The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
In T h is Is s u e : A R e t a il S a le s In d ic a t o r f o r t h e S o u t h e a s t R e s h u f f lin g 1 9 7 6 's P la n t e d T o In c re a s e C r o p B a n k in g N o te : A c re a g e s P r o d u c t io n E x p e n d it u r e s E a r n in g s P lu n g e D is t r ic t B u s in e s s C o n d it io n s M O N TH LY R E V IE W F e d e ra l R e s e r v e B a n k o f A tla n ta F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B a n k O f A t la n t a F e d e r a l R e s e r v e S t a t io n A t la n t a , G e o r g ia 3 0 3 0 3 A d d r e s s C o r r e c t io n R e q u e s t e d 1 9 7 6 J u ly BU LK RATE U .S. P O S T A G E P A ID A tlanta, Georgia Permit No. 292 A R etail S ale s In d ic a to r fo r t h e S o u t h e a s t b y B r ia n D . D it t e n h a fe r The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has developed a new indicator of regional economic activity, a m onthly estimate of Sixth Federal Reserve District retail sales. The new consumer spending indicator is designed to allo w comparisons w ith the U. S. Department of Commerce's Monthly RetailTrade Reportand w ill be published as a m onthly index as part of this Review's "Sixth District Statistics." Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of all spending in the U. S. and, therefore, provides a broad-based indicator of the national economy's health. Reflecting this importance, the U. S. Departm ent of Commerce (USDOC) prepares nine different consumer spending indicators, varying in scope and frequency of publication. The Monthly RetailTrade Report estimates retail spending for the nation, nine geographic divisions, and several large states, including Florida. None of the USDOC estimates provide inform ation for the other Sixth District states, and there is no way to approximate the Sixth District share by combining the geographic divisions. Retail sales estimates for individual states are available from both public and private sources, but these vary in both methodology and coverage, making impossible summations to District level and comparisons of one state w ith another. The District Retail Sales Estimate was developed to fill the need for an indicator of regional retail spending which is comparable to and conceptually consistent w ith a national retail spending measure and which w ould also provide consistent state-by-state analytical detail. The purpose of this article is to explain how Sixth District retail spending is estimated, to examine the estimate's limitations, and to review recent consumer spending. W hat is Retail Trade? If the average person considered the question at all, he probably w ould think Monthly Review, Vol. LXI, No. 6. Free subscription and additional copies available upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Material herein may be reprinted or abstracted provided this Review, the Bank, and the author are credited. Please provide this Bank's Research Department with a copy of any publication in which such material is reprinted. JU LY 1976, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W TA BLE 1 TEST: ESTIMATING 1972 RETAIL SALES USING 1967 BENCH MARK FACTORS 1972 Sales & Use Tax Collections ($ thousand) Alabam a X 1973 Tax Rate Factor X 1967 Bench Mark Factor = 1972 Test Retail Sales Estimate ($ thousand) $ 269,023.5 25.51 0.9345 $ 6,413,276.8 Florida 958,477.4 25.77 0.9554 Georgia 476,065.8 34.36 0.6990 M ississipp i 300,499.4 20.41 Ten nessee 379,419.1 D istrict (5 states) 3,383,485.2 ■f 1972* Census of Trade Sales ($ thousand) = Test Estimate AS % of Census Estimate $ 6,736,249 95.51 23,598,344.3 19,970,421 118.17 11,433,977.0 10,735,137 106.51 0.6700 4,109,239.2 4,196,794 97.91 29.61 0.7947 8,928,136.3 8,724,687 102.33 ___ ___ 54,482,973.6 50,363,288 108.18 *B ased on 1967 SIC No test could be made for Lou isian a because there are no tax collection data ava ilab le for 1967 w ith w hich to ca lcu la te the 1967 bench m ark factor. retail spending and consumer spending were synonomous. But as defined by the U. S. Department of Commerce, retail trade consists only of the sales of ". . . establishments prim arily engaged in selling merchandise for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of the goods” .1 Many wholesale trade firms and some manufacturers make lim ited retail sales incidental to their wholesale business, but the USDOC does not include these sales in their estimates. This definition also excludes sales of services unless the services are rendered " . . . incidental to the sale of the goods." This generally excludes consumer spending at hotels and motels and on autom otive and other repair services, amusement and recreation, and other personal services from the definition, but these are reported in other USDOC sources.2 Because service receipts are not included in the USDOC retail sales estimates, they are not included in the District estimate either. Methodology Each of the Sixth District states levies tax on sales of goods to final consumers. The tax is calculated lU . S. Bureau of Census, Census of Retail Trade, 1972, p. IV -S ee Monthly Selected Service Receipts and Census of Selected Services. This service sector defined in these publications accounts for about 10 percent of com bined service and retail spending for the U. S. FE D Efor R A LFRASER R ES ER V E BANK O F A TLAN TA Digitized as a percentage of the final selling price, and so the taxes collected have a stable relationship to final sales in those categories subject to taxation. The states' sales tax collections are the prim ary data sources for our estimates of retail spending. However, this base must be adjusted because a w ider range of goods and services is taxed by the states than is included in the USDOC estimates of retail sales. To make the District and national estimates comparable, a bench-marking technique is used. The method used to make these adjustments in obtaining District retail sales estimates is not complex. First, reported sales and use tax collections were expanded to taxable sales, using the sales tax rate w ith other m inor adjustments (see Appendix). The Census ofRetailTrade for each state was then used to obtain adjustment factors to convert the taxable sales estimates to retail spending estimates, thereby accounting for differences in coverage and making the District estimate comparable to those prepared by USDOC and reported in the Monthly RetailTrade Report.Summing the six states' data gives the District estimate. Testing the M ethod To test the accuracy of the method, sales tax collections and 1967 Census of Retail Trade data were used to calculate 1967 bench mark factors; these were then applied to taxable sales estimates for each month in 1972. These m onthly estimates were summed for each state and compared to the annual sales estimates found in the 1972 Census ofRetailTrade (see Table 1). 