View original document

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

IN THIS ISSUE:

MONTHLY
REVIEW

• A Federal Reserve Innovation:

One-Week Settlement Period fi
Country Banks
• Farm Prices Have Trended
Downward:
Will Consumers Benefit?
• District Business Conditions

FED ER A L RESERVE BANK



OF A T LA N T A

D ECEM BER

1969

Monthly Review, Vol. LIV, No. 12. Free subscription and additional
copies available upon request to the Research Department, Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.




A

F e d e ra l R e s e r v e In n o v a tio n :

O n e -W e e k S e ttle m e n t
P e rio d fo r C o u n t rB a n k s
y
September 12, 1968, is a date likely to be foot­
noted in banking textbooks for many years to
come. This date marked the inauguration of
several changes in reserve accounting procedures
including the conversion of so-called country
banks from two-week to one-week reserve settle­
ment periods.
Compared with many other actions taken by the
Federal Reserve System, this innovation passed
relatively unnoticed except by the banks directly
concerned. Though unspectacular, changes such
as the conversion of country banks to one-week
settlement periods are of interest. They illustrate
the type of small, unspectacular innovation which
the Federal Reserve System makes from time to
time to improve the efficiency of the nation’s
banking system.
Accordingly, this article discusses the conver­
sion of country bank settlement periods in some
detail, covering in the process—the basics of re­
serve settlement and the problems associated
with the two-week settlement periods earlier re­
quired of country banks. The article concludes
with a quantitative assessment of how successful
last September’s conversion has proved to be.
The Mechanics of Reserve Settlem ent
As every banker and student of the Federal Re­
serve System knows, we have a “fractional re­
serve” banking system. Banking law requires
every member bank to set aside assets at least
equal to specified fractional proportions of
deposit liabilities. Reserve assets are either bal­
D E C M E R 1969
DigitizedEforBFRASER


ances held by the member banks at District
Federal Reserve Banks or the cash each bank
holds in its vaults.
Implementing the law, the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System specifies the re­
serve accounting rules in its own regulations,
which define both reserve assets and deposits that
are subject to reserve requirements. In addition,
the Board specifies, within legal limits, the frac­
tional reserve requirement applying to each class
of deposit. The Board’s regulations not only spell
out how required reserve totals and reserve asset
totals are to be calculated but also specify the
time period during which reserve accounts must
be settled.
Reserve regulations impose penalties against
banks whose reserve assets fall short of their re­
serve requirements. Excesses are permitted, but
they are costly simply because excess reserve
assets earn no interest but may be exchanged for
earning assets that do. In other words, every dol­
lar of excess reserve assets represents a dollar on
which interest could have been earned but was
not. Profit-conscious bankers, therefore, have an
incentive to keep their excess reserve assets close
to zero.
Bankers can adjust their holdings of reserve
assets in several ways: acquiring additional re­
serve assets, when necessary, to meet the reserve
requirements against their deposits, or getting rid
of reserve assets in excess of these requirements.
The most important means for adjustment is the
so-called Federal funds market, in which banks
147

lend reserve assets to each other overnight. The
borrowing of reserve assets from the Federal Re­
serve’s discount window and the exchange of in­
terest-bearing securities for reserve assets are
other ways in which bankers adjust their reserve
asset positions.
Bankers make these adjustments within the
framework of the reserve settlement timing speci­
fied by the Board’s regulations. The reserve set­
tlement period is presently one week. This means
that each member bank, regardless of size or loca­
tion, must maintain reserve assets each week suf­
ficient to cover the average of its required re­
serves.1 A bank may fail to meet its reserve re­
quirements for one or more days during the week,

1Since September 1968, reserve requirements have been
calculated on the basis of deposit liabilities outstanding two
weeks earlier; vault cash assets are also counted as of two
weeks prior to the reserve settlement week.

Chart I shows that during September 1967 to
July 1968, (the period in which these banks had
two weeks to settle their reserve accounts) the 5,796
country banks maintained excess reserve assets aver­
aging $342.3 million in single settlement weeks. In
double settlement weeks, they averaged only $190.3
million. The difference—$152.0 million—was the
alternating buildup and rundown of excess reserve
assets. The biweekly pattern has disappeared since

S e ttle m e n t P e r io d s
F o r

C o u n tr y

B e fo r e

a n d

provided this deficiency is offset by an excess at
some other point in the settlement week.
Each bank’s level of reserve assets fluctuates
from day to day for technical reasons associated
with the cashing of checks through the teller’s
window and the collection of checks through the
Federal Reserve System. This type of fluctuation,
though difficult for a banker to predict accurately
on a day-to-day basis,tends to even out some­
what over longer periods. The length of the re­
serve accounting period determines both the de­
gree to which bankers feel they must guard
against hard-to-predict fluctuations of reserve as­
sets and the amount of time bankers have to
adjust their reserve asset positions. If reserve
accounts had to be settled very frequently, bank­
ers would have to adjust their loan and deposit
activity very quickly in order to respond to
temporary changes in reserve assets. The result
would be erratic behavior in the banking system.

B a n k s

A f t e r

Before September 12, 1968, “country” banks
settled their reserve accounts every two weeks; “re­
serve city” banks every week. This difference in
reserve settlement timing, together with the tendency
of country banks to maintain reserve assets well in
excess of the reserve requirements, produced a per­
sistent biweekly pattern of excess reserves.
Reserve city banks had a tendency to experience
alternating weeks of reserve scarcity and reserve
glut, complicating the reserve management activities
of reserve city banks and the reserve stabilization
activities of the Federal Reserve System. The change
from two-week reserve settlement periods to oneweek reserve settlement periods was designed to
eliminate these biweekly swings.

Chart I

U.S.
(Million $)

342.3

152.0
214.6
190.3

Singlt
Settlement
W eeks

Double
Settlement
W eeks

KEY TO CHARTS

□

P re -c o n v e rsio n tw o-w eek se ttle m e n t p e rio d s fo r c o u n try
b a n k s — S e p t e m b e r 1 9 6 7 to J u ly 1968.

□

A fter c o n v e rs io n of c o u n try b a n k s to on e-w ee k
m e n t p e rio d s— S e p t e m b e r 1 9 6 8 to J u ly 1969.


148


se ttle ­

M O N T H L Y R E V IE W

On the other hand, the policy link between
changes in reserve assets and changes in deposit
and loan activity might be significantly weakened
if the reserve settlement period were very long.
For all these reasons, the timing of reserve settle­
ment importantly affects the way banks do
business.
The History of Reserve Settlem ent Timing
Partly because the Federal Reserve Act of 1913
imposed no specific requirements for reserve set­
tlement timing, the individual Federal Reserve
Banks set up requirements for themselves in the
period from 1914 to 1919. Different Districts de­
cided on different specifications, ranging from
daily settlements to settlements on the basis of
daily averages calculated each month. Other Dis­
tricts required their banks to settle weekly or
semi-monthly.
These disparities were further complicated by

conversion. No biweekly fluctuation is associated
with this average.
Chart II illustrates a similar pattern for the 546
country banks in the District. In the pre-change
period, these banks’ excess reserves fell, on average,
from $42.3 million in single settlement weeks to
$33.5 million in double settlement weeks—a swing
of $8.8 million. In the post-change period, excess
reserve assets have averaged $30.2 million.




Chart II

the existence of three classes of member banks,
each of which was subject to different reserve
accounting rules. Larger banks in the cities with
Federal Reserve Banks and branches, comprising
the so-called central reserve city and reserve city
bank classifications, were expected to settle their
reserve accounts relatively frequently. Their size
and their proximity to Federal Reserve facilities
presumably offered them means to adjust their
reserve balances more efficiently than other banks .2
The remaining banks were included in the reserve
accounting category of so-called country banks.
It was not until 1919 that the Board of Gov­
ernors published regulations designed to stan­
dardize reserve computation periods among the

2Central reserve city banks were absorbed into the reserve
city classification in 1962.

Chart III shows a comparable change in average
excess reserve assets at a “typical” Sixth District
country bank.

