The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
A T L A N T A , G E O R G IA , A U G U S T 3 1 , 1953 ]n% isIssue: F ro m th e F a c to ry to th e F a rm L a b o r D a y P r o m is e s H e a v y C a s h D ra in N a s t y K in k s in t h e C o tto n P r o b le m H ig h w a y S ig n s f o r C h e c k s D is tric t B u s in e s s H ig h lig h ts SixtfiDiStridStatistics: Condition o f 27 Member Banks in Leading C ities Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts Department Store Sales and Inventories Instalment Cash Loans Retail Furniture Store Operations W holesale Sales and Inventories SfrtfiViStriftIndexes: Construction Contracts Cotton Consumption Department Store Sales and Stocks Electric Power Production Furniture Store Sales Gasoline Tax Collections Manufacturing Employment Petroleum Production Turnover o f Demand Deposits D IS T R IC T B U S IN E S S H IG H L IG H T S F a r m p r i c e s s h o w s l i g h t r i s e s s in c e J u n e fo r th e m o st im p o rta n t D is tric t p ro d u c ts. H i g h e r p r ic e s a r e in p r o s p e c t f o r t o b a c c o c r o p , w h ic h w ill p r o b a b ly b e a b o u t th e sam e size as la s t y e a r ’s. F lo rid a a n d T e n n e sse e o u t p u t m a y b e off so m ew h at, b u t p ro d u c tio n in G e o rg ia a n d A la b a m a is lik ely to b e up. A p r o s p e c t i v e c o t t o n c r o p e q u a l t o l a s t y e a r ’s m a y re s u lt fro m sm a lle r to ta ls in G e o rg ia , L o u is ia n a , a n d M ississip p i, offset b y g a in s in A la b a m a , F lo rid a , a n d T en n essee. B a n k d e b i t s a r e s till i n c r e a s i n g o v e r a y e a r e a rlie r b y su b s ta n tia l m arg in s, in d ic a tin g a c o n tin u e d g ro w th in to ta l sp en d in g . D e p a rtm e n t s to r e s a le s s u rp a s s e d J u ly a n d A u g u st 1 9 5 2 m a r k s , larg e ly b e c a u se o f h ig h e r n o n d u ra b le g o o d s sales. A m o re th a n se aso n a l declin e, h o w ev er, h a s o c c u rre d sin ce th e M a y 1953 p e a k . • N e w c a r s a l e s k e e p h i t t i n g a b o v e y e a r - a g o m a r k s , b u t u se d c a r d e a le rs fo u n d th e ir sales lo w e r in th e first h a lf o f th is y e a r th a n in th a t p a rt o f 1 9 5 2 . A c c o m p a n y in g th e d ro p in u se d c a r sales h a s b e e n a slow ing d o w n in th e r a te o f g ro w th in a u to m o b ile in sta lm e n t c re d it. M a n u f a c t u r i n g e m p l o y m e n t r o s e in J u n e m o re th a n se a so n a lly to th e h ig h est level re c o rd e d in th e p o s tw a r y e a rs, a n d p re lim in a ry r e p o rts show a c o n tin u in g g ro w th in Ju ly . • T o ta l d e m a n d f o r b a n k l o a n s r e m a i n s s t r o n g , a n d fall c re d it n eed s a re e x p e c te d to in c re a se d e m a n d s still fu rth e r. R e s e r v e p o s i t i o n s w e r e t i g h t e r d u r i n g A u g u s t a t m a jo r D is tric t b a n k s a fte r a p e rio d o f re la tiv e ea se in J u ly , a n d th e in c re a se d lo a n d e m a n d o f e a rly A u g u s t led som e m e m b e r b a n k s to b e g in b o rro w in g o n c e m o re. • R e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t s d i p p e d s h a r p l y in J u n e to th e lo w est level since J a n u a r y 1 9 4 9 . P re lim in a ry in d ic a tio n s , h o w ev er, a re th a t J u ly c o n tra c t a w a rd s in c re a s e d to levels p re v a ilin g in th e sp rin g . • L o a n s t o m a n u f a c t u r i n g a n d m in i n g c o n c e r n s r o s e in A u g u s t a fte r a m ore-or-less ste a d y d e c lin e since th e first o f th e y e a r. R ise s w ere r e p o rte d in th ese lo a n s th ro u g h o u t 1 9 5 2 . T h e u p w a rd tre n d in lo an s to tra d e c o n c e rn s th is y e a r c o n tin u e s. • 2 • From the Factory to the Farm A n A ppraisal o f the Farm E quipm ent Industry “Growth is the only evidence of life,” said Cardinal Newman. If this be true, the Sixth Federal Reserve Dis trict is very much alive, as evidenced by the tremendous economic expansion here during the last decade or so. Coincident with dynamic growth in almost every phase of business has been a significant change in the region’s eco nomic structure. No longer is agriculture the main prop of the South’s economy; manufacturing has become one of its supporting pillars and today actually accounts for a larger share of the District’s income than does agriculture. Within manufacturing, moreover, diversification is the keynote. The oldest and still most important industries, textiles and lumbering, have lost some ground to chemicals, machinery, metals, and a host of other industries that once were strangers to the South. Some of the industrial expansion resulted when na tional concerns were attracted to the South by the raw materials, abundant labor supply, and favorable climate here. Some of it, however, came about as local enterprisers invested local capital to satisfy local needs. The farm equipment industry is a striking example of such a develop ment. Economic Changes in Agriculture Spurred Rise of Implement Industry To understand what has transpired in the farm equipment industry, changes in the region’s agriculture must be con sidered. Happenings in one are mirrored in the other. It is a time-honored principle of economics that an enter priser will substitute one factor of production for another to achieve a desired end at a lower cost. Operation of this principle within agriculture has resulted in the gradual replacement of man power by machine power. Around the turn of this century, the population move ment from the farm to the city began to step up in tempo, partly in response to the higher wages offered by industry. At the same time, a growing population demanded more and more agricultural products. Under such pressures, the machine made its debut. With the outbreak of World War II, the farm manpower problem became even more acute as labor was inducted into the armed forces or was attracted to defense jobs. Dependence on the tractor and countless farm implements was thus magnified. Rising pro duction costs, the growth in farm income, and the trend toward fewer but larger farms also accelerated the move ment toward mechanized agriculture. That farm mechanization has rolled along in high gear is clearly evident from statistics on tractors in use. Back in 1920 only 9,000 tractors were to be found on District farms. By 1940, the number had climbed to 57,000, and by 1950 it had jumped to 276,000. Meanwhile, the num ber of horses and mules on farms fell by more than a third. Fundamental economic forces generated the underlying demand for farm implements. But the requirements of Southern agriculture strongly influenced the industry in the District to produce certain types of equipment, such as the peanut and sugar cane harvesters, for use almost exclusively in this region. Also, the industry has adapted certain standard equipment to the area’s needs. Uppermost in the minds of those investing in this indus try were, of course, the prospective profits. Many of them felt the opportunities were particularly great because, through previous experience in farming or in factories, they had acquired first-hand knowledge of the mechaniza tion problems confronting farmers. In general, it was small firms that took advantage of these opportunities. To create a common meeting ground for the discussion of their mutual problems and to further the progress of the industry, District producers got together in 1950 and organized the Southern Farm Equipment Manufacturers, Inc., a trade association. The cooperation of this asso ciation contributed much to a survey conducted by this Bank