View original document

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

Atlanta, Georgia
February • 1961

The First Year
Income Developments in the Southeast in I960

Also in this issue:
BORROWING BY
DISTRICT BUSINESSES
DECLINES
DISTRICT BUSINESS
CONDITIONS
SIXTH DISTRICT
STATISTICS
SIXTH DISTRICT
INDEXES

SfeH iraf
fysem
jS H a ta



Whether 196 0 technically marked the end of an old, or the beginning
of a new, decade is a moot point. But, to most of us it marked the
beginning of a new ten-year span of history to be unfolded, if for no
other reason than that for the first time we began to write a six mther
than a five and would continue doing so for ten years.
Thus, 196 0 seemed an appropriate time to take stock of what had
been accomplished in the last ten years, economically speaking, and
to speculate about the changes *hat might lie ahead in the next ten.
For southerners, it was a time u look back with satisfaction at past
accomplishments, because we had come closer to solving our longrange economic problem of raising per capita income nearer to the
national average. It was also a time to anticipate a bright future, for if
this trend were to continue, the problem, of course, would be even
nearer to a solution at the end of the 1 9 6 0 ’s.
So far as this part of the South is concerned, in 1 9 6 0 as a whole,
the pattern of income growth set in the 1 9 5 0 ’s was continued. In each
of the six states lying wholly or partly within the Sixth Federal Reserve
District, total personal income rose from 1959 to 1960, according to
preliminary estimates prepared by this Bank. This area, including
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee,
holds over 55 percent of the Southeast’s population. For the six states
as a whole, total income rose between 4 and 5 percent, or something
like 3 percent in terms of dollars of constant purchasing power.
Moreover, since income expanded faster than population, per capita
income continued to grow. For the six states, per capita income in 1960
was 2 to 3 percent greater than in 1959, or about one percent in
constant dollars.
But, 196 0 was disappointing to those who hoped that the end of the
year would find the South’s per capita income a little closer to the
national average. Instead, this part of the South fell back a step, or at
least paused, on the road toward reaching its ultimate goal of income
equality. Although per capita income in Alabama, Georgia, and
Louisiana apparently did draw nearer the national figure in 1960, ac­
cording to preliminary estimates, income for the six states was 72.7
percent of the national average, compared to 73.1 percent in 1959.
Per capita income increased, but it did not increase enough.
These preliminary estimates will undoubtedly be revised when official
figures are issued late this year. (The 74-percent ratio of 1959 District
per capita income to the national average, published in this Review
for February 1960, was later reduced to 73.1 percent.) Nevertheless,
the available evidence seems firm enough to indicate that in 1960, the
Sixth District as a whole made little, if any, advance in catching up
with the rest of the nation.

Personal Income/ 1930-60
D istrict S ta te s a n d U n ited S ta te s

District States
Percent, U. S. Per Capita

In 1960, to tal p e rso n a l incom e co n tin ued to g ro w in D istrict
sta te s. But sin ce th e r a te of g ro w th w a s le ss th a n th e
n a tio n 's, p er c a p ita in co m e, a s a p ercen t o f th e n a tio n 's,
w a s lo w e r th an in 1959.

Sources of Income, District States
P erce n t C h a n g e , 1960 from 1959
P e rc e n t C hange, I9 6 0 fro m
2
- 0 +
2

1959, C u rre n t D o llars
4
.6

Manufacturing
Mining (incl. Crude Oil)
Construction
Transportation, Communication,
8 Public Utilities
Finance, Insurance, 8 Real F.state
Government
Service
Trade
Other Income

Lo w e r incom e from a g ric u ltu re , red uced co n stru ction , an d
m o d e ra tio n in m a n u fa ctu rin g e x p a n s io n e x p la in m ost of th e
D istrict's slo w e r incom e g ro w th in 1960.

Personal Income
D istrict S ta te s a n d U n ited S ta tes
P erce n t In c re a s e , 1960 from 1959
P ercen t In c re a se , I9 6 0 from 1959, C urrent D o llars

District States
Tennessee
Louisiana
Mississippi

P e rso n a l incom e in each D istrict sta te ro se in 1 960, but in
m ost D istrict sta te s th e ra te of in c re a se fe ll b eh in d th e
n a tio n a l r a te , acco rd in g to p re lim in a r y e stim a te s.