Chart III

twelve Federal Reserve districts. By 1923, all
central reserve city and reserve city banks were
settling their reserve accounts every week, where­
as country banks were required to settle over semi­
monthly periods. In 1962, country bank computa­
tion periods were made biweekly. All country
banks settled every other week; all reserve city
banks settled weekly. This was the situation im­
mediately prior to the reserve accounting changes
put into effect in September 1968.
Why the Change?
The historical trend toward uniformity in the
timing of reserve settlement suggests one reason
why country banks were converted to one-week
accounting periods last September: Reserve city
banks were already settling weekly; therefore, the
move made the reserve settlement timing uniform
for the two groups of banks, country and reserve
city .3
But uniformity of reserve accounting rules, as
such, was not the main reason for the September
conversion. The main reason was a persistent
biweekly seesaw pattern in reserve availability,
a pattern attributable to the difference in account­
ing periods. When country banks settled every
other week, they piled up excess reserves during
the “single settlement” week, so called because
only the single class of reserve city banks settled
their reserve accounts. Excess reserves that were
stockpiled at country banks in the single settle­
ment weeks were withheld from the reserve city
banks, who sought to balance their own reserve
accounts.
During the ensuing double settlement weeks,
when both groups of banks settled their accounts,
the country banks chose to release excess reserve
assets accumulated in the previous week. This
offset their excess reserve asset position in the
first week of their accounting period with a re­
serve asset deficiency in the second half. Partic­
ularly toward the end of the double settlement
weeks, excess reserves became plentiful as they
flowed from the country banks into money market
centers, and reserve city banks were likely to
experience a glut of reserve assets. The difference,
therefore, in settlement periods, coupled with a
conservative approach to reserve management by
the country banks, tended to produce alternating
weeks of reserve scarcity and reserve plenty at
the reserve city banks and in the money market.

3 D if f e r e n c e s r e m a in , h o w e v e r , in th e r e se r v e r e q u ir e m e n ts
a p p ly in g t o r e se r v e c ity a n d c o u n tr y b a n k s . F o r e v e r y d o lla r
o f d e m a n d d e p o s its in e x c e s s o f $5 m illio n , fo r in s ta n c e ,
a re ser v e c ity b a n k m u st m a in ta in 1 7 - 1 / 2 c e n ts o f r e se r v e
a s s e ts , a c o u n tr y b a n k 13 c e n ts ( a s o f N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 6 9 ) .

150



The alternating pattern of scarcity and plenty
was partially counteracted by the Federal Reserve
System’s open market operations. During single
settlement weeks when reserve assets moved out
of the money markets and into the balances of
cautious country banks, the System injected com­
pensating reserve assets by buying securities.
When the piled-up reserves reentered the money
markets in each double settlement week, the Sys­
tem then reabsorbed the injected reserves by sell­
ing securities. Although the rise and fall of re­
serves was regular, the sizes of the flows were
not easily predictable. Therefore, one more signifi­
cant complication was added to the System’s
management of total banking system reserves. It
was hoped that the elimination of the reserve
period disparity would remove the seesaw pattern
and the problems associated with that pattern.
The Results
A study made at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta helps to quantify this biweekly reserve
availability pattern. During the 21 single settle­
ment weeks from September 1967 to July 1968,
country bank excess reserves across the nation
averaged $342 million per day. In the alternate
double settlement weeks, however, their excess
reserves were only $190 million per day—a sig­
nificant difference of $152 million per day on
average. Nationally and on average, country
banks built up their excess reserves by approxi­
mately $150 million during the first half of their
settlement period. Then they ran them back down
by a similar amount in the following double
settlement week. An average of about $150 mil­
lion in reserve assets was withheld from reserve
city banks in single settlement weeks, relative to
the average amount of reserve assets available to
reserve city banks in the ensuing double settle­
ment weeks.
Analysis of the same period for Sixth District
banks shows very similar results, although the
pattern is not quite as striking as it is for the
nation. District country banks’ excess reserves
averaged $42.3 million per day in the 21 single
settlement weeks and $33.5 million in the alter­
nate double settlement weeks, implying an aver­
age buildup and rundown in the District of ap­
proximately $9 million. It would be incorrect to
say that this amount was alternatively made
available and withheld from Sixth District re­
serve city banks, however, since the financial
markets through which excess reserves are redis­
tributed are national rather than local in scope.
This biweekly pattern of reserve availability,
clearly evident before September 1968 in both the
M O N TH LY

R E V IE W

nation and the Sixth District, was expected to be
reduced when country banks converted to oneweek accounting periods. Was it reduced? The
results of further studies suggest that it was.
Analysis of the period from September 1968 to
July 1969, a year later than the coverage of re­
sults mentioned earlier shows no significant
buildup and rundown. The average swing was $3.5
million in the post-changed period, compared with
the $152-million average buildup in the period
prior to the change. Country bank excess reserves
after the conversion averaged about $214 million,
slightly higher than the pre-change double settle­
ment week average of $190 million but much less
than the corresponding single settlement week

average of $342 million. The results, in other
words, make good sense. The post-change $214million average may be lower than “normal,”
however, because excess reserves in the banking
system as a whole have been scarce during the
recent period of monetary restraint.
Sixth District data yield the same conclusion:
Conversion of the country bank settlement
periods has successfully eliminated the earlier
biweekly reserve pattern. After the change, the
excess reserve buildup for country banks in the
District was $0.3 million, compared with $8.8
million previously.
W il l ia m N. C o x , III

Appendix
The results are shown in the accompanying table.
Regression N-l, covering national country banks dur­
ing the September 1967 to July 1968 period prior to
the conversion of country banks to one-week account­
ing periods, shows that the above model offers a
highly significant explanation of excess reserve be­
havior. The biweekly pattern of buildup and run­
down, captured by the estimate of regression coeffici­
ent (b), is both large and significant. Results of
similar quality were drawn from Sixth District data
for the same period; these are shown in regression
D-l.

This study employed regression analysis of the simple
model:
(1) XRC= a + bD + e
where XRC is weekly country bank excess reserves
(averaged over the days in each week); D is a dummy
variable equal to one in single settlement weeks and
zero in double settlement weeks; and (e) is a stochas­
tic term. The model presumes that each week’s ag­
gregate of country bank excess reserves may be lin­
early decomposed into the constant (a), the adjust­
ment single settlement week status (b), and the
random term (e).
This study makes use of a fundamental property
of regression analysis: that the mean of the residual
—the regression estimate of (e)—is zero. This implies
that the estimate of (a) is the average of country
bank excess reserves during the double settlement
weeks covered by the regression, and that (a+b) is
the average of country banks’ excess reserves during
the single settlement weeks.

To see whether the biweekly pattern persisted after
the reserve period change, the same model was ap­
plied to the September 1968 to July 1969 period. As
expected, results of regression N-2 and D-2 for the
nation and the District show that the biweekly co­
efficient (b), instead of being large and significant
as it had been previously, had become small and
insignificant.

COUNTRY BANK EXCESS RESERVE BEHAVIOR— REGRESSION RESULTS

Regression
Number

Number
Estimate
of
of (a)
Observations ($ millions)

Period

N-l

Sept. ’67-July ’68

42

190.3

N-2

Sept. ’68-July ’69

42

212.9

N-3

Both Periods

85

Estimate
of (b)
($ millions)

203.4

CHOW TEST OF NATIONAL DATA:
D-l

S ep t.’67-July’68

42

S ep t.’68-July’69

42

30.1

D-3

Both Periods

85

32.0

CHOW TEST OF DISTRICT DATA:
* significant at 5% level.
Digitized C E M B E R 1 9 6 9
D E for FRASER


e2

R-’(adj.)

DurbinWatson

.65**

2.23

.00

1.07

.40**

2.22

.38**

2.03

14,099.7

.00

1.60

20,045.6

.10

1.63

308,957
86,360
580,027

F = 18.7**

33.5

D-2

152.0**
(5.61)
3.5
(0.24)
75.3**
(4.15)

2

8.8**
(2.81)
0.3
(0.05)
4.6
(1.36)

4,083.5

F = 3.49*

** highly significant at 1% level.

151

F a r m P ric e s H a v e T r e n d e d D o w n w a r d :
W ill C o n s u m e r s B e n e fit?

