View original document

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

MONTHLY
REVIEW
FEDERAL



RESERVE

BANK

IN THIS ISSUE:
• Banking Structure and Deposit
Concentration in the Southeas
• What Makes for
Bank Profitability?
• District Business Conditions

OF A T L A N T A
JULY 1969

B a n k in g

S tru c tu re

C o n c e n t r a t io n

and

in t h e

D e p o s it

S o u th e a s t

This country’s commercial banking system pro­
vides a wide range of different services in meet­
ing th e ' financial needs of individuals and busi­
nesses. Individual banks, however, vary widely
in size and the types of services they offer. Many
smaller banks located in predominantly rural and
suburban areas or small towns serve mainly the
traditional deposit and credit needs of customers
in their immediate locales. The large banking
institutions, while providing these same func­
tions, also service the very large corporate busi­
ness customers with complex and rapidly chang­
ing national and international financial needs.
Within this diverse spectrum of banking activity,
there are roles for banks of all sizes and with
varying degrees of specialization.
In that part of the Southeast including the
states lying wholly or partly in the Sixth Federal
Reserve District,1 for example, most of the more
than 1,800 commercial banks are relatively small
and primarily serve limited geographical areas.
On the other hand, a high percentage of total
bank deposits are held by comparatively few
banks.

The structure of banking, i. e., the number,
relative size, and location of the banks, also
varies among the states within this region. Among
other economic factors, the population, sources
and level of personal income, and industry mix
of each state may all influence its banking struc­
ture and the types of banking services offered.
In addition, differences in banking structure are
also affected by variations in state banking regu­
lations on the expansion and consolidation of
banks. For example, while each of the District
states places some limitations on branch banking,
the degree of the restrictions varies. And, the
state laws governing the formation and expansion
of bank holding companies also differ.
The effect of these differences on bank per­
formance is uncertain. However, economic theory
suggests, and most economists agree, that the
performance of the banking system is probably
closely related to its structure. This article de­
scribes some of the major elements in the bank­
ing structure of the Southeast as a benchmark
against which suggested modifications or subse­
quent changes can be compared and evaluated.

Monthly Review, Vol. LIV, No. 7. Free subscription
and additional copies available upon request to the
Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

1Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ten­
nessee.

86



M N LY R IEW
O TH
EV

T a b l e

I

B a n k s
S ix t h

a n d

D e p o s i t s

S t a t e s

District

a n d

U.

A ll

N u m b e r
Banks
1961

of

1967

1961

238

Florida

313

447

Louisiana

190

222

Mississippi

191

188

Tennessee

291

295

266

States

United

States

1,585
13,127

13,526




1961

1 9 6 1

a n d

1 9 6 7

Banks

T im e and
Savings
Deposits

1 9 6 :r
o f d o l l a r5
;

3 , 5 5 2 . 91 , 3 4 6 . 8

8,504.0

3,225.3

2,028.7
4 , 52 9
■0

1961

1967

Savings and
T i m e as
P e r c e n t of
Total Dep os it s
1961

1967

•
649.0

1,524.1 32.5

42.9

1,535.0

3,994.8

32.2

47.0

2 , 8 2 54. 0 4
6

5,196.7

1,977.2

2,977.6

848.4

2,219.1

30.0

42.7

2,891.4

4,754.8

2,076.3

2.807.1

815.0

1,947.7

28.2

41.0

913.2

1.358.2

363.1

882.0

28.4

39.4

2,525.4 36.2

47.1

13,093.1 31.7

44.2

1,276.3

2,240.2

3 , 2 0 55.,63 6 3 . 6

2,046.4

2 , 1.2 8
83

1,159.1

1,822

2 91,66,1925.52. 0

11,585.2

16,519.0

5,369.6

223,583.2

358,701.0

144,223.1

182,886.0

79,360.1

Bank Structure and Economic Change
Banking in the Southeast, as in the nation as a
whole, is characterized by a large number of re­
latively small banking units and relatively few
larger banks. The banks in this region tend to
be smaller, on average, however. This region’s
average deposits of $16.3 million per bank in
1967 were considerably lower than the national
average of $26.5 million.
On the other hand, the number of banks in­
creased measurably in the Southeast between
mid-1961 and mid-1967, accounting for a major
part of the change in the number of banks nation­
wide. Out of a national increase of 399 com­
mercial banks during this period, 237 were in the
District states, with Florida accounting for the
largest part of the gain.
Overall, total bank deposits also expanded at
a faster pace in this region than for the entire
nation between mid-1961 and mid-1967. Georgia’s
increase in total deposits outpaced the other Dis­
trict states, while deposits in Alabama, Florida,
and Mississippi grew at about the region’s aver­
age. Louisiana and Tennessee, on the other hand,
lagged the overall District’s deposit growth rate
but exceeded the U. S. rate of gain.
Although demand deposits still constituted the
major deposit source for banks in 1967, the rate
of growth in time and savings deposits from mid1961 to mid-1967 was much more rapid. This
latter category grew more than three times, as fast
as demand deposits at District states’ banks dur­
ing this period. Consequently, about 45 percent of
the total deposits of all commercial banks in the
six District states as a group were in the time
JU 1 6
LY 9 9

J u n e

D e m a n d
Deposits

1967

1,995.8
4,760.3

362

District

Commercial

Total
Deposits

A la ba ma
Georgia

Insured

S.,

175,815.0

35.5

49.0

and savings category in June 1967, up from about
32 percent six years earlier. Nationally, time and
savings deposits of commercial banks rose from
about one-third of total deposits in 1961 to nearly
one-half in 1967.
The gains in total deposits (demand and time
and savings) at District banks between 1961 and
1967 were influenced by favorable overall eco­
nomic conditions. Personal and per capita in­
come both rose steadily in the Southeast, in­
creased more rapidly than in the nation during
this period, and provided an enlarging source of
funds for banks.
Georgia, where deposits grew the most rapidly
among District states between 1961 and 1967,
also experienced the largest percentage gain in
personal and per capita incomes. (A closer rela­
tionship between income and deposit changes in
each District state over a longer time span was
discussed in the April issue of this Review.)2
Whatever the underlying factors affecting over­
all deposit growth, the form this growth takes in
a particular state depends largely on the state’s
laws governing bank expansion. Florida, for ex­
ample, where branching is prohibited altogether
except on certain military installations, expe­
rienced the sharpest increase in the number of
banks between 1961 and 1967 and has more banks
than any of the other District states. Bank hold­
ing companies are allowed in Florida, however,
and the growth in the number of banks in
holding companies (as a percent of all banking
2“Bank Deposit Growth and Income Changes in the South­
east,” Month ly Review, April 1969, pp. 50-53.
87

offices) increased from 4 percent at the end of
1961 to nearly 20 percent at year-end 1967. Dur­
ing the same period, the share of deposits con­
trolled by holding companies also increased
sharply from about 8 percent to 34 percent of total
bank deposits.
Formation and expansion of registered bank
holding companies in Georgia are not allowed
under current statutes, although those existing
prior to this restriction accounted for about 17
and 35 percent of Georgia’s banking offices and
total deposits, respectively, in 1967. Tennessee,
the only other District state with registered bank
holding companies, has hardly expanded at all in
this regard during the current decade.
While the recent banking expansion in Florida
has followed the holding company route and the
establishment of new banks, the other District
states (where limited branching within certain
areas is generally permitted) have experienced
sharp increases in the number of branches. And,
in each state, the number of banking offices (in­
dividual banks plus branch banks) expanded
faster than population. Consequently, average
population per bank office has declined from
7,407 in 1961 to 6,277 in 1967. Florida had the
highest average population per bank office in
1967, about 13,000, and Mississippi had the low­
est, only about 5,000 per office.

