The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
In t h i s i s s u e : The Mississippi Economy: Problems and Prospects Banking Notes: Another Record Year for CD's Board of Directors District Business Conditions T h P r o e M b i s s i s s i p p i l e m s a n d P E c o n o m r o s p y : e c t s by William N. Cox, III The M ississipp i e c o n o m y e n te re d 1974 fo llo w in g successive years o f b o o m and pause. H e r g ro w th o u tp a c e d th e n a tio n 's in 1972, b u t it d ro p p e d w e ll b e lo w th e U. S. pace in 1973. In general, M ississip p i's e c o n o m ic fo rtu n e s have b ro a d ly p a ra lle le d th e Southeast's p a tte rn .1 Personal in c o m e and n o n fa rm e m p lo y m e n t, th e m o st re lia b le b ro a d measures o f state e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity , e v id e n c e th e p a tte rn . T he yea r 1972 was o n e o f stro n g g ro w th , w h e n M ississip p i's 1 3 -p e rc e n t p e rson al in c o m e gain fa r exceeded th e n a tio n 's 9 p e rc e n t and w h e n h e r 4 -p e rc e n t n o n fa rm e m p lo y m e n t gain s lig h tly surpassed th e 3 -p e rc e n t gain p o ste d b y th e n a tio n . But in 1973 the tables tu rn e d : M ississip p i's pe rson al in c o m e increase cam e n o w h e re near th e n a tio n 's 11 p e rce n t, and th e state's increase in n o n fa rm e m p lo y m e n t, a lth o u g h re p e a tin g its 1972 p e rfo rm a n c e , fa ile d to m atch th e n a tio n 's 5 -p e rc e n t gain. N evertheless, M ississip p i's u n e m p lo y m e n t rate d ro p p e d ste a d ily th ro u g h o u t the tw o -y e a r p e rio d ; e x p e rie n c e d w o rk e rs have been in sh o rt s u p p ly in m o st M ississip p i la b o r m arkets. Several s p e c ific sectors, h o w e ve r, b u c k e d th e tre n d and im p ro v e d fro m 1972 to 1973. Both ba nk de po sits and loans exp a n d e d a b o u t 25 p e rc e n t faster. Bank d e b its, a h y b rid in d ic a to r re fle c tin g b o th e c o n o m ic and b a n k in g a c tiv ity , increased at the same 1 5 -p e rc e n t rate in b o th years. R etail sales and sales tax rece ip ts b o th g a in ed m o re in 1973 than in 1972, a lth o u g h th is was a ttrib u ta b le to p rice acce le ra tio n . O n th e m in u s side, 1973's steep d ro p in h o m e b u ild in g d e a lt a sharp setback to M ississip p i's lu m b e r and fu rn itu re in d u strie s. T e x tile and ap pa rel m a n u fa ctu re rs s tru g g le d w ith shortages and high costs. C o tto n p la n tin g s w e re h it by s p rin g flo o d s in th e D e lta ; liv e s to c k p ro d u c e rs c u t b a ck in response to high fee d costs and in te re s t rates. These d iffic u ltie s w e re o ffse t, h o w e v e r, ' " T h e S o u t h e a s t i n 1 9 7 3 : R a p i d G r o w t h b u t B e h i n d U . S . P a c e , " t h i s Review, J a n u a r y 1 9 7 4 . Note: This is one of a series of articles in which economic developments in each of the Sixth District states are discussed. M o n th ly R e vie w , Vol. LIX, No. 2. Free subscription and additional copies available upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. F E B R U A R Y 1974, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W by re co rd cro p and liv e s to c k prices and by a strong increase in soybean p ro d u c tio n . As a result, farm cash rece ip ts rose d ra m a tic a lly fro m 1972 to 1973. A N e w C h allen ge In o u r 1969 and 1972 surveys, w e e m p ha sized h o w th e n a tu re o f M ississipp i's e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t p ro b le m had ch a n g e d .2 Earlier, th e p ro b le m had been to p ro v id e e n o u g h n o n fa rm jo b s to o ffs e t a ra p id d e c lin e in a g ric u ltu ra l e m p lo y m e n t. That ch a lle n g e has been m e t: T oda y n in e o u t o f ten M ississipp ia ns live and w o rk o ff th e fa rm and o n ly 4 p e rc e n t o f th e m are u n e m p lo y e d . W ith th is success, th e focu s has sh ifte d fro m th e q u a n tity to th e q u a lity o f jo b s. The p ro b le m n o w is to replace lo w e r-p a y in g n o n fa rm jo b s w ith n e w e m p lo y m e n t e m b o d y in g h ig h e r pay, skills and p ro d u c tiv ity . If M ississipp i is to m o ve fro m her sp o t on th e b o tto m run g o f th e n a tio n 's p e r ca p ita in c o m e la dd er, she m u st d o it by u p g ra d in g n o n fa rm jo bs. W ill M ississipp i be successful in m e e tin g her n e w challenge? Since the n a ture o f th e p ro b le m has cha ng ed , w e m ig h t be skep tical o f basing c o n c lu s io n s a b o u t the fu tu re on e x tra p o la tio n s o f past gains. As an a lte rn a tiv e a p p ro a ch , le t us instead lo o k at th e state's e c o n o m ic s tru c tu re and analyze w h a t resources and advantages are ava ila ble o r in p ro sp e ct. In a sense, w e w a n t to in v e n to ry som e o f M ississip p i's s tru c tu ra l pro spe cts fo r h ig h e r-p a y in g n o n fa rm jobs. T o m b ig b e e lin k u p n o w u n d e r c o n s tru c tio n . A s im ila r p a tte rn is a p p a re n t on th e G u lf Coast. N e w O rlea ns and M o b ile stra d d le M ississipp i's sm a lle r p o rts o f B ilo xi, G u lfp o rt, and Pascagoula. M ississippi fish e rm e n p ly the same w a te rs as Louisiana's, A la ba m a's, and F lorida's b u t fro m fe w e r m iles o f co a stlin e . M ississipp i's coastal to u ris t centers face d ire c t c o m p e titio n fro m N e w O rleans, M o b ile , and the G u lf Coast o f F lorida. P o p u la tio n centers are im p o rta n t to any state's in c o m e le vel, n o t o n ly because h ig h e r-p a y in g jo b s are alrea dy c o n c e n tra te d th e re b u t also because o f the p o te n tia l fo r h ig h e r-q u a lity e m p lo y m e n t in the fo rm o f s k ille d la b o r po ols, sp e cia lize d te c h n ic a l and fin a n c ia l expertise, c o n v e n ie n t tra n s p o rta tio n and c o m m u n ic a tio n s fa c ilitie s , and sh o p p in g , e d u c a tio n a l, and re cre a tio n a l a ttra ctio n s. Here, to o , M ississipp i is "s a n d w ic h e d b e tw e e n ." If her p o litic a l b o u n d a rie s had been d ra w n 50 m iles o u tw a rd in any d ire c tio n o f the com pass, M ississipp i w o u ld the n in c lu d e a m e tro p o lita n area larger than any w ith in the state. She is lo ca te d b e tw e e n N e w O rlea ns on th e so u th , Baton Rouge on th e w est, M e m p h is on th e n o rth , and M o b ile on the east. S u rro u n d e d as it is, w h a t s tru c tu ra l advantages does M ississipp i b rin g to th e c o m p e titio n fo r h ig h e r-p a y in g jobs? Let us assess th e prospects, fo c u s in g on th e G u lf C oast b