District Reflects National Changes
In view of current national developments and past ex­
perience, this 1 9 6 0 performance should not have been
surprising. Because a vigorous and expanding national
economy provides more economic opportunities for em­
ploying the South’s manpower and resources, the South
expands most when the nation’s economy is growing.
Some slowing down in the District’s long-run economic
growth, thus, could be expected to come with a slowing
down in the nation’s.
During the latter part of 1 9 6 0 , the nation’s overall
economic growth slowed down and in some sectors
stopped altogether. The effects of the national slow­
down were reflected in reduced demands for some of the
manufactured products in which the South specializes.
By the end of 1 960, for example, the District’s textile
mills were employing 3.6 percent fewer workers than
during the May manufacturing peak, apparel employment
was down 5 .4 percent, and lumber employment fell 4.7
percent. Loss of employment in these extremely important
industries more than offset gains in others. As a result,
total manufacturing employment at the end of 1 9 6 0 was
4.3 percent lower than in May.
Although farm cash receipts in Alabama and Georgia
were greater in 196 0 than in 1 9 5 9 , farm income develop­
ments in the other states brought cash receipts for the
District as a whole in 1 9 6 0 to a figure below the preceding
year’s.
Total business expenditures for new plants and equip­
ment dropped off throughout the United States in the
third and fourth quarters of 1960. In the Sixth District,
this national development in 1 9 6 0 was reflected in a 12percent reduction from 195 9 in the dollar value of con­
struction contracts awarded for nonresidential construc­
tion. Contract awards for residential construction for the
District were 13 percent lower. Because a number of
large projects started in 1959 are still underway, however,
construction employment has declined only slightly.
Despite close ties between the growth of the national
economy and that of the South, southerners have gen­
erally found their area less affected by recessionary de­
velopments than have other parts of the country. The
recession starting in the latter part of 1 9 5 7 , for example,
reduced the rate of income growth less in the District
than in the nation. During the course of the recession,
total nonfarm employment in the District dropped 1.8
percent from its 195 7 peak to the low point in 1 958. For
the nation the comparable drop was 4 .6 percent.
The District may not be comparing so favorably with
the rest of the nation during the current contraction,
however. Although declines so far have been mild, com­
parisons of data on nonfarm employment, manufacturing
employment, construction contract awards, spending, and
other economic measures suggest an economic contraction
slightly greater in this area than in the nation. From its
July peak to December 1 960, total nonfarm employ­
ment for the District had declined 2 .0 percent, after
taking account of seasonal influences, whereas the com­
parable decline for the nation was 1.7 percent. It is
too early to make final judgment, of course, but current
•2 •

Nonfarm Employment in Recession and Recovery
D istrict States and United States
Percent

Percent

necessary adjustments, we realize that economic oppor­
tunities attract financial resources.
During the 1 9 5 0 ’s, those areas of this part of the South
where population growth was the greatest were also
areas where total income expanded the most. We could
easily presume that in areas where growth in income was
slow, it was kept down by lack of population growth. But,
when we remember that people move freely from place to
place in this country, and when we examine closely the
nature of population changes, we realize that people are
attracted to an area with economic opportunities.
Changes in the District’s farming, as noted in an early
196 0 issue of the Review, for example, reduced economic
opportunities for using labor productively on the farm.
Off the farm, opportunities for using labor both within
and outside the District developed. This largely explains
the one-percent decline in rural population and the 50percent increase in urban population in the District from
195 0 to 1960.

Economic Opportunities Missed?

In previous postwar recessions, the District's nonfarm
employment declined less than the nation's, in the current
contraction, the decline has fallow ed *ho national pattern.

data suggest that past economic growth has not insulated
this part of the South from the effects of recessionary
developments.

Economic Opportunities Seized
Two general conclusions can be reached from an analysis
of southern economic growth in the 1 9 5 0 ’s, some aspects
of which were discussed in articles appearing in this R e­
view during 1960. First, income expanded because both
national and regional developments created economic
opportunities for a more productive use of the South’s
resources and manpower. Second, within the South were
found both the ability and willingness to seize these
opportunities and make the needed changes. Some op­
portunities were created by economic forces beyond the
control of southerners; others were of southerners’ own
creation.
Income grew more rapidly in areas within this part of
the South where capital investment and financial re­
sources expanded most rapidly. From this we could easily
be led to believe that a shortage of investment funds,
rather than lack of economic opportunities, limited income
growth elsewhere. But, when we remember the free flow
of funds from area to area, the large amounts of funds
that actually were transferred into the expanding areas,
and the willingness of financial institutions to make



Although changes in capital investment and population
in any area measure, indirectly at least, economic oppor­
tunities that have been recognized in the area, there is
no measure of the opportunities that have been missed.
Was it an absence of potential economic opportunities,
or the failure of local businessmen and other leaders to
recognize them and take appropriate action, that explains
the loss of population and the failure to attract capital in
some areas? Were economic opportunities missed because
potential investors found absence of local leadership or
unwillingness to change? Were opportunities missed be­
cause there were no men in the community who were will­
ing to risk their capital? Or were they missed because the
labor force lacked industrial skills and adaptability?
We cannot find answers to these questions in the
statistics ordinarily used to measure economic changes.
Perhaps the missed economic opportunities cannot be
measured at all. But when southerners recognize that op­
portunities may be missed and take corrective action,
they become, in part at least, masters of their own eco­
nomic destiny. We may presume that the Southeast will
share once more in the economic growth when the nation’s
economy recovers, but southerners themselves will de­
termine how great their share will be.
C h arles T . T aylor

*

*

*

Some of the economic implications of the changes in
population in this part of the South that are revealed
by recent data from the decennial census will be dis­
cussed in future issues of this Review. We will seek
answers to such questions as: To what extent are popu­
lation changes symptomatic of income growth? What
patterns of economic adjustments accompany population
changes? What have been the implications of population
changes to housing, to the pattern of retail distribution,
and to the burden of municipal services?
•

3 •

Borrowing by Distri

ig by District Businesses

Businessmen throughout this part of the South are now
in the process of adjusting their credit needs to a lower
level of activity. In many instances, “adjusting credit
needs” means lowering them— but not always. And all
of the businessmen who reduce credit demands may not
do so in the same way. Our task, therefore, is to probe
beneath the surface of aggregate credit demands and focus
on a few of the myriad changes that have taken place.
Specifically, we shall try to provide some insight into
changes in business credit by type of credit, by kind of
business, and by region, and to relate these changes to
variations in economic activity.