Deposit Concentration
The average population per bank office, the num­
ber of banks, and changes in the level and com­
position of deposits are only part of the bank
structure picture. Another important element,
particularly as it affects competition between
banks and their performance, is the distribution
of deposits and banking activity among banks of
various sizes. Concentration ratios, or shares of
various deposit categories held by the few largest
banks, are often used as a gauge of the competi­
tive environment. It is interesting to note what
the relationship is between the size distribution
of banks and the concentration of total bank
deposits in this region.
We have arranged the banks in each state in
descending order according to their total deposits,
and then further grouped them into various size
rankings (see Table I I ) . This grouping confirms
our earlier statement that a high percentage of
total deposits are held by relatively few banks.
For example, in 1967 for all six states combined,
5 percent of the banks, or less than 100 banks,
held about 50 percent of total deposits, and as
few as 15 percent of the largest banks accounted
for two-thirds of all bank deposits. On the other
hand, the smallest 50 percent of the banks in the
six states accounted for only about 10 percent of

T a b l e II
P e r c e n t a g e
B y

S i z e

S h a r e s

R a n k i n g

of

o f

T ot al

B a n k s ,

D e p o s i t s
J u n e

P e r c e n t Distribution

1 9 6 7

of Total

Deposits

All I n s u r e d C o m m e r c i a l B a n k s
Size R a n k i n g
of B a n k s
Largest
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
Smallest

1
4
1 0
1 0
2 5
2 5
2 5

A la ba ma
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

26.2
25.8
15.4
8.0

Florida
15.3

18.8
21.0

4.5

46.4
26.7
12.1
21.1
7.3
8.2
1 8 .131 . 2
11.0
9 .6 . 2
2
6.3
2.6
2.5
14.3

12.9
12.9
7.9
3.7

Sixth
District
United
L o u iG se io ar ng ai a
Mississippi
T e n n e s s eStates
e
28.126.1
33.7
12.7
7.7
16.1 10.6
5.2
9.9
2.1
4.8

24.1
14.5
17.6
11.1

States

26.6
19.2

22.5
17.0
9.5

5.9
7.7
3.8
1.6

13.7
7.4
3.4

*
B a n k i n g Organizations
Largest
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
Smallest

♦ Consolidates
panies.

1
4
1 0
1 0
2 5
2 5
2 5

24.0
20.6
18.5
10.8
15.0
7.4
3.7

%
%
%
%
%
%
%

individual

88




subsidiary

banks

of b a n k

28.1

51.7
13.6
9.8
6.4
10.3

10.3
5.0

5.9
2.4
holding

c o imn p a h ei etsh r e e
tn

District

states w it h

30.1
23.8 34.9
12.3
8.7
7.3
12.5
6.8
3.1
2.0
registered

52.8
18.6
11.1
5.3
7.1
3.6

15

1.5

holding c o

M N LY R IEW
O TH
EV

In both 1961 and 1967, 15 percent of the larg­
est District banks held about 65 percent of total
deposits at all insured commercial banks.

the total deposits with the smallest 25 percent
holding only 3 percent. Nationally, the largest 15
percent of the banks held over 80 percent of all
deposits in 1967, and the 25 percent at the small­
er end of the scale held less than 2 percent.
The accompanying chart shows bank deposit
concentration in another form. This technique
uses the entire distribution of banks on a cumula­
tive basis instead of only the extremes. For each
of the size rankings of banks, the percentage of
total banks they represent (vertical scale) is
plotted against the percentage of total deposits
they hold (horizontal scale). If all the banks were
of equal size, these plotting would fall along the
dashed diagonal line on the chart. Since they are
not, the actual distribution falls below the
diagonal line.
The degree of concentration varies from state
to state, as inspection of the charts for each
state shows. Hence, a summary measure known
as the Gini Coefficient was calculated in order to
compare the concentration of one state’s demand,
time and savings, and total deposits with deposits
in the other states (see Table I I I ). Compared
with total deposits, demand deposits in each state
are more highly concentrated (as indicated by a

Percent of Banks

higher coefficient); time and savings deposits
are less highly concentrated.
Total deposits were the most highly concen-

D e p o s i t C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f A ll I n s u r e d C o m m e r c i a l B a n k s
Prcn oBns
e e t f ak

AAAA
LBM

GOG
ERIA

TNESE
ENSE

MS S P
ISISIPI

0

2
0

4
0

6
0

8
0

10
0

Prc n oTta Dpsits
e e t f o l eo
JULY 1 6
99




89

T a b l e
D e p o s i t
S ix t h

District
All

a n d

III

C o n c e n t r a t i o n
District

Insured
(Gini

S tates,

Commercial

1 9 6 1

a n d

1 9 6 7

Banks

Coefficient*)

T im e
State

Total

1967

1961
A la ba ma
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Tennessee
District S t a t e s

.35
.18

Deposits

1961
.30

.44
.34
.18
.41
.31

D e m a n d

Deposits

.16
.43
.33
.21

.35

1961
.29
.10
.29

.35
.39

.30

1967
.31
.20
.47

.37
.23
.50
.35
.20

and
Savings Deposits

.23
.42 .45
.33

.29
.10
.
.31
.19

.14
.35
.24

.
.

