View original document

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

As Good As Last Year
D is t r ic t

B a n k in g

D e1 9v6 4e l o

Imagine, if you will, a banker and a business analyst comparing notes
about how things went in this region in 1964. “Was it as good as the
year before?” queried the analyst. “Yes, just as good,” said the banker.
“I agree, it was as good as last year.” Certainly, not every District
banker experienced a year exactly as good as 1963, nor did every
state and community. But in the aggregate, both economic activity
and banking matched almost perfectly their performances of 1963.
Although final returns are not yet in, total economic activity, as
measured by personal income, showed exactly the same rate of gain
during the first ten months of 1964 as it had in the same period of
1963. In fact, you would have to carry this figure— some 7 percent—
to one decimal before you found any difference. There is uncanny
correspondence if you measure activity in terms of nonfarm employ­
ment. Up 3.17 percent in the first eleven months of 1964, this
statistic is exactly the same as it was in the comparable period of 1963.
Since, at the regional and state level, banking activity and income
generally move together, it is not surprising that bankers had a good
year as well. Here again, it is remarkable how closely 1964 paralleled
1963. During the eleven months ending in November 1964, total loans
and investments—bank credit— of District member banks increased
$1.1 billion, or about 10 percent. The increase for the previous year
was 9 percent.
In some parts of the region, however, banks did not do quite as
well as they had in 1963. Of the District’s twenty-seven trade and bank­
ing areas, thirteen experienced smaller rates of growth in deposit volume
in 1964 than in 1963, according to data for the first eleven months.
Among them was the Orlando, Florida area, even though it showed
the largest percentage increase in deposits of any area in this region.
Only Miami experienced exactly the same gain as in 1963, while thir­
teen other trade and banking areas surpassed their 1963 performances.
Why should the overall banking picture have been so strikingly
similar to that of 1963? Part of the answer is that economic activity
continued to expand without letup. Another is that monetary policy
remained generally stimulative. It’s quite true that the Federal Reserve
Banks in late November raised the rate at which they were willing to lend
to member banks. This action followed the increase in the British Bank
rate and was undertaken largely as insurance against the possibility
that rising interest rates abroad would act as a stronger magnet to
domestic funds and, thereby, add to our balance of payments deficit.
It’s also true that the Federal Reserve from time to time modified its
policy stance slightly. Basically, however, it stood firm in its determi­
nation to stimulate domestic business and continued to supply banks
with reserves, thus enabling them to accommodate 1964’s sizable credit
demands.

B anks E xpand Loans
About one out of every eighteen dollars of the credit
that banks supplied nationally came from institutions
located in this part of the country. Loans, in fact, went
up at a faster rate here than nationally and at a slightly
faster tempo than in 1963. If we make allowance for
seasonal forces, the volume of these loans, moreover,
showed a remarkably steady growth from month to month.
In 1964, District member banks expanded their loan
portfolios to include nearly every major type of borrower.
The strength of the demand was not uniform, however. At
banks in leading cities, the volume of loans for buying
and carrying securities showed practically no change.
This category of loans is fairly small though. Businesses,
in contrast, needed considerable amounts of additional
bank credit, although they continued to rely heavily on
retained earnings and other internal cash funds.

Percent Increase

Percent Increase

* First eleven months.
D istrict b a n k in g a c tiv ity w a s in s e v e r a l im p o rta n t resp ects
a s good la st y e a r a s it w a s in 1963.

B
illions of D
ollars

B
illions of D
ollars

9 .0

B a n k s T ry to C o m p e te
As every banker knows, banks face competition from
many different lending institutions for business and other
kinds of loans. The figures do not tell us how well this
District’s commercial banks staved off the competition,
but they do show that these banks accounted for a large
portion of the total rise in consumer instalment credit
and that most of their increase came from auto loans.
For banks, the rate of expansion in these loans, never­
theless, lagged behind the 1963 rate, even though con­
sumers were stepping up auto purchases. The competition
for the consumer lending business was undoubtedly severe.
As in past years, District banks eagerly sought to ex­
pand their mortgage lending. Banks in leading District
cities during 1964 increased their real estate loans onethird as much as their commercial and industrial loans.
This gain in real estate lending was, indeed, a good deal
larger than in 1963. Undoubtedly, a major reason for
the upsurge was an attempt to cover the higher costs of
time and savings deposits.
Despite their growing interest in real estate lending,
banks still regarded commercial and industrial loans as
highly important to their loan portfolios. At banks in
leading cities, retail and wholesale trade concerns ac­
counted for almost a third of the business loan total in
1964; in fact, they added nearly twice as many loans
in this category to their portfolios as they had in 1963.
Lending to construction concerns also showed a spectacu­
lar gain, relative to the year earlier, but there were also a
good many industries showing only sluggish loan growth.
With reserve availability practically undiminished, banks
met the loan demand without the sizable increases in
interest rates on bank loans that have occurred in other
cyclical periods of business expansion. The rates that
banks charged on short-term loans to businesses remained
virtually unchanged.

To tal d e p o sits a t m e m b e r b a n k s in cre a se d la r g e ly b ecau se
of a sh a rp rise in tim e d e p o sits. D em an d d e p o sits in­
cre a se d a lso .

1963

1964

B e cau se b a n k s' lo an v o lu m e e x c e e d e d th e ir g a in in
d e p o sits, the ra tio of lo a n s to d e p o sits ro se fu r th e r ;
c o n v e rse ly , liq u id ity , a s m e a su re d b y th is ra tio , de clin ed .