e fo re su rve yin g th e rest o f th e state. T he G u lf Coast S a n d w ich e d B etw een . . . B e g in n in g such an in v e n to ry , on e is stru ck by the w ay M ississipp i is sa n d w ich e d b e tw e e n m o re ric h ly e n d o w e d o r m o re h ig h ly d e v e lo p e d areas. This is im p o rta n t n o t ju s t fo r c o m p a ris o n 's sake, b u t because it is p rim a rily these areas w ith w h ic h M ississipp i m ust co m p e te fo r h ig h e r-p a y in g jo b s. M ississipp i is "s a n d w ic h e d b e tw e e n " in term s o f n a tural resource e n d o w m e n ts — b e tw e e n the o il, gas, and s u lp h u r o f Louisiana on the w e st and the coal, iro n , and lim e s to n e o f A la ba m a on the east. M ississipp i has no resource e n d o w m e n t o f s im ila r im p o rta n c e . She does have the soil o f the D e lta and th e tim b e r o f th e eastern Piney W o o d s, b u t even so, M ississipp i's tim b e r is no b e tte r than A la ba m a's. M o s t o f th e storage, processing, and fin a n c in g o f D e lta a g ric u ltu ra l p ro d u c ts takes place in M e m p h is o r N e w O rlea ns, tw o citie s w h ic h d o m in a te th e c o m m e rce o f th e so u th e rn M ississippi River. To th e n o rth , th e Tennessee River tra ffic by-passes th e M a g n o lia State, a lth o u g h its n o rth e a ste rn edge m ay b e n e fit fro m the Tennessee- - " M i s s i s s i p p i N o n f a r m J o b s in t h e S ix tie s : A S n e a k P r e v i e w , " th is Review, N o v e m b e r 1 9 6 9 ; " M i s s i s s i p p i i n 1 9 7 2 , " t h i s Review, S ep tem b er 1972. FEDERAL RESERVE B A N K O F ATLA N TA The G u lf Coast jo in s Jackson as o n e o f M ississipp i's tw o foca l p o in ts o f g ro w th and d e v e lo p m e n t. A q u a rte r o f a m illio n p e o p le live in th e th re e coastal co u n tie s o f M ississip p i, c o m p ris in g o n e -e ig h th o f the state's p o p u la tio n and e a rn in g o n e-se venth o f he r in co m e . O n th e average, th e in com e s o f M ississipp i's coastal in h a b ita n ts are 20 p e rce n t h ig h e r than in the rest o f th e state. E co n o m ica lly and c u ltu ra lly , th e G u lf Coast's ties run east and w e st to M o b ile and N e w O rlea ns rathe r than n o rth to th e rest o f M ississipp i. H er in d u strie s resem ble the a d jo in in g coastal areas o f A la ba m a and Louisiana. T he charts illu s tra te q u ite c le a rly b o th th e east-w est s im ila ritie s and the n o rth -s o u th d iffe re n ce s in the in co m e , p o v e rty and e d u c a tio n o f M ississip p i's coastal residents c o m p a re d to th e ir ne ig h b o rs. T o u rism , fis h in g , and s h ip b u ild in g have been the key in d u strie s p ro d u c in g the g ro w th and a fflu e n c e o f M ississip p i's coastal e co n o m y. W h e n w e lo o k b e yo n d th e nu m b e rs at the s tru c tu re o f each o f these in d u strie s, h o w e ve r, w e fin d ro o m to q u e s tio n w h e th e r th e y can c o n tin u e to spark th e pace o f e c o n o m ic g ro w th . T o u rism presents m ixe d prospects. O n the plus side, re cre a tio n and travel s h o u ld c o n tin u e to expand ra p id ly d e sp ite h ig h e r gasoline prices and 19 T h e b le C O A S T A L t h e ir r e c tly to th e M is s is s ip p i . C O U N T IE S A la b a m a a n d e a st a n d n e ig h b o r s . . in . . . . te rm s P E R . . o f w e st to of th e m o re n o rth re se m n e ig h b o r s th a n . . d i t h e ir . E D U C A T IO N , C A P IT A a n d M is s is s ip p i L o u is ia n a IN C O M E , P O V E R T Y . A b o v e t h e a v e r a g e o f a ll M i s s is s i p p i c o u n t i e s B e lo w t h e a v e r a g e o f a ll M i s s is s i p p i c o u n t i e s * * * S o u rc e : 1 9 6 9 C ou n ty d a ta on (1) M ed ian y e a r s of sc h o o l c o m p le te d by m a le s 25 an d ov er, (2) P e r c a p ita in c o m e o f p e rs o n s , an d (3) P e rc e n t of p e r s o n s with in c o m e g r e a te r th an th e p o v erty level, fro m G e n e ra l S o c ia l an d E c o n o m ic C h a r a c te r is tic s fo r M is s is s ip p i, A la b a m a , an d L o u isia n a , B u r e a u of th e C e n s u s , 1970. lo w e r speed lim its . M o s t o f the coast's to u ris t fa c ilitie s are n e w and m o d e rn , thanks in p a rt to re b u ild in g fro m 1969's h u rric a n e dam age. The O ffs h o re Islands N a tio n a l Seashore and th e B iloxi C o lise u m , b o th u n d e r d e v e lo p m e n t, w ill m ake coastal to u ris m and c o n v e n tio n s m o re a ttra ctive . T here is a d a rk c lo u d o ve rh e a d , h o w e ve r, in th e p ro sp e ct o f th e coastal in te rs ta te h ig h w a y, w h ic h w ill b rin g tw o d is tin c t ne g a tive effects. First, it w ill m ake th e b e tte r-e s ta b lis h e d re cre a tio n and e n te r ta in m e n t fa c ilitie s in F lorida, N e w O rle a n s, and M o b ile m o re accessible to tho se w h o n o w p a tro n iz e c o m p e titiv e fa c ilitie s on th e M ississipp i coast. Second, it w ill d isp la ce th e e a st-w est to u ris t tra ffic fro m fo u r ho urs on th e c ro w d e d coastal road to tw o hours on th e in te rsta te h ig h w a y several m iles in la n d . U n d e rs ta n d a b ly , c o m p le tio n o f this h ig h w a y has rece ive d a lo w p rio rity , e sp e cia lly in v ie w o f th e p o s itiv e e c o n o m ic s tim u lu s such roads can b rin g to o th e r parts o f th e state. The coastal fis h in g in d u s try , in co n tra st, sh o u ld e n c o u n te r no d iffic u lty in s e llin g all the p ro d u c t it can catch and process. The d o m in a n t catch is m e n ha den , used to m ake in d u s tria l o ils and an im a l feed. Here, as in th e case o f e d ib le fish and sh e llfish , th e lim ita tio n is in th e su p p ly. T he G u lf w aters are b e in g fu lly fish e d fo r m ost va rie tie s and th e re is no means at hand fo r e xp a n d in g th e catch. C o m p a re d to o th e r A tla n tic C oast fisheries, M ississipp i does have an advantage, h o w e v e r, fo r it is less v u ln e ra b le to the effe cts o f red tid e and w a te r p o llu tio n . S till, fis h in g and fish pro cessing c a n n o t be c o u n te d on to c o n trib u te v ig o ro u s n e w g ro w th to th e coastal e c o n o m y . The s h ip b u ild in g in d u s try , c o n c e n tra te d in th e Ingalls yard at Pascagoula, has been th e d o m in a n t stim u lu s to e c o n o m ic e xp an sion on th e state's eastern coast d u rin g th e past fiv e years. T he th ru s t o f this a c tiv ity is ove r, h o w e v e r, n o w th a t s h ip b u ild in g e m p lo y m e n t has s ta b iliz e d . S econdary effects o f