Corporate O fferings

■

;'

I

Chonge in Business Loons

B u sin esse s h e a d q u a rte re d in D istrict sta te s offered a sm a lle r
v o lu m e o f se c u ritie s fo r s a le in 1960 th a n in 1 959, an d
ou tsta n d in g b u sin ess lo a n s a t D istrict b a n k s in cre a se d m o re
slo w ly .

Total Manufacturing and Mining

Textiles, Apparel, and Leather
Metals and Metal Products
Petroleum, Coal, etc

Wholesale
Retail
Commodity Dealer;
Public U tilitie:
Construction

B a n k lo a n s to m ost ty p e s of b u sin e sse s e x p a n d e d less in the
second h a lf o f 19 60 th a n in th a t p e rio d o f 1 959; lo a n s to
m a n u fa ctu rin g a n d m in ing co n cern s w e r e p a rt ic u la r ly w e a k .

M illio n s o f s b ttq #

M illio n s o f D o llo rs

—

200

Public U tilities

V//A

Other

Business Activity and Credit Demands
Business activity, an important determinant of the demand
for new credit, has edged downward since last summer
in states lying wholly or partly in the Sixth. District—
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Tennessee. The gradualness of the decline is reflected in
a drop in total nonfarm employment of only 2 percent
from its July peak through December 1960. A breakdown
of total nonfarm employment, however, reveals that de­
clines in some sectors of the economy have been more
severe.
The manufacturing and construction industries appear
to have borne the brunt of economic contraction in the
District, as brought out in “The First Year,” also appear­
ing in this Review. Manufacturing employment in the
District reached its peak in May 1960, and from that
date declined 4 percent through December 1960. Total
construction activity, measured by the value of construc­
tion contracts, declined 27 percent from its March 1959
peak through November.
As a rule, we would expect to find demands for credit
weakest in those businesses or industries where produc­
tion and employment are down the most. Thus, last year’s
declines in manufacturing and construction activity should
show up in reduced demands by these industries for both
short- and long-term credit.

i Manufacturing

Demand for Short-term Credit W eakens

In 1 960, d e clin e s in se c u rity o fferin g s b y m an u factu rii
co rp o ra tio n s a n d b y t ra d e , fin a n ce a n d o th e r firm s mo
th a n offset a n in c re a se b y p ub lic u tilit y co m p a n ies.

* Estimates of securities offered by corporations headquartered in
District states were compiled from data published by The Security and
Exchange Commission and The Investment Dealers Digest. Estimates
of changes in business loans were based on data obtained from weekly
reporting member banks in major District cities.




Throughout much of 1960, production outpaced final de­
mand for such items as automobiles, household appli­
ances, television sets, and farm equipment. As a result,
businessmen in these lines concluded that their inven­
tories were too high and took steps to reduce them. The
change in inventory policy— from accumulation to liqui­
dation— contributed to production declines, particularly
in the durable manufacturing industries. These reduc­
tions in sales and production are mirrored in the slow­
down in business borrowing from District banks.
During the second half of 1960, for example, outstand­
ing business loans made by weekly reporting banks in
major District cities to manufacturing and mining con­
cerns declined $8 million, compared with an increase of
•4 •

usinesses Declines
$ 1 2 .8 million in the same period a year earlier. Loans to
businesses engaged in construction activity also weakened
during the second half of last year. Of all of the business
categories for which loan data are available, only food,
liquor, and tobacco manufacturers showed much strength,
but not enough to boost total business loans above those
of the second half of 1959. Total business loans increased
only $23 million in the second half of 1960, compared
with $ 7 0 million in the same period a year earlier.
As loan demands of all types leveled off early last year,
interest rates eased. The Federal Reserve, beginning late
in March 1960, moved to a policy of less credit restraint.
Since that date, the System has helped to foster further
credit ease by reducing discount rates to member banks,
engaging in open market operations to expand bank re­
serves, and lowering reserve requirements. The impact
of these actions is strikingly apparent in the reserve posi­
tion of District member banks. In early 1 9 6 0 borrowings
by member banks from the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank
exceeded excess reserves by $ 86 million, but early this
year the reverse situation prevailed and excess reserves
were $67 million greater than borrowing.