B
illions of D
ollars

B
illions of D
ollars
3 .4

B a n k s A d d to In v e s tm e n ts
Banks also managed to add to their security portfolios
at the same time they were expanding loans. District
member banks enlarged their investments $179 million
during the first eleven months of 1964, or about as much



To fin an ce som e of the lo a n d e m a n d , b a n k s so ld U. S.
G o v e rn m e n t se cu ritie s but m o re th an m a d e up the d e clin e
in th ese in vestm e n ts b y b u y in g sta te a n d m u n icip a l issu es.

.

2 •

as they had the year before. Faced with the need to
profitably employ time deposits, they continued to buy
state and local securities. While the rate at which they
were acquiring these securities slowed down to about
14 percent, this gain was still quite large considering
the spectacular 21-percent growth rate of 1963.
To meet their loan demands and add to their invest­
ments in municipal securities, District banks reduced
their holdings of U. S. Government securities. While they
had reduced their holdings sharply in previous periods
of business expansion, the decline in 1964 was slight.
Here again, a major reason was the Federal Reserve’s
policy of providing ample reserves.
Since monetary policy remained fairly easy, few banks
found it necessary to borrow from the Federal Reserve
Bank of Atlanta. Of the more than 500 member banks,
only fifteen borrowed during an average week in 1964.
This number was just about the same as a year earlier.
While the volume of member bank borrowing increased,
it too was small— averaging $28 million—compared with
that of other cyclical expansions.
For meeting temporary deficiencies, District banks fol­
lowed past trends of turning more often to the so-called
“Federal funds” market. Through this market, banks with
excess funds lend to those experiencing a temporary
deficit. Through November, the net amount District banks
borrowed in this manner increased, compared with 1963.
On average, they bought (borrowed) an estimated $78
million of Federal funds and sold (lent) $55 million.

N e w B a n k i n g T e c h n iq u e s D e v e lo p S l o w l y
Still, relative to banks in many other parts of the country,
the importance of District banks in the Federal funds
market has remained fairly small. Nor have banks in
this region been as aggressive in developing time certifi­
cates of deposit. These are interest-bearing certificates
that banks offer, primarily to corporations and state and
local governments, for leaving money with them for a
definite period. If the bank is well-known and the certifi­
cate is a large denomination, the holder can readily sell
it before maturity. Growing from a $205-million volume
for banks in leading District cities on February 5, 1964,
to $327 million by year-end, this type of time deposit
has been issued on a much smaller scale here than in other
areas of the country.
District banks also have been fairly slow in obtaining
funds through another fairly new device— the issuance
of capital notes and debentures. Only a handful have
borrowed in this manner to enlarge their capital base,
and none have as yet followed the example of some banks
elsewhere of offering unsecured negotiable notes. De­
veloped to compete for short-term investment funds, these
notes are not deposits but debts of a bank and, as such,
are free from rate regulation.
The banking story for 1965 is, of course, still to be
written. But, in view of the rapidly changing develop­
ments in banking and the ever shifting economic and
credit scene, the central theme may not echo the “as
good as last year” refrain of 1964.
H arry B r a n d t

New Challenges for Georgia’s Economy
During the past four recovery years, Georgia has experi­
enced accelerated population growth with gains averag­
ing more than 2 percent annually. This is in sharp contrast
with the average annual growth rate of slightly more
than 1.3 percent during the 1950’s. Meanwhile, shifts
in population and in employment opportunities from
rural to urban centers have continued, though at a some­
what slower rate than in the 1950’s. Although Georgia’s
economy has been challenged throughout the postwar
period to accommodate moderate population growth and
inter-industry employment shifts, new and sharper chal­
lenges have emerged during the past four years. Some
perspective on these changes may be gained by an analysis
of the challenge and response in three major problem
areas: (1) Continually providing job opportunities of
the sort that help to close the gap in per capita income
between Georgia and the United States; (2) accommodat­
ing the increased volume of public services required to
underwrite economic growth; and (3) expanding and
upgrading housing facilities for people and business.
J o b s a n d In c o m e — C h a lle n g e . . .
Numerous observers have emphasized the diversified



character and balance of Georgia’s economy and employ­
ment mix. This diversification contributed to the state’s
ability to achieve major employment shifts and overall
employment growth during the 1950’s. Moreover, cyclical
instability had been less than that of the nation as a
whole during most of the postwar period. However, a
reversal occurred with the downturn of 1960. Georgia’s
recession, although it began somewhat later than the
nation’s, was relatively more severe, and recovery from
its effects was slower. At the same time, employment
diversification continued to favor nonmanufacturing job
growth. Per capita income growth had become more stable
cyclically, but its rate of climb had been reduced. The
job challenge was thus both quantitative and qualitative,
particularly so in view of the acceleration in population
growth.
In addition to changes in markets for Georgia’s
products, technological changes, and the major trend from
farm to nonfarm employment, a significant new element
now entered the picture: Georgia, like other states, re­
ceived some unfavorable effects from readjustments in
government policies at the national level. These effects
were important in at least four employment areas:
Federal civilian employment, military hardware procure­
•3 •