the Ingalls e xp an sion are s till b e in g fe lt, ne vertheless, as local retail and h o u sin g m arkets c o n tin u e to re ca p tu re som e o f th e business th a t in itia lly s p ille d o v e r in to the M o b ile area. T h o u g h th e p rim a ry b o o m is o v e r and d e sp ite the w e ll-p u b lic iz e d cost and q u a lity d iffic u ltie s at the Pascagoula sh ip ya rd , d e v e lo p m e n t th e re has u n q u e s tio n a b ly d e m o n s tra te d th a t u n s k ille d M ississipp i w o rke rs can be q u ic k ly tra in e d and u tiliz e d in h ig h -te c h n o lo g y jo b s. This m ay w e ll be the m ost im p o rta n t re su lt o f th e s h ip b u ild in g b o o m . Even as th e coastal in te rs ta te h ig h w a y disloca tes the to u ris t in d u s try , it w ill e n ha nce the coast's attractive ness as an in d u s tria l cen ter. It is in th is d ire c tio n th a t th e coast's e c o n o m ic s tru c tu re p o in ts w ith th e m ost p ro m ise . Prospects Elsewhere Jackson, th e state's m o st u rb a n iz e d area w ith its 20 F E B R U A R Y 1974, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W c o n v e n ie n t tra n s p o rta tio n and fin a n c ia l fa c ilitie s , is th e c e n te r fo r g o v e rn m e n ta l a c tiv ity and retail trade. T he c ity 's p o o l o f s k ille d la b o r and standard o f liv in g rank ahead o f th e G u lf Coast as th e best in th e state. For these reasons Jackson is m ost a ttra c tiv e fo r th e lo c a tio n o f branch o ffice s, d is trib u tio n centers, and lig h t m a n u fa c tu rin g . Such in d u strie s e n a b le d Jackson to d o u b le its personal in c o m e d u rin g th e 1960's, and th e y fo rm a base fo r fu rth e r g ro w th . Jackson's h a n d ica p , h o w e ve r, is th a t m ost o f the advantages she boasts, re la tive to th e rest o f M ississip p i, are in tu rn surpassed by several larger citie s in th e Southeast. The c a p ita l city's rece nt g ro w th refle cts th e sta te w id e s h ift o f jo b s fro m farm s to fa cto rie s and services. N o w th a t this s h ift is v ir tu a lly c o m p le te , Jackson faces the m o re d if f i c u lt task o f e x p a n d in g her m a rke t area in c o m p e titio n w ith N e w O rlea ns and M e m p h is . N evertheless, a lth o u g h hard pressed to m a in ta in he r g ro w th rate o r to im p ro v e th e q u a lity o f th e jo b s she offers, th e ca p ita l c ity 's c o n trib u tio n to M ississip p i's stan dard o f liv in g w ill co m e fro m o ffe rin g h ig h e rp a yin g n o n fa rm jo b s than those n o w a va ila ble in o th e r parts o f th e state. O th e r G ro w th C enters A sid e fro m th e tra d itio n a l g ro w th centers o f Jackson and th e G u lf Coast, w h a t a va ila b le re sources m ig h t e n ab le th e rest o f the state to c o m pete fo r h ig h e r-q u a lity jobs? T here appear to be th re e o th e r areas in M ississipp i w h ic h have lo c a liz e d advantages. First is the so -ca lle d Piney W o o d s area c e n te re d o n M e rid ia n , k n o w n fo r lu m b e r and fu rn itu re p ro d u c ts . A lth o u g h this in d u s try reflects th e v o la tility o f h o u sin g c o n s tru c tio n , n e ith e r the lo n g -ru n d e m a n d fo r such p ro d u c ts n o r th e a b ility o f th e area to s u p p ly the m is in d o u b t. This area possesses th e tim b e r resources, th e exp e rie n ce in lu m b e r processing and m o b ile h o m e c o n s tru c tio n , and th e h ig h w a y c o n n e c tio n s to b e co m e a ce n te r o f m o d u la r h o m e c o n s tru c tio n . N O W The second area, ly in g in th e rectan gle to th e n o rth o f th e first, w ill b e n e fit fro m th e TennesseeT o m b ig b e e w a te rw a y , s c h e d u le d fo r c o m p le tio n ten years fro m n o w . The w a te rw a y w ill p ro v id e a reg io n alrea dy blessed w ith cheap T V A e le c tric p o w e r w ith barge access to m id d le -w e s te rn m arkets fo r m a n u fa ctu re s and a g ric u ltu ra l p ro d u cts. O n e m ay w e ll ask, h o w e ve r, w h e th e r M ississipp i w ill c a p ita liz e o n th e n e w w a te rw a y any m o re than she has on th e M ississipp i River. The th ird area o f p ro m ise is th e M ississipp i D e lta sou th o f M e m p h is. Emphasis th e re is s h iftin g fro m c o tto n to soybeans, and th e b ig q u e s tio n is w h e th e r M ississipp i can a ttra c t soybean processing in d u strie s on he r side o f th e state line. (The la tte r tw o areas lie o u ts id e th e Sixth Federal Reserve D is tric t.) S cattered In d u s try Can S till C o n trib u te The areas m e n tio n e d are lik e ly to p ro v id e th e strong est c o m p o n e n ts o f M ississipp i's e c o n o m ic g ro w th d u rin g th e ne xt 20 years. N evertheless, it is a p p ro p ria te to ro u n d o u t o u r analysis by e m p h a siz in g th a t M ississipp i can b e n e fit m o re than any o th e r Sixth D is tric t state fro m th e c o n tin u e d at tra c tio n o f sm all se m is k ille d in du stries. The state's lo w in c o m e level results o n ly in p a rt fro m a sparsity o f h ig h ly d e v e lo p e d g ro w th centers. The le ss-de velo pe d areas are also p o o re r tha n s im ila r ones in n e ig h b o rin g states and can th e re fo re b e n e fit m o re fro m lo w e r-w a g e , lo w e r-s k ille d in du stries. E xclu ding th e Jackson and G u lf Coast areas, 87 p e rc e n t o f M ississip p i's co u n tie s re p o rte d a pe r ca p ita in c o m e b e lo w $2,000 in th e 1970 Census. The co m p a ra b le percentages w e re 57 p e rc e n t and 52 p e rc e n t in A la b a m a and G eorgia, resp ective ly. (A labam a's n o n m e tro p o lita n p e r ca p ita in c o m e is s lig h tly lo w e r than M ississipp i's, h o w e v e r; G eo rg ia 's is s ig n ific a n tly higher.) So th e a ttra c tio n o f sm all in d u strie s s till has a p a rt to p la y in M ississipp i's s tru g g le fo r h ig h e r incom es. ® A V A IL A B L E Bank Structure and Economic Change in the Southeast A collection of selected articles from the Monthly Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and other sources tracing the development of bank ing structure in response to major changes in the Southeast's economy and other studies dealing with the rapidly evolving banking structure in this region. Single copies available to individuals and banking and educational institutions from the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 FED ERAL RESERVE B A N K O F A T LA N TA 21 B A N K IN G S T A T IS T IC S Billion $ ■36 C R E D IT * -34 132 •30 '2 8 ■20 Net Demand ■14 16 ■10 Other Securities Savings U.S. Gov’t. Securities