87 Limitations of the Estimates The crucial assumption of the estimating technique is that the relationship of taxable sales to retail spending is stable. Since the portion of income spent for particular categories of retail sales varies w ith income level, the assumption is weakened to the extent that real income levels and distributions change. In the estimating interval used to test the method (1967-1972), real incomes were rising steadily, so the portion of income spent on particular categories of goods most likely changed. Also, spending on different commodities can be expected to change when their relative prices change, so the stable spending relationship hypothesized may be weaker than the estimating interval results show. Using sales tax collections as a basis for estimating retail spending requires another m ajor assumption— that each month's sales tax collections are representative of the previous month's taxable sales. To the extent that fines, penalties, late payments, or enforcement drives distort m onthly collections, this assumption is weakened. In addition, small businesses often report their collections on a quarterly basis, inflating tax collections for the months follow ing the close of a calendar quarter. In the routine m onthly estimate, this problem is nearly elim inated by the seasonal adjustment process. The results were much as expected, given the method's limitations (see Box). The five-state3 District estimate is 8.2 percent above retail sales as reported in the 1972 Census ofRetailTrade. Estimates for the states range from a 4.8-percent underestimate for Alabama to an 18.2-percent overestimate for Florida. The latter overestimate is less serious than appears at first glance. Although the Monthly RetailTrade Report and the 1972 Census data, both published by USDOC, are theoretically comparable, the 1972 Census estimate is higher than the sum of that year's m onthly estimates. The difference is 4.8 percent nationally and 10.5 percent in Florida. The USDOC m onthly estimates of Florida retail spending are used in the final m onthly estimate, so the District series is not overestimated relative to the m onthly USDOC series to which it w ill be routinely compared. 3 Louisiana did not supply m onthly data for 1967 and was om itted from the test. 8 FRASER Digitized 8for The prim ary reason for o ur estimates' divergence from the 1972 Census of Retail Trade is the difference in coverage between the taxable sales as reported and retail spending as defined by USDOC. This combines w ith the state differences in tax rates and in scope to provide a pattern of divergence from the Census data which is predictable in direction but not in magnitude. An overestimate for Florida was expected, since food sales are not taxed in that state. W hen real per capita income grows rapidly, as it did in Florida from 1967 to 1972, spending for food declines as a proportion of total spending. This means that taxable sales and, therefore, sales tax collections grew more rapidly than total spending, so any estimate using taxable sales as a basis tends to overestimate actual spending. The effect of compositional changes in spending on the estimates is illustrated v ivid ly in the case of Alabama. In that state, auto sales are taxed at a rate less than half that for most other products. In 1972, spending for autos made up 24 percent of Census-reported retail sales, up from 21.6 percent in 1967. Since autos accounted for a larger portion of spending in 1972 but were taxed at a low er rate, sales tax collections were low er than if autos were taxed at the same rate as most other sales.4 Thus, compositional changes in spending, when combined w ith differences in tax rates, have a substantial impact on sales tax-based estimates of consumer purchases. Practical Considerations The purpose of preparing Sixth District retail spending estimates is to have an up-to-date indicator of consumer buying which is directly comparable to the U. S. Departm ent of Commerce's national estimate. Since the indicator is used in current analysis, a prem ium is placed upon obtaining data quickly. For this reason, gross sales and use tax collections are the basic m onthly variables in estimating retail spending. Several states provide detailed classifications of sales tax collections on a m onthly basis; however, the prim ary retail spending estimate is generated using gross sales and use tax receipts. In practice, the time lag involved in making the m onthly estimate is fairly small. A ll states report gross sales and use tax collections w ithin a few days of the end of any given month. These data reflect retail activity from the month preceding that in which the collections are made. So, as a practical matter, retail sales estimates can be calculated 4 N o attem pt was made to adjust for short-term changes in spending com position, since there is no practical way to predict them . A djustm ent for these changes w o u ld be as likely to increase systematic bias in the estimates as to decrease it. JU LY 1976, M O N T H LY R E V IE W from sales tax data approximately six weeks following the month in which spending occurs. Cyclical Patterns Retail sales are considered coincident indicators of economic activity because changes in retail spending occur at roughly the same time as other m ajor economic indicators. To see if the District indicator was behaving according to this supposition, several indexes were calculated to enable the direct comparison of the District with the nation and other economic indicators (see C hart). Data from 1968 through 1975 were examined for business cycle turning points and their tim ing vis-a-vis the U. S. index and the National Bureau of Economic Research reference points for business cycle peaks and troughs. Indexes were constructed using nominal and deflated retail sales tor the District and nation. For all series, the 1972 m onthly average was used as a base, i.e., 1972 average = 100. Retail sales were adjusted to account for inflation, using the U. S. Consumer Price Index for commodities. Using the deflated series, the District index is remarkably consistent w ith the peaks and troughs FE D ER A L R ES ER V E BANK O F ATLA N TA of the national business cycle (see Chart). District retail spending peaks one month after and one month before the cycle peak in 1969 and 1973, respectively, and reaches its low point in the trough month of both cycles. The national series is much less consistent w ith the business cycle than the District's. Measured over the same two cycles, the average peak in national retail sales occurred 4.5 months before the peak in general business activity, w hile the low preceded the trough by an average of three months. (The absolute deviation was four months.) Spending Trends The Index constructed by this Bank performs consistently as an indicator of District retail spending. The method of calculation gives reasonable estimates over the five-year test period from 1967 to 1972; there is every reason to expect a similar performance in the future. From 1968 to 1973 the region's economy grew vigorously, interrupted only by a mild, short recession in 1970. Retail spending, adjusted for inflation, grew 43.2 percent during that five-year period, far surpassing the nation as a whole. Since the end of 1973, 89 retail spending also shows the region's transition from faster-than-national to slower-than-national growth and recovery. Southeast grew 33.5 percent, outpacing the nation's growth of 20.4 percent during the same phases of the cycle. But, as w ith most other indicators in the 1973-1975 recession, District retail sales fell more and to date have recovered less than the comparable national series. ■ In the recovery and expansion phases of the 1970-1973 business cycle, retail spending in the Appendix The Sixth District retail sales indicator is bench marked to the Census ofRetailTrade* as it becomes available. The follow ing calculations apply to each state, and the District total is obtained by summing data for the six District states. 