early in the summer in an effort to learn more about the role and operations of the industry. Much of the material contained in this study is based on that survey. District Production Largely of Implements Farm equipment embraces two major types of commodi ties: machinery, consisting mostly of tractors and other machine-powered items; and implements, including tools that may be mounted on or pulled by tractors or drawn by animal power. Only a handful of firms in the nation pro duce tractors and a full line of implements. These giants in the industry have tended to concentrate their large-scale production on items that have a wide market. Production in the District is mostly of implements. Short-line companies, often producing only three or four farm tools, have grown up to meet the demands of their particular communities. These manufacturers have cen tered their production on tools for use in preparing the soil, planting, and cultivating, as well as on special farm equipment. Changes in farming practices and in technology have created a need for special equipment, such as irri gation systems and anhydrous ammonia applicators. Biggest Growth in Number of New Firms Has Taken Place Since 1940 “Something old and something new” aptly characterizes the farm equipment industry in the District. At least one firm was turning out plowshares and other mule-drawn tools as long ago as a decade after the Civil War, whereas another such firm opened shop just last year. Neverthe less, the main expansion in the industry is of recent origin. According to the Census of Manufactures, only 18 firms • 3 • manufacturing farm equipment existed in the District in 1939. The number rose to 46 in 1947, and today there are an estimated 120 scattered throughout the region. Over half of the plants that set up operations after 1940 began at the end of the war when the backlog demand for planting, cultivating, harvesting, and many other special tools appeared insatiable. The peak in the birth of new firms apparently now has been reached. Since selling today is not so easy and profits are not so quick, the num ber of firms entering the industry has declined sharply since 1950. Although many firms started as single pro prietorships or partnerships, today over 70 percent are incorporated. Nevertheless, most of them are controlled by a few people so that, from a management viewpoint, they enjoy the advantages characteristic of sole owner ship and the corporation. Employment Opportunities Increase Com m ensurate with Growth of Industry With small-scale plant operations in the District, mass production techniques are feasible only to a limited extent. The production of farm equipment, other than a few items such as tractors, is not readily adaptable to the famous American assembly line, simply because of the wide variety of tools produced. Practically all farms need a tractor, but not all farms need bush-and-bog harrows, subsoilers, cane loaders, and the like. Employment statistics show that the firms are compara tively small. In 1952, employee numbers ranged from around 10 in some plants to more than 100 in others, but the median was about 35. As the industry has expanded, it has provided increasing employment opportunities. In 1947, District manufacturers had over 3,000 people on their payrolls, or almost four times the 1939 figure. It is reasonable to assume that the labor force has grown still further since 1947. Because of the inherent nature of small operations, the average employee performs many different jobs, all the way from processing raw materials to final assembly. In one plant, workers operate precision machines, such as drill presses and lathes, and also help assemble the finished products. It is estimated that at least half of the employees in District plants are either skilled or semi-skilled; in some plants, the ratio is much higher. Most of Raw M aterials Found in the South In addition to an expanding market and a plentiful labor supply, perhaps another element conducive to the rise of the District farm implement industry has been the avail ability of raw materials. Manufacturers estimate that they get about three fourths of their raw materials from the South; transportation costs, therefore, can be kept to a minimum. Purchasing agents generally find that they have to buy only the more refined raw materials outside the Southern market. By far the most important materials, both in terms of quantity used and cost, are iron and steel. Whenever possible, manufacturers get these products from mills in Atlanta, Birmingham, and Gadsden. Immediately after the start of the Korean War, however, some firms found it necessary to go abroad, particularly to Belgium and Germany, for certain kinds of steel. Pig iron is obtained from mills in Birmingham; lumber, of course, comes di rectly from Southern markets. Only for such items as motors, disc blades, certain kinds of bearings and steel do District manufacturers rely upon the more highly indus trialized areas of the nation. A short supply of raw materials has been the chief limiting factor on farm equipment production during the last few years. Only in recent months have most plants been able to get as much as they want. Although some larger firms are still burning up telephone lines hunting for special materials, producers generally believe the days of scarce supplies have vanished. Research Is Making a Contribution Research has contributed significantly to the rise of the farm implement industry in the District. To survive and grow, a company must produce what the public wants and also continually keep at least abreast of other firms in the field through cost reductions and qualitative product improvements. District farm equipment producers all subscribe to the vital and dynamic function of research. One operator stated that there is more need for product development here than in almost any other industry, especially since the return of a buyer’s market and tougher competition. Yet not all producers are in a financial position to conduct extensive research. A t the smaller plants, top manage ment performs the dual role of executive and researcher. The larger plants have research departments with from one to more than ten full-time employees. In improving old products and developing new ones, District firms can rely upon public and private research institutions, such as experiment stations and agricultural colleges, for tests and information. Management must be alert to innovations in planting and growing practices:, in types of seeds and fertilizers used, and so on. Many firms have their own gardens or farms, and the use of nearby farms, for rigorous experimentation and testing of imple ments. Research has proved invaluable to District firms in meeting competition not merely by continually producing new or redesigned tools, but also by directly affecting operating costs. Because of the costly production machines used and the general plant facilities required, fixed costs represent a significant part of the total. For efficient, lowcost operations, therefore, producers try to maintain yearround production. Yet, the nature of the farm equipment industry makes it highly seasonal; at times during the year some plants face the prospect of closing down operations altogether. To avoid cutting down on employment and idling machines, about 40 percent of the plants are pro ducing items other than farm implements. Apparently not all firms have been completely successful in this venture, but most claim that they have dulled the sharp seasonal swings in production through research and development. Various Distribution System s Effective After the implements are developed and produced, they