A g r i c u l t u r a l p r ic e s a re s o m e t im e s r e g a r d e d a s a n

fo r m e a t

im p o r t a n t b e llw e th e r o f g e n e r a l b u s in e s s c o n d i­

s a t u r a t io n

t io n s a n d
of fa rm

p ric e m o v e m e n t s .

p ro d u cts h a v e

H is t o r i c a l ly , p r ic e s

o fte n

d u r in g

e c o n o m ic

u p s w in g s

f a lle n

th ro u g h o u t

p e r io d s

been

but
of

f ir s t

have

to

rise

t y p i c a lly

re c e ssio n .

T h us,

and

b e s c r u t in iz e d

to

d u r in g

w hat

lie s

ahead

p e r io d s

had

begun

M ay,

p o u lt r y

P r ic e s

in
ro se

w h o le s a le
r a p i d ly

p r ic e s

d u r in g

of

W H O LESA LE

o f b u s in e s s

F arm

P R IC E S

P ro d u cts

1957—59=100

Ptrtant

-115
Total Farm Products

P ro d u c ts

fa r m

to r e ­

Chart I

fo r c lu e s a s

T h e fir s t h a lf o f 1969 w a s m a r k e d b y s p e c t a c u la r
changes

th e

p ric e s.

1969

F arm

re a c h

co n su m e rs

v e rse A p r i l ’s s h a r p d o w n w a r d t u r n in w h o le s a le

_

P r ic e s o f W h o le s a le

to

h o w e v e r,

h a d a p p a r e n t ly s u b s t it u t e d a s u f f ic ie n t q u a n t i t y

u n c e r t a in t y .
1969

By

o f p o u lt r y fo r h ig h - p r ic e d b e e f a n d p o r k

m o v e m e n t s o f a g r ic u lt u r a l p r ic e s a re a m o n g th o se
in d ic a t o r s t h a t m a y

p o u lt r y

p o in t.

-1 0 5

p ro d u c t s .
-1 2 5

fiv e o f th e f ir s t s ix

m o n t h s o f th e y e a r b u t b e g a n a n ir r e g u la r d e c lin e
in J u ly . H a s t h is d e c lin e s ig n a le d a lo n g a w a it e d
b r e a k in th e re c e n t i n f la t io n a r y p e r io d ?
W h o le s a le

p r ic e s

in d e x e s

w h ic h

in c lu d e

th e

to ta l a n d c o m p o n e n t c o m m o d it y g r o u p s o f f a r m
p ro d u c ts th ro u g h

S e p t e m b e r 1969 a re s h o w n

C h art

J u ly — w hen

I.

B e fo re

th e

o v e r a ll

in

p ric e

d e c lin e b e g a n — th e in d e x fe ll o n ly o n c e in 1969.

Plant & Anim al Fibers

-6 5
- 140

I n A p r i l, a d r o p in p o u lt r y , e g g s, a n d fr e sh a n d
p r o c e s s e d f r u it s a n d v e g e t a b le s r e s u lte d in a o n e p e r c e n t d e c lin e in th e in d e x .
D ip

in

A p r il.

p r im a r ily

T h e d e c lin e in p o u lt r y p r ic e s w a s

p r e c ip it a t e d

by

h e a v ie r

s u p p lie s

-120

-

100

-

SO

but

m a y h a v e a ls o re fle c te d a lo w e r ra te o f in c r e a s e
in th e p r ic e s o f p o u l t r y ’s m a i n c o m p e t it o r s , b e e f
a n d p o rk . I t a p p e a r e d a t t h a t t im e t h a t th e m a r k e t


152


M O N T H L Y R E V IE W

Although the supply of poultry meat has grown
steadily since February (See Chart II), the
rate of growth was not large enough to account
for the sudden price dip in April. Output during
the first seven months of 1969 substantially ex­
ceeded that of the same period in 1968, however.
Egg prices, although accounting for the small­
est proportion of the total index of wholesale
prices, dropped more dramatically than other
prices and continued falling through May. This
was not unusual, however, since egg production
tends to increase in the spring with an accom­
panying lowering of prices (Chart II).
Prices of fresh and dried fruits and vegetables,
the only other series to show a notable decline in
April, also typically move downward with in­
creasing supplies as the season progresses. But
in early 1969, supplies were down slightly from a
year earlier, reflecting reduced plantings of most
vegetable crops. Hence, the decline in prices may
have signified that consumers were becoming
more budget conscious and were attempting to
trim food expenditures by reducing purchases of
relatively high-cost items, such as fruits and
vegetables.
Rise in May. Wholesale farm prices rose sharply
in May, reflecting abrupt increases in prices of
livestock, fresh and dried fruits and vegetables,
poultry, and grain.
The sharp increase in May, as well as the
rising trend in livestock prices throughout early
1969, was attributable to a brisk consumer de­
mand in the face of a shrinking supply of meat.
Total livestock production in the first half of
1969 actually declined from the year-earlier level.
Monthly cattle and calf slaughter decreased in
February (See Chart II) and had not regained
the January level by September. Monthly hog
slaughter actually declined by 350 million pounds
from January to August, largely because of dis­
ease losses and bad weather. In May, a sharp
drop in slaughter accompanied the abrupt in­
crease in livestock prices.
Farm prices of fruit and fresh market vege­
tables also rose dramatically in May from April.
Exceptional price increases were registered for
cabbage, carrots, celery, sweet corn, lettuce, and
snap beans. Reduced acreages and unfavorable
spring weather that delayed maturity of the
smaller crop contributed to temporary shortages.
Demand in May seemed to be strengthened
largely because of increasing incomes and large
Government purchases.
Basically, the May increase in poultry prices
appeared to be a correction of the excessive down­
ward adjustment that occurred in April. Poultry
D E C E M B E R 1969



Chart II
U .S .

P R O D U C T IO N

L IV E S T O C K

AND
1 9 69

OF

SELEC TED

PRO D U CTS
Millian

'Tetil Livtwaight

supplies were actually increasing rather rapidly
at this time, but hog slaughter was dropping.
Farm prices of grain began advancing in April
and contributed heavily to the rise in the total
index in May. Dwindling free stocks of com, in
the face of growing demands from the livestock
feeding sector, were responsible for the price
increases.
Declines Since June. Prices of farm products
reached a peak in June and began an irregular
downward movement in July. Livestock prices
exerted the major influence, turning downward
when growing supplies began to finally overtake
the rapidly increasing demand.
As temporary shortages were alleviated, prices
of fresh and dried fruits and vegetables were also
falling sharply, returning to a more normal mid­
summer pattern. As expectations of a plentiful
new crop materialized, grain prices also began
dropping.
The only other series trending downward
noticeably at this point was hay and seed prices,
reflecting primarily lower prices of soybeans.
These lower prices were attributable to a large
carryover in the 1968 crop and to an announced
reduction in the support price.
Egg prices have been moving counter to the
total price index throughout most of the year.
The July decline in the total index coincided with
the sharpest jump in egg prices during the year.
153

A temporary shortage of eggs resulted from un­
usually hot weather. With the relief of cooler
temperatures, an oversupply of eggs developed in
August, causing prices to again drop sharply.
This pattern of erratic fluctuation has continued
through the fall months.
The downturn in total wholesale farm prices
was further strengthened in August by falling
cotton prices (See plant and animal fibers, Chart
I). Cotton prices began to decline when projec­
tions for the 1969 crop indicated an ample supply
to meet domestic requirements and a substantial
carryover from the 1968 crop appeared certain.
Later revisions lowered the new crop estimates.
Heavy August rains severely damaged the south­
eastern crop, stimulating rank growth—boll rot
and insect damage. Drought in other areas re­
duced yields more than had been anticipated,
and cotton prices turned up again.
Toward the end of the year, the wholesale in­
dex has been pushed upward again by sharp price
advances in eggs and fresh fruits and vegetables.1
Egg production has declined through the fall
months, putting pressures on supplies. Brisk de­
mand, fed by excessive speculation in future con­
tracts, resulted in historically high prices. The
supply of fruits and vegetables has also declined
more than seasonally—contributing to unusual
price increases.
Relationship of Food Prices to Farm Prices
The food items that consumers purchase are pro­
cessed farm products. Thus, it is reasonable to
expect consumer food prices to reflect the down­
ward movement in wholesale farm prices since
July. The index of consumer food prices, however,
does not closely follow wholesale prices of either
farm products or foodstuffs, as shown in Chart
III. All three price series have moved upward
since 1963, but the advance in consumer food
prices has been the smoothest of the three. A rela­
tively close correlation is evident between whole­
sale prices of farm products and foodstuffs.
That consumer food prices tend to stick at high
levels is clearly demonstrated. Increases in whole­
sale farm prices are nearly always accompanied
by rising consumer food prices. The latter are
slow to decline, however, when wholesale prices
drop. In fact, lower wholesale prices are usually
reflected in the consumer price index by a slower
rate of increase or by a sidewise movement. Since
1963, consumer prices have declined only after
four or five consecutive months of falling whole­
sale farm prices. Cases in point are the sub1Preliminary data indicate a sharp rise in the November index
of wholesale farm prices.