ment, military installation closings, and transportation.
Not only were more jobs needed, but higher-paying
jobs were required if Georgia expected to progress further
in closing the income gap. Georgia’s income base has
long been heavily oriented to production income, as
opposed to property or transfer payment income. Less
than 10 percent of total personal income in 1959 was
from property income, substantially lower than the U. S.
proportion of almost 13 percent. Moreover, when proper­
ty incomes and proprietors’ incomes are combined as a
proportion of total income, the differential between Geor­
gia and the nation as a whole was wide in 1963. It is
thus apparent that Georgia depends heavily upon up­
grading wage and salary sources to bring its per capita
personal income up to par with that of the nation.
. . . a n d R esponse
Most indicators show that over the current expansion
period, Georgia’s economy has responded well, both in
comparison with past cyclical behavior and national and
regional performances. At the end of November 1964,
the index of total nonagricultural employment stood at
119, 15 index points higher than in February 1961.
Nonmanufacturing and manufacturing employment indices
each registered gains of 15 index points. These gains,
in turn, are reflected in the behavior of unemployment.
Georgia’s rate of insured unemployment declined from a
recession high in February 1961 of 6.1 percent to a low
of 2.1 percent in June 1964. Moreover, this rate re­
mained below 3.0 percent in each of the first eleven
months of 1964.
Total personal income growth in Georgia in 1961
reflected the lag in employment recovery. In each of the
following two years, however, sharp surges exceeding
8 percent occurred. Data through the third quarter of
1964 suggest some slowing in this exceptional rate of gain.
During the three-year period 1961-63, per capita in­
come in Georgia rose a hefty 16 percent, again exceeding
national and regional rates of gain. Per capita disposable
income gained 18 percent between 1959-63. This rate
of increase also was higher than that of the nation or
of the Southeast.
Consumption and savings measures confirm that Geor­
gia’s economy has responded well to its expanding oppor­
tunities. Patterns in the fourth quarter of 1964 indicate
that sales of new passenger automobiles were setting new
records for the second year in a row, some 60 percent
greater than the poor sales year of 1961. The index of
department store sales registered 138 for October 1964,
compared with 101 in October 1961. The index of furni­
ture store sales for October, at 116 versus 92 in October
1961, reinforces the expansionary glow.
While much of this spending and consumption was
credit-financed, Georgians added substantially to their
savings and liquidity positions over the period. Almost $1
billion was added to savings capital of savings and loan
associations and to time deposits in commercial banks
during the four-year period from November 1960 to
October 1964. The rate of increase for savings and loans
averaged more than 14 percent annually, while time de­
posits climbed at an average annual rate of more than 15



G
eorgia’s E p y en T
mlo m t rends
1 9 5 9-6 4

Sources: U. S. Department of Labor and
agencies. Indexes calculated by this Bank.

cooperating

state

G e o rg ia 's e m p lo y m e n t g a in s co n tin ued in 1964, but
m an u factu rin g e m p lo y m e n t w a s s h a r p ly affected by
n a tio n a l d e v e lo p m e n ts in th e a u to m o b ile in d u stry.
In su re d u n e m p lo y m e n t ro se so m e w h a t a f te r m id -y e a r.

logTr MicaBdfie s
n ea u ipl o ld
r n n
Md'sAIne
o y a di
o

V madPrps o S teadloa
o e n u oe f ta n cl
lu
Scritie Isus Grg
eu s s e, e ia
o

Gs Yld
ros ies
2- erF»Hritae
5Y H e gs
a

M aeFnsImrte fro
o g ud p d m
rtg
o
L Inu neCmns
ife srac o p ie
a
O

200

400

eooi

|

G rg M rtg esH ld
eo ia o ag e
b 1 4N n eo iaCos.
y 3 o -G rg
Headquartered in
:
''.’.v.vya Year-end I960
Year-end 1963

NewEngland States
M
iddle Atlantic States
East-North Central
States
W
est-North Central
States
South Atlantic States

1
1
m

East-South Central
States
W
est-South Central
States
Pacific States
Total Non-Georgia
Com
panies

.

.

.

. .

.

Source: W eekly Bond Buyer. Tab- Sources: The Spectator D esk Diulations by this Bank.
rectory of Insurance, 1964; indi­
vidual companies; state insurance
reports; and estimates of this Bank.
G e o r g ia 's p ub lic b o rro w in g ro se s h a r p ly in th e fo u ry e a r p e rio d en d in g in 1 963, w h ile b o rro w in g costs
tre n d e d d o w n w a rd . B o rro w in g f o r schoo ls, ro a d s, w a te r
f a c ilitie s , a n d h o sp ita ls sh o w ed th e g r e a te s t in cre a se s
in lo n g -term se cu ritie s issu es. M ajo r n a tio n a l le n d e rs
lo cate d in p ra c tic a lly e v e r y re g io n of th e U n ited S ta tes
m ad e in cre a sin g su p p lie s of m o rtg a g e fund s a v a ila b le
to G e o rg ia 's eco n o m y. G ro ss y ie ld s in th e n a tio n a l
m a rk e t fo r g o v e rn m e n t u n d e rw ritte n m o rtg a g e s le v e le d
ou t in 1964 a f t e r fo u r y e a r s o f d e clin e .

.