* T h e G i n i C o e f f i c i e n t is a s u m m a r y
m e a s u r e of t h e d ifference b e t w e e n a n e q u a l distribution of t h e b a n k s b y
a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . O n t h e c h a r t s , t h i s is m e a s u r e d a s t h e
difference
between
the
equal-distribution
diagon
t h e c u r v e d l i n e d e f i n i n g t h e a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . T h e c l o s e r t h e c u r v e d l i n e is t o t h e s t r a i g h t l i n e , i. e., t h e m o r e
b a n k s a r e in s i z e a n d t h e l e s s c o n c e n t r a t e d a r e b a n k d e p o s i t s , t h e s m a l l e r t h e G i n i C o e f f i c i e n t ; t h e f u r t h e r t
a p a r t , t h e l a r g e r t h e c o e f f i c i e n t . T h e a c t u a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n is m e a s u r e d b e t w e e n z e r o ( a b s o l u t e e q u a l i t y ) a n d o
i n e q u a l i t y ) . In t hi s w a y , t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f d e p o s i t s in o n e s t a t e c a n b e c o m p a r e d d i r e c t l y w i t h t h a t o f a n o

trated in Georgia and Tennessee. Florida’s de­
posits were the least concentrated when individ­
ual banks were considered separately, but when
consolidated into the appropriate holding com­
pany groups (see Table I I ), the concentration
was about equal to that of the other states. In
every state, the smallest 25 percent of the banks
or banking organizatons held less than 5 percent
of the state’s deposits in June 1967.
C o n c l u s i o n

The banking structure of the Southeast, as mea­
sured by the number of banks and total deposits,
is continually undergoing change. The direction
this change takes in each state is determined by
many underlying economic factors, on the one
hand, and regulatory freedoms or restrictions, on
the other. The present banking structure of each
state in this region represents a variety of eco­
nomic and regulatory environments.
Concentration of banking resources is often
used as a test of the competitiveness of the bank­
ing system. However, whether a large or small

90




number of equal sized banks or a few relatively
large banks and many smaller ones is most ap­
propriate in meeting the banking public’s con­
venience and needs is debatable.
Jo e W . M cLeary
Notes on Sources and Data Used

Special
tabulations
of
individual
banks'
condition
reports for J u n e 1 9 6 1 a n d 1 9 6 7 w e r e u s e d a s a b as i s
f o r t h i s a r t i c l e . A ll i n s u r e d c o m m e r c i a l b a n k s i n e a c h
of t h e six District s t a t e s w e r e a r r a y e d b y total d e p o s i t s
and then grouped
into v a r i o u s size r a n k i n g s w i t h i n
e a c h state. F r o m
these rankings w e
can
determin
not
only the
n u m b e r
of
banks
and
total
bankin
d e p o s i t s in e a c h s t a te , b u t a l s o t h e r e l a t i v e s i z e o f
the
banks
and
the
distribution
of v a r i o u s
deposi
c a t e g o r i e s a m o n g b a n k s of d i f f e r e n t sizes.
T h e D i s t r i c t ’ b a n k i n g s t r u c t u r e i n 1 9 6 7 is p r e s e n t e d
s
a s e v i d e n c e of t h e c u r r e n t s t r u c t u r e w i t h c o m p a r a b l e
1 9 6 1 f ig ur es for c o m p a r i s o n . A s a c a v e a t , c h a n g e s b e ­
t w e e n t h e s e t w o p e r i o d s m a y n o t reflect t yp ical shifts
t a k i n g place; also, i nd iv id ua l s ta te s m a y
not be the
appropriate
geographical
market
areas
to
consider,
although
the
legal
regulations
that
directly
affect
b a n k i n g s tr uc tu re a re d e t e r m i n e d largely w i t h i n e a c h
state.

M N LY R V W
O TH
E IE

W h a t

M akes

fo r

Bank

The overall success of a bank, or lack of success,
can be measured by net profits at year-end. But
it takes more than a single profits figure to
determine the factors that contribute to or de­
tract from an individual bank’s profits. It takes
knowledge of the costs involved in the bank’s
numerous and diverse operations.
All too often, however, bankers have difficulty
pinpointing why profits have met or have fallen
short of expectations and have difficulty deciding
on how best to improve their earnings. Are service
charges adequate? Is the interest expense on time
deposits too high? Should the loan portfolio be
expanded and if so, which category? To what ex­
tent can the salary structure be improved?
A key to answering these and related questions
is the ability to determine the specific costs for
particular bank services. This knowledge of prof­
itability and control over expenses has become
particularly acute in recent years since there has
been a tendency for bank expenses to increase
faster than income.
For the most part, all bankers have been con­
fronted with the same expense problems: rising
salaries for bank personnel, higher interest rates
paid on time deposits, pressure from customers
for costly services, and an overall increase in
general expenses. Accordingly, all bankers have
been forced to scrutinize their costs and, to an
increasing extent, to develop more accurate and
detailed cost data.
Functional Cost Analysis Program
To help meet this need, the Functional Cost
Analysis Program was developed as a cooperative
JU 1 6
LY 9 9




P r o f it a b ilit y ?

effort between the Federal Reserve Banks and
participating member banks. The program pro­
vides the participating banks with a profit and
loss statement of their major lending and invest­
ing activities. It also develops cost information
for safe deposit, computer, trust, and other non­
fund-using departments. The Reserve Banks
furnish participating banks with reports that
permit comparisons with their own operations
from year to year. The same reports furnished the
participating banks also provide a comparison of
their own results in each function with a group
average of 10 banks of similar size. Service
charges, minimum loan charges, safe deposit
rental fees, personnel needs, and personnel allo­
cations are some of the decision-making areas in
which the Functional Cost Analysis (FCA) data
can be of particular help. Decision-making is
thus made much easier and less subject to error.
Aside from being of interest to individual
bankers, the FCA data are useful in that they
can provide answers to banking questions of more
general interest. For example, these data can
provide important information on why different
banks of more or less equal size have higher prof­
its than others. To develop some insight into
this question for small banks in the Southeast,
we studied 1966 FCA data for 70 participating
Sixth District member banks with deposits of
$50 million and under. We divided these 70 banks
into two groups: those whose net earnings on
total available funds before taxes comprised the
top 25 percent (the “more profitable” group or
“high earners” ) and the remaining 75 percent
91

(the “less profitable” group or “low earners”) . 1
Information on each major banking function or
service was developed for these two groups
separately, and then the groups were compared
with each other.
Normally, studies of this kind try to determine,
through vigorous statistical tests, whether differ­
ences in performance are statistically significant
or could have resulted from chance. Also, when
figures for two groups of banks are averaged, as
they were here, the results hide differences in the
performance of individual banks in each group.
Recognizing these limitations, the comparisons
(shown in part in the accompanying table)
nevertheless provide some indication of what
makes for bank profitability of small member
banks in the Southeast.
JThe material used for this study should not be confused
with the FCA Report “Performance Characteristics of High
Earning Banks.” The latter shows the top quartile perfor­
mance by individual function only. It does not provide an
overall picture of the operations of a single banking unit.
S a l i e n t
M o r e

Comparisons
Total gross income per $1,000 of total available
funds before Federal income taxes was $58.32 for
the high-earning banks and $55.53 for the low
earners. Total expenses per $1,000 of available
funds were $36.26 and $40.24 for the high and
low earners, respectively. Thus, the more profit­
able group of banks not only generated, through
a more profitable investment of funds, more in ­
come per dollar invested, but also operated more
economically. This suggests that to boost bank
earnings it takes a propitious combination of in­
come improvement and expense control.
Salary and related expenses, a major total ex­
pense item, accounted for a substantial portion
of the differences in the expense ratios of the
high- and low-earning banks. The high earners
accomplished their saving in salaries through
more efficient personnel performance. In all
major functions, the volume of work handled per

D i f f e r e n c e s

P rofitable

B a n k s

a n d

in

E a r n i n g s
t h e

L e s s

o f

t h e

Pro fi ta bl e

N e t e a r n i n g s o n $ 1 , 0 0 0 of a va il ab le f u n d s b e f o r e F e d e r a l i n c o m e t a x e s
(not i n c lu di ng n o n - f u n d - u s i n g d e p a r t m e n t s ) .