1. Obtain a tax rate factor to expand sales tax collections to estimated taxable sales using the follow ing inform ation and form ula: If S = taxable sales, r = the sales tax rate, c = commission rate allowed merchant tax collectors, and T = sales and use taxes collected by the state, = T = T = T/(1-c) = T/(1-c)/r _ 1 ____ and the tax rate factor is (1-c)r. 1 Designate (1 -c)r as "F." 2. Using the tax rate factor (F) obtained in step 1, expand sales tax collections to taxable sales in the follow ing manner: S= T *F 3. Using the taxable sales estimate (S) generated in step 2, obtain a bench mark factor (B) using the Census ofRetailTrade totals for all establishments in each state. The bench mark factor is calculated as follows: B = Census retail sales total -r- taxable sales estimate. 4. The estimate of retail sales for each state is generated using the follow ing formula. * U . S. Bureau of Census, Census of Retail Trade, 1972, Area Series, U. S. G overnm ent Printing O ffic e, W ashington, D. C., 1975 **An alternative estim ating technique is possible. From the sum of retail sales as reported by U S D O C for the East South Central D ivision and Florida, subtract estimated sales in Kentucky 90 (Note: The U. S. Departm ent of Commerce national estimate and Florida estimates used in the final District series are not bench marked to the 1972 Census ofRetailTrade.) Calculating the M o n th ly Estimates then Sr - c(Sr) Sr(1-c) Sr and S The bench mark factor (B) changes w ith each Census ofRetailTrade,currently every five years, and the tax rate factor (F) changes whenever the sales tax rate coverage or commission rate changes for a particular state. If R = m onthly retail sales estimate for each state i, then R i = Tj * F |• B j , or Rj = Tj x BUF-,, where the "blow-up factor" BU F; = Fi x Bi and the District total is obtained as the sum of R| ** Seasonal and trading day adjustment factors were calculated for each state using a variant of the Census X-11 seasonal adjustment program. The data for each individual state were adjusted to account for expected seasonal patterns, and the seasonally adjusted data were summed to the Sixth District total. An attem pt to adjust for holiday variations revealed no consistent pattern for which correction could be made, so no adjustment was performed. Preliminary m onthly estimates are obtained by applying current "b low - up" factors to sales and use tax collections. The taxable sales estimates thus generated are then adjusted for seasonal and trading day variations, summed to the District, and indexed. A prelim inary estimate is necessary because of the tim ing of the release dates of data used in the estimates. A final m onthly estimate is calculated by replacing any prelim inary figures used w ith final data and by replacing the calculated estimate for Florida w ith retail spending for that state as reported by USDO C in the Monthly RetailTrade Report,Accounts Receivable. and add estim ated sales for G eorgia and Louisiana. This m ethod w ould have the advantage o f requiring n o n -U S D O C estimates of retail spending in three states, rather than the five required under the present m ethod. H ow ever, the m ethod adopted has the advantage of providing com parable estimates o f retail spending for individual D istrict states, w hich the alternative m ethod w o u ld not. JU LY 1976, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W R e sh u fflin g 1 9 7 6 's P la n te d A c re a g e s To I n c r e a s e C r o p P r o d u c tio n E x p e n d itu r e s b y G e n e D . S u lliv a n Farmers plan to reshuffle planted acreages again in 1976, and total crop production expenditures w ill increase as a result. Part of the planned change reported in the USDA's Ap ril 15 planting intentions survey reverses some of the extreme shifts made in 1975. Most of the changes have resulted from farmers' adjustments to wide price swings for particular farm products during the past two years. For most crops, planting changes in the Sixth District states1 and in the United States are moving in the same direction. In most cases, however, propor tional changes in the Southeast w ill be larger than those in the nation as a w hole (see Table 1). Soybeans D ow n Sharply The major acreage shift is in soybeans, a crop that held great promise for favorable returns a year ago. But soybean prices in early 1976 have averaged nearly 20 percent below year-ago levels, w hile prices of cotton, an important crop that can be grown in place of soybeans, have increased dramatically. District farmers plan to decrease soybean plantings by 725,000 acres, or 7 percent, this year (see figure). The largest drop w ill occur in Georgia; total U. S. acreage w ill decline by 10 percent. Cotton and Corn to Increase Sharply Cotton prices, hovering about 50 percent above year-earlier levels, have induced plans for a huge upturn in planted acreage. Farmers w ill increase plantings by 596,000 acres, or 24 percent, in 1976. Mississippi farmers plan the largest increase. Unquestionably, some of the acreage in the Southeast that moved from cotton to soybeans in 1975 w ill return to cotton production in 1976, but cotton acreage w ill still not recover to 1974's high level. The shift is proportionately greater than in the nation as a whole, however, where 16 percent more acreage w ill be planted to cotton. 1The Sixth D istrict states are Alabama, Florida, G eorgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, w hich are eith er totally o r partially w ith in the Sixth Federal Reserve District. FE D ER A L R ES ER V E BANK O F ATLA N TA 91 TA BLE 1 Planted Acreages: Sixth District States and United States Ind. 1974 1975 19761 (-----------------------1,000 acres----------------------- ) 1976/1975 Percent Soybeans Alabam a . Florida Georgia Louisiana M ississipp i Tennessee Total S ixth D istrict S t a t e s ............................................. Total U. S .......................................................................................... 1,050 285 1,030 1,800 2,605 1,620 1,350 305 1,290 1,900 3,230 1,950 1,200 280 1,02J> 1,900 3,050 1,850 89 92 79 100 94 95 8,390 53,507 10,025 54,577 9,300 49,330 93 90 600 13 423 650 1,780 540 440 5 160 320 1,175 335 525 6 220 480 1,400 400 119 120 138 150 119 119 4,006 13,699 2,435 9,691 3,031 11,256 124 116 Cotton Alabam a . Florida Georgia Louisiana M ississipp i Ten nessee Total Sixth D istrict States Total U. S ....................................... Corn 750 464 2,020 80 195 780 850 557 2,250 120 220 890 113 120 111 150 113 114 A la b a m a ........................................................................................... Florida ........................................................................................... G e o r g i a ........................................................................................... Lou isian a ..................................................................................... M is s is s ip p i..................................................................................... T e n n e s s e e ..................................................................................... 715 452 2,000 95 205 760 Total S ixth D istrict S t a t e s ............................................. Total U. S .......................................................................................... 4,227 77,787 Lou isian a ..................................................................................... M is s is s ip p i..................................................................................... 661 114 660 175 540 140 82 80 Total S ixth D istrict S t a t e s .............................................. Total U. S .......................................................................................... 