must find their way to the ultimate consumer, the farmer. • 4 • Regardless of the excellence of the product put on the market, the success of the manufacturer depends basically upon the effectiveness of his distribution system. For this vital role, farm equipment producers rely principally upon retail dealers and independent wholesale distributors. Sev eral have their own retail outlets, and some sell at least part of their output directly to the farmer. About a third of the firms visited have connections with full-line companies that simplify their distribution prob lems. According to the agreement, in effect and in part, the District firms act as branch manufacturing plants for the large companies by producing upon order implements bearing the trade name and color of the giants. These tools are then distributed through the wholesale branches of the large concerns. The proportion of the output sold this way varies from firm to firm and from year to year, ranging from less than 20 percent up to around 80 percent in a given year. Contracting part of the production to full-line firms has the merit that payment is quick and certain and that only a small selling force is necessary. Perhaps the major draw back is that it places a large part of the proverbial eggs in one basket so that if orders should not be forthcoming, the firm would have to start almost from scratch in de veloping another distribution setup. It would seem, how ever, that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Local Industry Now Competes in National and Foreign M arkets Under this distribution system during the booming post war years, the farm equipment business surged forward at a breath-taking pace. By 1951, the value of shipments from District plants, including tractors, totaled 82 million dollars, or 450 percent more than in 1947, compared with an increase of only 70 percent for the nation. The Dis trict’s share of total shipments thus rose from 1.1 percent to 3.7 percent. Some idea of the general expansion at District plants over a longer period of time can be obtained from data for the nation, which is shown in the accom panying chart. Shipments of Farm Equipment (Including Tractors) U. S. Manufacturers MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS kets. In 1952 around half of the firms surveyed sold about 20 percent of their total output outside the South. Also, during the last 15 years, more than half of them have done some exporting, and many others are seriously contem plating the broad foreign market today. Total U. S. Shipments of Leading Items Produced in the District The District’s farm equipment industry is well prepared to assist foreign agriculture because implements produced for use mainly in the South can be converted easily for use in other countries where climate, crops, and farm practices are similar. Harvesters and loaders developed primarily for Louisiana sugar cane production, for exam ple, are now found in Latin America, Africa, and other cane-growing areas. Exports constitute a relatively large share of the total sales of some District firms. In 1952, a little less than half of the firms engaged in exporting sold more than 10 percent of their total output abroad. The first chart also shows that foreign markets for American farm equipment have grown rapidly in the last decade. During the war period, shipments were limited because of restricted production and because the domestic market absorbed most of what was produced. Most firms that do export business deal through mer chants who handle all the technical aspects of exporting. The manufacturer merely ships the goods to the designated port and receives payment in United States dollars. To him the transaction is, for all practical purposes, a domes tic one. At least two firms in the District have established their own export departments because a significant portion of their business is in the overseas market. Under this setup, they have created dealerships abroad and handle all the export details themselves. Producers Apt To Rely More and More on Bank Financing A business may find that its expansion is distinctly lim ited if it is geared to the needs of a purely local market. Attempting to push through this barrier, a number of firms in the District have entered the national and global mar Because of the lush business conditions of the last decade, problems of finance did not trouble the farm equipment industry. The working capital requirements of these small firms were not large, and there was little occasion for bank borrowing. Bank credit to help finance sales was also in little demand by the industry. About two fifths of the firms did more than 60 percent of their 1952 business on the • 5 • cuff. The customary 30-day open-account terms, how ever, were nearly equivalent to cash because dealers usually took advantage of a 2-percent discount offered for payment within 10 days. As a result, four out of five manufacturers stated that none of their sales involved bank borrowings. When the dealer sells to the farmer, however, fairly common terms are a third down with the balance payable in two equal instalments usually at the end of the two succeeding crop seasons. Because larger firms tended to offer longer credit terms, they were more likely to rely upon banks for financial assistance to carry receivables. Any borrowing done was against the firm’s own notes; none of the concerns dis counted customer paper. Some companies occasionally financed purchases of raw materials through banks, which, in a few cases, was done under typical bonded warehouse arrangements. On the whole, larger firms could buy their raw materials on credit, and they usually got enough cash from their sales to carry on their day-to-day operations. The problems of yesterday have vanished, but new ones have taken their places. Declining farm prices and incomes have forced the farmer to tighten his belt a notch or so and to make only the most essential purchases of capital goods. An increasing number of firms are turn ing, therefore, to future, or advanced, dating to help stimulate sales. Under future dating, a manufacturer ships merchandise to his dealer or distributor in August, for example, but dates the bills or invoices later, perhaps the first of October. If the dealer pays on or before October 10, he is allowed a 2-percent discount. If payment is delayed for several months after shipment of the implements, the manufac turer’s working capital requirement will be considerably greater. Some of the larger operators have regularly fol lowed the practice of future dating, but the advent of a decided buyer’s market is forcing them to advance the invoicing date even further. A ll this augurs increasing reliance upon banks as sources of credit. In Sum: And a G lance at the Future Much has happened in the farm equipment industry during the thirteen kaleidoscopic years since 1940. An industry small by most standards has grown rapidly, ex panding beyond the confines of its native territory until now its products are found in the four corners of the United States as well as in nearby Cuba and far off Madagascar. The industry is almost wholly Southern; capital, management, labor, raw materials, ideas— all have largely originated here. The inevitable close dependence upon District markets and Southern sources of raw materials has been and con tinues to be beneficial even while it creates problems. Until recently, shortages of raw materials thwarted sales by limiting production at the same time that agricultural income was climbing rapidly. Today, however, the old shoe is on the other foot. Materials are increasingly more abundant, but a slackened demand has caused