$

B a n k s 1

22.06

vs

$

15.29

E a r n i n g s r e s u l t f r o m t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f: c o s t o f m o n e y , y iEexl p e n s e s . F u n c t i o n a l e x p e n s e s e x e r t a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e
d
on
portfolio ( l o a n s a n d
investments), a n d
t h e p e r c e n t n of e t e a r n i n g s . E x p e n s e c o n tr ol p r e s e n t s o p p o r t u n i t i e s
o
n
a v a i l a b l e f u n d s in p ortfolio.
i m p r o v e d net earnings.
$ P e r $ 1 , 0 0 0 of V o l u m e
C o s t of m o n e y
2 . 4 2 % vs
2.76%
$20.64 vs $23.92
N e t portfolio yield
5 . 2 8 % vs
4 . 8 9 % D e m a n d deposits
T i m e deposit, o pe ra ti ng
$ 3.93 vs $ 4.64
Portfolio ( p e r c e n t of a va il ab le
$35.94 vs $36.73
funds)
8 7 . 8 0 % v s 8 7 . 6 6 %T i m e d e p o s i t , i n t e r e s t
$ 7.71 v s $ 8.04
R /E
mortgage
loans
C o s t o f m o n e y is t h e c o s t o f a c q u i r i n g a n d s e r v i c i n g d e p o s i t s I n s t a l m e n t l o a n s
$28.86 vs $31.54
a n d c a p i t a l f u n d s l e s s a n y s e r v i c e c h a r g e a n d f e e i n c o m e .O t h e r l o a n s
$11.15 vs $13.53
$ 1.24 v s $ 1.47
Investments
C o s t of d e m a n d d ep os it s
1 . 2 6 % vs 1 . 5 5 %
C o s t of t i m e d ep os it s
3 . 9 8 % vs 4 . 1 2 %
C o s t of n e t capital
1 . 3 4 % v s 1 . 7 O t h e r factors w h i c h influence earnings:
9%
C o s t of m o n e y
funds.

is

influenced

by
%

D e m a n d deposits
T im e
deposits
N e t capital f u n d s

composition
of A v a i l a b l e
4 8 . 3 8 % vs 4 6
4 2 . 6 6 % vs 4 6
8 . 9 6 % vs
7

N e t p o r t f o l i o y i e l d is i n f l u e n c e d
p o n e n t s o f t h e portfolio.

by

Investments
Loans
R / E m o r t g a g e loans
Instalment loans
C o m m e r c i a l a n d agricultural
loans

4
5
5
7

Personnel

net

.
.
.
.

7
6
1
2

of
Fund
.10%
. 25 %
.65%

yields

N e t Yield
9 % vs 4 . 5
2 % vs 5 . 1
1 % vs 4 . 9
1 % vs 6 .1

5 .0 1%

vs

of

9
1
7
0

%
%
%
%

4.63%

data

P e r s o n n e l p e r $ 1 million
available f u n d s
Salaries a s a p er ce nt
of g r o s s i n c o m e

2.00

vs

2.14

19.19%

vs

21.71%

available C o s t p e r h o m e deb it (cents)
A v g . b al., r e g u l a r
checking account
s
S p e c i a l c h e c k i n g activity
I n c o m e p e r acct. p e r m o .
C D a n d o t h e r t i m e interest
the

c Aov m r a g e
e ­




vs

$1,894
$

vs

6.480

$1,96

.91 v s $ 1 .11
$39.15 vs $41.32

c o s t to:

M a k e a c o n s u m e r instalment
loan
Collect o n e c o n s u m e r i n s t a l m e n t
loan p a y m e n t
Nonfund-using Departments
Net earnings from:

(Other sources

$13.04
$

vs

.78 v s

of b a n k

$1

$
earni

C o m p u t e r Service D e p a r t m e n t
- v5
( p e rc en t of e x p e n s e s )
-15.54% 7.s4%
Trust D e p a r t m e n t (percent
of e x p e n s e s )
- 2 0 .-20.20%s
54% v
Safe Deposit D ep ar tm en t
-210.650 vs -310.680
(cents per b o x rented)

^ a s e d o n a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e 1 8 (25 p ercent) t op - e a r n i n g Sixth
District m e m b e r
( 7 5 p e r c e n t ) t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e 1 9 6 6 F C A p r o g r a m . All b a n k s h a d $ 5 0 m i l l i o n
o n t h e ratio of n e t e a r n i n g s b e f o r e t a x e s to a v a i l a b l e f u n d s .

92

5.740

banks
with the
52
lowero r l e s s in d e p o s i t s ; e a r n i n g s

M N LY R IEW
O TH
EV

employee was greater for the high-earning banks.
For example, the more profitable banks not only
serviced a larger volume of regular checking ac­
counts, but their expenses per $1,000 of regular
checking deposits were lower than for the less
profitable banks.
As far as the distribution of major assets and
liabilities was concerned, the two groups of banks
differed little in most respects. However, one
notable difference was that the high-earning
group had fewer funds in cash and due from
banks than did the low-earning banks. The more
profitable group of banks also held a smaller per­
centage of time deposits—on which their interest
expense and operating costs were lower than for
the less profitable banks. The former averaged
2.30 processing personnel for every $1,000 of
time deposits, whereas the less profitable banks
averaged 2.89 persons. In the demand deposit
function, which employs about three-fifths of
total personnel, total operating expenses per
$1,000 were $20.64 and $23.92, for the high- and
low-earning banks, respectively. Thus, through
their ability to control expenses, coupled with a
more favorable deposit mix and lower interest
expense on time deposits, the more profitable
banks were able to generate a higher income from
funds less expensively acquired.
Enhancing their earnings further, these banks
employed their funds in a more profitable asset
mix. Their loan portfolio contained a larger per­
centage of instalment loans—the most profitable
type of bank asset according to the study. Also,
they received a higher yield on instalment loans
and kept down their expenses on them better
than the low earners. For the latter, the cost of
making an instalment loan amounted to $16.60,
while the cost to the more profitable bank was
$13.04. Furthermore, the more profitable banks’
investment portfolios contained a larger percent­
age of high-yielding tax-exempt obligations of
states, counties, and municipalities and a smaller
percentage of U. S. Government issues. How­
ever, contrary to what one might expect, the less
profitable banks had a larger percentage of real