154



stantial declines in wholesale farm prices regis­
tered from February to June and September to
December of 1966; and from January to April
and July to November of 1967.
From February to June 1966, for example, the
index of farm wholesale prices declined three
points, but only after the fourth consecutive
month of falling wholesale prices did the con­
sumer food prices index decline. Farm prices
regained the three-point loss in July 1966; in
August, food prices jumped about three points .2
Beginning in September 1966, wholesale farm
prices began a decline that continued for seven
months, except for a brief rise in January 1967.
Consumer food prices, however, did not decline
appreciably until January 1967 and had only
dropped less than two points when they reached
their low in April. In comparison, the wholesale
farm products index dropped more than ten
points in the corresponding period. In May, when
prices of farm products rose, food prices began
to rise immediately.
In The Months Ahead
In much of 1969, food prices have led the rapid
advance in the consumer price index. In addition,
substantial declines in wholesale prices of farm
products from July to October have not developed
2The first differences, as well as one, two, and three-month
lags of monthly wholesale prices of both farm products and
foodstuffs were regressed on the first differences of monthly
consumer food prices. The best fit was obtained when the
first differences of monthly wholesale farm prices, lagged by
one month, were regressed on the first differences of con­
sumer food prices. The coefficient of determination (r2)
obtained was 0.24. Although relatively low, it was statistically
significant and 9 percent above that of the best alternative
equation. Changes in consumer prices, therefore, were more
closely related to changes in wholesale farm prices in the pre­
ceding month than in any other period tested and more
closely related to wholesale farm prices than to wholesale
food prices.
M O N T H L Y R E V IE W

at the retail level. Some leveling in food prices
was evident, however, in early fall, although in
late 1969 the housewife was faced with sharply
higher prices for eggs, fruits and vegetables.
B arring other unforeseen disturbances in
agricultural products, such as the egg shortage,
the consumer price index for food will probably
continue its leveling tendency in early 1970. Past
performance indicates that significant declines
in food prices occur only after farm prices drop
for a four- to five-month period. Further price
declines are in prospect, since supplies of most
food items are projected to build up in the months
ahead. Specific projections for the predominant
livestock group indicate that heavier marketings
of fed cattle are anticipated through next spring.
A larger supply—coupled with indications that
consumers are substituting lower-priced meats
for beef—would make for a continuation of the
downward trend in meat prices that began in July.
A further seasonal decrease in pork production
is anticipated, reflecting reduced farrowings last
spring that resulted in fewer pigs available for
feeding during the summer and fall months. Be­
cause of more competition from projected larger
supplies of beef and poultry, however, there is
likely to be little increase in pork prices. Rather
than pay higher prices for pork, consumers prob­
ably will buy increasing amounts of beef and
chicken.
Broiler production is expected to continue in­
creasing through the first half of 1970. With beef
output also increasing, lower poultry prices are
in prospect as a result of the more plentiful meat
supply.
Egg production will continue to increase be­

cause of a slight buildup in the size of the laying
flock. Prices should decline from recent high
levels as overall supplies of animal proteins be­
come more plentiful.'
Grain and soybean prices are likely to show
leveling tendencies through early 1970. Heavy
demands for feeds from the livestock sector will
provide some support to prices that would other­
wise decline in response to plentiful grain and
soybean crops.
If current signs of less exuberant economic
advances continue, the demand for food products
is also likely to slow its brisk pace, particularly
for the more expensive food items. Demand pro­
jections beyond early 1970 are clouded by un­
certainties in the economic and fiscal outlook.
The Recap
In summary, wholesale agricultural prices rose
rapidly during the first half of 1969 but began
dropping at mid-year, essentially reflecting
changes in livestock prices. Consumer food prices,
though not closely following wholesale price
movements, reflected falling Wholesale prices by
leveling off in early autumn.
Like most indicators of business conditions,
agricultural price changes alone are not always a
reliable indication of coming economic conditions.
Nevertheless, the behavior in wholesale prices of
farm products since July may have signaled a
change in economic direction that apparently is
being confirmed by other evidence as 1969 draws
to a close. How profound and durable these
changes will be are matters that remain to be seen.
G e n e D. S u l l iv a n

B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts
On November 1, Bank of Clayton, Clayton, Georgia;
Bank of Eastman, Eastman, Georgia; Bank of Warner
Robins, Warner Robins, Georgia; and Citizens State
Bank, Warner Robins, Georgia— all nonmember banks
— began to remit at par for checks drawn on them
when received from the Federal Reserve Bank.
A newly organized nonmember bank, First Bank of
South DeKalb, Decatur, Georgia, opened for business

DECEMBER 1969



on November 3 and began to remit at par. Officers
are Joseph C. Bagwell. Jr., president; Wilbur T.
Tomberlin, vice president; and Martin C. Avery, cashier.
Capital is $325,000; surplus and other capital funds,
$325,000.
On November 15, The Meigs County Bank, Decatur,
Tennessee, a nonmember bank, began to remit at par.

155

IN D E X F O R T H E Y E A R 19 6 9
MONTH
JANUARY

MONTH

PAGES
1-16

PAGES
85-96

JULY

97-108

FEBRUARY

17-32

AUGUST

MARCH

33-44

SEPTEMBER

109-120

APRIL

45-56

OCTOBER

121-132

MAY

57-68

NOVEMBER

133-144

JUNE

69-84

DECEMBER

145-160

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
Southern Banks’ Changing Role in Farm Credit
by

R obert E. Sweeney , 76.

A Federal Reserve Innovation: One-Week
Settlem ent Period for Country Banks
W il l ia m

by

N. Cox III, 147

Southern Banks’ Changing Role in Farm Credit
AGRICULTURE

by

Farm Prices Have Trended Downward; Will
Consumers Benefit?

What Makes For Bank Profitability? 91

by

G ene D. S u lliv a n , 152

A Good Year for Agriculture
by

R obert E. Sweeney , 76

R obert E. Sweeney , 8.

BANK ANNOUNCEMENTS
11, 13, 23, 41, 53, 64, 81, 93, 101, 117, 129, 138,
155.
BANK CREDIT

BANKING STRUCTURE
Absentee Ownership— Its Impact on Bank Hold­
ing Company Performance
by

J oe W. M cL eary, 99.

Banking Structure and Deposit Concentration
in the Southeast
by

J oe W. M cL eary, 86.

Bank Credit Grows Uninterrupted
by

D orothy F. A rp , 12

BANK DEPOSITS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and Branches,
Effective January 1, 1969, 28

Bank Deposit Growth and Income Change in the
Southeast, 50
CONSTRUCTION
BANK HOLDING COMPANIES

Construction Stars
by

Absentee Ownership— Its Impact on Bank Hold­
ing Company Performance
by

J oe W. M cL eary. 99.

H iram J. H onea, 10

CONSUMER ACTIVITY
Consumer Surprises

BANKING

by

Banking Structure and Deposit Concentration in
the Southeast

Is the Consumer Behaving?

by

J oe W. M cL eary, 86.


156


by

J oe W. M cL eary, 4

E m e r s o n A t k in s o n ,

122.
M O N TH LY

R E V IE W

DISTRICT BUSINESS CONDITIONS
16, 32, 44, 56, 68, 84, 96, 108, 120, 132, 144, 160.

INDUSTRY
Prosperity Slows Industrial Growth
by C. S. Pyun, 6.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, General
Our Greatest Economic Problem
by M onroe K im brel, 46.

INFLATION
Our Greatest Economic Problem
by M onroe K im brel, 46.