775 2,555 835 2,818 680 2,361 81 84 4,289 77,902 4,887 82,727 114 106 Rice A la b a m a ........................................................................................... Florida ........................................................................................... G e o r g i a ........................................................................................... Lou isian a ..................................................................................... M is s is s ip p i..................................................................................... T e n n e s s e e ..................................................................................... Total Sixth D istrict S t a t e s ............................................. Total U. S .......................................................................................... Winter Wheat 185 52 215 80 195 395 1,122 52,354 Small Feed Grains2 A la b a m a ........................................................................................... 100 Florida ........................................................................................................33 G e o r g i a ........................................................................................... 542 Lou isian a ..................................................................................... .............24 M is s is s ip p i..................................................................................... .............80 T e n n e s s e e ..................................................................................... 181 Total Sixth D istrict S t a t e s ............................................. Total U. S .......................................................................................... A la b a m a ........................................................................................... Florida ........................................................................................... G e o r g i a ........................................................................................... Lou isian a ..................................................................................... M is s is s ip p i..................................................................................... T e n n e s s e e ..................................................................................... 960 30,161 Grain Sorghum 70 — 65 42 85 52 185 40 160 70 231 405 220 30 150 65 220 385 119 75 94 93 95 95 1,091 56,163 1,070 57,227 98 102 110 31 730 20 85 170 110 34 672 20 70 165 100 110 92 100 82 97 1,146 30,078 1,071 28,989 93 96 80 — 80 41 75 51 80 — 70 70 90 55 IOO — 88 171 120 108 327 18,275 365 17,897 112 98 Total Sixth D istrict S t a t e s .............................................. Total U. S .......................................................................................... 314 17,676 Florida ........................................................................................... G e o r g i a ........................................................................................... T e n n e s s e e ..................................................................................... Other S t a t e s ............................................................................... 13.3 72.3 56.5 0.8 14.5 75.1 61.6 0.9 13.5 65.0 61.7 0.8 92 87 100 89 Total Sixth D istrict S t a t e s .............................................. Total U. S .......................................................................................... 142.9 962.6 152.1 1,083.5 141.0 1,009.3 93 93 Tobacco 'P la n tin g ind icatio ns released by the USDA, April 15, 1976 2Combined acreages of oats, barley, and rye 92 (Decem ber 1975 for w in ter w heat) JU LY 1976, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W District Farmers Plan Changes in Crop Acreages From 1975 Levels Thous. of Acres soo 400 (-) 0 o (+ ) 800 400 Soybeans -7 % Corn + 14% Cotton +24% Rice -1 9 % Sm all Feed G rains -7 % Grain Sorghum 800 400 -2 % W inter Wheat -7 % Tobacco (- ) I + 12% (+ ) 400 800 N o te : P e r c e n t a g e in d ic a t e s p e r c e n t c h a n g e fro m 1 9 7 5 le v e l Some land planted in soybeans in 1975 w ill be planted in corn this year, particularly in Georgia. Although corn prices have also dropped below the year-ago level, potential returns still compare quite favorably w ith other cropping alternatives. Thus, District farmers have indicated that they w ill plant 598,000 more acres in 1976, a 14-percent rise. Nationally, corn plantings w ill be up a projected 6 percent. Rice Acreage to Plum m et Average rice prices dropped from one-third to onehalf below 1975's early spring level, causing farmers to plan a one-fifth reduction in planted acreage. Ironically, the Rice Program was recently revised to perm it unrestricted planting. Some of the 1975 rice acreage in both Louisiana and Mississippi w ill ap parently be switched to cotton or other grains in 1976. Rice acreage in both the District and nation w ill be reduced about the same percentage. FE D ER A L R ES E R V E BANK O F A TLA N TA W heat and Small Feed Grains Also Drop W in te r wheat acreage is down moderately from a year earlier, possibly because wheat cannot be double-cropped w ith cotton and corn as it can with soybeans. Cotton and corn cannot be grown successfully when planting is delayed until wheat has been harvested. Farmers knowing that they w ould not plant as large an acreage to soybeans in 1976 probably curtailed some of their w inter wheat plantings in the fall of 1975. Also, wheat prices averaging near $3.50 per bushel during the fall planting season were down sharply from the more than $5 per bushel that stimulated the abrupt acreage increases in 1975. Nevertheless, potential profits from wheat production were sufficiently high to stimulate a slight increase in plantings at the national level. District plantings of small feed grains, prim arily oats, have also dropped from 1975's level. Oats have not shared corn's extremely high prices, and farmers 93 have not had the incentive to increase production. Indicated acreage for 1976 declined at the national level as well. Grain Sorghum to Increase Grain sorghum commands a more favorable price than other small feed grains because it is more directly substitutable for corn in animal rations. It is rather well adapted to Southeastern growing conditions, and farmers plan to boost grain sorghum plantings by almost 38,000 acres, or 12 percent, in 1976. This runs counter to indications of reduced plantings at the national level. Less Tobacco in 1976 Tobacco acreage allotments were increased in 1975, and production jum ped upward. Unfortunately, prices dropped and District growers received less total revenue despite increased production. M arket ing quotas have been cut back for 1976, and District farmers w ill plant 11,000 fewer acres to tobacco, a 7-percent cutback equal to the national reduction. Crop Acreages up in Total In spite of planned reductions for several crops, total plantings of eight crops in 1976 w ill increase by 246,000 acres, or 20 percent, w ithin District states. Undoubtedly, land not recently cropped w ill be brought into production. The gain w ill probably come from areas that have been devoted to pasture or that have been allowed to remain idle in recent years. Also, some recent clearing of timbered regions has made new land available for cultivation in the Southeast. Crop Production Expenditures to Increase The shifts in crop acreages and expanded plantings w ill have a favorable impact on the Southeast's economy. Although farmers' expenditures for some types of inputs w ill decline, the shifts of acreage to crops that are more costly to produce