production to slow down. Nevertheless, most manufacturers surveyed were rather optimistic about sales prospects, at least for 1953. Almost half of them think their sales this year will exceed the high 1952 marks, mainly because of the development of new products and the opening of new sales territories. About a third expect lower sales because of sliding farm incomes and prices. A ll agree that sales are increasingly harder to make. Furthermore, the industry is facing a cost-price squeeze. Production costs are up mainly because of higher steel prices; and manufacturers, facing stiff competition, are not in a position to raise prices of farm equipment. In the more distant future, the major problem con fronting the industry will be marketing. Competition among the smaller producers and also between the larger and smaller concerns is becoming more rugged. The fullline producers can and do extend much more liberal credit terms to their dealers and distributors than District manufacturers can offer. Moreover, the larger firms in other areas are beginning to turn out implements that will compete more directly with those produced by District firms. Export prospects are that 1953 will not be as bright as other recent years. The substantially improved dollar position of many countries today is more the result of reduced buying from this country than of increased sales to it. Moreover, tightening import restrictions in some of the Latin American countries, the second most important market for United States farm machinery, also are retard ing exports. Although the outlook for the near future is not too encouraging, the long-term overseas demand for farm implements is potentially great. One of the first steps taken by underdeveloped countries to increase pro duction is to employ more modern tools and equipment in farming. With American and United Nations assist ance, these countries are making a start in this direction. As a result, District producers of farm equipment are planning to enter the foreign market with much more vigor than in the past. The problems of the District’s farm equipment industry are not unlike those faced by other small unit industries that have grown rapidly because of the favorable markets of the postwar period. By finding wider markets for its products at home and abroad, and by continuous improve ment and innovation in the machines used in agriculture, the industry will continue to contribute to the prosperity of the South. Only by vigorously meeting this challenge can individual firms survive. B asil A . W a pe n sk y B a n k A nnouncem ent O n August 8, the newly organized First National B ank of Newton, Newton, Mississippi, opened for business as a member of the Federal Reserve System. This bank is located in territory served by the New Orleans Branch. It began operations with a capital stock of $75,000 and surplus and undivided profits of $50,000. Officers are John T. Thrash, President; /. S. Mayfield and F. D. Copeland, Vice Presidents; C . D. Jackson, Vice President and Cashier; and L. G. White, Jr., Secretary. •6 • L a b o r D a y P r o m is e s H e a v y C ash B a n k s W i l l B e C a lle d O n to S u p p ly E x t r a Between now and the end of the Labor Day weekend, individuals and businesses in the Sixth Federal Reserve District will probably add about 9 million dollars to their cash holdings. Travellers, for example, will need extra currency and coin to pay for gasoline, tickets, meals, and lodging. Those who stay at home will need extra cash to stock up on groceries for the long weekend. Merchants, service stations, motels, hotels, and others will need more money in their cash registers to make change. The recurring Labor Day bulge in the public’s cash holdings in previous years is the basis for confident predic tions of the increase this year. Such changes in cash hold ings occur so regularly from year to year, not only over the Labor Day weekend but also during other weeks and months, that economists speak of them as seasonal varia tions in the demand for currency. Because the banking system meets this demand so easily, few persons are even aware of these variations or their effect on member bank reserves and the availability of credit. Although a few persons hoard money, to most Amer icans, currency is solely a medium of exchange. When individuals or businesses have more cash on hand than they need, they deposit it in banks because they know that it is safe there and that they can draw on their deposit accounts at any time. Banks, like individuals, keep only enough cash on hand to meet day-to-day transactions. Since idle cash earns no profits, commercial banks return their extra cash to the Federal Reserve Banks either directly or through their correspondents. The Federal Reserve Bank credits the member bank’s reserve account for the amount of returned cash, which the member bank may use to expand loans or investments or may simply leave there as excess re serves. The commercial banks know that if their reserves are sufficient, they can obtain more coin or currency from their Federal Reserve Bank whenever they need it. Thus, when banks withdraw currency from Federal Reserve Banks, they reduce their reserves. Decreases in currency in circulation, therefore, add to reserves. Money in circulation consists of Treasury currency and Federal Reserve notes. Treasury currency is made up of small denomination bills and coins. The value of Federal Reserve notes in circulation is probably about six times as great as the value of circulating Treasury currency. Tourists bring large amounts of notes of other Reserve Banks as well as other currency into the District and spend them here. This inflow, which greatly exceeds the outflow of Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta notes to other Dis tricts, cannot be exactly measured. Nevertheless, fluctua tions in this Bank’s note circulation probably indicate fairly well changes in the total District demand for currency. In the District, note circulation fluctuates within the month, from month to month, and around major holidays. Note circulation usually rises about 20 million dollars D r a in C urrency during the last week in the month. Cash withdrawals for military payrolls cause much of these month-end rises. In addition, banks add to their vault cash in anticipation of customers’ cash demands for payment of month-end bills and for pocket money. Shortly after the first of each month, the public redeposits excess cash in the banks, and note circulation declines. This decline continues until the next end-of-month increase. On a monthly basis, note circulation begins a seasonal upswing during June that continues until it reaches a high point shortly before Christmas. This increase closely parallels the rapid growth of retail trade during the latter part of the year. After the pre-Christmas peak, note cir culation declines rapidly in January and February, and at a lesser rate for the next three months. The pattern of these monthly changes is shown in the chart. In addition, just as it does before and after Labor Day, the note circulation of this Bank rises before Christmas, July 4th, and Thanksgiving and declines shortly afterward. Besides responding to the seasonal needs of business, note circulation also changes according to general eco nomic conditions. The chart shows the rises during peri ods of business expansion and the declines during periods of business slowdown that have taken place since 1946. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Notes in Circulation Note circulation also reflects price level fluctuations and the changing relation of cash payments to total payments. Since February this year, note circulation has declined more than can be explained by seasonal influences. This Bank’s note circulation will increase rapidly from Labor Day this year until just before Christmas because of seasonal influences. End-of-month, Thanksgiving, and Christmas cash demands will cause rather sharp fluc tuations. The total growth between Labor Day and the pre-Christmas peak will amount to about 70 million dol lars if the experience of the last two years is repeated and if the general level of business activity remains unchanged. This growth will, of course, decrease bank reserves and contribute to tighter credit conditions during the rest of this year. W. M. D a v i s • 7 • Nasty Kinks in the Cotton Problem Fires that threatened to burn American cotton growers in the late 1930’s are being rekindled by current events. As was true then, world production of cotton is large, and stocks are building apace. The fires of the thirties, however, were doused by the vast need for cotton during World War II. World production during the war fell off; carryovers were used up; prices rose; and American cot ton growers enjoyed favorable incomes as their large crops sold for as much as 105 percent of parity. Several years after the war, production rose rapidly both at home and abroad. World cotton prices ultimately declined, and the United States prices fell to the price-support level. Large cotton carryovers clearly demonstrate that there are difficulties connected with the operation of any pricesupport program, and particularly when world market commodities like cotton or wheat are involved. For perfect operation of a cotton price-support pro gram, firm downward control of supply and upward con trol of demand are necessary. Under the ideal operation, cotton production would be held at the quantity the market would take at the support price. This price would neither be one that brings large profits to some growers while promoting the production of high-cost cotton by other growers nor one that encourages output of substitute products that take over a share of the cotton market. To achieve this ideal price-support situation, some authoritative planning group must have exceptional ability to evaluate the ever-changing supply and demand factors. They must be able to translate their evaluations into administrative directives that will help achieve the most appropriate price. The directives might call for acreage reductions, increases in the uses of cotton by particular groups, or both. W orld Cotton Carryover Mounts Increased yearly carryovers quickly registered the fail ure of those running a price-support program to keep cotton production in line with demand. It would, how ever, be unfair to lay all the blame at the feet of the program administrators. Unforeseen supply and demand bogies continually jump from behind pillars to confuse them and to confound their efforts to appraise future market conditions adequately. In the first place, although cotton is sold in a world market, the United States authorities have no control over the amounts produced, purchased, or sold by foreigners. On the supply side, for example, farmers both at home and abroad may work more diligently and raise their yields. On the demand side, nations can alter the consumption of world supplies with import quotas, or they can unexpectedly cut off their spending spigots by issuing licenses for the use of holdings of foreign money. Criticism for failure would be more just if it were directed at political actions that establish unrealistic support levels and unwieldy mechanics for achieving them. If any blame is to be assessed, therefore, the general public must share in it. Faults in the price-support program first appeared in the late 1930’s when cotton carryovers in the United States grew in spite of the fact that one of the program’s main aims was to control supply. A t the same time, the United States support price indirectly supported world cotton prices and encouraged production abroad. Such an oc currence is one of the most exasperating features of any program for supporting the price of a world commodity. In 1953 a similar situation exists, and so exasperation will be intensified. Cotton consumption again is being outpaced by pro duction, and world carryovers are becoming larger each year. Government estimates place stocks of cotton on July 31, 1953, in free world countries at about 15.3 million bales, 66 percent of which is held in foreign nations. In the United States, carryover is likely to be about 5.2 million bales this year, compared with 2.8 million on August 1, 1952. This nation’s exports were reduced to 3.1 million bales this year, which contributed to the increased carryover. With favorable weather, the estimated 24,618,000 acres now planted to cotton in this country could produce about 14 million bales. If con sumption or exports do not pick up, this crop could lead to an even larger carryover next year. The significance of the growth in carryover in the United States is that, although our price-support level bolsters world prices, foreign nations sell below it when they see advantage in such action. It may be, for example, that their unit pro duction costs are well below the United States support price. Or, foreign nations, with their production overstimulated by the protection of our support price, may simply decide to sell some cotton at lower prices. This nation’s exports, particularly to India and Japan, have been shrinking partly because some foreign growths, such as Mexican middling 15/16 inch and Turkish Acala II, have been selling from one to two cents below comparable American growths. Lags in Cotton Consumption Determining and obtaining a supply of cotton that will theoretically help to achieve the ideal support price is only part of a complicated task. The demand for cotton also has to be steered in the right direction. And this “demand critter” is a slippery eel— especially slippery if the support price for cotton is fixed at an unrealistic level in relation to the production costs of fabrics from other fibers in the United States and other nations. A t present, the cotton economy is being adversely affected by an unrealistic price level and resulting reduced consumption. In large measure, the gain in use of rayon and other synthetic fibers and the down trend in per-capita cotton consumption are attributable to price disparities between price-supported cotton and its substitutes. Staple rayon fiber prices since 1944, for example, have ranged between 78 and 99 percent of middling 15/16 inch prices. Mean while, rayon production in the United States under this competitive price situation has risen about 56 percent. Rising synthetic fiber output abroad further dampens • 8 • enthusiasm regarding the future demand of foreign nations for American cotton and cotton cloth. European output of synthetics is now 70 percent above the 1940 level. In Asia, Japan is using a tariff and a subsidy program to encourage the growth of a rayon industry. Exports of cotton cloth from the United States have suffered from ills brought on by these circumstances. From a peak of about 1,468 million square yards in 1947, such exports have fallen to about 800 million square yards. Rejuvenated textile mills of a highly efficient character have increased production in foreign nations. War-damaged countries have come up sharply in the U. S. Per Capita Consumption of Textile Fibers consumption of cotton for manufacture. In Italy, for example, the gain from 1945 to 1952 was 158 percent. Some of the new cloth in European countries is being turned out by modernized mills at reduced production costs. This, plus lower prices for foreign growths of raw