The Unemployment-Inflation Trade-Off: W hat
1969 Forecasts Imply
by Joe W. M cLeary and C. S. Pyun, 19.

The Unemploy ment-Inflation Trade-Off: What
1969 Forecasts Imply
by Joe W. M cLeary and C. S. Pyun, 19.

Unemployment: Who It Hits
by Joe W. M cLeary, 114.

MONETARY POLICY

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, Sixth District States

A Federal Reserve Innovation: One-Week
Settlement Period for Country Banks

Alabama’s Economy Grows but Loses Speed

by W illiam N. Cox, III, 147.

by Joe W. M cLeary, 24

The Money Supply Controversy
1968: Another Prosperous Year for Georgia

by W illiam N. Cox, III, 70.

by D o ro th y F. A rp, 39.

Questions People Ask M e
Mississippi Nonfarm Jobs in the Sixties: A
Sneak Preview
by W illiam N. Cox, III, 139.

Prosperity Slows Industrial Growth
by C. S. Pyun, 6

by M onroe K im brel, 134.

MONEY SUPPLY
The Money Supply Controversy
by W illiam N. Cox, III, 70.

Tennessee’s Pace Begins to Slacken
by John M. G odfrey, 127

PAPER INDUSTRY

W hat Kind of Year? The Southeast in 1968

The Southeast’s Booming Paper Industry

by H a rry B ran d t, 2.

by C. S. Pyun, 110.

ECONOMIC FORECASTS

PRICES

The Unemploy ment-Inflation Trade-Off: W hat
1969 Forecasts Imply

Farm Prices Have Trended Downward: W ill
Consumers Benefit?

by Joe W. M cLeary and C. S. Pyun, 19.

by G ene D. S u lliv a n , 152.

EXPORTS

SIXTH DISTRICT STATISTICS

Comparative Advantage and Structural Change
in Regional Exports

14, 30, 42, 54, 66, 82, 94, 106, 118, 130, 142, 168.

by John E. Leimone, 102.

A Regional View of Export Patterns

SPACE PROGRAMS

by John E. Leimone, 34.

Slowdown in Space Programs: Its Impact on the
Southeast

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Growing Financial Resources in the Southeast

by C. S. Pyun, 58.

65.

UNEMPLOYMENT

INCOME

The Unemploy ment-Inflation Trade-Off:
1969 Forecasts Imply

What

by Joe W. M cLeary and C. S. Pyun, 19.

Bank Deposit Growth and Income Changes in
the Southeast

Unemployment: Who It Hits

by D o ro th y F. A rp, 50.

by Joe W. M cLeary, 114.

Digitized E M B E R 1 9 6 9
D E C for FRASER


157

S i x t h D is tric t S ta tis tic s
S e a so n a lly Adjusted
( A l l d a t a a r e i n d e 1957-59 = I O O , u n l e s s
xes,
L a t e s t M onth
1969

One
M on th
Ago

Two
M o n th s
Ago

One
Year
Ago

S IX T H D IS T R IC T
IN C O M E A N D S P E N D IN G
P e r s o n a l In co m e
(M il. $, A n n u a l R a t e ) ........................... S e p t.
M a n u fa c tu r in g P a y r o l l s ................................ O ct.
F a r m C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................................S e p t.
C r o p s ................................................................ S e p t.
L i v e s t o c k ...........................................................S e p t.
In s ta lm e n t C re d it a t B a n k s * (M il. $)
N ew L o a n s ......................................................O ct.
R e p a y m e n ts
................................................ O ct.

N.A.
250
1 4 2.8
9 8.5
185.5

7 1 ,7 9 2
248
177.3
1 6 7.4
1 7 7 .9

7 1 ,7 1 7
248
196.1
15 4.3

6 5 ,1 1 0
233
1 33.5
9 2 .6
169.0

3 2 9.7
2 9 7.2

3 2 5 .8
2 8 7 .4

3 0 3 .9
3 0 0 .6

3 4 3.6
2 7 0.0

148
146
175
141
170
113
107
128
140
113

144
143
176
137
161
113
106
125
129

149
140
4 8 .5

148
147
175
141
169
114
106
129
139
113
217
149
137
5 8.3

195
142
133
54 .9

200.6

in d ic a te d

o th e rw is e .)
One
M on th
Ag o

Two
M o n th s
Ago

One
Year
Ago

373
260
293

374
258
282

374
260
277

320
243
242

N.A .
263
1 5 5.9

1 4 ,1 17
260
15 6.1

1 4 ,0 15
274
1 3 5.6

1 2 ,7 46
234
14 1.1

O ct.
O ct.
O ct.
O ct.
O ct.

149
142
152
149
5 1 .7

148
142
152
148
4 4 .7

149
144
152
147
5 7 .6

144
138
147
147
5 3 .7

. O ct.
. O ct.

3 .2
4 2 .4

3 .4
4 2 .3

2 .9
4 0 .9

3.2
4 0 .9

. O ct.
. O ct.
. O ct.

34 3
236
327

338
242
308

305
242
264

. O ct.

N.A.
192
1 1 5.7

10 ,1 25
191
2 4 4 .7

1 0 ,0 82
188
2 4 7 .0

9 ,4 1 0
179
108.1

O ct.
O ct.
O ct.
O ct.
O ct.

134
123
137
137
5 2 .0

134
123
137
135
45.1

134
122
137
132
50.1

132
123
134
143
5 8 .3

. O ct.
. O ct.

5.2
4 2 .7

5 .0
4 1 .8

4 .9
4 1 .3

5.1
4 1 .5

. O ct.
. O ct.
. O ct.

274
178
204

275
178
203

268
179
208

244
177
192

N.A.
265
1 0 0.8

5 ,3 0 4
270
184.1

5 ,2 9 6
263
26 3.1

4 ,9 9 7
253
10 8.3

O ct.
O ct.
O ct.
O ct.
O ct.

148
158
143
156
3 8 .3

147
157
143
159
3 4 .0

147
156
143
148
4 9 .7

145
156
140
144
4 5 .1

. O ct.
. O ct.

4 .5
4 0 .4

4 .7
4 1 .0

4 .6
40.1

4 .6
4 1 .2

. O ct.

403
268
283

396
272
301

388
270
259

349
247
237

L a t e s t M onth
19 69
M a n u f a c tu rin g
........................................... O c t.
N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ......................................O c t.
C o n s t r u c t i o n ........................................... O ct.
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ........................................... O ct.
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e rc e n t of W ork F o r c e ) t ......................O ct.
Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in Mfg. (H rs .) . . . O ct.

169
170
131
8 3.6
2.7
4 1 .0

F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ......................................O c t.
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s ................................ O ct.
B a n k D e b i t s * * ......................................................O ct.

P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
G E O R G IA
N o n fa rm E m p lo y m e n t ) - ................................ O ct.
M a n u fa c tu r in g
...........................................O ct.
A p p a re l
...........................................................O ct.
C h e m i c a l s ......................................................O ct.
F a b r ic a t e d M e t a l s ......................................O ct.
F o o d ......................................................................O ct.
Lb r ., W ood P ro d ., F u r n . & F ix . . . . O ct.
P a p e r ................................................................ O ct.
P r im a ry M e t a l s ...........................................O ct.
T e x t ile s
...........................................................O ct.
. . . . O ct.
T r a n s p o r t a t io n E q u ip m e n t
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g f ......................................O ct.
C o n s t r u c t i o n ................................................ O ct.
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ...........................................O ct.
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e rc e n t of W ork F o r c e ) t ......................O ct.
In su re d U n e m p lo y m e n t
(P e rc e n t of C o v . E m p . ) ...........................O ct.
Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) . . . O ct.
C o n stru c tio n C o n t r a c t s * ........................... O ct.
R e s i d e n t i a l ......................................................O ct.
A ll O t h e r ...........................................................O ct.
E le c t r ic P o w e r P ro d u c t io n * *
. . . . S e p t.
Co tto n C o n s u m p t i o n * * ................................ S e p t.
P e tro l. P ro d , in C o a s t a l L a . a n d M is s .* * O c t.