4

.

percent. Monthly sales of ordinary life insurance increased
to a level in 1964 more than 46 percent higher than
in 1960.
P u b lic S e r v i c e s — C h a l l e n g e . . .
Population growth and rising incomes created an increas­
ing demand for more and better public services. The
public revenue base, however, was inadequate to meet
these growing needs, even though it had expanded and
significant improvements in state and local fiscal adminis­
tration had occurred. N o convenient means of quantifying
the challenge, either in increased current services or in
capital plant, is available. In the case of the latter, how­
ever, its magnitude may be approximated by assessing
the extent to which Georgia and her local communities
turned to the national markets for funds.
During the four-year period ending in 1963, Georgia’s
public economy borrowed almost $1.2 billion. This total
was 77 percent greater, or slightly more than $500 mil­
lion, than the total borrowed in the four-year period
ending in 1959. The challenge presented had at least
three major facets: to borrow so much; to distribute
borrowing power judiciously; and to do both at minimum
present and future cost.
. . . a n d R esponse
The main types of capital improvements for which bor­
rowing power was utilized during the two periods are
indicated in the chart. In interpreting the data, it should
be borne in mind that they reflect governmental borrow­
ings at both state and local levels. Another qualification
is that the amounts shown for “Housing” include a con­
siderable volume of short-term notes, of which varying
amounts are “rolled over” at fairly short intervals. On
balance, it appears that Georgia has concentrated the
bulk of its increased long-term borrowing in the service
areas of schools, roads, water, and hospitals. Relatively
little borrowing was done for public utilities, refunding, or
industrial development.
In meeting the minimum borrowing cost feature of
the challenge, it seems reasonable to assume that judicious
use of borrowing power and an expanding revenue base
played some part. More direct effects came from the
continuing effort to upgrade Georgia’s credit rating by
legislative and other changes, which resulted in a higher
appraisal by the national rating services. A major partner
in the overall task of borrowing more capital funds at
lower cost, of course, was national monetary policy. Its
effect, in turn, was evident not only in the increased
supply of total funds but also in a significant re-direction
of savings flows.

Georgia’s private sector grew by well over 40 percent.
The four major mortgage investors— commercial banks,
mutual savings banks, savings and loan associations, and
life insurance companies— increased their mortgage hold­
ings secured by Georgia properties by over $1 billion.
Rapid growth in the savings capital of Georgia’s sav­
ings and loan associations and in time deposits of com­
mercial banks enabled these institutions to provide almost
60 percent of this sum. Georgia’s life insurance com­
panies, growing more slowly and limited by diversification
requirements, were able to supply only about one percent
of the net increase. Thus, a deficit of more than $400
million had to be brought in from other sources. Again,
in this challenge, as in the provision of public services,
borrowing costs were an important factor.
. . . a n d R esponse
In filling this capital gap, Georgians exported over $100
million net of mortgages to mutual savings banks, located
mainly in New York and New England. Almost $300
million net imported funds were supplied by more than
130 life insurance companies. As shown in the chart, these
companies represented every major geographic region ex­
cept the Mountain states.
Georgia’s private sector had three major advantages in
responding to this challenge. First, a good record of
diversified growth in the decade of the 1950’s had al­
ready attracted a large flow of mortgage funds from outof-state life insurance companies and mutual savings
banks. At the end of 1960, these two groups of investors
held mortgages on Georgia properties amounting to $1.2
billion. A second advantage was the presence of a wellestablished and growing network of mortgage bankers
and other mortgage servicers skilled in the placement and
servicing of mortgage funds. Finally, a lengthening re­
covery, aided by favorable monetary and fiscal policies,
assured further growth in the national pool of private
savings and extended the ability of borrowers to service
increased mortgage debt.
Because of data lags, most of the results surveyed
here apply to the period ending in 1963. It is clear,
however, that Georgia has responded well to the major
challenges of the current expansion and that the national
fiscal-monetary policy mix has had far more favorable
than unfavorable effects upon the state’s economy.
H i r a m J. H o n e a
This is one of a series in which economic developments in
each of the Sixth District states are discussed. Develop­
ments in Alabama’s economy were analyzed in the July
1964 R e v ie w , and a discussion of Mississippi’s economy
is scheduled for a forthcoming issue.

H o u s in g — C h a l l e n g e , . .
As in the case of public services, the challenge of in­
creased housing needs for people and for business has
no quantitative handle. The major dimension of these
needs, however, may be outlined by surveying the net
increase in mortgage debt. During the three-year period
ending in 1963, demand for nonfarm mortgage funds by



Bank Announcements
On N o v e m b e r 21, the C i t i z e n s B a n k o f C l a y t o n C o u n t y ,
F orest P ark, G eorgia, a n ew ly organ ized n on m em ber bank,
o p en ed fo r business an d began to rem it at par fo r checks
draw n on it when received fro m the F ederal R eserve Bank.
Officers are H en ry C. D o rsey, C hairm an o f the Board;

•5 •

Debits to Demand Deposit Accounts

C harles E. W ells, P residen t; and H erm an R . W alker, C ash­
ier. C apital is $2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , and surplus an d u n divided profits,

In su re d C o m m ercial B an k s in th e S ix th D istrict

$200,000.

(In Thousands of Dollars)