cotton, has meant increasingly strong competition in for eign markets for United States cloth. With the price of cotton now clinging to a high support level, it will take some strong forces to push consumption up enough to raise prices very far above that level. Cur rent indicators do not reveal any forces strong enough to do this. Families, for instance, have been replenishing their wardrobes only modestly, probably because they are replacing only worn-out items rather than adding to their stocks as they did in 1950 and 1951. Judging from recent rises in consumer debt, families have been using a major share of their current incomes to satisfy desires for automobiles, furniture, and household appliances. The present psychology in the industrial market seems to be against mass buying of large quantities of cotton. Industrial buyers see the price of cotton as remaining at the support level and are not induced to lay in abnormal stocks of raw cotton or finished cotton textiles. Foreign buyers have taken a similar position, and since they can see no point in building inventories at what might prove to be high prices, their mill stocks of raw cotton abroad have been worked down rather than built up. War needs for cotton have become less, urgent in view of the defense “stretch-out” and the continued simmering of the cold war and so are not aiding the price-support administra tors by pushing up on demand. At the same time, the nation’s grants of foreign aid funds are dwindling. Price-support Program Dilemma Continues Growing production, slackening consumption, and rising carryovers once again raise debates on the economics of the present price-support program. Cotton price-support history shows that the floor price has effectively held domestic cotton prices up in years when they otherwise would have fallen dangerously. To accomplish this, the Commodity Credit Corporation has made loans on cotton each year since 1933, except 1936. For a time the Govern ment actually bought the cotton in order to sustain the price. The C C C held title to as much as 6.9 million bales in 1940. The Government has actually realized a mone tary gain on its cotton operations, principally because of war emergencies and associated price inflation. Similar results, however, are not assured for the future. The stage is set for an intensification of this nation’s cotton dilemma— a high support price bringing larger, not lower, carryovers. Even with effective production controls pinch ing national cotton output, the possibility of growing carryovers would still exist because foreign production can hold high and American exports and domestic con sumption can shrink further. In the controversy over cotton price support, the eco nomic questions raised are vexatious ones because the facts and logic of economic science fail to justify rigidly high price supports. Perhaps the debate would be more reasoned if the problem were recognized for what it is — principally a social problem with economic overtones. In the instance of cotton, the public apparently feels that the permanence of the family-type farm and the well being of farmers, a sizable group in the national society, should be safeguarded, and, through political pressures, the safeguarding has taken the form of price protection. Farmers find the price-support and production-control programs a mixed blessing. With price support they may receive higher prices than without it, but most growers can expect to have less cotton to sell because of quotas and reduced acreage. Though the combined effect of higher prices and less cotton to sell can bring reduced gross income, controls seem to most farmers less frightening and less hazardous than sharply falling prices. Such attitudes are understand able when one notes that net returns to cotton farmers and their families on Southern Piedmont farms were 19 cents an hour in 1949, when cotton prices averaged 29 cents a pound. With 40-cent cotton in 1950, net returns were 45 cents an hour. With a cotton price of about 32 cents, net returns probably would shrink by at least as much as the 20-percent drop indicated by such a price change. As long as social aspects of the price problem exist and farmers fear violent cotton price declines and there are political maneuvers to perpetuate a ' support program, price support of one kind or another seems destined to continue. The current state of supply and demand for cotton lends weight to the belief that the support price, except for seasonal variations, is likely to be the Amer ican market price for a while. A r th u r H. K a n t n e r . • 9 • Highway Signs for Checks On a recent buying trip, an Atlanta jeweler gave a New York supply house a $20,000 check drawn on his local bank. On the same day, he took a plane to Atlanta. The next morning he called his banker and told him that the check was on its way. Much to the Atlantan’s sur prise and mystification the banker told him, “That check is already here.” Back of this not uncommon incident is the complex but smoothly working check-collection mechanism of the nation. Fast air transportation is one of its components that helps speed check delivery. Intricate proving and sorting machines that provide rapid handling and pro cessing of bank checks compose its mechanical unit. But the real efficiency of the mechanism is geared to the skill of the machine operators, whose eyes are trained in the interpretation of the check routing symbols. These sym bols are veritable highway signs that direct the checks to their drawee banks. Sponsored by the Bank Management Commission of the American Bankers Association and the Committee on Collections of the Federal Reserve System, the checkrouting-symbol program was first announced in June 1945. To check sorters, the routing symbol was as revolutionary as the standard metal highway signs were to the motorist when they were first substituted for the painted stripes and balls on telephone poles and the crudely contrived arrows and pointers of “Model T ” days. Proper location of the combined A B A transit number and routing symbol is the upper right-hand corner of a bank check. In its continuous campaign to achieve better check design standards, the Bank Management Commis sion emphasizes the reserving of this space on bank checks for the transit number and routing symbol. A t first glance, the combined transit number and rout ing symbol might appear to be an arithmetic fraction. The “numerator” indicates the transit number assigned to a given bank under the numerical transit system adopted by the A B A in 1911. Figures in the “denominator” make up the routing symbol. The combined transit num ber and routing symbol for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, for example, is The 64 in the “numerator” is the number assigned to the state of Georgia, and the 14 is the number designating the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Each digit of the “denominator” conveys specific information. The figure 6 indicates that the check is drawn on a bank in the Sixth Federal Reserve District. The figure 1 means that the bank is located in the territory served by the head office. The 0 shows that the check is acceptable for immediate credit. The check sorter has only to look at the three- or four-digit routing symbol to determine the Federal R e serve District and zone in which the drawee bank is located. In a three-digit symbol, the first number identi fies the Federal Reserve Districts as follows: Boston, 1; New York, 2; Philadelphia, 3; Cleveland, 4; Richmond, 5; Atlanta, 6; Chicago, 7; St. Louis, 8; Minneapolis, 9. In a four-digit number, the first two numbers identify the other three Federal Reserve