148
147
176
142
172
115
107
128
142
113
204
149
139
5 2 .2
3 .6

202

111

3.7

3.5

3.8

2 .0
4 1 .3
211
249
179
161
103
234

1.9
4 1 .3
196
217
178
160
99
251

1.9
4 0 .8
310
275
340
164

1.9
4 1 .0
2 28
271
191
149
104

256

331
276

330
272

294
2 58

227
189
275

226
189
271

229
191
269

190
2 35

. O ct.
. S e p t.

P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
N o n farm E m p lo y m e n t !
. . .
M a n u fa c tu r in g
...........................
N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ......................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ...........................
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e r c e n t of W ork F o r c e ) t . .
Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in Mfg. (H rs .)

.
.
.
.
.

220

334
281

P e r s o n a l In c o m e
(M il. $ , A n n u a l R a te )
. . .
M a n u fa c tu r in g P a y r o lls
. . .
F a r m C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................

102

F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
341
236
319r

F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
Loans*
A ll M e m b e r B a n k s ..................................... O ct.
L a r g e B a n k s ................................................ O ct.
D e p o sits *
All M e m b e r B a n k s ..................................... O ct.
L a r g e B a n k s ................................................ O ct.
B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ................................................ O ct.

220

A LA B A M A

P e r so n a l In co m e
(M il. $, A n n u a l

P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
N o n farm

E m p lo y m e n tt . . . .

N o n m a n u fa c tu r in g

IN C O M E
Pe rso n al

In co m e
N.A.
2 15
1 31.0

8,8 7 4
211
1 7 6.9

8 ,9 6 0
2 10
189.2

8 ,0 6 4
195
110.6

. O ct.

131
133
130
127
53 .5

130
132
130
126
5 1.1

130
131
130
126
6 4 .4

128
129
128
127
54 .7

. O ct.
. O ct.

4 .0
4 1.1

4 .2
4 0 .9

4.1
4 0.7

4 .6
41.3

. O ct.

299
209
227

294
212
225

304
214
241

2 70
207
2 14

N.A.
322
195.7

2 2 ,3 03
329
178.2

22 ,2 61
337
1 79.9

19,847
297
187.1

. O ct.

U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e r c e n t of W ork F o r c e ) t . .
Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg. (H rs .)
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G

P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
. O ct.
M a n u fa c tu rin g
N o n m a n u fa c tu r in g

. O ct.

F a rm E m p lo y m e n t .
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg. (H r s .) .

M I S S IS S IP P I
IN C O M E
P e r so n a l In co m e
. Se p t.
. O ct.

F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G

Bank

D e b i t s * * ...........................

. O ct.

P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
N o n fa rm

E m p lo y m e n tt . . . .

F L O R ID A
IN C O M E
P e r s o n a l In c o m e
(M il. $, A n n u a l R a t e ) ........................... S e p t.
M a n u fa c tu r in g P a y r o l l s ...........................O ct.
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ...........................
. Sep t.
P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
N o n farm

E m p lo y m e n t !

........................... O ct.


158


.
.
.
.
.

U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e r c e n t of W ork F o r c e J t . .
Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg. (H rs .)
F IN A N C E A N D

.
.
.
.
.

B A N K IN G

M em ber B an k Lo an s*
. . . .
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s its * . . .
B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ................................

M O N TH LY

R E V IE W

L a t e s t M on th
1969

One
M on th
Ago

Two
M o n th s
Ago

One
Year
Ago

L a t e s t M onth
1969

TEN N ESSEE

N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ................................
C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................
F a r m E m p l o y m e n t ......................................
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e r c e n t of W ork F o r c e lt . . . .
Avg. W e e k ly H o u rs in M fg. (H r s .) .

IN C O M E
P e r s o n a l In co m e
(M il. $ , A n n u a l R a te )
. . . .
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o lls ......................
F a r m C a s h R e c e i p t s ...........................

.
.

. S e p t.
. O ct.

N.A.
241
1 26.2

1 1 ,0 6 9
239
1 4 8.6

1 0 ,0 4 6
221
113.9

1 1 ,1 03
240
1 9 7.9

One
M on th
Ago

Two
M o n th s
Ago

One
Year
Ago

. O ct.
. O ct.
. O ct.

142
165
51 .2

142
164
5 2 .7

140
161
5 8 .0

139
161
5 1 .9

. O ct.
. O ct.

3 .8
4 0 .3

3.7
4 0 .5

3 .6
40.1

3 .8
4 0 .4

. O ct.
. O ct.

319
20 6
2 73

312
203
279

304
205
286

284
195
255

F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
N o n fa rm E m p l o y m e n t t .....................
M a n u fa c tu r in g
................................
* F o r S ix th

.
,

147
156

.O c t .
. O ct.

146
155

o n ly . O th e r t o ta ls fo r e n tir e

D is t ric t a r e a

s ix

* " D a ily

sta te s.

M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * ...........................
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * .....................
B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ...........................................

144
154

145
155

a v e ra g e

b a s is .

t P r e lim in a r y d a ta .

r -R e v ise d .

N.A. N ot a v a ila b le

S o u r c e s : P e r s o n a l in c o m e e s tim a te d b y t h is B a n k ; n o n fa rm , m fg . a n d n o n m fg . e m p ., m fg . p a y ro lls a n d h o u rs , a n d u n e m p ., U .S . D ep t, of L a b o r a n d c o o p e ra tin g s ta te
a g e n c ie s ; co tto n c o n s u m p t io n , U .S . B u r e a u of C e n s u s ; c o n s tr u c tio n c o n t r a c t s , F . W. D od g e C o rp .; p e tro l, p ro d ., U .S . B u r e a u of M in e s; in d u s tr ia l u s e of e le c . p o w er,
F e d . P o w e r C o m m .; fa rm c a s h r e c e ip t s an d fa rm e m p ., U .S .D .A . O th e r in d e x e s b a s e d on d a ta c o lle c te d b y t h is B a n k . A ll in d e x e s c a lc u la t e d by t h is B a n k .

D e b its to D e m a n d D e p o s it A c c o u n ts
Insured C om m ercial B an ks in the Sixth District
(In T h o u s a n d s o f D o lla r s )
Percent C
hange

Percent C
hange
Year
to
d a te
10 m o s.
1969
fro m
1 9 68

O c to b e r
1969
F ro m
O c to b e r
1 9 69

Se p te m b e r
1 9 69

O cto b e r
19 68

S e p t. O ct.
1 9 6 9 1 9 68

O c to b e r
1969

S T A N D A R D M E T R O P O L IT A N

G a in e s v ille

S T A T I S T IC A L A R E A S t

L a k e la n d

B ir m in g h a m

.

.

.

.

1 ,9 1 9 ,1 6 6

1 ,8 1 0 ,4 5 4

1 ,8 9 4 ,2 6 2

G ad sden

.

.

.

.

7 2 ,5 0 5

6 7 ,2 3 4

6 7 ,7 7 4

H u n ts v ille

.

.

.

.

2 2 4 ,8 9 6

2 0 8 ,9 3 0

2 1 1 ,5 7 0

+

6

+

1

+

9

+ 8

+ 7

+

5

+

+

+

7

8

6

+ 13

.

.

1 1 5,42 5

1 0 8 ,9 0 4

1 0 5 ,6 7 9

+ 6

+

9

.

.

1 7 8 ,1 2 2

1 3 9 ,0 1 3

1 6 4 ,0 9 4

+ 28

+

9

3 7 ,8 7 5

39 ,6 61

+

4

-

0

+ 27

+ 32

r 17

+ 20

M o n roe C o u n ty

.

.

3 9 ,5 5 0

O c a l a .....................

.

.

8 7 ,3 6 5

6 8 ,6 6 9

+

S t. A u g u stin e

.

.

2 4 ,0 4 5

2 7 ,0 9 5

2 5 ,0 5 1

-1 1

S t.

.

.

4 8 0 ,6 3 0

3 9 8 ,8 2 3

4 0 8 ,4 3 9

+ 20

P e te rsb u rg

6 3 8 ,5 7 0

6 0 8 ,4 1 6

5 5 6 ,5 7 3

+

5

+ 15

3 9 5 ,0 6 6

3 6 4 ,2 9 1

3 5 8 ,0 0 2

+

8

+ 10

+11

T u s c a lo o s a

.

.

.

1 3 4 ,7 6 9

1 2 3,13 2

1 1 2 ,9 1 6

+

9

+ 19

+ 14

W in te r H av e n

.

