7,390r
109

112

112

108
114

108
114

112

7,023

111

107

Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................................June
M an u fa c tu rin g ............................................ June
Nonmanirfacturing...................................... June
C o n stru ctio n ............................................June
Farm Em ploym ent............................................ June
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cm . Emp.) June
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
June
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s ................................. June

112
108
114
114
72
3.0
39 8
129

2.7
39.9
128r

2.9
39.9
129

155
138
152

153
134
141

151
135
152

112
68

112
68

109
105

111

108
80
3.3
39.9

121

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ...................................... June
Member Bank D e p o s i t s .................................June
Bank D e b i t s * * ................................................. June

144
128
133

LO U ISIA N A
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)

May
May
June

5,959
116
113

5,956r
104
111

5,909r
113
109

5,564
110
100

June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June

102
99
103
95
96
4.3
41.8
123

103
99
103
97
95
4.2
41.9r
123r

102
100
103
94
77
43
42.3
124

100
94
102
82
101
4.7
41.2
111

June
June
June

147
121
134

139
118
126

142
119
127

132
113
124

May
May
June

3,089
150
107

3,035r
117
105

2,992r
123
98

June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June

114
116
113
117
77
4.0
40.4
135

115
118
114
120
79
4.2
40 5r
137r

115
117
114
121
79
4.3
40.5
135

112
114
111
105
74
4.1
39.9
128

June
June
June

172
150
142

170
146
143

168
143
137

152
130
137

May
May
June

6,419
103
114

6,468r
119
111

6,395r
112
100

June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June

111
112
110
125
95
4.6
40.1
130

111
111
110
131
98
4.6
41.0
128

111
111
110
124
94
4.5
41.2
128

109
111
108
123
93
4.9
40.3
126

June
June
June

159
136
147

151
129
135

150
131
136

135
119
129

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT

FINANCE AND BANKING

INCOME AND SPENDING
5,152
122
102

May
May
June

5,481
127
113

5,508r
120
103

5,372r
119
97

June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June

107
102
109
94
82
4.1
40.3
121

107
102
109
94
104
4.1
40.8r
122

107
102
109
94
90
4.0
40.3
122

105
100
107
96
88
4.9
40.7
117

June
June
June

154
133
139

153
131
134

150
128
132

136
121
126

Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)

2,894
116
99

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................................
M an u fa c tu rin g ............................................
Nonmanufacturing......................................
C o n stru ctio n ............................................
Farm Em ploym ent............................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s .................................
FINANCE AND BANKING

Bank D ebits*/**

TENNESSEE

FLO RIDA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . .
Farm Cash R e c e i p t s .......................................
Department Store S a l e s * * ............................

May 11,045
May
88
June
160

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................................
M a n u fa c tu rin g ............................................
Nonmanufacturing.......................................
C o n stru ctio n ............................................
Farm Em ploym ent............................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s .................................

June
June
June
June
June
June
June
June

117
119
116
93
127
3.3
40.9
157

116
119
116
94r
113
3.3
40.4r
155r

116
120
115
94
111
3.4
40.8
155

116
121
114
90
120
3.3
41.6
157

June
June
June

151
134
141

150
131
136

147
132
143

131
122
128

ll,3 6 9 r
133
151

ll,3 2 6 r
154
147

10,856
99
140

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
Farm Cash R e c e i p t s ............................
Department Store Sa le s*/**
. . .

6,049
98
99

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ......................................
Member Bank D e p o s i t s .................................
Bank D e b i t s * * ..................................................

7,525r
114
115

One
Year
Ago

MISSISSIPPI

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s .......................................

Two
Months
Ago

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT

122
118
129

INCOME AND SPENDING

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment
Manufacturing
.
Nonmanufacturing
Construction .
Farm Employment .
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Einp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s .................................

Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . May
Farm Cash R e c e i p t s .......................................May
Department Store S a l e s * * ........................... June

Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.)

A LABAM A
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate)
Farm Cash R e c e i p t s ............................
Department Store Sales**
. . . .

One
Month
Ago

INCOME AND SPENDING
May 39,473
May
109
May
100
May
116
July
128p
June
127

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Loans*
All B a n k s .......................................................
Leading C i t i e s ............................................
Member Bank Deposits*
All B a n k s .......................................................
Leading C i t i e s ............................................
Bank D e b i t s * / * * ............................................

Latest Month
(1963)

G EO R G IA

INCOME AND SPENDING

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................................
M a n u fa ctu rin g ............................................
A p p a re l.......................................................
C h e m ic a ls ..................................................
Fabricated M e t a l s .................................
F o o d .............................................................
Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . .
Paper
.......................................................
Primary M e t a l s .......................................
T e x tile s.......................................................
Transportation Equipment
. . . .
Nonmanufacturing.......................................
C o n stru ctio n ............................................
Farm Em p loym ent............................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. tm p j
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Manufacturing P a y r o l l s .................................
Construction C o n t r a c t s * .................................
Residential
..................................................
All O t h e r .......................................................
Electric Power P r o d u c t io n * * ......................
Cotton C on su m p tio n **/***............................
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.**

o t h e r w is e .)