w ill generate a net increase of $76.3 m illion in total expenditu.es for eight crops (see Table 2). Planned increases in cotton acreage w ill have the greatest impact. Direct production costs amount to $205 per acre, mostly fertilizer and chemicals and farm machinery operations. An increase of 596,000 in planted acreage would generate an estimated $122.2-million increase in cotton production expenditures. Expanded corn acreage accounts for the other major increase in expenditures. An additional 598,000 acres would generate new expenditures of $65.8 m illion, largely for commercial fertilizers. Digitized94 for FRASER TA BLE 2 PRODUCTION EXP EN D ITU RES (SIXTH DISTRICT STATES) Item Cotton: Up 596,000 A cres1 Cost Total Change in Per Acre2 Exenditures3 $ 19 Labor 55 Power and Equipm ent 83 M aterials, Seed, F e rtiliz e r, etc. 13 Custom Services 7 Interest on Operating C apital 28 Ginning, Bagging, T ies Total Direct Production Costs $205. Corn: Up 598,000 A cres1 Labor $ 7 27 Power and Equipm ent 62 M aterials, Seed, Fe rtiliz e r, etc. 9 Custom Se rvices 5 Interest on Operating Capital Total Direct Production Costs $110 $ $ 11,324,000 32,780,000 49,468,000 7,748,000 4,172,000 16,688,000 122,180,000 $ $ Soybeans: Down 725,000 Acres1 $ 7 Labor $— 27 Power and Equipm ent — 36 M aterials, Seed, Fe rtiliz e r, etc. — 5 Custom Services 3 Interest on Operating Capital — Total Direct Production Costs $ 78 $Rice: Down 155,000 A cres1 $ 17 Labor $— 56 Power and Equipm ent — 76 M aterials, Seed, F e rtiliz e r, etc. — 42 H arvest C o st5 8 Interest on Operating Capital — Total Direct Production Costs $199 $- 4,186,000 16,146,000 37,076,000 5,382,000 2,990,000 65,780,000 5,075,000 19,575,000 26,100,000 3,625,000 2,175,000 56,550,000 2,635,000 8,680,000 11,780,000 6,510,000 1,240,000 30,845,000 Tobacco: Down 11,000 A cres1 5,753,000 $523 Labor $— 4,433,000 Power and Equipm ent 403 — 2,783,000 253 M aterials, Seed, F e rtiliz e r, etc. — 297,000 Irrigation 27 — 1,716,000 156 Harvest C o st”' — Interest on Operating Capital 49 539,000 — 71 781,000 Insu ran ce — 4,477,000 407 Land and A llotm ent Rent — 56 616,000 Overhead Total Direct Production Costs $1,945 $ - 21,395,000 Winter Wheat: Down 21,000 A cres1 Labor $ 4 $Power and Equipm ent 16 — M aterials, Seed, Fe rtiliz e rs, etc. 51 — Custom Services 3 Interest on Operating Capital 3 — Total Direct Production Costs $ 77 $- 84,000 336,000 1,071,000 63,000 63,000 1,617,000 Grain Sorghum: Up 38,000 Acres1 Labor $ 6 228,000 $ Power and Equipm ent 6 228,000 M aterials, Seed, F e rtiliz e r, etc. 15 57,000 Custom Se rvices 5 190,000 Interest on Operating Capital 1 38,000 Total Direct Production Costs $ 33 741,000 $ Small Feed G rains1: Down 75,000 Acres i Labor 300,000 $ 4 $Power and Equipm ent 6 450,000 — 1,125,000 M aterials, Seed, Fe rtiliz e r, etc. 15 — Custom Se rvices 0 Interest on Operating Capital 1 — 75,000 Total Direct Production Costs $ 26 1,950,000 $Net Change, Eight Crops $ 76,344,000* ‘ Approxim ately 4 percent above estim ated expenditures for these crops in 1975. ’ Changes from 1975 acreage indicated by th e U SD A ’s planting intentions su rvey released April 1, 1976 -Based on variab le costs developed by the Econom ic Re search Serv ice , USD A, adjusted for in cre ases in prices paid by farm e rs. R ice costs w ere developed by econom ists at M ississip p i State U n iversity. ‘The d irect cost per acre tim es the planned change in acreage 4Oats, barley, and rye ^Harvest costs in clud e power and equipm ent and labor for rice; m arketing and conventional storage barn only for tobacco JU LY 1976, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W Production expenditures for soybeans w ill drop an estimated $56.6 m illion, a m inor decline con sidering the nearly three-quarter-million-acre reduc tion in plantings. Direct production expenditures for soybeans are only about one-third of the per acre cost of producing cotton. Planned acreage reductions for rice and tobacco w ill cut production outlays by an estimated $30.8 m illion and $21.4 m illion, respectively. Because of the relatively high production costs for both crops, especially tobacco, small changes in acreage pro B ank A n n o u n c e m e n ts duce greater changes in expenditures than for most other crops. In 1975, the agribusiness complex braced itself for a net reduction in farm production expenditures, largely resulting from a sharp drop in cotton acreage. Prospects are brighter in 1976, mostly because farmers w ill again plant more cotton. The fact that cotton acreage has not increased to 1974's high level, however, holds promise that farmers w ill not overproduce again in 1976 and thereby stim u late another sharp acreage cutback in 1977. ■ May 3,1 9 7 6 THE N A T IO N A L BANK OF COLLIER C O U N TY M a rco Island, Florida Converted to a national bank from First Bank of Marco Island. April 15, 1976 May 6 ,1 9 7 6 THE BANK OF FITZGERALD FIRST N A T IO N A L BANK OF H A M ILTO N Fitzgerald, Georgia Hamilton, Alabama Opened for business as a par-remitting nonmember. Opened for business as a member. Officers: Tommy Bain Moore, president; Joyce M. James, cashier. Capital, $400,000; surplus and other funds, $600,000. April 1 9,1 976 LA N D M A R K BANK OF P O M P A N O BEACH, N.A. May 20, 1976 P o m p a n o Beach, Florida KAPLAN STATE BANK Opened for business as a member. Purchased assets and assum ed liabilities of The Security State Bank of Pompano Beach, a State nonmember bank. FE D ER A L R ES E R V E BANK O F ATLA N TA Kaplan, Louisiana O pened for business as a par-remitting nonmember. 95 BANKING STATISTICS C R E D IT * Lo an s & In v e s tm e n ts p 42 j- 38 /V — /v L o a n s (N e t) — 14 -1 0 A/ O th e r S e c u rit ie s — A/ A/ — -18 -14 /V U .S . G o v 't. S e c u rit ie s /V /V I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l I l l 11 I I I I I I I I II I I 1974 1975 1976 LATEST MONTH PLOTTED: MAY N o te: S I X T H ‘ Fig ures are for the last Wednesday of each month **D aily average fig ures Seas. adj. figures covering D istrict m em ber banks. D I S T R I C T B A N K I N G N O T E S Earnings Plunge in 1 9 7 5 Digitized 9 6 for FRASER JU LY 1976, M O N T H LY R EV IEW District member bank earnings plunged in 1975. Income after taxes but before securities gains or losses dropped to 6.3 percent of equity capital, a rate one-half of that earned in 1973. Earnings were 10.2 percent of equity capital in 1974 and averaged 11.4 percent from 1969 to 1974. The two-year profits slide during and follow ing a recession is not unusual (earnings declined in 1970 and 1971), but the extent of the deterioration certainly is significant. Following the 1969 recession, earnings declined less than 10 percent. Am ong the six District states, earnings declined most at member banks in Florida and Georgia. Florida member banks also had the lowest level of earnings during 1975. Louisiana member banks, in contrast, had the smallest earnings decline and had the highest earnings level. The smaller District member banks generally experienced the sharpest earnings drop. These banks were squeezed by lower operating income (as a percentage of total assets) and sharply higher operating expenses. Last year, banks were able to maintain total operating income at 7.6 percent of total assets, the same as in 1974. There were some differences in the sources of income, however. Income from SELECTED SOURCES AND USES OF BANK INCOME* 1975 1974 (percent) Income Loans Treasu ry se cu ritie s State and m unicip al obligations 68.8 64.2 7.1 8.9 9.3 9.3 40.4 41.0 Expenses Interest on deposits Interest on borrowed money Em ployee expenses Provision