.

F t. L a u d e r d a le —
H o lly w o o d
. .

.

.

1 ,1 2 0 ,0 0 2

9 5 3 ,1 2 4

8 5 6 ,4 9 6

+ 18

+ 31

+ 30

A th e n s

.

.

J a c k s o n v ille

.

.

2 ,0 2 1 ,6 5 9

1 ,9 9 8 ,9 5 3

1 ,8 3 5 ,5 9 3

+

1

+ 10

+ 16

B r u n s w ic k

.

.

.

3 ,7 0 7 ,0 1 9

3 ,2 9 8 ,0 2 2

2 ,9 8 4 ,0 1 6

+ 12

+ 24

+ 19

D a lto n

7 7 7 ,7 3 9

6 9 4 ,3 4 4

6 4 0 ,7 6 0

+12

+21

+ 12

E lb e rto n

M iam i

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

O r l a n d o .....................

S a r a s o ta
Tam pa

.

.

2 4 8 ,2 0 8

2 1 9 ,4 0 6

+

5

+ 19

+ 12

G a in e s v ille

T a lla h a s s e e

.

.

.

1 8 7 ,4 9 7

1 7 8 ,9 8 9

1 5 2,40 7

+

5

+ 23

+ 18

G riffin

T a m p a -S t.

P e te .

2 ,1 9 9 ,8 1 1

1 ,8 9 2 ,1 5 3

1 ,7 6 0 ,1 9 9

+ 16

+ 25

+21

L aG ra n g e

6 1 6 ,7 8 8

5 6 6,03 6

5 1 6 ,1 0 7

+

+ 20

+ 24

N ew nan

+ 15
+ 4
+ 15

.

.

.

1 8 5 ,2 1 4

1 7 1 ,2 6 2

1 4 0 ,9 1 0

+

8

+31

+ 27

.

1 ,1 9 2 ,4 1 0

1 ,0 4 3 ,6 8 3

9 2 6 ,3 2 6

+ 14

+ 29

+ 22

7 7 ,2 9 3

6 9 ,5 8 7

6 2 ,1 3 0

+ 11

+ 24

+ 13

1 0 3 ,6 2 0

1 0 1 ,9 9 8

9 4 ,9 2 4

+

2

+

9

+14

5 4 ,1 31

5 2 ,8 2 7

4 6 ,1 6 7

+

2

+17

+ 13

.

.

1 2 9,76 7

1 3 3 ,0 0 5

1 2 2 ,5 6 9

-

2

+

6

+ 16

.

.

.

.

1 6 ,9 5 4

1 8 ,1 1 9

1 7 ,6 6 4

-

6

-

4

+ 11

.

.

2 6 1 ,7 9 7
.

.

8 7 ,2 8 3

+ 10

.

. . . .

.
.

.

. . . .

.

.

.

. . . .

.

P e n s a c o la

from
1 9 68

.

.

.

S e p t. O ct.
1 9 6 9 19 68

.

.

.

O c to b e r
19 68

.

.

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

S e p te m b e r
1969

.
.

M o n tg o m e ry

M o b ile

Year
to
d a te
10 m o s.

O cto b e r
1969
Fro m

.

.

.

9 1 ,8 4 5

8 7 ,5 8 5

7 9 ,6 2 3

+

5

+ 15

+ 11

.

.

4 2 ,3 4 4

4 0 ,8 3 2

3 8 ,4 2 6

+ 4

+10

+ 4

.

.

2 3 ,6 2 9

2 3 ,4 8 8

2 3 ,5 6 6

+

1

+

0

+ 11

-

8

-

7

. . . .
.

.

.

.

.

11 8 ,0 6 5

A tla n ta

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

.

A u g u s t a .....................
.

.

.

.

10 5 ,5 0 4

+

1

+ 12

+11

7 ,6 2 3 ,7 4 2

7 ,4 4 8 ,6 2 2

6 ,4 6 4 ,3 0 7

+

2

+ 18

3 1 8 ,8 6 3

+

8

3 0 0 ,9 6 8

2 6 0 ,2 3 4

+ 0

+

5

+ 16

-

3

+ 15

3 2 9 ,1 3 0

3 4 0,56 7

2 9 2 ,4 1 2

-

3

+ 13

+ 17

.

.

.

.

3 5 7 ,8 0 8

3 4 6 ,8 2 8

3 2 0 ,3 0 8

+ 3

+ 12

+ 10

B a to n R o u g e

.

.

.

7 2 0 ,7 7 9

7 2 1 ,8 7 8

6 1 0 ,8 2 1

L afay ette

.

.

.

1 7 2 ,2 5 0

1 6 5 ,8 1 7

1 5 0 ,3 6 8

+ 4

+ 15

+ 17

1 7 8,30 2

1 6 5,84 3

1 7 3 ,5 9 4

+

8

+

3

+

2 ,8 7 2 ,7 9 5

2 ,6 3 0 ,6 5 8

2 ,7 9 2 ,2 5 4

+

9

+

3

+ 4

M a co n

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

Savannah

.

. . . .

.

2 5 ,0 3 9

2 7 ,1 0 4

2 6 ,7 8 7

.

9 8 ,7 7 9

9 3 ,9 4 6

8 6 ,2 2 5

+

5

+ 15

+ 11

.

.

6 4 ,2 4 7

6 8 ,3 4 0 r

5 6 ,2 2 6

-

6

+ 14

+

7

-

9

-

2

+ 20

3 0 9 ,7 8 6

3 0 1 ,1 1 7

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

1 1 6 ,9 5 9

3 3 5 ,9 5 3

A lb a n y

C o lu m b u s

9

.
.

W. P a lm B e a c h

V a ld o s ta
A b b e v ille

0

+ 18

+

6
7

.

.

.

B u n k ie

.

.

.

.

1 4 ,0 9 2

1 5 ,0 22

1 3 ,3 3 2

6

+

6

+

.

A le x a n d r ia

.

.

.

.

1 7 3 ,1 4 9

1 5 7 ,6 3 7

1 6 4 ,5 6 6

+ 10

+

5

+ 18

.

.

9 ,7 4 9

7 ,5 6 2

7 ,7 7 2

+ 29

+25

+16

. . . .

.

.

.

4 6 ,0 3 0

4 2 ,3 3 4

4 1 ,6 5 6

+

9

+ 11

+ 11

.

.

4 4 ,5 7 8

4 0 ,2 2 9

3 9 ,7 3 6

+ 11

+12

+ 10

.

.

.

1 4 ,8 78

1 4 ,2 75

13 ,5 88

+ 4

+

+

.

.

.

.

2 4 ,9 9 6

2 6 ,9 4 8

2 4 ,9 93

-

7

+

.

P la q u e m in e
T h ib o d a u x

.
.

.

.

Ib e ria

.
.

H am m ond
New

-

.

.

.

.

8 2 ,8 2 8

8 4 ,9 2 9

7 0 ,2 8 9

-

2

+ 18

+ 17

.

.

5 6 ,2 6 8

5 1 ,2 1 6

4 3 ,7 0 5

+ 10

+ 29

+ 19

0

8

+ 10

L a k e C h a r le s

.

.

.

N ew O r le a n s

.

.

.

.

.

1 7 9 ,8 7 6

15 6,57 3

1 2 7 ,8 1 2

+ 15

+41

+ 17

M e rid ia n

. . . .

.

.

9 5 ,4 9 8

8 9 ,5 3 5

7 6 ,3 6 2

+

+ 25

+24

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

9 3 4 ,4 9 2

9 0 4 ,5 4 8

7 8 5 ,5 2 5

+ 3

+ 19

+ 13

N a tc h e z

. . . .

.

.

4 6 ,9 9 7

4 6 ,9 6 0

4 3 ,8 8 5

+ 0

+

+ 12
+23

B ilo x i-G u lfp o rt
Jackso n

.

H a ttie sb u rg

L a u r e l .....................

7

.

.

.

8 3 6 ,0 9 6

8 0 5 ,8 2 6

6 8 4 ,0 2 2

+ 4

+22

+ 20

P a s c a g o u la —
M o ss P o in t .

.

.

.

9 1 ,1 9 4

8 4 ,2 3 2

7 6 ,1 0 2

+

8

+ 20

K n o x v ille

.