One
Year
Ago

SIXTH DISTRICT
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . .
Farm Cash R e c e i p t s .......................................
C r o p s ............................................................
L iv e s t o c k .......................................................
Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................
Department Store S t o c k s * ............................
Instalment Credit at Banks, *(M il. $)
New L o a n s.......................................................
R e p a y m e n ts..................................................

1 0 0 , u n le s s in d ic a t e d

Farm Em ploym ent......................
Insured Unemployment, (Percent o
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.)
Manufacturing Payrolls . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Loans* . .
Member Bank Deposits* . . .
Bank D e b i t s * / * * ......................

*For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states.
**Daily average basis.
***Figures reflect revision of the seasonal adjustments.
p Preliminary.
r Revised.
Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U.S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton
consumption, U.S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U.S. Bureau of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash receipts and
farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank.




•7 •

D

I S

T

R

I C

T

B

U

S

I N

E

S

S

C

O

N

D

I T

I O

N

S

I I I I I | I I I I
B illio n s o f D o lla rs
A n n u a l R a te
S e a s . Adj.

O is t r ic t business activity continues to exp and , although at a decidedly
slow er pace than last spring. Bank credit rose sh arp ly, and retail
spending also edged upward. Rising farm activity, output, and prices
recharged the farm economy. How ever, em ploym ent changed little,
and insured unem ploym ent rem ained at an uncom fortably high level.

Personal Income

Nonfarm Employment

U*

Average Weekly Hours *
W o r k e d in M fg.

Mfg. Payrolls
Construction
Contracts I

4

District retail spending edged upw ard, but the rate of expansion
w as slow er than in previous months. Preliminary figures indicate that

m o v in g
avg.

department store sales declined slightly during July, following a sharp upturn
in June. Final figures for June reveal that among major District cities large
gains were reported for Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Birmingham, Chattanooga,
Jacksonville, Miami, and Tampa-St. Petersburg. Bank debits rose sharply in
June. While sales at household appliance stores remained unchanged, sales at
furniture stores advanced slightly. Personal income dipped in May, but the
year-to-date income gain for the six-state area continues to outstrip that of the
nation. Consumer credit outstanding at District commercial banks expanded
moderately during June. The net increase in debt, reflecting primarily a higher
level of personal loan extensions, was larger than the amount registered in the
previous month.
IS

Electric Power
Production

Cotton Consumption

Heightened activity is giving the farm economy a lift. Favorable
weather brightened crop prospects generally, and harvests now underway in
many areas are progressing satisfactorily. Pastures, with the exception of those
in dry southwestern areas, are providing more grazing than in earlier months.
With crops maturing, harvests gaining headway, and shipments of livestock
holding at advanced levels, total farm marketings have increased in recent
weeks and exceed year-earlier volumes. Spurred by rising prices for hogs, eggs,
and citrus, the index of prices received by District farmers rose further in June.
Prices for poultry products and beef cattle have also strengthened in recent
weeks. The market value of farm real estate advanced further during the year
ended in March 1963. Gains exceeded those for the nation, principally be­
cause of marked increases in Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee.
v*
\S

Bank Debits

Farm Cash
' Receipts j

3

- m o . m o v in g a v g .

An uninspiring stab ility characterized the District's em ploym ent
picture, although some production indicators continued their upward
trend. The total number of nonfarm jobs remained virtually unchanged in

Member Bank Loans

Member Bank Deposits

PERCENT OF REQUIRED RESERVES

4.1
.
|> H

Borrowings from F. R. Bank n|

1rl

n

>1
1

I rv i rr I

1962

h


♦Seas. adj. figure; not an index.

1961

IS

Bank credit at District member banks rose sharply in June. A rise
in the volume of investments dominated the gain in bank credit, but loans also
showed a substantial increase. Deposits climbed in June, more than recov­
ering the decline recorded in May. Weekly reports from member banks in
leading cities indicate moderate increases in investments, very little change in
loan volume, and a reduction in the rate of deposit expansion through July.
Effective July 24, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta raised the discount
rate from 3 to 31 percent.
/*
U* U* u*

Mfg. Employment

N

IS

^ ^

1.4

i .............. I

1963

1

June, as employment declines in Mississippi and Louisiana were offset by
slight gains in the other District states. The District’s manufacturing enter­
prises also failed to expand their employment rolls. Declines in apparel and
primary metals, together with losses in paper and lumber employment, were
almost evenly balanced by gains in other manufacturing types. Despite a
shorter-than-average workweek and a standstill in manufacturing employ­
ment, higher hourly earnings boosted manufacturing payrolls. Insured unem­
ployment, following successive declines earlier in the year, remained virtually
unchanged. Following the recent upward trend in construction employment, a
slight decline occurred in June. Cotton consumption, after expanding sharply
since January, leveled off; petroleum production climbed further; and steel
production in July declined less than nationally.
N o t e : Data on which statements are based have been adjusted to eliminate seasonal influences.