Demand for Long-term Credit Also W eakens
With industrial production in the nation declining
throughout the second half of last year and plant capac­
ity ample, some businessmen began to cut back their
plans to build new plants and modernize equipment. As
a result, spending for plants and equipment turned down
Interest Rates
U n ited S ta te s, 1956-60
Percent

Percent

securities by businesses headquartered in District states
declined 13 percent from 1959 to 1960, to a level of
$46 5 million. The difference in movement between the
volume of securities offered in District states and in the
nation may be explained in part by differences in spend­
ing for plant construction, measured by the value of nonresidential construction contracts. In 1960, for example,
the value of such contracts declined 14 percent in the
District, but increased 10 percent in the nation.
Our compilations of security offerings include only firms
headquartered in the South and therefore do not measure
the total amount of capital financing required by all busi­
nesses located in District states. Still, they provide clues
to the regional demand pattern for long-term business
funds. The decline of approximately $ 7 0 million in secu­
rity offerings by corporations headquartered in District
states, for instance, may be traced to variations in offer­
ings by type of industry, as well as to changes in the types
of securities offered for sale.
Companies in trade, finance, and other businesses, as
well as manufacturing concerns, for example, accounted
for most of the decline in the volume of corporate secu­
rities offered last year. Total issues of these corporations
declined about $ 1 0 0 million. Manufacturing concerns
alone accounted for $ 3 0 million of this amount. The de­
clines in these sectors more than offset a slight increase
in the offerings of public utility companies.
The pattern of borrowing by type of business is even
more striking when viewed in percentage terms. The
security offerings of manufacturing firms in District states
declined 76 percent from 1959 to 1960, in contrast to a
13-percent increase in the offerings of public utility com­
panies.
With stock prices edging down throughout much of last
year and interest rates on bonds declining, corporations
headquartered in District states sharply reduced their sales
of common and preferred stock, but increased slightly
the amount of bonds issued. In 1960, for example, stock
sales amounted to $77 million, compared with $ 1 5 7 mil­
lion in 1959. Bond issues, however, totaled $ 3 8 8 million
last year, up slightly from 1959.

Cost of Borrowing Declines

The d e clin e in th e d e m a n d fo r b u sin e ss cre d it, a lo n g w ith
an in c re a se in the a v a ila b ilit y of fu n d s, h as re su lte d in
lo w e r in te re st ra te s.

after the middle of last year, even though expenditures
for the entire year totaled $ 3 5 .7 billion, higher than in
1959.
Also, corporate offerings of securities (stocks and
bonds) for new capital in the nation increased 3 percent
from 1959 to 1960. In contrast, corporate offerings of



The tapering off of business credit demands, along with
some increase in the availability of funds, has resulted in
lower interest rates for both long- and short-term credit.
National data indicate that all types of business interest
rates fell during 1960, but the drop was most apparent in
short-term market rates. Interest rates on 4 to 6-month
prime commercial paper, for example, declined from a
peak of 4.9 percent in January 196 0 to 3.3 percent in
November.
The rates banks in the District and in the nation charge
their business customers also have declined moderately
since last summer. Yields on outstanding corporate issues
declined from early 196 0 through August; since then,
yields turned up and then fluctuated irregularly at levels
above their summer lows.
A l f r e d P. J o h n s o n
•5 •

Bank Announcements

Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts
(In Thousands of Dollars)

O n January 1, three n o n m em b er ban ks began to rem it at
p a r fo r ch eck s draw n on th em w h en re ceived fro m the
F ederal R eserve B ank:
T he B ank o f H aw th o rn e, H a w th o rn e, F lorida. Officers
are F. D . W illiam s, Sr., C hairm an o f the B oard; C olo n el
T. A . H an cock, P residen t; John J. T aylor, E x ecu tive V ice
P residen t and C ashier; a n d S. W . G o d w in , V ice P residen t.
C a p ita l tota ls $60,000, a n d su rplu s an d u n d ivid ed profits
$33,600.
T he C itizen s B an kin g C o m p a n y, H artw ell, G eorgia.
O fficers include A . F. Bell, C hairm an o f th e B oard; E . C.
G riffeth, P resident; A . C. S kelton , V ice P residen t; W . R .
P arker, E x ecu tive V ice P resid en t an d C ashier; Irene S.
D arrou gh, O pal H . H ern don , a n d Jam es E . W eaver, A s ­
sistan t C ashiers. C a p ita l tota ls $100,000, an d surplus and
u n d ivid ed profits $270,487.
T he A lexan dria B an k an d T ru st C o m p a n y, A lexan dria,
Tennessee, an d its branch, T he F irst T ru st C om p a n y,
D o w ellto w n , Tennessee. O fficers include S. S. C hapm an,
P resident; E . W . E vin s, V ice P residen t; D . W . E vins,
C ashier; B eulah A v a n t an d J. C . O akley, A ssista n t C ash­
iers. C a p ita l to ta ls $50,000, an d su rplu s $50,000.

Percent Change

Dec.
1960

Nov.
1960

Year-to-date
12 Months
Dec. 1960 from iq^o
Nov.
Dec.
from
Dec.
1960
1959
1959
1959

ALABAMA
Anniston . . . .
Birmingham . . .
Dothan . . . .
Gadsden . . . .
Huntsville* . . .
Mobile . . . .
Montgomery . . .
Selma* . . . .
Tuscaloosa* . . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiest . • .

45,384
853,713
38,668
37,322
77,872
326,232
175,772
28,558
55,807
1,639,328
764,969

41,308
815,829
35,845
36,487
80,650
306,712
173,880
29,856
56,588
1,577,155
800,042

44,515
858,255
35,440
37,587
73,920
321,214
178,023
27,943
54,814
1,631,711
779,776

+ 10
+5
+8
+2
—3
+6
+1
—4
—1
+4
—4

+2
—1
+9
—1
+5
+2
—1
+2
+2
+0
—2

+2
+5
+9
+2
+2
+4
—1
+5
+4
+4
+5

55,762
218,438
46,694
893,634
17,541
88,894
996,526
1,439,217
259,115
93,805
218,201
458,598
139,027
3,928,926
1,769,910

54,184
194,035
42,758
804,732
16,026
76,680
879,147
1,271,622
236,855
83,698
208,559
419,475
121,576
3,530,200
1,617,085

61,632
233,462
44,236
891,730
18,806
93,671
972,013
1,443,361
286,695
96,061
251,849
474,924
142,885
4,039,312
1,748,284

+3
+ 13
+9
+ 11
+9
+ 16
+ 13
+ 13
+9
+ 12
+5
+9
+ 14
+ 11
+9

— 10
—6
+6
+0
—7
—5
+3
—0
— 10
—2
— 13
—3
—3
—3
+1

—4
+0
+8
+5
—2
+5
+2
+1
+2
+0
—4
+1
—3
+1
+5

58,660
43,373
2,184,438
120,743
27,875
115,392
9,623
50,287
22,878
20,935
124,858
37,829
26,913
52,583
194,060
34,968
3,125,415
1,120,119

54,724
42,597
2,072,649
113,567
23,912
106,209
9,799
48,067
20,763
20,421
119,079
29,212
18,218
51,330
181,691
35,506
2,947,744
1,041,477

54,959
42,127
2,267,326
126,291
27,994
115,540
10,112
45,613
22,777
21,496
131,571
35,999
21,582
53,233
224,963
37,398
3,238,981
1,020,781

+7
+2
+5
+6
+ 17
+9
—2
+5
+ 10
+3
+5
+ 29
+ 48
+2
+7
—2
+6
+8

+7
+3
—4
—4
—0
—0
—5
+ 10
+0
—3
—5
+5
+ 25
—1
— 14
—6
—4
+ 10

+5
+7
+6
+5
+5
+3
+7
+2
+3
—2
+2
+2
+ 10
+9
—2
—1
+5
+ 10

71,591
276,174
68,042
83,709
1,453,053
1,952,569
723,244

69,419
255,750
61,484
77,302
1,344,534
1,808,489
638,292

74,621
288,176
69,840
90,224
1,444,636
1,967,497
683,147

+3
+8
+ 11
+8
+8
+8
+ 13

—4
—4
—3
—7
+1
—1
+6

—1
+0
—3
—9
+3
+2
+3

53,451
39,688
329,916
30,628
44,590
24,521
22,051
544,845
301,687

51,710
36,529
324,697
29,331
46,101
22,736
23,185
534,289
275,344

52,650
37,186
321,625
29,386
45,966
27,273
22,498
536,584
305,977

+3
+9
+2
+4
—3
+8
—5
+2
+ 10

+2
+7
+3
+4
—3
— 10
—2
+2
—1

+3
+6
+7
+4
—0
+1
+4
+5
+4

52,432
337,025
47,301
83,171
279,810
746,225
1,545,964
610,897

45,128
317,269
42,880
84,949
241,640
772,517
1,504,383
615,212

48,516
353,038
44,816
82,139
268,468
752,913
1,549,890
575,435

+ 16
+6
+ 10
—2
+ 16
—3
+3
—1

+8
—5
+6
+1
+4
—1
—0
+6

+4
—0
+4
+4
+5
+2
+2
+4

18,027,873
12,737,047
5,290,826
10,906,741

16,889,712
11,902,260
4,987,452
10,217,405

18,077,375
12,963,975
5,113,400
11,090,772

+7
+7
+6
+7

—0
—2
+3
—2

+4
+3
+5
+3

. . 257,022,000 235,158,000r261,121,000

+9

—2

+6

FLORIDA
Daytona Beach*
Fort Lauderdale* .
Gainesville*
. .
Jacksonville . . .
Key West* . . .
Lakeland* . . .
M iam i.......................
Greater Miami*
Orlando . . . .
Pensacola
. . .
St. Petersburg . .
Tampa
. . . .
W. Palm-PalmBch.*
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiest . • .
GEORGIA

O n January 2, T he F arm ers an d M erch a n ts B ank, Senoia,
G eorgia, a n o n m em b er bank, began to rem it a t par.
O fficers are R . W . F reem an, P residen t; J. D . H u n ter,
V ice P resident; and H a ttie S. W h a tley, C ashier. C apital
totals $25,000, and surplus an d u n d ivid ed profits $69,577.
F ive n ew ly o rgan ized n o n m em b er ban ks o p en ed fo r busi­
ness in January an d began to rem it a t par:
January 5: T he B ran don S ta te B ank, B randon,
O fficers are W arren M . C ason, P residen t; C . R .
E xecu tive V ice P resid en t an d C ashier; a n d Jesse
m ann, A ssista n t C ashier. C a p ita l to ta ls $150,000,
plu s and u n d ivid ed pro fits $150,000.