for loan losses 2.3 1.1 20.0 21.5 3.6 5.7 AVERAGE RATES OF RETURN ON ASSETS AND INTEREST ON DEPOSITS 1974 1975 (percent) Loans (includ in g Federal funds) Loans (exclu d in g Federal funds) 9.21 6.72 7.10 State and m unicip al obligations 4.70 4.82 Interest on all tim e deposits 6.25 5.88 suspend interest payments on some low-quality loans on which even regular interest payments could not be made. Loans declined from 54.8 per cent of total assets to 53.0 percent; the average rate of return declined from 9.35 percent to 9.21 percent. During 1975, net losses on loans rose from 0.45 percent of loans to 0.75 percent. The m ajor reduction was in consumer loans, down from 33.3 percent of total loans to 32.3 percent. Commercial and industrial loans dropped at the same pace as total loans, and real estate loans actually increased from 26.8 percent of total loans to 28.1 percent. W h ile banks were able to maintain operating income at the 1974 rate, total operating expenses as a percent of total assets advanced from 6.6 per cent of total assets in 1974 to 7.0 percent in 1975. Therefore, the margin between income and ex penses was cut roughly one-half. Several factors accounted for increased expenses. Total employee compensation rose from 20.0 percent of total operating income in 1974 to 21.5 percent in 1975, despite a m ajor effort on the part of some banks to hold the line on payrolls. Interest on deposits advanced from 40.4 percent of total income to 41.0 percent, as the proportion of tim e and savings deDISTRIBUTI0N OF ASSETS* AND LIABILITIES 1974 1975 (percent) Loans FE D ER A L R ES E R V E BANK O F A TLAN TA 9.90 9.35 Treasu ry se cu ritie s ‘ Expressed as a percentage of total operating incom e securities was relatively more important, w hile interest and fees on loans were relatively less im portant. These changes are consistent w ith those observed in bank earning assets. Holdings of U. S. Governm ent securities advanced rapidly in 1975, w hile bank loans declined and loan charges were reduced. Banks increased their holdings of U. S. Govern ment securities from 7,7 percent of total assets to 9.3 percent last year; and U. S. agency issues, from 6.0 percent to 6.3 percent. Holdings of municipals declined from 14.1 percent of total assets to 13.1 percent. Banks also obtained a higher return on their securities. The average rate of return on Gov ernments rose from 6.7 percent to 7.1 percent; agencies, from 6.3 percent to 6.7 percent; and municipals, from 4.7 percent to 4.8 percent. Income from loans declined as a result of both reduced loans and low er interest rates. In certain cases, banks had to substantially low er or even 10.67 54.8 53.0 7.7 9.3 State and m unicip al obligations 14.1 13.1 Gross loans 54.8 53.0 Treasu ry secu rities Cash assets 12.9 13.1 Tim e deposits to total deposits 56.5 58.7 *as a percent of total assets posits to total deposits increased from 56.5 percent to 58.7 percent. N ot surprisingly, a m ajor addition to expenses was the increased provision for loan losses, up from 3.6 percent of total income in 1974 to 5.7 percent in 1975. " A ll other" operating expenses and the net occupancy expense of the bank premises also increased. O n ly interest expenses on borrowed money such as Federal funds declined. Interest expenses decreased because banks reduced their use of borrowed funds, and interest rates were much low er in 1975 than in 1974. John M. Godfrey 97 S ix t h D is t r ic t S t a t is t ic s S e a s o n a lly A d ju s te d (A ll d a ta a re in d e x e s , u n le s s in d ic a te d o th e r w is e .) Latest Month 1976 One Two Month Months Ago Ago One Year Ago Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work Force)*** . . . . Apr. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Apr. SIXTH DISTRICT INCOME AND SPENDING Manufacturing In c o m e........................Apr. Farm Cash R eceip ts............................Mar. C r o p s ................................................Mar. Livestock ........................................Mar. Instalment Credit at Banks*/1 (Mil. $) New L o a n s........................................Mar. Repayments ....................................Mar. Retail Sales2 ....................................Mar. EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTION Nonfarm Employment........................Apr. Manufacturing ................................Apr. Nondurable G oods........................Apr. Food............................................Apr. Textiles ....................................Apr. Apparel ....................................Apr. P a p e r ........................................Apr. Printing and Publishing . . . Apr. C h e m ic a ls................................Apr. Durable G o o d s ............................Apr. Lbr., Woods Prods., Furn. & Fix. Apr. Stone, Clay, and Glass . . . . Apr. Primary M e ta ls........................ Apr. Fabricated M etals....................Apr. M achinery................................Apr. Transportation Equipment . . Apr. Nonmanufacturing............................ Apr. C onstruction............................Apr. Transportation ........................Apr. T r a d e ........................................Apr. Fin., ins., and real est. . . . Apr. S e r v ic e s ....................................Apr. Federal Government................Apr. State and Local Government . Apr. Farm Employment................................Apr. Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work F o r c e )................ Apr. Insured Unemployment (Percent of Cov. Em p.)....................Apr. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Apr. Construction C ontracts*....................Apr. R esidential........................................Apr. All O ther............................................Apr. Cotton Consumption**........................Mar. Petroleum Production * /* * ................Apr. Manufacturing P rodu ction ................Mar. Nondurable G oods............................Mar. Food ........................................Mar. Textiles ................................... Mar. Apparel .................................... Mar. Paper ....................................... Mar. Printing and Publishing . . . Mar. Chemicals ................................Mar. Durable G o o d s ................................Mar. Lumber and Wood....................Mar. Furniture and Fixtures . . . . Mar. Stone, Clay, and Glass . . . Mar. Primary M e ta ls ........................Mar. Fabricated M etals....................Mar. Nonelectrical Machinery . . . Mar. Electrical Machinery . . . . Mar. Transportation Equipment . . Mar. FINANCE AND BANKING Loans* All Member B a n k s ........................Apr. Large B a n k s .................................... Apr. Deposits* All Member B a n k s ........................Apr. Large B a n k s ....................................Apr. Bank Debits*/** ................................Apr. 137.8 189.7 292.6 171.5 139.9 213.8 275.4 197.3 139.9 219.5 288.4 189.5 116.5 224.4 391.1 177.1 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L oans............................ Apr. Member Bank D eposits........................ Apr. Bank D e b its* * .................................... Apr. 826 773 143.8 814 713 141.1 678r 669r 144.6 576 693 125.1 FLORIDA 106.9 98.1 99.8 98.2 96.8 97.7 99.2 105.3 104.1 95.9 89.1 90.9 95.5 95.8 108.0 92.6 109.7 83.2 104.7 108.1 113.4 116.8 105.6 118.5 107.1 97.7 99.5 97.4 96.5 98.2 98.9 105.2 103.5 95.4 88.9 90.9 93.9 95.9 107.7 91.8 110.1 84.9 103.6 108.3 113.2 117.3 106.1 118.3 107.5 97.9 99.6 99.1 96.7 96.9 98.4 104.7 109.0 95.6 89.3 91.0 94.1 96.4 106.9 93.5 110.5 87.2 104.6 108.9 113.8 117.4 106.4 118.2 105.2 93.0 92.9 97.4 86.5 87.3 94.2 104.4 100.2 91.9 82.0 92.0 95.6 95.1 105.8 88.4 109.2 91.9 104.4 107.1 113.6 115.1 104.1 115.8 8.1 8.2 8.4 9.4 3.7 39.9 210 180 239 100.8 88.5 150.4 151.9 133.6 152.5 138.3 143.6 134.0 164.7 147.6 157.6 137.2 133.1 101.6 112.7 162.1 242.5 145.3 3.9 40.8 229 156 302 76.4 88.0 149.6 151.4 134.8 152.7 136.0 143.9 133.1 163.2 146.3 159.4 136.3 136.4 101.9 111.9 158.5 234.6 143.9 3.9 41.2 181 166 196 79.1 87.3 147.4 150.3 134.8 150.7 135.2 141.9 132.3 161.0 142.8 147.8 136.2 134.1 101.6 112.8 152.8 224.3 142.5 6.9 38.8 171 130 211 56.1 91.3 139.7 142.5 135.8 135.9 117.7 132.1 126.3 160.6 135.0 129.3 114.0 134.0 101.4 111.3 150.5 226.2 122.5 264 219 271 222 267 223 267 231 228 193 345 234 200 346r 228 192 335 219 192 287 ALABAMA INCOME Manufacturing Incom e........................Apr. Farm Cash R eceip ts............................Mar. 144.3 208.3 142.2 239.5 141.4 269.2 117.2 204.3 EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................Apr. Manufacturing ................................Apr. Nonmanufacturing ........................Apr. Construction ................................Apr. Farm Employment................................Mar. 109.9 100.2 114.2 122.1 125.7 109.8 99.4 114.4 123.1 125.7 110.5 100.5 115.0 125.3 128.5 105.5 94.9 110.3 115.7 113.6 98 FRASER Digitized for Latest Month 1976 Manufacturing In c o m e........................ Apr. Farm Cash R eceipts............................Mar. EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Em ployment........................ Apr. Manufacturing ................................ Apr. Nonmanufacturing............................ Apr. Construction ................................ Apr. Farm Employment................................ Mar. Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work Force)*** . . . . Apr. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Apr. 6.8 40.3 279 236 327 One Two Month Months Ago Ago 6.8 40.8 278 241 337r 6.8 41.0 One Year Ago 7.9 37.9 277 235 321 265 216 309 137.4 255.0 135.9 218.7 138.7 219.5 119.9 309.4 109.9 97.5 111.9 63.0 74.4 109.6 96.4 111.7 65.2 69.9 96.6 112.3 67.6 72.1 110.1 110.7 94.7 113.3 82.4 80.8 11.0 39.8 40.3 281 249 362 285 255 355r 11.0 11.0 11.1 41.2 38.8 286 251 349 288 240 303 201.8 FINANCE AND BANKING Bank Debits* . Apr. . Apr. Manufacturing In c o m e ........................ Apr. Farm Cash R eceipts............................Mar. 127.1 183.8 133.7 210.4 132.2 214.4 102.5 95.8 105.0 74.0 106.9 102.7 95.6 105.5 75.3 107.7 103.1 95.5 106.1 77.8 104.4 7.1 39.4 7.3 40.8 . Apr. . Apr. . Apr. 250 197 426 256 199 416r Manufacturing In c o m e ........................ Apr. Farm Cash R eceip ts............................Mar. 151.7 158.1 106.8 101.9 107.8 108.8 92.2 EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Em ploym ent........................ Apr. Manufacturing ................................ Apr. Nonmanufacturing........................... Apr. C onstruction................................ Apr. Farm Employment ............................ Mar. Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work F o r c e )................ Apr. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Apr. 106.0 100.0 87.6 104.8 80.0 104.0 9.3 38.4 FINANCE AND BANKING Bank Debits* EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm E m ploym ent........................ Apr. Manufacturing ................................ Apr. Nonmanufacturing........................... Apr. C onstruction ................................ Apr. Farm Employment ............................ Mar. Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work Force)*** . . . . Apr. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Apr. 243 193 390 248 196 377 151.3 171.7 155.8 191.3 129.9 238.6 107.4 102.4 108.3 107.7 103.7 108.5 105.8 102.5 106.5 106.5 102.5 110.0 93.0 110.6 88.9 7.1 41.0 6.8 6.8 41.2 41.6 7.6 40.3 237 213 269 252 220 285 243 215 283 253 207 261 141.9 181.7 145.1 275.7 145.8 293.2 118.2 232.7 107.2 101.0 110.2 103.0 93.8 107.5 100.3 110.9 106.1 92.9 107.4 99.7 111.1 108.0 93.0 103.1 91.8 108.6 103.6 86.2 FINANCE AND BANKING . Apr. Bank Debits*/* Manufacturing In c o m e ........................ Apr. Farm Cash R eceipts............................ Mar. EMPLOYMENT . Apr. Manufacturing . Apr. . Apr. . Apr. . Mar. Farm Employment JU LY 1976, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W One Two Month Months Ago Ago One Year Ago 5.1 39.7 5.7 40.5 5.6 41.0 7.8 38.6 252 232 301 270 240 303 267 234 316 248 217 259 137.7 198.6 116.6 197.3 Latest Month Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work Force)*** . . . . Apr. Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Apr. FINANCE AND BANKING . Apr. Bank Debits*/* INCOME Manufacturing Income . . . Farm Cash Receipts . . . . . . . . Mar. 136.1 182.7 139.5 231.5 One Two Month Months Ago Ago Apr. Apr. Apr. Apr. Mar. 105.0 96.8 109.3 87.0 97.0 105.6 96.8 110.2 87.6 100.2 105.7 96.3 110.4 92.0 100.2 102.0 90.6 107.9 95.3 89.8 Apr. Apr. 6.6 39.7 6.7 41.0 7.2 41.2 8.7 39.2 268 227 281 280 236 299 280 229 289 274 220 258 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank Loans* . . . . Member Bank Deposits* . . . Bank Debits*/** .................... *Daily average basis *For Sixth District area only; other totals for entire six states ‘ ••Seasonally adjusted data supplied by state agencies. Note: EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Em ploym ent......................... Manufacturing ............................ . Nonmanufacturing....................... . C onstruction................................ Farm Employment ........................ . Unemployment Rate (Percent of Work F o r c e )................ Average Weekly Hours in Mfg. (Hrs.) . Latest Month fPreliminary data r-Revised One Year Ago N.A. Not available All indexes: 1967 = 100, except mfg. income, employment, and retail sales, 1972 = 100. Sources: Manufacturing production estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and non mfg. emp., mfg. income 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 Div., McGraw-Hill Information Systems Co.; pet. prod., U.S. Bureau of Mines; 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. ’Data have been bench marked and new trading day factors and seasonal factors computed using December 31, 1974 and June 30, 1975 Report of Condition data as bases. “Retail sales index calculated by this Bank, based on sales tax collections reported by individual States. D e b it s to D e m a n d D e p o s it A c c o u n t s In s u re d C o m m e r c i a l B a n k s in t h e S i x t h D is t r ic t (In T h o u s a n d s o f D o lla rs ) Percent Change Year April 1976 March 1976 April 1975 April 1976 4 mos. from 1976 Mar. April from 1976 1975 1975 D o th a n .................... Selma .................... STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS1 Birmingham . . . . 5,769,669 Gadsden . . . . 132,595 473,811 Huntsville . . . . M o b ile ................ . 1,470,824 Montgomery . . . . 1,024,407 325,684 Tuscaloosa . . . Bartow-LakelandWinter Haven Daytona Beach Ft. LauderdaleHollywood . . . Ft. Myers . . . . Gainesville . . . Jacksonville . . . MelbourneTitusville-Cocoa Miami ................ O rlando................ Pensacola . . . . Sarasota . . . . Tallahassee . . . Tampa-St. Pete W. Palm Beach 6,099,628 127,743 468,076 1,513,797 1,214,424 306,565 5,815,746 - 5 107,292 + 4 402,409 + 1 1,510,229 - 3 860,170 -1 6 274,789 + 6 - 1 + 7 +24 + 19 + 18 + 14 - 3 + 3 + 19 +40 + 19 + 14 - 2 + 14 + 7 + 0 + 12 + 4 . 