estate loans, which proved to be a profitable
category of lending. The trust, computer, and safe
deposit departments were loss operations for both
groups of banks.
The superior earnings of the more profitable
group may fairly well be summed up by three
factors: First, the high-earning banks were able
to generate greater income from their earning
assets—particularly instalment loans; second, the
high-earning banks were able to secure their
deposits at a lower cost; and third, in almost every
major area of operations, the high earners at­
tained more efficient personnel performance.
Concluding Comments
These conclusions suggest that the typical small
bank bent on increasing its profits might consider:
(1 ) investing more of its funds in loans, partic­
ularly instalment loans; (2 ) holding a larger per­
centage of its investment account in tax-exempt
securities; (3 ) studying its interest rate policy
on time deposits and the effect this has on the
bank’s expenses, on the one hand, and the need
to compete for these funds, on the other; (4 )
studying operations carefully for ways to improve
operating techniques and increase productivity;
and (5 ) pricing services adequately. However,
in attempting to enhance bank profitability,
liquidity, risk, and other considerations should
not be overlooked.
Some factors affecting profitability are not
within the control of management. To. a large de­
gree, economic and competitive factors influence
profitability. Nevertheless, bank management it­
self can play an important role to boost profits
through well-directed efforts at increasing reve­
nues and curtailing expenses. Cost accounting
provides the rudder to lead and direct such ef­
forts.
This article is based on a thesis written by

ROBERT E. HECK in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of the Stonier Graduate School
of Banking, Rutgers University, June 1969.

B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts

Citizens Bank of Riverdale, Riverdale, Georgia, opened
on June 9, as a newly organized nonmember bank and
began to remit at par for checks drawn on it when
received from the Federal Reserve Bank. Officers are
Pierce T. Neese, president; H. Vance Eaddy, Jr., vice
president and cashier. Capital is $300,000; surplus
and other capital funds, $150,000.
On June 16, South LaFourche Bank & Trust Com­
JU 1 6
LY 9 9




pany, Larose, Louisiana, a nonmember bank, began
to remit at par.
The Bank of Miramar, Miramar, Florida, a newly or­
ganized nonmember bank, opened on June 19 and
began to remit at par. Gary C. Reed is executive vice
president. Capital is $250,000; surplus and other
capital funds, $410,000.
93

S ix t h

D is t r ic t S t a t i s t i c s
Seasonally Adjusted

(All d a t a

are indexes,

L a te st M o n t h
1969
S IX T H

One
M onth
Ago

Tw o
M on th s
A go

1 9 5 7 - 5 9

=

1 0 0 ,

u nl es s

i nd icated otherwise.)

D IS T R IC T

170
16 7
1 24
77

In c o m e
Apr. 69,3 4 7
M ay
242
Apr.
1 60
Apr.
1 47
Apr.
166

68,6 9 5
240r
1 68
173
170

. M ay
. M ay

3 1 4 .9
3 02 .6

358 .4
314 .1

292 .5
2 93 .6

3 05 .5
261 .3

. M ay
. M ay

147
14 6
17 4
138
166
115

147
146
1 73
1 37
166
116

147
14 6
17 4
139
16 8
116

1 42
141
1 75
1 33
1 58
1 13

1 07
125
132
1 13

10 7
127
134

1 04
1 24
1 33

M ay
M ay
M ay
M ay
Apr.

106
126
136
113
198
1 48
137
57

. M ay

3.5

. M ay
. M ay
. M ay

1.8

1.8

41.1
185

4 1 .2r
193

41.1
1 82

41.1
207

210

C ro p s

6 8 ,6 3 6
238
177
1 90
172

2 25
165
15 4
103
237

207
161
159

240
180
151
10 8
257

6 3,1 30
224
152
1 52
1 54

U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e rc e n t of W o rk F o rc e )! . .
A vg . W e e k ly H rs. in M fg . (H rs.)
F IN A N C E A N D

. M ay

F o o d .....................................
Lbr., W o o d Prod., F u rn . & Fix.

T e x t ile s
..........................
T r a n s p o r ta tio n E q u ip m e n t

U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e rc e n t of W o r k F o r c e )! . . .
In s u r e d U n e m p lo y m e n t
(P e rc e n t of C ov. E m p .) . . . .
A vg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg . (H rs.) .

. M ay
. M ay
. M ay
. M ay
. M ay
. M ay
.
.
.
.
.

1.8

1 64
1 59
107
2 43

20 2

112
20 2

147
137
59

147
140
63

1 86
1 42
129
61

3.5

3.3

3.7

1.8

110
2 22

111

F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
L oans*
. M ay
. M ay

321
2 77

318
274

313
268

2 73
2 41

. M ay
. M ay
. M ay

230
193
261

2 31
1 98
266

225
189
253

208
181
223

2.3
4 1 .6

2.6

2.6

41.1

4 1.5

35 8
259
273

347
253
251

289
223

222

8,65 7
204
157

8,49 7
2 05
1 54

8,5 4 6

8 ,0 3 9
1 87
1 44

130
131

1 29
130

129
124
67

1 28

129
131
129

122

12 2

128
129
127
115

62

64

69

3.9
40.8

4.0
4 1.4

3.8
4 1.6

279
216
233

278

212

2 51
19 9

231

202

P e r s o n a l In c o m e
(M il. $, A n n u a l R a t e ) ...................A pr.
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o l l s ...................... M a y
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s .......................... Apr.
P R O D U C T IO N A N D

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

202
15 9

EM PLOYM ENT

N o n fa r m E m p l o y m e n t ! ...................... M a y
M a n u f a c t u r in g
..............................M a y
. M
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g .......................... M a y
C o n s t r u c t i o n .............................. M a y
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ..............................Apr.
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
. M
(P e rc e n t o f W o rk F o r c e ) ! ...............M a y
A vg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg . (H rs.)
. M ay

13,5 21
251
163

1 3 ,2 9 4
247
174

1 3 ,3 3 6
249
166

12,2 2 5
227
1 52

147
139
150
148
46

147
140
150
153
52

147
140
150
154
54

142
13 5
145
145
52

2.9
4 0 .9

2.8
4 1 .2

2.6
4 1 .0

3.3
4 0 .8

334
252
292

333
255
302

329
250
283

284
227
25 1

1 0 ,1 0 4 9 ,9 5 9
9 ,9 6 7
1 91
188
186
178
180
1 97

9 ,3 1 6
178
170

EM PLOYM ENT

N o n fa r m E m p l o y m e n t ! ...................... M a y
M a n u f a c t u r in g
.............................. M a y
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g .......................... M a y
C o n s t r u c t i o n ..............................M a y
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t .............................. Apr.
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e rc e n t of W o rk F o r c e ) ! ............... M a y
A vg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg . (H rs.) . . . M a y
F I N A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s .......................... M a y
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s .......................M a y
B a n k D e b i t s * * ..................................... M a y
L O U IS IA N A
IN C O M E
P e r s o n a l In c o m e
(M il. $, A n n u a l R a t e ) ...................A pr.
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o l l s ...................... M a y
F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s .......................... Apr.