F lorida.
W estfall,
W . O rta n d sur­

January 5: T he A lle n S tate B ank, O akdale, Louisiana.
O fficers include W h eeler F uselier, P residen t, a n d C harles
C . D eR o u en , E x ecu tive V ice P resid en t an d C ashier. C apita l
totals $200,000, an d su rplu s an d u n d ivid ed p ro fits $100,000.
January 6: T he B ank o f W est O range, O coee, F lorida.
O fficers are E lm er G . Y o u n g b lo o d , P residen t, a n d R . E.
Jackson, E x ecu tive V ice P resid en t an d C ashier. C apital
totals $300,000, an d su rplu s an d u n d ivid ed p rofits $75,000.
January 11: T he L a u d erd a le B each B ank, L au derdaleby-the-Sea, F o rt L au derdale, F lorida. O fficers include
D a v e Turner, P resid en t; C harles C. B u rton , Jr., E x ecu tive
V ice P residen t an d C ashier; a n d F o rrest E . R o c k e tt, Jr.,
A ssistan t C ashier. C a p ita l to ta ls $400,000, an d surplus and
u n d ivid ed profits $250,000.
January 19: T h e A m eric a n B each B o u leva rd B ank, Jack­
son ville, F lorida. O fficers include: F rank W . Sherm an,
C hairm an o f the B oard; S teu art P. H ick s, P residen t; W .
G reg o ry S m ith , V ice P residen t; an d Jam es H . B urton,
C ashier. C a p ita l tota ls $300,000, a n d su rplu s a n d u n d ivid ed
p rofits $75,000.



Albany
. . . .
Athens* . . . .
Atlanta . . . .
Augusta . . . .
Brunswick . . .
Columbus
. . .
Elberton . . . .
Gainesville* . . .
Griffin* . . . .
LaGrange* . . .
Macon.......................
Marietta* . . .
Newnan . . . .
Rome*
. . . .
Savannah . . . .
Valdosta . . . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiest . . .
LOUISIANA
Alexandria* . . .
Baton Rouge
. .
Lafayette* . . .
Lake Charles
. .
New Orleans
. .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiest . . .
MISSISSIPPI
Biloxi-Gulfport* .
Hattiesburg . . .
Jackson . . . .
Laurel* . . . .
Meridian . . . .
Natchez*
. . .
Vicksburg
. . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiest . . .
TENNESSEE
Bristol* . . . .
Chattanooga
. .
Johnson City* . .
Kingsport* . . .
Knoxville
. . .
Nashville . . . .
Total Reporting Cities
Other Citiest . . .
SIXTH DISTRICT
Reporting Cities
Other Citiest .
Total, 32 Cities .

.
.
.

UNITED STATES
344 Cities

.

*Not included in total for 32 cities that are part of the National Bank Debit Series.
fEstimated.
r Revised.

•6 •

Sixth District Indexes
Seasonally Adjusted (1947-49 = 100)
1959
SIXTH DISTRICT
Nonfarm Employment....................... .
Manufacturing Employment . . .
A p p a re l........................................ .
C h e m ic a ls.........................................
Fabricated Metals
. . . . .
F o o d ....................................................
Lbr., Wood Prod., Fur. & Fix.
.
Paper & Allied Products
. . ,.
Primary M e t a l s ....................... .
T e x tile s ........................................ .
Transportation Equipment . . .
Nonmanufacturing Employment . .
Manufacturing Payrolls.............................
Cotton Consumption**............................ .
Electric Power Production** . . . .
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal
Louisiana & Mississippi** . . . .
Construction Contracts* . . . . .
Residential........................................ .
.
All O t h e r .......................
Farm Cash Receipts............................. .
Crops ................................................... .
Livestock
........................................ .
Department Store Sales*/** . . . .
Department Store Stocks*........................
Furniture Store Sales*/**
. . . .
Member Bank D e p o s its * ........................
Member Bank L o a n s * ............................ .
Bank D e b its*............................................. .
Turnover of Demand Deposits* . . .,
In Leading C itie s ..................................
Outside Leading C i t i e s .......................
ALABAMA
Nonfarm Em ploym ent........................
Manufacturing Employment . . .
Manufacturing Payrolls.......................
Department Store Sales** . . . .,
Furniture Store S a l e s .......................
Member Bank Deposits.......................
Member Bank Lo a ns.............................
Farm Cash R eceip ts............................ ,
Bank Debits
........................................
FLORIDA
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................
Manufacturing Employment . . .
Manufacturing Payrolls.......................
Department Store Sales** . . . ..
Furniture Store S a l e s .......................
Member Bank Deposits........................
Member Bank Lo a n s.............................
Farm Cash R eceip ts............................
Bank D e b i t s ........................................
GEORGIA
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................,
Manufacturing Employment . . .
Manufacturing Payrolls.......................
Department Store Sales** . . . .
Furniture Store S a l e s .......................
Member Bank Deposits.......................
Member Bank Lo a n s.............................
Farm Cash R eceip ts.............................
Bank Debits
.........................................
LOUISIANA
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................,
Manufacturing Employment . . ..
Manufacturing Payrolls........................
Department Store Sales*/** . . .
Furniture Store S a le s * .......................
Member Bank Deposits*
. . . .
Member Bank L o a n s * .......................
Farm Cash Receipts.............................
Bank D e b its * ........................................
MISSISSIPPI
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................
Manufacturing Employment . . ..
Manufacturing Payrolls........................
Department Store Sales*/** . . ..
Furniture Store S a le s * .......................
Member Bank Deposits*
. . . .
Member Bank L o a n s * .......................
Farm Cash Receipts.............................
Bank D e b its * ........................................
TENNESSEE
Nonfarm Em ploym ent.......................,
Manufacturing Employment . . .
Manufacturing Payrolls.......................
Department Store Sales*/** . . .
Furniture Store S a le s * .......................,
Member Bank Deposits*
. . . .
Member Bank L o a n s * .......................
Farm Cash R eceipts.............................
Bank D e b its * ........................................
*For Sixth District area only.