I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | 11 I I I J J DJ J DJ J 1972 19.73 LATEST MONTH PLOTTED: DECEMBER J I I I I I I 1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I I I | J 1974 DJ J 1972 DJ 1973 J 1974 ‘Figures are (or the las^Wednesday ol each month “ Daily average figures. SIXTH A DISTRICT n o t h e r BANKING R e c o r d N D TE5 Y e a r f o r C D 's Certificates of Deposit and Related Factors % B il. $ 1;L _ Rates \ / / / 10 — 3-mos. CD (Secondary Market) 9— 8 / — 76 —/ 5 \ f f f 3 -m o s. T rea s ~ 1111 I II ’73 N ote: 1 M i l l " ’74 B il. $ — Volume — 3.0 - 2.8 - - 2.6 — - 1 .4 - 2.4 — - 1 .2 - 2.2 - - 1 .0 - 2.0 - - 8 - 1 .8 - - 6 — / Large CD’s ’73 - l.S \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1~ ’74 R igh t h an d p a n e l— to p lin e, 23 la rg e D istrict b a n k s ; b o tto m lin e, D istrict re se rv e c ity b a n k s. 22 F E B R U A R Y 1974, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W For th e fo u rth c o n se cu tive year, th e v o lu m e o f la rg e -d e n o m in a tio n c e rtific a te s o f d e p o s it (CD's) was at re co rd levels in th e Sixth D is tric t. Reports fro m large D is tric t banks s h o w th a t th e v o lu m e o f these in s tru m e n ts o u ts ta n d in g at th e end o f 1973 reached $2,750 m illio n , a 5 8 -p e r-c e n t increase o ve r 1972. This g ro w th a cco u n te d fo r a lm o st 64 p e rce n t o f these banks' increase in to ta l tim e deposits. A lth o u g h th e D is tric t g ro w th rate o u ts trip p e d th a t o f the n a tio n as a w h o le , D is tric t C D v o lu m e re p re sented o n ly 4 p e rc e n t o f th e U. S. to ta l. M o re o v e r, a p p ro x im a te ly th re e -fo u rth s o f the D is tric t v o lu m e was c o n c e n tra te d at large banks in A tla n ta , N e w O rlea ns, and N a shville . C lo se r e x a m in a tio n reveals th a t 1973's to ta l in crease in C D v o lu m e hides th re e d is tin c t pa tte rns w h ic h are b ro a d ly s im ila r to those in the U. S. as a w h o le . D is tric t C D v o lu m e g re w s tro n g ly in the firs t e ig h t m o n th s and peaked in A ug ust. This was a p e rio d o f stro n g e c o n o m ic g ro w th (as in th e na tio n ) w h e n loan d e m a n d n o rm a lly increases. Loan d e m a n d at c o m m e rc ia l banks was fu rth e r b o o ste d by an un usu al d e v e lo p m e n t in th e m o n e y m arke t. The rate on c o m m e rc ia l p a p e r (sh o rt-te rm c o rp o ra te I.O .U .'s) exceeded th e p rim e rate charged by banks to large businesses, m a kin g banks a c o m p a ra tiv e ly c he ap er source o f c re d it fo r large business b o rro w ers. H o w e ve r, the g ro w th o f d e m a n d de po sits fe ll far s h o rt o f loan d e m a n d ; hence, banks so u g h t a d d i tio n a l sources o f funds. The M ay suspension o f R e g u la tio n Q ce ilin g s on C D 's m a tu rin g in 90 o r m o re days— such c e ilin g s fo r s h o rte r m a tu rity C D 's had been lifte d e a rlie r— en co u ra g e d banks to a cc o m m o d a te th e ir need fo r fu n d s by issuing C D 's. As the y ie ld o n C D 's rose re la tive to those on c o m p e tin g in stru m e n ts such as th re e -m o n th T reasury b ills , banks succeeded in a ttra c tin g lo a n a b le fu n d s on a large scale. In th e fa ll, th e C D g ro w th p a tte rn reversed as C D v o lu m e d e c lin e d . A s lo w e r g ro w th in loan d e m an d a tte n d e d a s lo w e r o v e ra ll e c o n o m ic g ro w th . M o re o v e r, by O c to b e r the c o m m e rc ia l pa p e r rate d ro p p e d , re tu rn in g to its m o re fa m ilia r re la tio n s h ip w ith th e p rim e rate. Thus, large business b o rro w e rs tu rn e d in cre a sin g ly to th e c o m m e rc ia l pa p e r m arket. L o w e r rates in the b o n d m arkets also led o th e r b o r row ers to rely less on ba nk le n d in g . Banks, th e n , had less need to raise fu n d s th ro u g h C D issue. T w o o th e r factors p ro m p te d th e actual ru n o ff w h ic h the n to o k place. First, th e m a rg ina l reserve re q u ire m e n ts on C D 's, w h ic h had been raised 3 p e rc e n t in M ay, w e re raised a n o th e r 3 p e rce n t in Septem ber. The second fa c to r is m o re c o m p lic a te d . W h e n banks exp ect in te re s t rates to fa ll, th e y ten d FE D E R A L RESERVE B A N K O F A T LA N T A P r im e vs. C o m m e r c ia l P a p e r R a te 1973-74 % 10 J M M J s N J ‘ C h arg e d by U .S. c o m m e r c ia l b a n k s to larg e b u s i n e s s e s . to seek sh o rte r-te rm sources o f fu n d s and to shun lo n g e r-te rm lia b ilitie s w h ic h w o u ld lo c k th e m in at high rates. A d e c lin e in th e average m a tu rity o f o u ts ta n d in g C D 's w o u ld be an in d ic a tio n o f such exp e cta tio n s, and th a t is in fa ct w h a t h a pp en ed. The average m a tu rity o f C D 's at D is tric t banks d e c lin e d fro m 2.9 m o n th s in A u g u st to 2.5 m o n th s in N o ve m b e r. Banks le t C D 's run o ff and fa vo re d the Federal fun ds m a rke t as a source o f lo a n a b le funds. The C D ru n o ff at large D is tric t banks c o n tin u e d th ro u g h the firs t h a lf o f D e cem b er. A t th a t tim e , loan g ro w th had slackened to a lm o st z e ro ; b u t b e cause de po sits had g ro w n even less, banks w ere still strapp ed fo r fun ds. F u rth e rm o re , in te re st rates had d e c lin e d less than m any had a n tic ip a te d . In p a rtic u la r, th o u g h th e C D rate d id d ro p , th e Fed eral fu n d s rate re m a in e d fa irly co n sta n t and above b o th the CD and p rim e rates in N o v e m b e r and D e cem b er. This m o tiv a te d banks to again s o lic it CD fu n d s, b e g in n in g in the second h a lf o f D e cem b er. A re g u la to ry change in D e ce m b e r lo w e rin g CD m arg ina l reserve re q u ire m e n ts by 3 p e rc e n t p ro v id e d a d d itio n a l in c e n tiv e fo r banks to re e n te r the m arke t as active issuers o f CD 's. W . F. M ackara 23 B o a r d F e d e ra l R e se rv e o f B an k D i r e c o f A tla n ta t o r s a n d B ra n c h e s Effective January 1 ,1 9 7 4 ATLANTA Class A 1 Jack P. Keith— 1974 President, First National Bank West Point, Georgia Sam I. Yarnell— 1975 Chairman, American National Bank & Trust Company Chattanooga, Tennessee + John T. O liver, Jr.