1,033,445 543,268 1,058,055 505,736 909,589 543,237 . 2,726,661 439,731 280,239 . 7,575,084 2,736,685 486,271 282,619 6,800,651 2,197,921 477,695 285,117 5,061,661 522,040 . 8,687,209 . 1,991,486 711,843 693,328 . 1,084,450 . 4,969,885 . 1,408,762 510,453 8,875,815 2,223,095 710,936 620,795 940,290r 4,893,984 l,445,942r 478,973 + 2 + 9 + 1 7,756,151 - 2 + 12 + 12 1,729,627 -1 0 + 15 +25 511,659 + 0 +39 +37 610,162 + 12 + 14 + 0 1,014,988 + 15 + 7 + 6 4,670,570 + 2 + 6 + 11 1,268,676 - 3 + 11 + 4 - 0 -1 0 - 1 + 11 +24 +34 - 8 + 0 - 2 - 4 +50 +30 218,962 222,868 191,476 + 2 + 16 + 7 A lb a n y ................ A tla n ta ................ . 25,160,866 24,786,731r 23,191,372 + 2 + 8 + 15 697,834 660,043 + 5 + 11 + 0 729,778 Augusta . . . . 503,324 + 12 + 14 + 12 574,301 514,430 Columbus . . . . 862,580 - 3 + 0 + 8 894,109 865,935 Macon ................ 1,022,588 + 1 +40 +39 1,406,976 Savannah . . . . . 1,426,676 316,682 1,995,526 421,327 291,050 5,769,502 - 359,032 2,022,692 385,128 2,066,896 312,768 1,710,050 - 7 - 2 + 15 + 18 + 18 + 17 Chattanooga . . . . 1,361,536 Knoxville . . . . . 1,685,234 Nashville . . . . . 5,021,087 1,438,322 1,867,967 5,053,779 1,283,410 1,577,568 4,703,678 - 5 + 6 -1 0 + 7 - 1 + 7 + 0 + 3 + 7 141,897 121,924 +22 + 14 344,630 . . . . . 1,959,174 456,867 . . 327,565 . . . . . 5,940,825 Biloxi-Gulfport . . Jackson ................ OTHER CENTERS Anniston . . . . 148,968 8 + 9 7 - 2 4 + 8 5 + 13 9 + 3 + 10 + 2 + 14 + 12 + 10 373,860 2,104,604 474,171 344,660 6,546,771 Alexandria . . Baton Rouge. Lafayette . . Lake Charles New Orleans April 1976 + 5 March 1976 Percent Change Year to April 1976 4 mos. from 1976 April Mar. April from 1975 1976 1975 1975 233,694 100,239 255,985 99,836 195,719 - 9 91,794 + 0 Bradenton................ 236,439 Monroe County . . 112,680 O cala........................ 228,879 St. Augustine . . . 57,177 St. Petersburg . . . 1,187,255 T a m p a .................... 2,617,147 240,834 103,371 241,041 44,838 1,121,867 2,572,988 214,283 - 2 125,398 + 9 251,772 - 5 46,296 +28 1,106,088 + 6 2,456,866 + 2 +19 +22 + 9 +20 +10 -1 0 - 9 +24 + 7 + 7 +8 -21 +4 + 8 +9 +22r 1 1 4 2 4 6 7 4 8 2 +16 +11 +20 +30 +11 +13 +24 +13 +21 +10 +18 +10 +24 +32 +16 +13 +25 +12 +19r +12 A t h e n s .................... Brunswick................ Dalton .................... Elberton ................ Gainesville . . . . Griffin .................... L aG range................ Newnan.................... R o m e ........................ Valdosta ................ 196,111 197,826 169,488 138,255 140,125 124,973 217,523 226,084 180,924 37,007 36,317 28,500 + 196,369 204,156 176,855 87,710 83,135 77,538 + 47,738 44,446 38,345 + 56,851 59,158 50,241 200,396186,362r 165,620 + 129,864 132,220 118,224 - A b b e v ille ................ B u n k ie .................... Hammond................ New Iberia . . . . Plaquemine . . . . Thibodaux................ 19,747 17,147 111,683 101,189 28,672 62,919 20,785 19,385 98,215 104,981 32,266 69,603r 19,449 - 5 17,708 -1 2 117,847 +14 88,381 - 4 29,411 -1 1 74,271 -1 0 + 2 - 3 - 5 +14 - 3 -1 5 +4 +5 -19r +12 - 8 - 3 Hattiesburg . . . . Laurel .................... Meridian ................ Natchez ................ PascagoulaMoss Point . . . Vicksburg................ Yazoo City . . . . 179,388 95,622 150,399 70,107 181,192 94,312 149,733 69,522 149,210 85,663 + 136,488 + 62,988 + +20 +12 +10 +11 +19 +14 +12 +15 160,875 92,576 59,646 193,820 101,141 56,769r Bristol .................... Johnson City . . . K ingsport................ 209,362 211,247 401,544 217,809 201,276 478,529 1 1 0 1 152,626 -1 7 + 5 + 7 80,579 - 8 +15 +23 54,650 + 5 + 9 + 9 148,181 - 4 181,929 + 5 326,636 -1 6 DISTRICT TOTAL . . 109,695,601 110,933,716r 98,324,031 - 1 A la b a m a ................ F lo r id a .................... Georgia ................ Louisiana2 . . . . Mississippi2 . . . . Tennessee2 . . . . 12,994,380 35,490,686 34,081,375 10,858,693 4,146,9167 12,123,500 13,515,069r 12,429,289 - 4 34,946,777r 30,028,461 + 2 33,780,181r 30,671,954 + 1 11,711,122 10,576,305 - 7 4,317,390r 3,594,940 - 4 12,663,177 11,023,082 - 4 +41 +44 +16 +12 +23 +26 +12 +14 + 5 +18 +11 + 3 +15 +10 +11 +16 +16 +8 +19 + 8 iConforms to SMSA definitions as of December 31, 1972. 2District portion only, r - revised Digitized FE D E Rfor A L FRASER R ESER V E BANK O F A TLAN TA 99 D is t r ic t B u s in e s s C o n d i t io n s *S e a s. ad j. fig ure; not an index Late st plotting: A p ril, except mfg. production and farm cash receipts, M arch. Economic gains continue into the Southeast's second year of recovery. M anufacturing em ploym ent showed strength, but other areas were less robust. Retail sales, particularly sales of autos, expanded, and consumer borrowing increased. Residential construction contracts rose sharply; nonresidential construc tion gained relative to p rior months. Large banks continue to let large CD's run off in response to weak loan demand. Increased livestock prices have lifted farm cash receipts above year-ago levels. The unem ploym ent rate declined in A p ril. M anu facturing jobs grew in both the durable and non durable sectors, w ith notable increases in the prim ary metals, transportation, and food industries. Job losses in services, trade, and the Federal Gov ernm ent were m ainly responsible for an overall decrease in nonmanufacturing employment. The factory w orkw eek was shorter, causing average weekly earnings to fall for the first time in 16 months. Manufacturing incomes fell in A p ril follow ing a fractional decline in March. New auto registrations rose sharply, continuing the seesaw pattern of recent months. Department store sales dropped, but total retail sales gained 2 percent. Increased consumer borrowing augmented purchasing power during March. Total instalment credit outstanding at commercial banks rose by more than 3 percent, reflecting growth in all categories. The value of residential construction contracts surged in A p ril to the highest level in 21 months; nonresidential construction returned to a normal level. Two extrem ely large contracts inflated non residential construction in March. Except for March, April's nonresidential construction contracts were the largest in eight months, and total contracts the highest in 14 months. Savings and loan deposit 1 0 0FRASER Digitized for inflows remained strong in A p ril, but mortgage rates ceased their downward drift. M em ber bank lending advanced m oderately in Ap ril. Loans increased strongly at small- and medium-sized banks. Loan volum e at large banks fell for the fourth consecutive month. Mem ber bank acquisitions of U. S. Governm ent securities were slower than the torrid pace of previous months. Total bank deposits grew slightly, despite a further liquidation of large CD's. These large tim e deposits have declined $710 m illion, or 13 percent, at large banks so far this year. By early June, some large District banks had posted a 7percent prim e rate, up from 6 3/4 percent. Economic conditions im proved at the farm level. Price increases for cattle and hogs lifted farm cash receipts above year-ago levels, even though crop receipts remained severely depressed in Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia. Recent increases in cotton, rice, and soybean prices should provide strength to crop receipts. Farmers plan to increase crop acreages, particularly for cotton, corn, and grain sorghum. Abundant rainfall in May, follow ing April's unusually dry weather, has brightened prospects for crops and pastures. Loans at banks in agricultural areas in mid-May continued almost 10 percent above year-ago levels. JU LY 1976, M O N T H L Y R E V IE W
@FedFRASER