4.6
40.7

2 87
21 5
22 3

IN C O M E

P R O D U C T IO N

ALABAM A

P R O D U C T IO N A N D

167
159
1 07
80

G E O R G IA

. M ay
E le c t ric P o w e r P r o d u c t io n * *
. . . . Apr.
C o tto n C o n s u m p t i o n * * ...................
P etrol. Prod , in C o a s t a l La. a n d M i s s . ’* *J u n e

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

83

169
164
124
95

112

B A N K IN G

In s ta lm e n t C re d it at B a n k s * (M il. $)

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

170
164

2.4
4 1.5

. M ay
. M ay
. M ay
.
.
.
.
.

One
Year
A^o

L a t e st M o n t h
1969

IN C O M E A N D S P E N D I N G
P e rs o n a l

One
Two
M on th M o n th s
Ago
Ago

357
258
268

O ne
Year
Ago

AND

EM PLOYM ENT

N o n fa rm E m p l o y m e n t ! ...................... M a y
M a n u f a c t u r in g
..............................M a y
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g .......................... M a y
C o n s t r u c t i o n ..............................M a y
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t .............................. Apr.
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e rc e n t of W o rk F o r c e ) ! ............... M a y
A vg. W e e k ly H rs. in M fg . (H rs.) . . . M a y

134134
123
136
144
55

124
137
146
58

132
120
134
149
59

5.4
4 1 .6

5.2
42.1

123
136
153
56

13 4

5.1
4 1 .9

4.7
43.1

254
176

232
169
1 82

F I N A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * ...................... M a y
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * ...................M a y
B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ..................................M a y 1 9 9

259
180
1 97

253
178
192

M IS S IS S IP P I
IN C O M E
P e rs o n a l In c o m e
5,131
266
1 68

5 ,2 4 8
265
179

5,11 2
26 1
214

4 ,6 6 6
244
14 6

1 47
15 8
142

148
158
1 44

1 43
15 3
13 8

1 45
49

147
157
142
146
52

154
58

14 4
51

4.3
41.0

4.1
4 0.9

3.7
4 0 .8

4.7
4 0 .8

382

386
264

373
255
265

327
240

F I N A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
P R O D U C T IO N
M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ...............
M em ber Bank
B a n k D e b it s**

D e p o s its
. . .
......................

. M ay
. M ay
. M ay

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

20,9 0 1
320
157

2 0 ,7 8 4
314
1 75

2 0 ,6 8 8
310
1 88

18,8 3 6
2 81
165

.................. M a y

94




EM PLOYM ENT

F IN A N C E A N D

. M ay
. M ay

. M ay

B A N K IN G

M em ber Bank Loans*
. . . .
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s it s * . . .

EM PLOYM ENT

E m p lo y m e n t t

AND

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

168

1 65

1 65

1 60

. M ay

B a n k D e b i t s * / * * .......................

. M ay

260
282

26 7

2 11

M N LY R IEW
O TH
EV

L a t e st M o n t h
1969

One
M onth
Ago

Tw o
M onths
Ago

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

. . Apr. 11,0 3 3
. . M ay
237

1 0,9 13
237r
139

10,9 87
2 36
135

One
Year
Ago

L a te st M o n t h
1969

N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ...................... .
C o n s t r u c t i o n .......................... ....
F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ............................. .
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
10,0 48
(P e rc e n t o f W o r k F o rc e J t . . . . ,
.
215
A v e ra g e W e e k ly H o u r s in M fg . (H rs.) ,
.
131
F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G

. . M ay
. . M ay

1 46
135

14 7
1 56

1 48
157

* F o r S ix t h D ist ric t a re a on ly. O th e r t o t a ls fo r e n t ire s ix sta te s.

14 4
153

“ D a ily a v e ra g e b a s is.

M ay
M ay
Apr.

1 42
168
59

M ay
M ay

3.7
40.8

314
203
302

Tw o
M onths
Ago

1 42
173
61

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

P R O D U C T IO N A N D E M P L O Y M E N T
N o n fa r m E m p l o y m e n t t ...............
M a n u f a c t u r in g
......................

One
M onth
Ago

t P r e lim in a r y data.

Ago

144
18 0
63

13 9
164

3.6
4 0 .6 r

3.1
40.5

3.6
40.7

304
206
305

300
1 93
302

2 71
194
252

66

r-R e v ise d .

S o u r c e s : P e r s o n a l in c o m e e s tim a t e d b y t h is B a n k ; n o n fa rm , m fg. a n d n o n m fg . em p ., m fg. p a y ro lls a n d h o u rs, a n d u n e m p ., U .S . Dept, o f L a b o r a n d c o o p e r a t in g sta te
a g e n c ie s; c o tto n c o n s u m p t io n , U .S. B u r e a u of C e n s u s ; c o n s t ru c t io n c o n tra c ts, F. W . D o d g e C orp.; petrol, prod., U .S . B u r e a u o f M in e s ; in d u s t r ia l u s e o f elec. pow er,
Fed. P o w e r C o m m .; fa rm c a s h re c e ip ts a n d fa rm em p., U .S.D .A . O th e r in d e x e s b a s e d o n d a ta c o lle c te d b y t h is B a n k . A ll in d e x e s c a lc u la t e d b y t h is B a n k .

D e b it s t o

D em and

D e p o s it A c c o u n t s

Insured Commercial Banks in the Sixth District
(In Thousands of Dollars)
P e rc e n t C h a n g e

A p ril
1969

M ay
1969

M ay
1968

P e rc e n t C h a n g e

yea r
to
d a te
M a y ’6 9
5 m os.
fro m
1969
A p ril M a y
fro m
196 9 1968 1968

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 IC A L A R E A S t
B ir m in g h a m
. .
G adsden
. . . .
H u n t s v ille
. . . .
M o b ile
...............
M o n tgo m e ry
. . .
T u s c a lo o s a
. . .