.

.

.

6 2 1 ,0 9 6

5 9 7 ,8 2 6

5 6 3 ,5 7 9

+ 4

+ 10

+ 10

V ic k s b u r g

.

.

.

.

.

5 1 ,4 4 6

4 8 ,2 4 6

4 5 ,3 0 7

+

7

+ 14

+

6

N a s h v ille

.

.

.

.

2 ,0 1 9 ,1 1 7

1 ,8 5 9 ,6 2 3

2 ,0 9 2 ,7 5 6

+

-

4

+ 16

Y a z o o C ity

.

.

.

.

.

2 8 ,7 2 3

3 2 ,1 5 5

2 8 ,6 1 7

-1 1

+

-

4

.

.

8 4 ,6 0 6

7 1 ,2 5 8

7 7 ,6 8 0

+ 19

+

9

+

C h a tta n o o g a

.

9

B r is to l

JTH ER C E N T E R S
.

.

6

.

.

9 8 ,7 7 3

9 8 ,6 3 4

8 7 ,4 6 9

+ 0

+13

+14

.

.

.

.

1 0 8 ,6 2 5

1 0 3 ,1 9 9

9 1 ,8 4 0

+ 5

+ 18

+ 16

.

.

.

.

1 8 8 ,9 4 9

1 7 6,735

1 8 2 ,2 1 4

+ 7

+

4

+ 10

.

. 4 3 ,5 0 9 ,0 7 7

3 7 ,5 2 6 ,5 9 4

+ 9

+ 16

+ 15

.

.

5 ,0 5 5 ,9 5 2

4 ,7 3 6 ,7 6 5

4 ,7 6 2 ,8 2 3

+

7

+ 6

+ 8

.

. 1 3 ,8 1 4 ,2 4 2

1 2 ,4 7 4 ,2 0 7

1 1 ,4 3 4 ,6 5 6

+ 11

+ 21

+ 19

.

. 1 2 ,2 5 5 ,0 0 5

l l, 1 8 4 ,5 9 4 r

9 ,9 1 9 ,9 2 0

+ 10

+24

+17

4 ,6 4 3 ,6 3 7

4 ,6 7 7 ,1 2 3

+ 7

+

6

+ 7

. . . .

J o h n so n C it y
A n n isto n

K in g s p o rt

.

D o th an

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

9 3 ,2 2 6

8 6 ,6 1 1

8 1 ,2 7 6

+

+ 15

+ 17

S e lm a

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

5 7 ,4 8 5

5 2 ,0 2 4

5 8 ,2 0 0

+ 10

-

1

+

B a rto w

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

3 5 ,5 5 9

3 4 ,1 1 9

3 3 ,2 3 9

+ 4

+

7

+ 10

A lab a m a^

.

9 8 ,2 8 0

9 4 ,7 7 7

8 7 ,2 8 3

+ 4

+ 13

+ 17

F lo rid a^

. . . .

+

-

. . . .

B ra d e n to n

.

.

.

8

6

S IX T H D IS T R IC T
TOTAL
.....................
.

■ .

.

.

2 2 3 ,5 9 9

2 0 9 ,5 2 2

2 4 1 ,3 6 8

D a yto n a B e a c h

.

.

1 1 4 ,1 4 2

9 3 ,3 9 9

9 7 ,4 8 8

F t. M y e rs —
N. F t . M y ers

.

.

1 2 8,13 2

1 2 1,08 7

1 0 3 ,1 2 2

‘ Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state.

DigitizedCfor FRASER9
D E E M B E R 196


-

2

G eorgia^

+ 22

+ 17

+

5

L o u is ia n a t *

•

■ .

M i s s is s ip p i! *

B re v a rd C o u n ty

.

.

+

+ 24

+31

.

7

6

7

fpartially estimated.

T e n n e sse e t*

.

4 0 ,0 2 6 ,8 2 7 r

.

4 ,9 6 8 ,3 6 0

.

.

2 ,0 3 4 ,5 4 2

1 ,9 6 5 ,0 7 8

1 ,7 0 1 ,4 2 2

+ 4

+ 20

+ 14

.

.

5 ,3 8 0 ,9 7 6

5 ,0 2 2 ,5 4 6

5 ,0 3 0 ,6 5 0

+

+

+17

7

7

JEsti mated.

159

D is tric t B u s in e s s C o n d it io n s

R e c e n t e c o n o m ic in d ic a t o r s in th e D is t r ic t s h o w c o m p a r a tiv e ly little c h a n g e . N o n f a r m e m p lo y m e n t in
O c to b e r w a s e s s e n t ia lly

u n c h a n g e d , a lth o u g h

m a n u f a c t u r in g p a y r o lls

h ib ite d o n ly s lig h t g a in s . Lo w e r fa r m p ro d u c t io n a n d

p r ic e s

in d ic a te

in c r e a se d .
s h a r p ly

C o n s u m e r c re d it ex­

red uce d

in c o m e s a re

p r o s p e c t fo r m o s t c ro p fa r m e r s. L e n d in g a c t iv it y a t m e m b e r b a n k s slo w e d c o n s id e r a b ly
r e f le c t in g

a

d e c lin e

in

le n d in g

at

the

la rge

ban ks.

T o ta l

c o n s t r u c t io n

c o n tr a c t

in

in

N o vem ber,

v o lu m e

c o n tin u e d

to in c r e a s e d u r in g O c to b e r.
L o a n s a n d in v e s t m e n ts a t m e m b e r b a n k s w ere
v irtu a lly u n c h a n g e d

in

O c to b e r a n d

in the

fir s t

h a lf o f N o v e m b e r. Loan growth nearly offset sales
of investments. After a large expansion in Octo­
ber, the large banks have curtailed their business
loans during the first three weeks of November.
Total deposits at all member banks increased
after declining in October.
E x t e n s io n s o f n e w c o n s u m e r in s t a lm e n t c re d it
a t c o m m e r c ia l b a n k s in c r e a s e d s lig h t ly in O c to b e r
b u t r e m a in e d

b e lo w

the y e a r-a g o

fig u r e

fo r th e

Automobile loans ac­
counted for most of the increase, whereas other
loan categories decreased or exhibited minor
gains.
s e c o n d c o n s e c u t iv e m o n th .

in cotton and citrus outweighed increases in
prices of vegetables. Lower broiler and beef cattle
prices were mainly responsible for the reduction
in livestock prices.
M a n u f a c t u r in g

e m p lo y m e n t

in

O ctob e r

w as

a b o u t th e s a m e a s in S e p te m b e r , b u t fa c to r y p a y ­
r o lls in c r e a s e d . Other nonfarm employment also
remained unchanged. With accelerated layoffs at
the Kennedy Space Center and departures of
idled workers to seek employment elsewhere, the
labor force of Brevard County, Florida, di­
minished. The departures, however, were not
enough to prevent a significant rise in the unem­
ployment rate there over last year.

p ro d u c tio n

F lo r id a ’s b o o m c o n t in u e d to p u s h th e D is t r ic t 's

low er, m o s t D is t r ic t f a r m e r s fa c e a s iz a b le r e d u c ­

to ta l c o n s t r u c t io n c o n tr a c t v o lu m e to n e w h ig h s .

tio n in c a s h r e c e ip ts.
The large reduction ex­
pected in the District’s com crop indicates a
significant shrinkage in locally produced feed
supplies for District livestock. Soybean produc­
tion is up but not enough to counteract the
depressing effect of the lower soybean support
price on farm incomes. Total farm prices in Oc­
tober continued to decline. Prices of crops as
well as livestock moved lower. Price declines

Through the first ten months in 1969, total
volume was higher than during the same period
in 1968. Residential building contracts, supported
by the continuing heavy volume of large projects
in Florida, were also up for the same period
but to a lesser extent. Meanwhile, the pull of
high yields on Aaa corporate securities and other
direct investments increased the pressure on the
District’s savings institutions.

W ith

NOTE:

c o tto n ,

rice ,

and

su garcan e

D ata on w h ic h s ta te m e n ts are b a se d have been a d ju ste d w h e n e v e r p o s s ib le to e lim in a te s e a s o n a l in flu e n c e s.


160


M O N T H L Y R E V IE W