— 1976 President, First National Bank Jasper, Alabama Class B2 + Ulysses V. G oodwyn— 1974 Executive Vice President, Southern Natural Resources, Inc. Birmingham, Alabama George W. Jenkins— 1975 Chairman, Publix Super Markets, Inc. Lakeland, Florida + Robert D. Hornbeck— 1976 Manager-Tennessee Operations, Alum inum Company o f America Alcoa, Tennessee Class C:i H. G. Pattillo (Chairman)— 1974 President, Pattillo Construction Company, Inc. Decatur, Georgia F. Evans Farwell— 1975 President, M illike n and Farwell, Inc. New Orleans, Louisiana + C lifford M. Kirtland, Jr. (Dep uty Chairman)— 1976 President, Cox Broadcasting Corporation Atlanta, Georgia MEMBER, FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL4 Lawrence A. Merrigan— 1974 President, The Bank of New Orleans and Trust Company New Orleans, Louisiana 1Member bank representatives elected by member banks 2Nonbankers elected by member banks Note: Expiration dates of terms occur on December 31 of the year beside each name. *Reappointed for three-year term 3Nonbankers appointed by Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System + New member 4Not a member of the Board of Directors tEffective February 8, 1974 24 F E B R U A R Y 1974, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W A p p o in t e d b y Fe d e ra l R e se rv e B a n k A p p o in t e d b y B o a rd o f G o v e rn o rs BIRMINGHAM BRANCH W illiam C. Bauer (Chairman)— 1974 President, South Central Bell Telephone Company Birmingham, Alabama + Frank P. Samford, Jr.— 1975 Chairman of the Board, Liberty National Life Insurance Company Birmingham, Alabama *David Mathews— 1976 President, University of Alabama University, Alabama W . Eugene Morgan— 1974 President, The First National Bank Huntsville, Alabama +John Alexander, jr.— 1975 President, City National Bank of Birmingham Birmingham, Alabama + Lawrence Harris— 1976 President, Slocomb National Bank Slocomb, Alabama 4-John Maples, Jr.— 1976 Executive Vice President, Union Bank & Trust Company Montgomery, Alabama JACKSONVILLE BRANCH Gert H. W . Schmidt (Chairman)— 1974 President, TeLeVision 12 of Jacksonville Jacksonville, Florida James E. Lyons— 1975 President, Lyons Industrial Corporation W inter Haven, Florida + Egbert R. Beall— 1976 President, Beall's Department Stores Bradenton, Florida Guy W. Botts— 1974 Vice Chairman, Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N. A. Jacksonville, Florida Michael J. Franco— 1975 Chairman, City National Bank of Miami M iam i, Florida + W illiam K. de Veer— 1976 President, First National Bank Palm Beach, Florida t Richard A. Cooper— 1976 Chairman, First National Bank of New Port Richey New Port Richey, Florida NASHVILLE BRANCH Edward J. Boling (Chairman)— 1974 President, The University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee John C. Tune— 1975 Partner, Butler, McHugh, Butler, Tune and Watts Nashville, Tennessee *James W . Long— 1976 Farmer Springfield, Tennessee W . Bryan W oodard— 1974 Chairman o f the Board, Kingsport National Bank Kingsport, Tennessee Robert E. Curry— 1975 President, First National Bank Pulaski, Tennessee + Fred R. Lawson— 1976 President, Blount National Bank Maryville, Tennessee + T . Scott Fillebrown, Jr.— 1976 President, First American National Bank Nashville, Tennessee NEW ORLEANS BRANCH Fred Adams, Jr.— 1974 President, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Jackson, Mississippi Edwin J. Caplan (Chairman)— 1975 President, Caplan's Men's Shops, Inc. Alexandria, Louisiana Vacancy FED ER A L RESERVE B A N K O F A T LA N TA Archie R. M cD onnell— 1974 President, The Citizens National Bank M eridian, Mississippi Ernest F. Ladd, Jr.— 1975 Chairman, Merchants National Bank M obile, Alabama + Charles W . McCoy— 1976 Chairman of the Board and President, Louisiana National Bank of Baton Rouge Baton Rouge, Louisiana + James H. Jones— 1976 Chairman and Chief Executive O fficer, First National Bank o f Commerce New Orleans, Louisiana S ix th D i s t r i c t S t a ti s ti c s Seasonally Adjusted (All data are indexes, unless indicated otherwise.) L atest Month One Month Ago Two Months Ago One Year Ago U nem ploym ent R ate (Percen t of Work F o r c e ) ................... Dec. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg. (Hrs.) . . . Dec. SIXTH DISTRICT INCOME AND SPENDING M anufacturing Payrolls ........................ Farm Cash R e c e i p t s ................................. C r o p s ......................................................... Livestock ................................................ Instalm ent Credit at B a n k s*.'1 (Mil. $) New Loans ................................................ Repaym ents ........................................... Dec. Nov. Nov. Nov. 170 185 216 185 172 201 191 222 170 188 129 276 159 148 164 164 Dec. Dec. 635 578 752r 628r 655 574 613 498.1 126.6 115.4 113.0 103.2 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .1 110.3 125.4 108.5 118.4 109.6 122.6 113.2 130.2 148.2 107.5 130.9 138.8 123.6 131.0 139.0 137.0 102.6 134.7 87.9 127.2 115.2 113.1 103.5 110.7 111.3 110.9 124.0 108.2 117.7 110.0 123.4 113.2 129.7 146.9 105.9 131.4 138.7 123.8 133.2 139.0 137.2 102.5 134.1 84.9 127.0 115.0 112.7 101.3 109.8 112.3 110.5 124.8 107.7 117.9 109.7 122.5 113.2 128.8 145.2 108.9 131.2 138.2 123.4 133.3 138.7 136.5 101.7 133.1 84.3 122.9 113.5 111.8 102.4 109.5 111.3 111.4 121.7 106.1 115.7 110.7 118.7 110.7 123.6 137.7 108.6 126.2 131.2 119.8 126.1 132.8 132.7 101.9 129.2 87.0 4.0 3.7 3 7 3.9 1.8 40.9 254 257 250 79 109 304 244 188 297 289 225 156 316 375 202 193 208 258 293 498 922 456 1.6 40.8 374 346 401 80 105 305 245 189 298 290 225 157 312 376 202 192 206 255 288 497 916 471 1.7 40.9 265 311 220 79 116 299 244 188 292 292 224 158 309 365 203 192 204 250 285 519 852 445 2.4 41.2 250 331 170 77 126 281 234 185 275 275 219 159 298 336 199 188 188 219 274 446 751 438 Dec. Dec. 257 243 253 238 248 235 207 192 Dec. Dec. Dec. 200 177 249 200 175 255r 199 177 247 179 159 209 INCOME M anufacturing P a y r o l l s ............................ Dec. Farm C ash R e c e i p t s ................................. Nov. 172 225 175 196 171 215 156 145 116.2 113.8 117.2 122.1 82.0 116.7 113.8 118.0 124.4 76.4 116.2 113.4 117.4 124.4 74.4 113.8 112.4 114.4 115.6 82.1 Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t ............................. Dec. M anufacturing ...................................... Dec. N ondurable G o o d s ............................. Dec. Dec. T e x t i l e s ........................................... Dec. Apparel ........................................... Dec. Dec. Printing and Publishing . . . Dec. C h e m i c a l s ...................................... Dec. Durable G o o d s ................................. Dec. Lbr., Wood Prods., Furn. & Fix. . Dec. Stone, Clay, and G la ss . . . . Dec. Primary M e t a l s ............................. Dec. Fabricated M e t a l s ........................ Dec. M a c h i n e r y ...................................... Dec. Transportation Equipm ent Dec. N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ................................. Dec. C o n s t r u c t i o n ................................. Dec. Transportation ............................. Dec. T r a d e ................................................ Dec. Fin., ins., and real e s t .................. Dec. S e r v i c e s ........................................... Dec. Federal G o v e r n m e n t................... Dec. Dec. S ta te and Local Governm ent Farm E m p lo y m e n t...................................... Dec. Unem ploym ent Rate (P ercent of Work F o r c e ) ................... Dec. Insured Unem ploym ent (P ercent of Cov. E m p . ) ........................ Dec. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg. (Hrs.) . . . Dec. Construction C o n t r a c t s * ........................ Dec. R e s i d e n t i a l ................................................ Dec. All o t h e r ..................................................... Dec. Cotton C o n s u m p t i o n * * ............................. Nov. Petroleum P r o d u c t i o n * * ........................ Dec. M anufacturing P r o d u c t i o n ................... Sept. Nondurable G o o d s .................................. Sept. Food ................................................ Sept. T e x t i l e s ........................................... Sept. Apparel ........................................... Sept. Paper ................................................ Sept. Printing and P ublishing . . . Sept. C h e m i c a l s ...................................... Sept. Durable G o o d s ...................................... Sept. Lum ber and W o o d ........................ Sept. Furniture and Fixtures . . . . Sept. Stone, Clay, and G la ss . . . . Sept. Primary M e t a l s ............................. Sept. F abricated M e t a l s ........................ Sept. N onelectrical Machinery . . . Sept. Electrical Machinery . . . . Sept. Transportation Equipm ent . . Sept. ALABAM A EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t ............................ M anufacturing ...................................... ............................ N on m an ufacturing C o n s t r u c t i o n ...................................... Farm E m p lo y m e n t...................................... 26 Month O ne M on th Ago Two M on th s Ago One Year Ago 4.1 40.9 3.8 41.5 4.1 41.1 4.4 40.9 235 194 230 237 192 228 228 194 215 197 174 179 179 182 179 217 178 252 164 177 142,7 122.3 146.6 184.8 94.8 144.0 123.2 148.0 187.6 96.6 144.4 122.7 148.6 187.9 91.6 136.2 117.3 139.8 170.4 94.8 3.4 41.0 3.0 290 228 285 281 232 302r 274 226 288 233 203 240 164 194 158 254 159 179 156 130 124.4 110.3 130.9 136.1 91.1 124.2 109.1 131.1 135.4 124.0 109.4 130.7 135.1 85.4 FINANCE AND BANKING M em ber Bank L o a n s ................................. Dec. M ember Bank D e p o s i t s ........................Dec. Bank D e b i t s * * ........................................... Dec. F L O R ID A INCOME EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTION FINANCE AND BANKING L o an s* All M ember B a n k s ................................. Large B an ks ........................................... D ep osits* All M em ber B a n k s ................................. Large B an ks ........................................... Bank D e b its */* * ...................................... L a te st M anufacturing Payrolls ........................Dec. Farm C ash R e c e i p t s ..................................Nov. EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm E m p l o y m e n t .............................Dec. M anufacturing .......................................Dec. N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ..................................Dec. C o n s t r u c t i o n .......................................Dec. Farm E m p lo y m e n t.......................................Dec. Unem ploym ent Rate (P ercent of Work F o r c e ) ................... Dec. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg. (Hrs.) . . . Dec. 3.1 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ..................................Dec. Member Bank D e p o s i t s .............................Dec. Bank D e b i t s * * ........................................... Dec. GEORGIA INCOME ........................Dec. M anufacturing Payrolls Farm C ash R e c e i p t s ..................................Nov. EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm E m p l o y m e n t .............................Dec. M anufacturing ...................................... Dec. N onm an ufacturing .............................Dec. C o n s t r u c t i o n ...................................... Dec. Farm Em ploym ent ..................................Dec. U nem ploym ent Rate (Percen t of Work F o r c e ) ................... Dec. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg. (Hrs.) . . . Dec. 4.5 40.7 120.8 109.1 126.1 126.7 93.7 3.9 3.7 41.3 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ..................................Dec. Member Bank D e p o s i t s ........................ Dec. Bank D e b i t s * * ........................................... Dec. 251 180 268 253 174 280 251 181 282 197 163 230 149 204 222 147 153 188 147 160 114.5 104.2 116.7 114.2 104.0 116.3 95.0 79.3 112.5 103.6 114.3 98.1 81.9 6.3 5.9 LOUISIANA INCOME M anufacturing Payrolls ........................Dec. Farm C ash R e c e i p t s ..................................Nov. EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Em ploym ent . . . . . . Dec. M anufacturing ...................................... Dec. N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ..................................Dec. C o n s t r u c t i o n ................................. Dec. Farm E m p lo y m e n t.......................................Dec. U nem ploym ent Rate (P ercent of Work F o r c e ) ................... Dec. Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg. (Hrs.) . . . Dec. 114.7 105.0 116.7 99.2 81.9 5.9 41.0 FINANCE AND BANKING 231 176 197 227 175 188r 226 174 193 180 160 171 INCOME M anufacturing P a y r o l l s ........................Dec. Farm C ash R e c e i p t s ..................................Nov. 192 174 190 171 189 154 168 127 EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Em ploym ent ........................ Dec. M a n u f a c t u r i n g .......................................Dec. N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ..................................Dec. C o n s t r u c t i o n .......................................Dec. Farm E m p lo y m e n t.......................................Dec. 125.4 128.0 124.2 113.6 79.5 124.2 127.5 122.7 114.6 79.9 123.7 126.9 122.3 116.5 84.1 119.0 125.4 119.2 113.9 78.3 M ember Bank L o a n s * .............................Dec. M ember Bank D e p o s i t s * ........................Dec. Bank D e b i t s * / * * ........................................... Dec. M ISSISSIPPI Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. F E B R U A R Y 1974, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W One M on th Ago L a te st M o n t h Tw o M on th s Ago One Year A go L a te st M o n t h One M on th Ago Tw o M onths A go O ne Year Ago EM PLO Y M EN T U n e m p lo y m e n t Rate (P e rc e n t of W o rk F o r c e ) .............. Dec. Avg. W e e kly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) . . . Dec. 3.9 40.5 125.1 116.2 130.0 128.7 90.1 125.2 116.4 130.1 124.3 90.1 Dec. Dec. 3.1 41.0 3.0 40.8 41.0 3.3 40.7 M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * ......................Dec. M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * .................. Dec. B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ................................ Dec. 2 45 192 223 239 189 2 15 233 189 194 201 171 175 E m p lo y m e n t F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G 261 209 213 M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * ......................Dec. M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * .................. Dec. B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ................................ Dec. 250 209 221 244 209 213 2 06 176 191 12 2 .1 Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. N o n fa rm U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te (P e rc e n t of W o rk Fo rce) . . Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg. (H rs.) 124.7 116.3 129.4 115.6 125.8 123.4 85.7 12 2 .2 89.0 2.8 T EN N ESSEE F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G IN C O M E 178 M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o l l s ......................Dec. F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ......................... Nov. 202 177 180 162 20 6 176 185 * F o r S ix t h D ist ric t are a only; o the r to ta ls fo r en tire six sta te s " D a i l y av e ra g e b a s is t P r e lim in a r y data r-R e v ise d N.A. N o t a v a ila b le Note: Indexes for bank debits, construction contracts, cotton consumption, employment, farm cash receipts, loans, petroleum production, and payrolls: 1967 = 100. All other indexes: 1957-59 s s 100. S o u rc e s : M a n u f a c t u r in g p ro d u ctio n e stim a te d by t h is B a n k ; non farm , m fg. a n d non m fg. em p., m fg. p a y ro lls a n d hou rs, a n d unem p., U .S. Dept, of L a b o r a n d c o o p e ra tin g state a g e n c ie s; cotto n c o n su m p t io n , U.S. B u re a u of C e n s u s; c o n stru c tio n c on trac ts, F. W. D o d g e Div., M c G ra w -H ill In fo rm a tio n S y s t e m s Co.; petrol, prod., U.S. B u re a u of M in e s; fa rm c a sh re c e ip ts a n d fa rm emp., U.S.D.A. O th er in d e x e s b a se d on data colle c te d b y t h is B a n k . All in d e x e s c a lc u la te d b y t h is B an k . 'D a t a b e n c h m a rk e d to J u n e 1971 R e p ort of C o n d itio n D e b i ts t o D e m a n d D e p o s i t A c c o u n t s Insured Commercial Banks in the Sixth District _________________________ (In Thousands of Dollars)________________________ Percent Change Decem ber 197 3 Novem ber 197 3 Decem ber 197 2 Year to Decem ber date 1 97 3 1 2 m os. fro m 197 3 Nov. Dec. fro m 197 3 197 2 1 97 2 S T A N D A R D M E T R O P O L IT A N S T A T IS T I C A L A R E A S * * B ir m in g h a m . . . G adsden . . . H u n t sv ille . . . M o b ile .............. M o n t g o m e ry . . T u s c a lo o sa . . . 3,748,576 101,390 325 ,753 1,119,324 6 4 2 ,458 220 ,203 2,957,432 90,5 00 28 4 ,712 9 0 3 ,794 552,763 169,375 + 9 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 31 + 16 + 19 +27 + 17 + 18 +22 +21 + 32 + 29 828,757 383 ,893 751,337 381,573 704,472 310 ,088 + 10 + 1 + 18 + 24 + 23 + 25 + 16 - 5 + 14 18 26 36 30 + + + + 14 36 25 26 26 26 +21 + 12 B a rto w -L a ke la n d W in te r H aven D ay to n a B e a c h Ft. Lau d e rd a le H olly w ood Ft. M y e r s . . . . G a in e s v ille . . . J a c k s o n v ille . . . M e lb o u rn e T itu sv ille -C o c o a .............. M ia m i O rla n d o . . . . P e n s a c o la . . . . S a ra so ta T a lla h a s se e . . T a m p a -St. Pete W. P a lm B e a c h 1,983,822 348 ,645 29 1 ,469 4,255,061 1,704,767 3 6 7 ,904 2 5 4 ,869 4 ,72 9,169 1,674,233 2 7 7 ,104 214 ,895 3,275,363 -1 0 + + + + 567 ,030 7,369,847 1,636,562 42 8 ,969 574 ,906 6 7 2 ,009 4.154,749 1,305,171 530,087 6,995,300 1,443,162 4 1 8 ,157 473 ,808 783 ,044 4,07 5,416 1,212,070 40 8 ,358 6,496,434 1,370,059 374 ,764 4 3 1 ,794 557,437 3 ,437,938 1,025,086 + 7 + 5 + 13 + 3 + 21 -1 4 + 2 + 8 + 39 + 13 + 19 + 14 + 33 + 21 + 21 + 27 + + + + + + + + A l b a n y .............. A tla n ta . . A u g u st a . C o lu m b u s . . M acon .............. Savannah . . . . 9 1 2 ,619 16,406,077 568 ,608 4 2 7 ,906 578,021 57 3 ,699 187,849 15,729,106r 579 ,852 4 3 3 ,090 569,887 537 ,769 183.321 12,837,098 406 ,916 3 8 4 ,386 4 7 3 ,799 578 ,650 + + + + + 5 + 28 + 40 + 11 + 22 - 1 + + + + + + A le x a n d ria . . B a to n R o u g e Lafayette . . L a k e C h a rle s Ne w O rle a n s . . 27 9 ,766 1,274,002 2 8 4 ,996 229 ,028 4,519,503 25 9 ,8 1 9 1,229,568 27 3 ,779 232 ,676 4,02 5,894r 204 ,312 1,028,586 250 ,590 205 ,172 4,04 9,729 + + + + B ilo x i-G u lfp o rt Jackson . 218 ,667 1,462,802 22 3 ,388 1,466,448 216 ,117 1,302,266 - C h a tta n o o ga K n o x v i l l e ............ N a sh v ille . . . . 1,474,922 1,258,942 3,580,488 1,290,027 1 ,020 ,120 3,677,876 106,379 102,267 3 4 2 1 1 7 8 21 12 41 41 25 36 16 40 22 10 21 17 21 2 12 + 37 + 24 + 14 + 12 + 12 + + + + + 2 0 + 1 + 12 + 15 + 19 1,054,164 806,185 3,055,542 + 14 + 23 - 3 + 40 + 56 + 17 + 30 + 24 + 21 99,140 + 4 ■+ 7 -1 1 4 4 15 19 12 12 OTHER C EN T ERS A n n is to n . . . D ecem ber 1 97 3 fro m Decem ber 197 3 D o th a n S e lm a 4,083,196 104,886 339,223 1,148,377 67 5 ,6 4 9 223 ,624 P e rc e n t C h a n g e . . . . . . . . 184,911 1 05,915 B rad e n to n . . M o n ro e C o u n ty O ca la . . . . St. A u g u st in e St. P e te rsb u rg . Tam pa . . . . A thens . . . B ru n s w ic k . D alton . . . . Elberton . . G a in e s v ille . G riffin . . . . L a G ra n g e . . New nan . . Rom e . . . . V a ld o sta . . A b b e v ille . B u n k ie . . H am m ond New Iberia P la q u e m in e T h ib o d a u x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . H a ttie s b u rg L au re l . . . M e rid ia n . . N a tc h e z . , P a sc a g o u la M o s s Point V ic k s b u r g . . Y a zo o C ity . . 