1 ,94 4,069
67,2 1 3
1 9 6 ,8 5 4
6 2 4 ,7 7 6
3 6 1 ,4 9 9
1 2 2 ,1 6 2

1 ,92 4,845
68,7 2 7
2 1 0 ,3 5 0
572 ,5 3 1
3 5 4 ,9 6 0
11 7 ,4 6 2

1,7 1 2 ,5 1 8
6 6 ,5 1 9
1 9 2 ,4 9 4
5 6 6 ,8 7 0
3 5 4 ,1 4 9
1 1 6 ,4 0 6

+
+
+
+

Ft. L a u d e r d a le —
H o lly w o o d
. .
J a c k s o n v ille
. . .
M ia m i
...............
O r la n d o
. . . .
P e n s a c o la
. . .
T a lla h a s s e e
. . .
T a m p a — St. Pete. .
W. P a lm B e a c h

1 ,01 5,648
1,93 4,895
3 ,1 8 2 ,7 0 0
7 1 2 ,5 6 8
2 4 5 ,2 2 6
18 7 ,5 6 0
1 ,84 1,619
60 7 ,3 2 1

1 ,11 9,215
1 ,90 4,587
3 ,63 1,358
7 6 5 ,3 3 7
2 3 2 ,5 8 4
17 2 ,7 5 2
1 ,98 2,325
7 0 5 ,6 9 2

8 2 7 ,7 5 9
1,65 3,747
2,8 6 0 ,4 8 7
6 3 9 ,7 6 4
2 2 5 ,1 7 5
168 ,0 2 2
1,60 3,757
50 4 ,5 2 1

+

9

+
+
-1

7
5
9
7
4

1 1 0 ,301
6 ,65 9,601
2 9 2 ,3 1 2
2 7 9 ,8 1 8
30 8 ,7 1 4
3 1 9 ,3 6 3

1 0 9 ,1 0 9
7 ,0 1 7 ,0 5 0
3 2 2 ,8 6 8 r
2 7 4 ,3 9 8
3 4 6 ,2 2 9
3 4 7 ,1 1 5

1 0 0 ,5 4 2
5,7 7 6 ,1 7 6
3 3 4 ,1 4 0
2 4 9 ,2 7 7
2 7 8 ,9 9 8
3 2 6 ,6 5 1

+
+

Baton R o u g e
L a fa y e tte
.
L a k e C h a r le s
N e w O r le a n s

6 0 2 ,3 2 4
1 5 7 ,142
17 1 ,4 1 6
2 ,7 7 7 ,6 1 2

5 8 8 ,2 7 2
1 6 3 ,0 4 2
1 6 8 ,8 9 6
2 ,69 3,173

642 ,0 3 1
143 ,018
16 1 ,8 5 0
2 ,6 5 9 ,0 2 8

+
+
+

. .
. .
. .
. .

B i lo x i— G u lfp o rt
Jackson
. . . .
C hattanoo ga
. .
K n o x v ille
. . . .
N a s h v ille
. . . .

12 9 ,7 7 8
8 90 ,5 8 1

125 ,9 4 3
7 6 9 ,7 4 8

7 4 8 ,5 0 2
5 6 8 ,8 1 8
2 ,43 2,406

7 9 5 ,2 1 8
5 5 5 ,5 2 5
2 ,3 0 7 ,6 7 2

113 ,0 0 5
6 2 4 ,5 1 2
6 6 0 ,2 0 4
5 2 6 ,7 9 3
l,9 7 3 ,7 8 6 r

9

2
4

2
-1 2

A lb a n y
...............
A t la n ta
. . . .
A u g u s t a ...............
C o lu m b u s
. . . .
M acon
...............
Savannah
. . . .
.
.
.
.

1
2
6

1
5
9

2
-1 1
- 8
2
4

1
3

+ 14
+
+ 2
+ 10
+
+

+ 13
+ 5
+ 5
+ 9
+ 10
+ 14

+23
+ 17
+ 11
+ 11
+ 9
+ 12
+ 15
+ 20

M ay
1969
1 0 5 ,0 0 0
1 4 0 ,5 4 9
39,9 9 1
79,8 6 1
2 7 ,0 4 0
4 2 1 ,7 4 6
169 ,2 2 7
9 5 8 ,2 6 7
7 6 ,4 0 5

1 1 0 ,9 6 6
15 7 ,3 4 7
4 6 ,7 9 4
8 0 ,8 3 9
2 8 ,4 0 9
4 5 1 ,8 3 6
17 1 ,9 7 5
1 ,02 7,733
9 0 ,4 9 8

101 ,9 3 5
130 ,921
4 0 ,1 5 5
6 1 ,6 9 4
2 3,9 5 5
36 6 ,8 9 5
1 2 4 ,0 0 9
8 5 6 ,5 6 6 r
7 7 ,8 1 3

-1
-1

A th e n s
...............
B r u n s w ic k
. . .
D a lto n
...............
E lb e rto n
. . . .
G a in e s v ille
. . .
...............
G riffin
L a G ra n g e
. . . .
New nan
. . . .
Rom e
...............
V a ld o s ta
. . . .

96,6 2 7
51,1 0 5
1 2 1 ,7 7 2
16,4 26
7 8 ,0 1 6
3 7 ,1 6 0
24,7 11
2 3 ,7 8 6
8 4 ,8 0 7
5 9 ,8 7 2

9 6 ,2 5 8
5 3 ,1 3 9
1 3 3 ,582
17,7 4 8
7 9 ,6 0 6
3 8 ,8 2 5
3 4 ,2 2 9
2 5 ,2 1 8
8 7 ,8 9 6
6 3,4 71

86,3 1 2
4 5 ,1 5 9
10 3 ,001
1 5,6 97
7 3,7 09
3 9 ,9 8 9 r
23 ,2 7 9
2 5 ,8 5 5
7 9 ,7 4 9
59,1 6 7

+
-2
-

A b b e v ille
. . . .
A le x a n d ria
. . .
B u n k ie
...............
Ham m ond
. . . .
N e w Ib e ria
. . .
P la q u e m in e
. .
T h ib o d a u x
. . .

1 2,2 70
16 6 ,9 9 7
7,473
4 6,7 21
3 9 ,2 1 4
1 8,2 45
2 7 ,9 9 6

12,1 07
1 9 3 ,7 5 0
8,3 8 4
4 5 ,2 6 2
3 7 ,8 8 0
1 4,4 11
2 5,9 9 3

10,9 28
1 49 ,0 1 2
6,69 7
4 0 ,9 4 2
3 5,6 9 7
2 0 ,2 5 2
2 6 ,2 7 8

+ 1
-1 4

+ 10
+
+ 4

H a t t ie s b u r g
. . .
L a u re l
...............
M e rid ia n
. . . .
N a tc h e z
. . . .
P a s c a g o u la —
M o s s P o in t
. .

7 3 ,8 5 8
4 5 ,5 4 7
9 1 ,5 1 8
4 5 ,7 0 9

7 0,7 61
4 5 ,1 9 5
8 5 ,5 2 5
4 6 ,2 4 5

6 4 ,2 5 7
4 2 ,6 7 8
69,8 7 7
4 0 ,2 3 7

+
+
+
-

8 4 ,4 2 9

8 0,3 64

6 7 ,0 8 8

+

V ic k s b u r g
Y a z o o C it y

4 6 ,1 3 5
3 7 ,9 4 3

4 1 ,4 4 5
35,8 9 1

95,0 1 5
9 3 ,3 0 5
1 7 6 ,281

9 5 ,0 9 4
1 03,697
2 0 5 ,4 0 4

+21
+
+
+
+
+

19
7
16
15

8

+ 3
+ 16
+ 6
+ 3

+ 15
+43

+ 14
+ 13

6

+ 13
+ B
+23

+ 17
+ 12
+29

3
5

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

8 3,2 7 7
80,0 5 5
4 9 ,9 3 7

7 7 ,9 2 0
77,5 3 0
4 9,7 91

77,6 91
70,1 4 2
4 7 ,5 1 9

B a rto w
...............
B ra d e n to n
. . .
B re v a rd C o u n t y . .
D a y to n a
Beach
Ft. M y e r s —
N. Ft. M y e r s . .