Districts: Kansas City, 10; Dallas, 11; and San Francisco, 12. In any routing symbol, the digit following the District designation identifies the Federal Reserve Bank zone in which the drawee bank is located. The number 1 identi fies the clearing zone of the head office of a particular Federal Reserve Bank, and succeeding numbers are assigned to its branches by alphabetical order. For ex ample, in the Sixth Federal Reserve District, the figure 1 identifies banks located in the clearing zone of Atlanta, the head office; and 2, 3, 4 and 5 identify banks located in the clearing zones of the Birmingham, Jacksonville, Nashville, and New Orleans branches, respectively. Zones served by the head office and branches do not necessarily conform to state lines, but were established on the basis of transportation facilities. The final digit to the right further identifies the location of the drawee bank, in that it shows in what part of a particular zone the bank is, and indicates whether the item is acceptable for immediate or deferred credit. A final 0 indicates that the bank is located in a city where a Federal Reserve Bank or one of its branches is located and that the check is acceptable for immediate credit. Any other numbers in the last digit position indicate de ferred credit, governed by Federal Reserve official time schedules, and are assigned consecutively to the alpha betically arranged states or portions of states within a particular zone. For example, 611 would indicate that the check was drawn on an Alabama bank located in the territory served by the head office. A Georgia bank out side Atlanta would use the routing symbol 612, while 613 would mean that the bank was in Tennessee but in terri tory served by the head office. A n Alabama bank located in the zone served by the Birmingham Branch would carry the check routing number 621. If such a bank were in Birmingham, its routing number would be 620. Thus, use of the routing symbol is tied in with the Federal Reserve System’s check-collection facilities. The symbol must not be used by a bank that does not clear all its items at par; on non-par bank checks, the numbers are meaningless and only create confusion in sorting. The check-routing-symbol program has had almost spectacular success, particularly when one considers the relatively short time that the program has been in effect and the thousands of banks and millions of customers involved. Surveys of checks processed by the Federal Reserve Banks are made from time to time to determine what proportion of the checks bear the uniform routing symbol in the proper location. The most recent survey, conducted in June this year, showed that 91 percent of the checks processed by the twelve Districts bore the routing symbol in the approved location. The Sixth Dis trict, with a percentage of 87, stood ninth from the top. Further success of the check routing system depends upon the continued cooperation of par-clearing bankers in using the symbol in the proper location. • 10 • S i x t h D i s t r Instalment Cash Loans ____________ Retail Furniture Store O perations____________ Number Percent Change of Stores July 1953 from _____ Item Reporting June 1953 July 1952 Total s a l e s ..................................................... 132 — 11 —8 Cash sales........................................................ 118 —4 —0 Instalment and other credit sales..................118 — 12 —9 Accounts receivable, end of month . . . . 127 —2 +10 —4 +7 Collections during month.............................. 127 Inventories, end of month.............................. 96___________________ — 1___________________ +2 W holesale Sales and Inventories* Sales Percent Change July 1953 from July June 1952 1953 +2 +12 — 25 —4 — 20 —4 — 20 — 31 —5 +1 —9 +24 —5 +6 — 13 — 14 +12 + 25 — 11 — 13 +4 +5 +22 +11 +4 +1 +5 —5 +0 —5 +2 —2 — 14 —1 —3 +2 Nn 0f Firms Reporting Inventories Percent Change July 31,1953, from June 30 July 31 1953 1952 3 4 4 7 3 +14 +4 +6 —3 +8 +13 +15 +19 +5 +1 6 4 3 12 24 +19 +15 +3 +12 —1 +7 +10 +7 +19 —3 4 8 15 97 +7 —1 +2 +4 — 11 +14 +9 +10 *Based on information submitted by wholesalers participating in the Monthly Wholesale Trade Report issued by the Bureau of the Census. Department Stores Sales and Inventories* Sales July 1953 from June July 1952 1953 Place ALABAM A.....................— 16 Birmingham . . . . — 14 M ob ile...................... — 18 Montgomery . . . . — 20 F L O R ID A ........................— 7 Jacksonville . . . . — 4 M ia m i...................... n.a. Orlando..................... — 10 St. Ptrsbg-TampaArea — 10 St. Petersburg . . — 11 T a m p a ..................— 9 GEO RGIA...................... —8 A tla n ta ** ...................— 5 Augusta......................— 14 Columbus..................—11 M aco n ...................... — 12 Rom e**......................— 9 Savannah** . . . . — 8 LO U ISIA N A ................. — 9 Baton Rouge . . . . — 14 New Orleans . . . . — 7 MISSISSIPPI . . . . — 14 Jackson.......................— 14 Meridian** . . . . — 9 TEN N ESSEE................. — 11 B r is t o l* * ..................— 29 Bristol-KingsportJohnson City** . . —22 Chattanooga . . . . — 11 Knoxville..................— 4 N ashville..................— 15 D ISTR IC T..................... — 10 Percent Change__________________ __ Inventories July 31,1953, from Yr-to-Date July 31 1953June 30 1952 1952 1953 +0 —1 +6 +1 +5 +8 +3 —1 +7 —2 n.a. +7 +7 +7 +7 +7 +9 —6 +5 +14 +11 +7 +5 +8 +5 —0 +3 +2 +10 —6 +6 +4 +13 +6 +5 —2 n.a. +6 +5 +6 +5 +2 +3 —4 —2 +3 +7 +6 +6 +12 +6 +1 —2 +6 +8 —1 +4 +7 + 14 + 14 +2 +12 + 13 + 28 —3 +8 +18 +7 +6 +2 +9 +11 +7 +5 —1 +1 —1 +11 + 10 n.a. —7 —1 —2 +1 +2 +9 +9 +9 +4 +12 +1 +8 +0 + 13 +8 +6 + 15 +8 +9 includes reports from 123 stores throughout the Sixth Federal Reserve District. **ln order to permit publication of figures for this city, a special sample has been con structed which is not confined exclusively to department stores. Figures for non-depart ment stores, however, are not used in computing the District percent changes, n.a.= Not available. t S t a t i s t i c s Condition of 2 7 Member Banks in Leading Cities Volume Outstandings wn nf Percent Change Percent Change Lenders July 1953 from July 1953 from ReportJune July June July 1953 1952 1953 1952 Lender__________________________________ ing Federal credit unions...................... 35 +5 +11 — 13 +9 State credit unions.......................... 16 — 21 —3 +4 +31 Industrial banks............................... S —6 —3 —1 +6 Industrial loan companies . . . . 9 +6 +14 +1 +8 Small loan companies...................... 33 —7 —7 +0 +10 Commercial b a n k s ...........................33____________ — 1_________+ 2_______________ + 2_______ +25 No. of Firms Report Type of ing Wholesaler Automotive supplies . . . 3 Electrical— Full l i ne. . . . 3 “ Wiring supplies . 3 “ Appliances . . 5 Hardware...............................8 Industrial supplies . . . . 18 Jewelry................................... 4 Lumber and bldg. mat’ls . . 4 Refrigeration equipment . . 6 Confectionery . . . . . . 6 Drugs and sundries . . . . 11 Drygoods.............................. 17 Groceries— Full line . . . . 41 “ Voluntary group .3 “ Specialty lines .8 Tobacco products . . . . . 12 12 Miscellaneous...................... Total...................................... 164 i c (In Thousands of Dollars) Aug. 19 1953 Item Loans and investments— Total .................................. 2,991,868 Loans— N e t .......................... 1,225,523 Loans— G r o s s ...................... 1,247,177 Commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans . 687,590 Loans to brokers and dealers in securities . . 