The O k a l o o s a N a t i o n a l B a n k a t N i c e v i l l e , N iceville, F lorida, a n ew ly organ ized m em b er bank, o p en ed fo r
business on D ecem b e r 1 and began to rem it at par. Officers
include R ich ard G . B oyd, C hairm an o f the B oard; R . A .
H arper, Sr., P resident; and M . Z . Jones, Jr., Vice P resi­
den t and Cashier. C apital is $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , and surplus and
oth er capital funds, $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , as rep o rted by the C o m p ­
troller o f C urrency at the tim e the charter w as granted.
On D ecem b er 4, the B o y n t o n B e a c h F i r s t N a t i o n a l
B a n k , B oyn ton Beach, F lorida, a new ly organ ized m em b er
bank, open ed fo r business and began to rem it at par.
Officers are Charles F. A ld en , C hairm an o f the B oard and
P resident; R o b ert F. Griffith, Jr., Vice P resident; Thom as
E. D yer, V ice P resident; and John M . H ow ell, Vice P resi­
den t and Cashier. C apital is $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 , and surplus and
other capital funds, $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 , as rep o rted by the C o m p ­
troller o f C urren cy at the tim e the charter was granted.
The P l a n t e r s T r u s t & S a v in g s B a n k , O pelou sas ,
L ouisiana, a n on m em ber bank, began to rem it at par on
D ecem b er 4. Officers include L . J. L arcade, P resid en t;
M . J. P ulford, L. J. L arcade, Jr., A n d rew M oresi, Jr., C. F.
Boagni, Jr., and F rank D a ly, V ice P residents; and F red
G u idry, V ice P residen t and Cashier.
On D e cem b er 4, the S t . L a n d r y B a n k & T r u s t C o m ­
O pelousas, L ouisiana, and its branch at Eunice,
Louisiana, both n on m em ber banks, began to rem it at par.
Officers are R . S. T om linson, P resident; J. P. B arnett,
Senior V ice P resident; O. A . L ahaye, A v ie B ordelon, A . B.
R eed, Jr., and W. L . T om linson, V ice Presidents; and C . J .
B udd, V ice P resident, Cashier, and Trust Officer.
pany,

The T r i - P a r i s h B a n k & T r u s t C o m p a n y , Eunice,
Louisiana, a n on m em b er bank, began to rem it at par on
D ecem b er 7. Officers include D r. H arry Jenkins, President;
E. A . Veillon, Senior V ice President; M . J. Fruge, Sr.,
E xecu tive V ice P resident; M . Landreneau, Vice President
and T rust Officer; an d M . J. Fruge, Jr., Cashier.
On D ecem b er 14, the C a p i t o l N a t i o n a l B a n k o f
M o n t g o m e r y , M o n tg o m ery, A la b a m a , a n ew ly organ ized
m em b er bank, op en ed fo r business and began to rem it at
par. Officers include L . E. H ew lett, Jr., President; M c ­
D o w ell L ee, V ice P resident; and O. R . H ouston, Jr., C ash­
ier. C apital is $4 0 0 ,0 0 0 , and surplus and o th er capital
funds, $6 0 0 ,0 0 0 , as re p o rted by the C o m p tro ller o f C u r­
rency a t the tim e the charter w as granted.
The N o r t h O r l a n d o B a n k , O rlando, F lorida, a new ly
organ ized n on m em b er bank, o p en ed fo r business on D e ­
cem ber 14 and began to rem it a t par.
O n D ecem b er 16, the M a n u f a c t u r e r s N a t i o n a l B a n k
o f H i a l e a h , H ialeah, F lorida, a new ly organ ized m em b er
bank, open ed fo r business and began to rem it at par.
Officers are Joseph Jordan, C hairm an o f the B oard; W il­
liam R . M u rray, P resident; an d F orm an J. W illiam s, Vice
P residen t an d C ashier. C apital is $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 , and surplus
and oth er capital funds, $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 , as rep o rted by the
C o m p tro ller o f C u rren cy at the tim e the ch arter was
granted.
The m erger o f The F irst N a tio n a l Bank in
G adsden, A labam a, into S tate N a tio n a l Bank o f
D ecatur, A labam a, under the ch arter and title
N a t i o n a l B a n k o f A la b a m a , becam e effective
close o f business D ec e m b e r 19.

G adsden,
A labam a,
of S t a t e
as o f the

On D ecem b er 21, the B a n k o f S t . C h a r l e s a n d T r u s t
C o m p a n y , Luling, Louisiana, and its branch at N orco,
L ouisiana, both n on m em ber banks, began to rem it at par.
Officers include C. S. L a G arde, President; R o y A . M on grue, V ice P residen t an d Cashier; A . J. L aurent, V ice
P resident; an d C. B. F erdon, V ice P residen t and Branch
M anager.



Percent Change
Year-to-date
11 Months
Nov. 1964 from
1964
Oct.
Nov.
from
1964
1963
1963

Nov.
1964

Oct.
1964

Nov.
1963

STANDARD METROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREASt
Birmingham . . .
1,136,681
59,831
Gadsden . . . .
161,432
Huntsville . . .
397,389
Mobile
. . . .
244,906
Montgomery . . .
72,625
Tuscaloosa . . .

1,201,831
61,070
157,036
396,657
243,204
80,327

975,751
52,344
146,098
375,960
235,324
65,424

—5
—2
+3
+ 0
+ 1
— 10

+ 16
+ 14
+ 10
+6
+4
+ 11

+ 11
+ 10
+ 17
+6
+3
+8

.

394,146
1,136,375
1,561,650
441,190
155,594

394,113
1,169,430
1,586,637
439,627
163,364

366,049
984,812
1,488,068
433,552
137,762

+0
—3
—2
+0
—5

+8
+ 15
+5
+2
+ 13

+ 10
+ 13
+6
+8
+ 14

.
.

1,005,789
283,886

—9
—7
+1
+ 1
+ 1
—7

+ 11
+5
+ 18
+ 13
+ 15
+ 18
+ 19
—3

+9
+9

75,073
3,257,748
173,644
178,243
187,496
201,278

902,281
269,349
63,377
2,881,345
150,922
150,625
158,224
208,130

+1
—4

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

998,185
294,746
82,217
3,509,833
172,491
176,751
184,856
215,698

+ 13
+7
+ 10
+ 18
+9
+ 8

.
.
.
.