3 9 ,9 3 7
88,2 1 3
2 2 4 ,0 1 7
13 6 ,9 3 5

4 0 ,9 5 7
103 ,231

4 0 ,6 4 3
7 8 ,5 1 3
24 2 ,0 1 1
10 0 ,7 2 7

1 3 2 ,085

2 5 2 ,4 6 5
10 8 ,1 7 0
14 7 ,1 7 6

1 0 8 ,1 0 1 r

+
+
+

0

+ 7
+ 14
+ 5

+ 9
+ 17
+ 8

- 2
-1 5

2
+ 12

+ 7
+ 16
+ 1
+ 11




7
3

-11
+27

-1 0

♦c dso lybns int eS t D tr t prio o t esae
I lue n a k h ixh is ic ot n f h t t .
n
JULY 1 6
99

. . . .
. . . .

B rist o l
...............
J o h n s o n C ity . . .
K in g s p o r t
. . . .

OTHER CEN T ERS
A n n is to n
D o th a n
S e lm a

S IX T H

1
5
7

2
7
6

+
+ 7
- 0
+29
+ 13
+ 15
+36
+ 12
- 2

+ 7
+ 10
+ 7
+28
+24
+16

+21
+15

+ 11

0

+ 12

+ 11

4
9
7

+ 13
+ 18
+ 5
+ 6
'
+
- 8
+
.
+

+ 14

2
4
8

6
4

6

+22
12
10
1

+
+
+
+
+
+

15

6
11
6

fP rtia etimte .
a lly s a d

^simt d
Et ae.

+

+ 10
+23
+17
+ 11
+ 10
+ 7
+ 11

1

+ 15
+
+31
+ 14

+ 19
+13
+24
+14

5

+26

40,6 5 1
3 5 ,9 6 2

+ 11
+ 6

+ 13
+

+22
+ 1
+ 10

80,4 0 3
85,5 4 7
1 7 6 ,367

- 0
-1 0
-1 4

+ 18
+
-

+ 13
+ 15
+ 13

-1 1
+ 3
+ 4
+27
+ 8
4

1
7

+
+
+
+
+

12
12
12
14

10
-1 0

4 0 ,6 7 1 ,5 9 0 r

35 ,1 2 4 ,5 7 0 r

-

3

+ 12

+14

4 ,75 3,571
12,3 9 1 ,4 0 3
1 0 ,0 8 5 ,8 7 4
4 ,6 9 2 ,1 5 1
• • .
• • • . 1 ,89 6,513
5 ,5 1 0 ,6 9 9
. . .

4 ,76 9,251
1 3 ,3 8 7 ,2 3 4 r
1 0 ,6 2 9 ,4 1 9 r
4 ,5 9 9 ,0 8 7
1,74 3,086
5,5 4 3 ,5 1 3

4,5 0 4 ,4 0 9
10 ,7 6 9 ,7 3 4 r 9 ,0 9 7 ,2 4 9 r 4,4 9 4 ,8 5 5
+
1 ,48 1,577
+
4 ,7 7 6 ,7 4 6 r -

0

+ 6
+15

+ 9
+ 17
+14
+ 6
+14

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

+27

+22

5
5

39 ,3 3 0 ,2 1 1

D IS T R IC T , To tal

Alabama:):
Florida:):
G eorgia}:

L o u isia n a t*
M is s is s ip p i*
T e n n e sse e t*

+36

-

-1 1

10

+ 3
+ 16
+
+

M ay
1968

G a in e s v ille
. . .
L a k e la n d
. . . .
M onro e C ounty . .
O c a la
...............
St. A u g u s t in e
. .
St. P e t e r s b u r g
. .
S a r a s o ta
. . . .
Tam pa
...............
W in te r H a v e n
. .

+29
+ 16
+ 19
+ 12
+ 8
+ 13
+ 17

+ 10
+ 15
-1 3
+ 12
+ 11

A p ril
1969

year
to
d a te
M a y '6 9
5 m o s.
fro m
1969
A p ril
M a y fro m
1969 1968 1968

7
5

2
9

1

+ 11
+ 4
+28
+15

+21

rRv e.
- eis d
95

D is t r ic t

B u s in e s s

C o n d it io n s

The District’s “heatwave” of business activity is emitting some signs of cooling off. Construction contract
volume has continued its decline, while consumer activity has slowed. Job growth in the April-May period
has been slow, but the unemployment rate has remained low. There has been little or no letup in loan
expansion at District banks. Unsettled weather conditions have caused some crop delays and damage
in the agricultural sector.
Total construction contract volume continued its
gradual decline in May, as year-to-year gains nar­
rowed considerably. Residential contract gains
have shrunk the most rapidly. Also, savings flows
to savings and loan associations, strong in the first
quarter, have weakened considerably since March.
A sharp drop in the volume of consumer credit
extended by banks in May reflected declines in
automobile paper, other consumer goods paper,
and personal loans. Personal income moved up­
ward only slightly in April.
In May, a moderate rebound in nonmanufactur­
ing and construction employment lifted overall
employment from the reduced level of the previ­
ous month. The construction employment re­
bound was helped by settlement of labor-management disputes in Florida. Manufacturing em­
ployment was unchanged as gains in apparel,
chemicals, paper, and primary metals were large­
ly offset by losses in the food, lumber and wood,
and transportation equipment industries. The
transportation equipment industry was adversely
96




affected by a labor-management dispute involv­
ing automotive workers. The unemployment rate
in May was unchanged and remained at a low
level.
Credit extended by banks in May again in­
creased at a faster pace than in the nation. The
smaller banks, benefiting from steady increases
in consumer time deposits, maintained a par­
ticularly rapid loan growth. At the larger banks,
the expansion for some types of lending slowed
down during May and the first three weeks of
June. Their business loans, however, continued
to expand rapidly.
Weather conditions caused delays in cotton
planting and tobacco transplanting. Heavy rains
also did some damage to the peanut crop, al­
though it benefited peach growers. The out­
look for the 1969 peach crop is for a slightly
lower output than last year, but significantly
higher than the light 1967 crop.
N O T E : D at a o n w h i c h s t a t e m e n t s are b a s e d h a v e b e e n adju
w h e n e v e r pos si bl e to e l i m i n a t e s e a s o n a l influences.

M N LY R IEW
O TH
EV