|

1960

NOV.

DEC.

JAN.

FEB.

MAR.

JULY

AUG.

SEPT.

OCT.

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

142
123
189
130
183
116
80
161
97
87
195
150
215
91
345r

142
123
191
132
185
113
80
160
103
87
199
149
220
91
345

142
124
192
132
191
117
80
166
101
87
209
150
222
95
358

142
124
190
133
193
117
80
165
100
87
208
150
218
95
375

142
124
191
132
190
115
79
164
95
88
206
149
214
94
387

143
125
194
135
188
116
79
166
98
87
210
151
223
95
363

143
126
195
135
192
117
79
167
99
87
211
151
227
94
366

143
125
195
136
194
116
79
165
99
87
206
150
230
93
375

143
125
197
135
194
116
78
166
97
88
200
151
234
93
382

143
124
192
135
195
117
78
164
95
87
202
151
226
90
385

143
124
189
129
190
120
77
164
87
86
203
151
219
85
373

142
122
183
128
186
119
77
162
93
86
208
151
218
83
372

142
121
184
128
185
117
76
162r
88
85r
187
150
215
83
369

141
120
184
130
186
116
75
161
89
84
193
149
214
79
n.a.

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

214
302
373
245
142
120
185
189
223
163
184
332
271
150
160
109

231
302
367
249
133
99
184
185
225
151
181
335
286
154
166
120

227
328
351
309
124
93
169
180
225
166
182
337
275
154
166
119

226
345
366
327
124
96
176
175
223
143
181
340
294
156
168
120

228
333
360
311
121
95
179
162
225
129
180
344
288
153
167
119

224
333
356
315
126
100
188
192
223
149
178
347
278
148
167
114

222
351
384
325
132
111
185
176
223
145
180
350
277
163
181
126

220
371
387
359
132
98
192
183
227
142
181
351
288
159
183
119

220
370
376
365
127
83
194
194
227
147
181
354
271
162
179
129

221
361
367
357
155
147
189
178
232
143
184
357
285
167
190
124

223
353
362
346
149
134
188
185
230
135
185
354
290
158
175
120

232
337
364
316
167
157
186
189
231
141
188
352
270
152
159
113

233
322
305
335
156
131
201
179
235r
140
190
350
288
153
162
111

248
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
187
228p
134 p
189
356
286
157
169
124