15,137 Other loans for pur chasing or carrying securities..................... 38,288 Real estate loans . . . . 91,325 Loans to banks................. 15,598 Other loans ...................... 399,239 Investments— Total . . . . Bills, certificates, and notes ..................... 782,917 U. S. bonds ....................... 722,553 Other securities . . . . 260,875 Reserve with F. R. Banks . . 500,580 Cash in vault......................... 46,926 Balances with domestic 214,116 Demand deposits adjusted , 2,140,594 Time deposits...................... 571,912 U. S. Gov’t deposits . . . . 146,726 Deposits of domestic banks . 602,116 46,400 July 15 1953 Aug. 20 1952 2,976,386 1,208,770 1,230,323 2,852,231 1,103,054 1,122,889 679,469 17,106 Percent Change Aug. 19,1953, from Aug. 20 July 15 1952 1953 +1 +1 +1 +5 + 11 +11 627,144 +1 +10 13,144 — 12 +15 38,169 91,067 10,106 394,406 I,767j616 43,939 92,108 3,514 343,040 1,749,177 +0 +0 +54 +1 —0 — 13 —1 * + 16 +1 802,917 704,199 260,500 483,375 48,788 765,055 722,105 262,017 513,458 46,989 —2 +3 +0 +4 —4 +2 +0 —0 —3 —0 264,361 2,164,438 568,310 163,156 613,212 21,000 226,346 2,086,327 552,194 170,130 587,348 16,000 — 19 —1 +1 — 10 —2 * —5 +3 +4 — 14 +3 * Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts (In Thousands of Dollars) Place ALABAMA . . . Anniston. . . Birmingham . Dothan . . . Gadsden . . . Mobile . . . Montgomery . Tuscaloosa* . FLORIDA . . . Jacksonville . Mi ami . . . . Greater Miami* Orlando . . . Pensacola . . St. Petersburg . Tampa . . . W. Palm Beach* GEORGIA . . . Albany . . . Atlanta . . . Augusta . . . Brunswick . . Columbus . . Elberton . . . Gainesville* . Griffin* . . . July 1953 June 1953 July 1952 796,251 31,038 421,753 16,157 24,078 175,766 93,699 33,760 1,430,579 424,994 364,794 546,187 82,839 57,141 86,725 179,007 53,686 1,793,886 38,768 1,240,640 88,770 12,874 80,383 4,700 25,692 13,671 86,364 12,226 30,131 128,423 31,244 1,194,686 43,850 148.682 497754 952,400 227,994 20,427 161,909 30'560 15^098 817,623 219,125 168,695 429,803 795,122 30,329 420,846 17,392 25,058 176,434 91,926 33,137 1,479,945 450,271 365,519 547,344 91,299 56,910 83,360 194,990 55,771 1,792,253 38,398 1,247,794 87,448 13,016 79,680 4,826 25,801 13,605 95,741 9,473 28,218 132,168 16,085 1,164,325 46,654 134.455 547886 928,330 214,552 20,543 149,168 30,063 14,778 853,297 224,711 157,838 470,748 743,783 27,957 400,990 16,398 21,751 161,146 87,253 28,288 1,278,282 373,933 317,102 496,575 72,716 47,348 81,223 157,018 49,469 1,622,662 33,354 1,119,507 93,816 10,914 73,935 4,090 25,384 12,128 76,311 9,567 24,905 114,296 24,455 1,074,717 42,751 121,089 51,133 859,744 225,248 18,989 162,637 30,345 13,277 720,628 172,393 126,096 422,139 Newnan . . . Rome* . . . Savannah . . . Valdosta. . . LOUISIANA . . Alexandria* . Baton Rouge . Lake Charles . New Orleans . MISSISSIPPI . . Hattiesburg . . Jackson . . . Meridian . . Vicksburg . . TENNESSEE . . Chattanooga . Knoxville . . Nashville. . . SIXTH DISTRICT 32 Cities . . . 5,878,836 5,914,483 5,302,922 UNITED STATES 345 Cities . . 148,135,000 154,106,000 !137,334,000 Percent Change July 1953 from Yr.-to-Date June July 7 Mos. 1953 from 1952 1953 1952 +0 +2 +0 —7 —4 —0 +2 +2 —3 —6 —0 —0 —9 +0 +4 —8 —4 +0 +1 —1 +2 —1 +1 —3 —0 +0 — 10 + 29 +7 —3 +94 +3 —6 + 11 —9 +3 +6 —1 +9 +2 +2 —4 —2 +7 —9 +7 + 11 +5 —1 + 11 +9 +7 + 19 + 12 + 14 + 15 + 10 + 14 +21 +7 + 14 +9 + 11 +16 +11 —5 + 18 +9 + 15 +1 + 13 + 13 +28 +21 +12 +28 + 11 +3 +23 —3 + 11 +1 +8 —0 +1 + 14 + 13 +27 +34 +2 +2 +4 —1 +1 +9 +7 +3 +8 + 12 + 12 + 14 + 11 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 14 +9 +8 + 17 +9 +0 +5 +0 + 12 +4 +8 +4 —7 + 17 + 10 +9 +8 —1 + 15 +5 +8 +1 +6 —1 +2 + 14 + 13 +22 + 24 +7 —1 + 11 +9 —4 +8 +8 *Not included inSixth District totals. • 11 • S i x t h D i s t r i c t I n d e x e s 1 9 4 7 -4 9 = 100 Manufacturing Employment June 1953 UNADJUSTED District Total Alabama . Florida. . Georgia. . Louisiana . Mississippi Tennessee. SEASONALLY District Total Alabama . Florida . . Georgia . . Louisiana . Mississippi Tennessee . .................. 114 ..................108 ..................128 ..................114 ..................107 .................. 113 ..................117 ADJUSTED ..................115 ..................110 ..................132 ..................117 ..................108 .................. 113 .................. 118 May 1953 Cotton Consum ption** June 1952 114 107 131r 114 106 112 118 106r 92r 121r 112r 102 110 109r 114 108 131r 116 107 113 118 107 94 124 114 103 110 110 July 1953 June 1953 July 1952 83 80 103 100 85r 83r 85 105 87r 118 84 140 106 101 83r 98 109 lOOr Construction Contracts DISTRICT SALES* . . Atlanta1 .................. Baton Rouge . . . . Birmingham . . . . Chattanooga . . . . Jackson ..................... Jacksonville . . . . Knoxville................. M acon...................... M ia m i...................... Nashville................. New Orleans . . . . Tam pa...................... DISTRICT STOCKS* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127p 125 110 102 127 110 105 118 143 . . . . . . . . 116 128 125 148p Adjusted June 1953 128r 122r lZ4r lllr 136 120r 105 119r 150r 135 124 126r 125r 147r July 1952 June 1953 July 1952 July 1953 June 1953 July 1952 July 1953 June 1953 July 1952 169 268 282 234 94 305 94 100 173 159 111 157 220 222 291 160 125 277 158 160 157 160 142 177 162 153 154 154 153 128 168 164 146 142 139 143 152 159 148 95p 95p 93 lO lp lOOp 102r 106r 103 106 103 98r 94 96r 111 102 87p 90 90 162 164 152 148 154 148 155 163 163 149 145 150 98p 103p 99 lOOp 108p 104r 107r 103 105 98 lO lr 102 102r 110 111 9i 89 169 164 145 120r 116r 102r 94 117 107r 107 99r 125 125r 109 121 116 136 102 p 100 95 87 106 88 89 105 113 n.a. 92 102 106 137p Unadjusted June 1953 114 105 110 101 120 103 93 109 129 107 108 11 Or 117 139r o Reserve Bank Cities • Branch Bank Cities mb District Boundaries — Branch Territory Boundaries Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 163 147 86p Other District Indexes July 1952 96r 92r 88 80 98 85 91 88 99 91 86 97 99 126 JTo permit publication of figures for this city, a sample has been constructed that is not confined to department stores. Such non-department stores are not included in the District index. *Data for La., Miss., and Tenn. for District part only. Other totals for entire six states. ♦♦Daily average basis. Sources: Mfg. emp., state depts. of labor; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; gas. tax, states depts. of rev.; furn. sales, dept, store sales, turnover of dem. dep., FRB Atlanta; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm. Indexes calculated by this Bank. 149 125 183 160 July 1953 Furniture Store S a le s * / * * July 1953 Departm ent Store Sales and S to ck s** July 1953 Gasoline Tax Collections July 1953 Adjusted June 1953 July 1952 Construction contracts . . . . Residential.......................... Petrol, prod, in Coastal Louisiana and Mississippi**. 144 Turnover of demand deposits* . 24.7 128.3 Mfg. emp. by type Chemicals.............................. Fabricated metals . . . . Lbr., wood prod., furn. & fix. Paper and allied prod. . . . Primary metals..................... Trans, equip........................... Elec. power prod.**................. r Revised p Preliminary June 1953 144 119 177 105 92 142 105 101 171 145 25.0 129.9 May 1953 142 119 172r 107 92 140 108r 102 159 n.a. Not Available 134 21.8 113.2 June 1952 128 113 151 106 94 130 60 98 159 July 1953 239 236 241 144 23.5 June 1953 139 115 171 103 92 140 105 101 166 183 99 261 Unadjusted June July 1952 1953 134 237 82 196 173 268 144 23.9 May 1953 139 117 170 105 92 139 106 100 160r 175 125 220 134 20.7 June 1952 124 109 145 104 94 129 60 98 154 154 90 203
@FedFRASER