383,951
86,834
90,820
1,820,782

397,790
89,373r
103,765
1,902,182

364,887
79,377
93,649
1,671,640

—3
—3
— 12
—4

+5
+9
—3
+9

+ 6
+9
+3
+ 10

470,694

508,590

442,868

—7

Chattanooga
. .
Knoxville . . . .
Nashville . . . .

426,^80
345,103
1,208,869

424,395
365,986
1,051,659

378,494
332,902
1,040,834

+o
—6
+ 15

+6
+ 13
+4
+ 16

+ 9
+8
+6
+ 11

OTHER CENTERS
Anniston . . . .
Dothan . . . .
Selm a....................

53,% 5
44,943
35,248

55,210
53,399
41,207

48,132
45,539
34,261

—2
— 16
— 14

Bartow . . . .
Bradenton . . .
Brevard County . .
Daytona Beach . .
Ft. MyersN. Ft. Myers
Gainesville . . .
Key West
. . .
Lakeland . . . .
O c a la ....................
St. Augustine . .
St. Petersburg . .
Sarasota . . . .
Tallahassee . . .
Tampa
. . . .
Winter Haven . .

27,516
40,068
161,817
66,061

25,436
43,240
150,018r
70,152

24,142
43,978
137,380
62,562

+ 12
—1
+3
+ 14
—9
+ 18
+6

+6
+6
+ 11
+ 13
+2
+ 23
+5

56,850
63,606
20,687
87,408
42,133
15,812
247,847
80,414
97,568
526,817
48,657

52,585
67,256
21,052
91,044
44,809
15,811
254,455
78,204
88,696
517,294
46,953

53,876
51,978
16,617
78,876
43,396
14,055
216,987
79,400
82,722
482,073
40,566

+ 6
+ 22
+ 24
+ 11
—3
+ 13
+ 14
+ 1
+ 18
+9
+ 20

+6
+ 15
+ 11
+5
+4
+5
+9
+2
+ 12
+9
+ 14

Athens
. . . .
Brunswick . . .
Dalton
. . . .
Elberton . . . .
Gainesville . . .
Griffin
. . . .
LaGrange
. . .
Newnan . . . .
R o m e ....................
Valdosta . . . .
Abbeville . . . .
Alexandria . . .
Bunkie
. . . .
Hammond
. . .
New Iberia . . .
Plaquemine . . .
Thibodaux . . .

53,004
34,452
77,814
12,338
56,945
27,001
17,122
24,539
62,628
43,641
9,800
96,227
6,853
26,408
30,419
7,848
17,342

55,863
39,100
83,858
11,933
62,752
26,566
18,829
25,013
62,913
42,919
9,454
108,450
6,521
28,525
28,851
7,340
17,354

47,166
31,388
65,276
10,416
54,581
22,346
16,274
18,767
56,762
34,789
8,016
86,709
6,774
23,968
28,292
7,021
19,597

+8
—5
—2
—4
—6
+ 0
—3
+3
+ 10
+2
+4
—5
— 12
—7
+3
—9
+2
—9
—2
—0
+2
+4
— 11
+5
—7
+5
+ 7
—0

+ 12
+ 10
+ 19
+ 18
+ 4
+ 21
+5
+ 31
+ 10
+ 25
+ 22
+ 11
+ 1
+ 10
+ 8
+ 12
— 12

+ 11
+9
+ 21
+ 10
+ 6
+ 11
+ 11
+ 11
+ 10
+ 12
+6
+ 11
+ 3
+ 9
+ 14
+ 14
+6

Biloxi-Gulfport .
Hattiesburg . .
Laurel
. . . .
Meridian . . . .
Natchez . . . .
PascagoulaMoss Point .
Vicksburg
. .
Yazoo City . .

.
.

72,785
40,665
31,304
56,076
29,511

75,184
44,027
32,021
58,751
31,099

64,558
39,591
30,360
54,326
28,993

—3
—8
—2
—5
—5

+ 13
+3
+3
+3
+2

+6
+6
+ 6
+3
+8

.
.
.

43,613
31,945
26,707

45,631
32,560
26,471

34,752
26,345
22,453

+ 25
+ 21
+ 19

Bristol
...............
Johnson City
. .
Kingsport
. . .

55,046
57,528
109,510

59,610
57,639
112,575

50,199
51,450
92,472

—4
—2
+ 1
—8
—0
—3

SIXTH DISTRICT, Total 22,548,726
Alabamaf
. . .
3,100,643
Floridaf . . . .
6,778,902
Georgiaf . . . .
5,478,929
Louisiana-?
-** . .
3,142,830
1,086,805
Mississippit** . .
Tennesseef** . .
2,960,617

23,122,665
3,222,117
6,841,847
5,834,855
3,289,544
1,155,684
2,778,618

20,413,661
2,746,547
6,236,640
4,869,952
2,916,342
996,4%
2,647,684

—2
—4
—1
—6
—4
—6
+7
—6

+ 10
+ 13
+9
+ 13
+8
+9
+ 12

+11
+ 13
+ 12
—1
+ 12
+ 13
+8
+ 10
+8
+7
+9
+9
+8
+ 10

Ft. LauderdaleHollywood
.
Jacksonville . .
Miami
. . . .
Orlando . . . .
Pensacola
. .
TampaSt. Petersburg
W. Palm Beach .
Albany
Atlanta
Augusta*
Columbus
Macon
Savannah

Baton Roug3
Lafayette
.
Lake Charles
New Orleans
Jackson

.
.
.
.

.
.

. . . .

U.S., 344 Cities

.

+8

—1
+8
—6

. 333,900,000 353,500,000 296,000,000

♦Richmond County only.
fPartially estimated.