21 0 ,3 5 4 84,701 2 1 0 ,340 37,0 60 1,014,268 1,928,994 161,440 103,948 2 0 1 ,106 24,137 141,377 77,693 41,3 54 61,785 147,993 98,241 91,827 14,849 85,7 48 ' 66,275 24.422 43,085 Novem ber 1 97 3 Decem ber 1972 185,135 97,8 15 127 ,009 79,7 85 180,342 75,9 6 8 211 ,655 35,0 92 9 8 2 ,3 1 4 l,9 8 8 ,3 0 3 r 156,660 95,985 195,880 157,370 6 4,9 59 148,752 30,5 26 8 54,651 1,559,183 139,610 74,541 4 3,5 45 58,175 147,699 93,471 166,787 84,2 79 161,183 20,9 74 115,463 63,9 45 36,927 57,871 129,306 9 5,2 36 17,642 19,465 8 6,0 52 64,1 88 20,991 36,819 2 1,2 2 0 N o v. 1 97 3 Dec. 1972 d a te 1 97 3 fro m 1972 0 8 +46 +33 +41 +25 + 17 + 11 - 1 + 6 + 3 - 3 +34 +30 +41 +28 +32 +38r +30 +33 + 25 + + + + + + + + + + 3 5 + 7 + 14 + 3 17,444 11.671 61,8 24 59,442 21,8 39 3 7,3 99 + 12 -2 4 - 0 + 3 + 16 + 17 + 14 + 27 +39 + 11 + 12 + 15 + 9 + 24 +38 + 15 + 48 + 15 + + + + 3 14 1 4 5 6 0 125,687 76,483 114,209 60,143 129,724 72.9 76 114,001 57,414 105,776 6 7,9 02 111,539 52,248 - 3 + 5 + 0 + 5 . . 146,130 8 6,4 13 4 7,8 04 149,796 91,047 49.7 82 136,781 6 8,2 68 40.410 - B risto l . . . . J o h n so n City K in g sp o rt . . . 119,784 163,627 264 ,103 107,491 159,516 2 5 5 ,686 128,314 147,933 209,673 Total A la b a m a . F lo rid a . . G e o rgia . . L o u is ia n a 1 M is s is s ip p i1 T e n n e sse e ' , . +21 + 19 +24 + 9 + 24 + 18 + 8 +27 +25 +28 +26 + 15 + 5 8 . . strict Year to 12m os. - 3 +23 +25 + 15 +22 + 21 + 12 19 13 +22 15 + 15 + 14 + 13 5 4 + 7 + 27 + 18 + 7 +26 + 12 + 11 + 3 + 3 - 7 + 11 + 26 - 3 + 16 + 18 2 2 . 77,9 58,947 76,1 45,000 r 6 5,5 74,129 + 2 + 19 +24 . . . 9,165,090 . . 27,0 83,175 . . 21,3 80,318 . . . 7,931,642 . . . 3,083,890 . , . . 9,314,832 8.73 3,395 7,108,893 2 6 ,6 01,028 r 22,8 21,149 2 1 ,6 03,779 r 18,576,063 7,30 3,168r 6,889,536 3,144,422 2,779,873 8,75 9.708 7,398,615 + 5 + 2 - 1 + 9 - 2 + 6 + 29 + 19 + 15 + 15 + 11 +26 + + + + +20 24 30 17 14 +20 1 D ist ric t p ortion o n ly r-R e v ise d F ig u r e s fo r so m e a re a s d iffe r s lig h t ly fro m p re lim in a ry fig u re s p u b lish e d in “ B a n k D e b it s a n d D e p o sit T u r n o v e r " b y B o a rd of G o v e rn o rs of the Fede ral R e s e rv e Sy st e m “ C o n f o r m s to S M S A d e fin it io n s a s of D e c e m b e r 31, 1972. FED ERAL RESERVE B A N K O F A T LA N TA 27 D i s t r i c t B u s i n e s s C o n d i t i o n s 1974 1972 *Seas. adj. figure; not an index Latest plotting: December, except mfg. production, September, and farm receipts, November. L T he Southeast's e c o n o m y began to sh o w signs o f sluggishness as th e ris in g u n e m p lo y m e n t rates and d e c lin in g a u to sales. G ro w th e n e rg y sh o rta g e c o n trib u te d to o f co n s u m e r c re d it w as s lo w , la rg e ly b e cause o f a d ro p in a u to loans. T o ta l m e m b e r b a n k le n d in g also fe ll, a n d d e p o sits s h o w e d lit t le g ro w th . Led b y softness in th e re s id e n tia l secto r, th e v a lu e o f c o n s tru c tio n co n tra c ts w as d o w n sha rply. H ig h fe e d costs re s tric te d liv e s to c k o u tp u t, b u t th e large e xp a n sio n in p la n n e d c ro p acreage p ro v id e d a b rig h t spo t. A d e c lin e in n o n fa rm jo b s was a c c o m p a n ie d by d e c lin e d , a lth o u g h la rge r banks re m a in e d under 4.0 reserve pressures and c o n tin u e d to b o rro w he avily. p e rc e n t. A ll six D is tric t states re co rd e d h ig h e r u n T otal in ve stm e n ts d e c lin e d as banks re d u ce d th e ir e m p lo y m e n t rates. A la ba m a, F lo rid a and Tennessee h o ld in g s o f U. S. G o v e rn m e n t securities. a rise in D e c e m b e r's u n e m p lo y m e n t rate to exp e rie n ce d jo b losses. T rade e m p lo y m e n t posted the largest d e c lin e , p a rtic u la rly in F lo rid a ; fu e l- related p ro b le m s w e re a m a jo r fa c to r. M a n u fa c tu r ing jo b s h e ld up w e ll, w ith sm all gains re co rd e d in m any in d u strie s. Factory hours le n g th e n e d and p a y ro lls exp an de d stro n g ly. A u to loans in m o n th ly g ro w th D e c e m b e r, v a lu e of c o n s tru c tio n co n tra c ts d ro p p e d ity of fu n d s and g ra d u a lly d e c lin in g re sid e n tia l m o rtg a g e rates, th e va lu e o f re s id e n tia l co n tra cts fe ll co n s id e ra b ly . N o n re s id e n tia l c o n tra cts w e re o ff fro m th e p re vio u s m o n th 's re co rd h ig h b u t re m a in e d o u ts ta n d in g d e c lin e d The sh a rp ly in D e ce m b e r. D e sp ite increased a v a ila b il at c o m m e rc ia l slo w e st Prices re ce ive d b y D is tric t fa rm e rs in D e c e m b e r h e ld steady at N o v e m b e r's average le v e l, b u t in d i since July 1971. U n it au to sales w e re d o w n sha rply v id u a l c o m m o d ie s score d m a jo r o ffs e ttin g changes. w h e n c o m p a re d to the year-ago m o n th , b u t d e O ra n g e prices p lu m m e te d and rice prices d e c lin e d , b u t all o th e r grains, soybeans, and to b a c c o regis tered large p ric e increases, re fle c tin g s tre n g th e n in g de m a n d . Rising egg prices e sse n tia lly o ffs e t p rice d e clines fo r m ea t anim als. P re lim in a ry data in d ic a te m and fo r sm all d o m e s tic and ceeded cars de a le r c o n tin u e d backs. Le n d in g in th e at levels p re v a ilin g d u rin g m ost o f 1973. c o n su m e r c re d it o u ts ta n d in g in re s u ltin g banks im p o rte d sup plies. In ve n to rie s to b u ild d e sp ite to purchase of cars ex fu ll-s iz e d p ro d u c tio n n o n a u to m o tiv e c u t con sum e r go od s g re w at a m o d e ra te pace, as retail sales increased. an u n u s u a lly m ild w in te r has c o n trib u te d to a sharp Loans at m e m b e r banks in D e c e m b e r d e c lin e d fo r th e firs t th a t all liv e s to c k prices increased in January, as h igh feed costs c o n tin u e d to restrain sup plies. H o w e v e r, d u rin g w h e a t acreage is up 40 p e rc e n t fro m th e 1973 c ro p , sh o w e d no g ro w th , a lth o u g h th e ru n o ff o f large- and p ro d u c tio n is e xp e cte d to d o u b le in Tennessee. C D 's abated. 1973. T o ta l b u ild - u p in hay stocks fro m last year's le vel. W in te r d e p o sits d e n o m in a tio n tim e B o rro w in g s fro m the Federal Reserve and net purchases o f Federal fu n d s NOTE: Farmers in te n d to increase 1974 c o tto n acreage by o n e -fifth . D a t a o n w h ic h s t a t e m e n t s a re b a s e d h a v e b e e n a d j u s t e d w h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e to e li m in a t e s e a s o n a l in f lu e n c e s . Digitized 2 8 for FRASER FEBRUARY 1974, MONTHLY REVIEW
@FedFRASER