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

125
107
188
163
134
159
272
112
224

125
108
194
163
128
158
273
112
247

126
108
198
165
148
159
279
113
236

125
107
192
158
133
158
283
122
245

124
106
190
156
112
160
284
125
244

125
108
195
176
127
157
296
122
240

126
109
198
162
128
159
300
131
240

126
109
201
171
127
160
292
123
245

126
109
202
178
126
162
299
124
234

126
108
194
170
119
164
294
123
257

125
106
184
166
117
165
292
150
258

125
104
189
166
120
169
293
182
246

125
104
185
155
110
166
294
130
253

124
103
174
165
110
166
297
n.a.
246

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

199
203
371
265
203
245
547
190
414

197
201
374
257
195
241
548
201
424

197
204
366
250
189
242
546
231
391

197
204
364
240
174
237
550
206
423

197
202
352
245
157
234
546
171
410

199
205
372
274
181
230
553
217
387

201
209
389
260
175
235
554
225
404

202
211
392
264
167
238
559
187
443

204
213
409
277
167
239
563
204
399

203
214
406
263
203
244
571
270
437

203
213
394
256
172
245
562
248
426

202
210
402
261
156
248
559
212
411

200r
207
387
268
168
252
551
196
426

198
207
386
276
164
252
556
n.a.
418

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

136
120
208
176
157
163
266
134
244

136
121
210
172
150
158
267
153
261

137
122
216
172
149
161
269
130
254

136
122
211
164
127
161
271
134
265

135
122
205
156
120
158
268
146
254

138
122
215
170
142
157
271
153
254

137
122
223
169
132
161
275
144
257

136
122
221
164
135
160
277
150
269

136
121
226
175
134
157
278
125
258

135
120
216
159
137
166
285
215
264

135
120
211
168
134
167
287
160
279

135
119
208
172
144
170
287
204
255

135
117
203
158
138
171
292
120
263

134
117
202
164
136p
169
289
n.a.
262

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

130
94
168
158
195
160
309
127
216

130
93
168
155
184
158
311
112
238

131
94
173
155
188
161
312
90
207

131
95
173
150
192
159
316
90
224

130
95
176
147
172
160
335
94
244

131
95
179
156
176
163
332
89
233

131
95
178
152
175
161
338
101
233

130
95
178
161
184
161
333
119
253

130
95
177
159
203
160
334
102
225

130
94
178
152
145
158
334
91
238

130
94
174
148
161
163
328
113
259

130
94
170
151
159
159
326
115
219

128r
93
170
140
167
163
323
137
232

128
92
171
155
172
165
328
n.a.
240

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

136
134
242
160
117
204
392
145
237

135
135
244
169
133
208
403
128
252

138
135
253
161
106
200
414
92
226

137
134
247
154
99
202
422
91
244

136
133
254
155
94
205
418
115
246

137
134
249
169
100
199
422
101
236

137
135
244
154
113
198
433
105
222

136
134
256
175
107
195
438
97
243

136
133
253
175
112
196
449
104
241

135
132
247
153
100
193
431
98
254

136
131
235
149
95
194
440
121
251

136
130
239
158
84
205
425
141
240

136
131
236
151
101
203
427
162
257

135
130
237
164
124p
212
453
n.a.
254

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

124
123
212
163
102
167
292
119
237

124
123
214
157
109
164
296
116
232

124
124
219
154
104
166
296
88
235

124
123
219
145
95
161
300
90
252

123
123
208
137
98
161
303
86
242

126
124
225
159
103
163
304
100
236

125
124
223
146
111
165
310
95
247

125
124
223
155
107
167
313
102
245

126
125
225
167
93
169
316
109
236

125
124
224
151
98
167
316
113
245

125
124
217
157
96
166
310
106
242

124
122
214
164
101
172
312
122
226

124
120r
211
156
98
171
312
143
248

122
120
210
157
96
169
327
n.a.
236

Other totals for entire six states.

n.a. Not Available.

APR.

MAY

p Preliminary

JUNE

NOV.

DEC.

r Revised.

**D aily average basis.
Sources: Nonfarm and mfg. emp. and payrolls, state depts. of labor; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau
of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank.




•7 •

D IS T R IC T

I II 1I I I I I

1 9 4 7 - 4 9 “ IOO
Seasonally A djusted

B U S IN E S S

C O N D IT IO N S

| I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <* I I
1
I
'
I
I
______________

----------------- -141




D

istrict economic activity in late 1960 and e a rly 1961 has fallen off
further. Nonfarm employment, the most comprehensive regional measure

available, declined again in December, after seasonal adjustment. A downward
drift in the number of employed workers has been underway since July.
Although not uniform from state to state, declines appeared during December
in nonfarm employment in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missis­
sippi, and Tennessee.
So fa r, the recession has rem ained m ild, although important in­
dicators suggest that business in the District is down slightly more
than nationally.

^

is

The chief sector curtailing District em ploym ent in December w as,
just as in previous months, manufacturing. Notably, textile, lumber, paper,

and food processing employment declined. As a result, factory payrolls were
further reduced.
Along with a cutback in the number of w orkers em ployed, some
industrial activity has been curtailed. Cotton consumption, a measure of

textile output, declined in December. It has been in a downtrend since last
April. Steel mill operations in the first three weeks of January, though slightly
higher than in December, were still at a sharply reduced level.
Except in manufacturing, em ploym ent cutbacks in the District w ere
sm all in December. The number of Government workers continued to grow

steadily.
Those who looked for a pickup in construction to help stem the
business contraction w ere disappointed. District construction employ­

ment, seasonally adjusted, declined further in December. The three-month
average of construction contracts, a valuable indicator of activity in coming
months, dropped again in November.
Consumers evidently have not reduced their spending v e ry much,
but there is no clear indication of the direction that consumer buying
is taking. Department store sales showed a larger-than-usual increase in the

Christmas month. Preliminary figures for January show a mild decline in most
areas. Declines in Florida and Tennessee caused December furniture store
sales to slip to the lowest level since last March. Meanwhile, household
appliance store sales increased less than is typical for December.
is
At this time of y e a r, farm activity is typ ically slow . The most notable
farm news is that prices received by farmers in December were no longer
rising, partly because of a cut in Florida vegetable prices. Rising prices in
previous months kept District farm receipts in 1 9 6 0 near year-ago levels. Thus,
farmers did nearly as well as in 1959, although their costs were up somewhat.
Banks in the District have clearly responded to recent Federal Re­
serve actions. Bank credit in December expanded, as banks helped by funds

released by System actions added to their investment portfolios. Following
a prolonged period of slackness, loans moved up more than is typical for
December. Business borrowing, however, was not responsible for this increase,
and there are indications that the cost of borrowing by businesses has changed
little.