+ 10
+ 12
+ 18

+ 13

**Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state.
r Revised.

. 6 •

Sixth D istrict Statistics
Seasonally Adjusted
(All data are indexes, 1957-59 =

Latest Month
(1964)

One
Month
Ago

Two
Months
Ago

100, unless indicated otherwise.)

One
Year
Ago

SIXTH DISTRICT

Latest Month
(1964)

One
Month
Ago

Two
Months
Ago

One
Year
Ago

GEORGIA

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Oct.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls ..................................... Nov.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Oct.
C r o p s ....................................................................Oct.
L iv e s to c k ..............................................................Oct.
Department Store S a l e s * / * * .........................Dec.
Instalment Credit at Banks, *(M il. $)
New Loans..............................................................Nov.
Repaym en ts........................................................Nov.
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................... Nov.
M anu factu rin g ........................................... ...........Nov.
Apparel
....................................................... Nov.
C h e m icals........................................................Nov.
Fabricated M e t a l s ..................................... Nov.
Food
..............................................................Nov.
Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . . Nov.
P a p e r ..............................................................Nov.
Primary M e t a ls ........................................... Nov.
Textiles
........................................................Nov.
Transportation Equipment
. . . .
Nov.
Nonmanufacturing........................................... Nov.
Co nstruction..................................................Nov.
Farm Employment................................................. Nov.
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Nov.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Nov.
Construction C o n tra c ts *..................................... Nov.
R e s id e n t ia l........................................................Nov.
All O t h e r ..............................................................Nov.
Industrial Use of Electric Power . . . .
Oct.
Cotton C o n su m p tio n **..................................... Nov.
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.**
. Nov.
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Loans*
All B a n k s ............................................................. Nov.
Leading C i t i e s ................................................. Dec.
Member Bank Deposits*
All B a n k s ..............................................................Nov.
Leading C i t i e s ................................................. Dec.
Bank D e b i t s * / * * ..................................................Nov.

44,797
151
140
140
118
148p
180
182

44,871r
147r
126
120
122
141

44,114r 42,424
146
141
123
139
141
142
115
118
138
134

181
167

178
183

163
162

118
116
137

117
115
136

117
115
136

114
113
132

124
108
94

124
108r
94

123
108
93

106
96
131
118
109
73
2.5
41.5
184
142
219
123
106
171

105
95
119r
118
108
79

105
95
131
117
107
75

116
105
93
108
103
94
123
114

112

110

112

110

2.8

41.lr
150
156
146

112

110

2.8

110

100

81
3.4
41.3
256
150
347

104r
168r

40.5
153
146
160
119
107
172

188
172

184
173

183
170

164
153

150
138
157

148
139
154

148
136
152

136
129
144

122

121
96
160

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Oct.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .............................. Nov.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ...................................Oct.
Department Store S a l e s * * ......................... Nov.

8,282
151
144
140

8,371r
142r
123
139

8,266r
147
131
130

7,823
140
125
123

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment................................... Nov.
Manufacturing........................................ Nov.
Nonmanufacturing................................... Nov.
Construction........................................ Nov.
Farm Employment........................................ Nov.
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Nov.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Nov.

119
115
121
128
68
2.2
41.1

118r
112
121r
126
82
2.4
40.3r

118
114
120
125
75
2.4
39.7

115
111
117
118
78
2.6
41.0

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

192
157
166

188
152
163

183
154
165

169
142
148

LOUISIANA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Oct.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .............................. Nov.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ...................................Oct.
Department Store S a l e s * / * * .................... Nov.

6,569
136
141
124

6,477r
134
113
112

6,407r
133
131
115

6,215
123
143
111

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment................................... Nov.
Manufacturing........................................Nov.
Nonmanufacturing...................................Nov.
Construction........................................Nov.
Farm Employment........................................Nov.
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Nov.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Nov.

107
104
108
98
78
2.8
42.6

106
103
106
93
84
3.0
42.0

105
102
106
90
80
3.0
42.1

103
99
104
84
90
3.5
42.3

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s* ................................... Nov.
Member Bank Deposits*.............................. Nov.
Bank D e b it s * / * * ........................................ Nov.

169
136
145

167
135
141

167
134
139

151
126
134

MISSISSIPPI

ALABAMA
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
Nov.

6,003
139
135
118

6,015r
137r
136
111

5,845r
136
120
109

5,677
131
136
114

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Oct.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .............................. Nov.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ...................................Oct.
Department Store S a l e s * / * * .................... Nov.

3,407
161
157
96

3,496r
157r
137
91

3,308r
157
124
96

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nov.
Nonfarm Employment...............................
M anu factu rin g .....................................
Nov.
Nonmanufacturing........................................... Nov.
Nov.
Construction................................................. Nov.
Farm Employment................................................. Nov.
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Nov.
Nov.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .

110
106
111
101
69
2.6
41.8

110
106
111
101
75
2.9
41.lr

109
105
111
102
74
2.8
41.2

107
103
109
100
75
4.0
41.4

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment...................................Nov.
M anufacturing........................................Nov.
Nonmanufacturing................................... Nov.
Construction........................................Nov.
Farm Employment.................... .... . . . Nov.
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Nov.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Nov.

120
125
117
126
59
2.9
40.8

119
124
117
124
70
3.2
40.3r

119
124
117
123
61
3.3
40.5

116
119
115
117
70
4.4
40.2

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

181
149
156

178
147
151

180
149
150

162
133
139

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s * ...................................Nov.
Member Bank Deposits*.............................. Nov.
Bank D e b it s * / * * ........................................ Nov.

208
163
169

203
162
168

202
159
159

186
146
157

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate)
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .........................
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ...............................
Department Store Sales** . . . .

FLORIDA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Oct.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls ..................................... Nov.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Oct.
Department Store S a l e s * * ............................... Nov.

3,297
145
164
96

TENNESSEE
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Oct.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .............................. Nov.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ................................... Oct.
Department Store S a l e s * / * * .................... Nov.

7,114
149
108
122

7,126r
149r
105
119

7,081r
146
109
118

40.1

90
95
3.3
41.4

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment...................................Nov.
M anufacturing......................... i . .
Nov.
Nonmanufacturing................................... Nov.
Construction........................................Nov.
Farm Employment........................................Nov.
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Nov.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Nov.

119
121
118
144
80
3.1
41.1

118
120
117
143
82
3.3
41.6

117
119
116
139
80
3.2
40.4

114
117
113
130
84
3.8
41.3

189
149
148

165
139
143

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s * ................................... Nov.
Member Bank Deposits*.............................. Nov.
Bank D e b it s * / * * ........................................ Nov.

191
152
161

188
151
147

187
152
156

164
134
145

13,422
179
148
173

13,386r
176r
135
174

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................... Nov.
M an u factu rin g ..................................................Nov.
Nonmanufacturing........................................... Nov.
Co n stru ction ..................................................Nov.
Farm Em ploym ent..................................................Nov.
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Nov.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Nov.

127
129
127
98
92
2.2
42.4

127
130
127
99 r
91
2.4
41.7r

2.6

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

193
151
155

189
150
155

*For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states.

13,207r 12,649
169
171
122
144
175
163
127
130
127
99
91

122
128
121

**D aily average basis.

r Revised.

6,763
140
121
114

p Preliminary.

Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U. S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton
consumption, U. S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; industrial use of elec. power, Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash
receipts and farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank.




•7 •




T h e o ld y e a r e n d e d o n a n o te o f o p tim is m , as e co n o m ic a c t iv it y
a p p a r e n t ly c o n tin u e d to e x p a n d . F a rm e rs h a v e e n jo y e d a b e t t e r th a n
a v e r a g e y e a r ; p e rs o n a l in c o m e h a s ris e n f a s te r in th e D is tric t th a n
it h as in th e n a tio n as a w h o le ; in s u re d u n e m p lo y m e n t is b e lo w th e
n a tio n a l a v e r a g e ; a n d c o n s tru c tio n a c t iv it y is s tr o n g e r in th is re g io n
th a n it is n a t io n a lly .

]S

]S

]S

As h a r v e s t a c tiv itie s d r e w to a close, f a r m e r s ' cash re c e ip ts w e r e
ru n n in g s lig h t ly a h e a d o f la s t y e a r's . This gain occurred despite a

weakening in some major crop and livestock prices. Demand deposits were
up in most rural areas in November, while farmers’ spending, as indicated
by debits to demand deposits, was down. These developments reflect high
receipts from crop sales and decreased expenditures for harvesting activities.
With soil moisture plentiful in most areas, farmers’ plans for the new crop
year are optimistic.
v*
v*
N o n f a r m e m p lo y m e n t in c re a s e d s tr o n g ly in N o v e m b e r, w it h o n ly
A la b a m a a n d F lo rid a f a ilin g to s h a re in th e im p r o v e m e n t. The addi­

tional jobs in Tennessee and Louisiana were predominantly in nonmanufactur­
ing activity, while manufacturing accounted for most of the gain in Georgia
and Mississippi. Employment in the transportation equipment industry re­
bounded to above the pre-strike level, and most other industries also showed
gains. In addition, the factory workweek lengthened and helped to fatten
paychecks. The District’s rate of insured unemployment continues to move
down as employment increases.
]S
iS
C ro s s c u rre n ts re m a in e d th e

r u le

in c o n s tru c tio n c o n tra c t a w a rd s .

As anticipated, the rate of year-to-year gain in total contract volume declined
further. However, it now appears that the retreat from the sharp peaks of
late 1963 and early 1964 was checked in August. Some further weakness
in residential awards was more than offset by strength in nonresidential
building. Among the latter were several large projects in the chemical and
allied products field.
iS
C o n s u m e rs c o n tin u e d to in c re a s e t h e ir s p e n d in g in N o v e m b e r, a n d
in d ic a tio n s w e r e t h a t th e C h ris tm a s s h o p p in g seaso n b r o k e a ll re c o rd s.

Department store sales rose to a new high in November, and so did debits
to bank accounts. Furniture store sales, however, declined. Besides buying
more goods, consumers added to their liquid savings in the form of commercial
bank time deposits and savings and loan shares. They also increased their
repayments of instalment credit at commercial banks to the extent that the
total of this type of credit outstanding actually decreased.
)/*
Bank

re s e rv e

p o s itio n s

v*

re m a in e d

v*
g e n e r a lly

easy

in

D e c e m b e r.

Member banks reduced their borrowings from the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta to about the same low level of a year ago. Borrowings by member
banks from other banks for the purpose of averting temporary reserve de­
ficiencies also stayed close to last year’s volume. Judging from reports of
banks in leading cities, loans in December rose less than usual, following a
very rapid increase in November. These banks continued to expand their
securities portfolios.
N o t e : D a t a o n w h ic h sta te m e n ts a r e b a s e d h a v e b e e n a d ju s t e d w h e n e v e r p o s s ib le t o e lim in a t e
s e a s o n a l in flu e n c e s.