The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Atlanta, Georgia
June
A ls o
in
•
1965
t h is
is s u e :
TENNESSEE’S BUSINESS:
STILL RUNNING AHEAD
SIXTH DISTRICT
STATISTICS
DISTRICT BUSINESS
CONDITIONS
% setve
l&antgf
Employment Growth, 1961-64
T h e
W
h
y ’s
a n d
W
h e
As the current economic expansion stretches into its fifty-second month,
curiosity heightens about how industrial development in the Sixth Federal
Reserve District has fared during this period. A satisfactory answer
has to be similar to that given by the man who when asked, “How’s
your wife?”, quickly replied, “Compared with whom?” Growth in a
particular area is devoid of meaning unless it is viewed in comparison
with some other area, thus this discussion of the District’s industrial
growth will compare progress in this section of the country with that of
the nation as a whole.
Another pertinent question our friend might have posed when asked
about his wife would have been, “Measured in what terms?” Ideally, for
our purposes, growth should be measured in a number of different terms
—capital investment, production, and employment, to mention only a
few. Unfortunately, however, the range of variables for which up-to-date
statistics are available is very limited for a less-than-national area.
Capital investment figures for any sort of meaningful breakdown have
a two-year (or longer) lag and thus are not very useful for measuring
changes in a current cyclical movement—even when the movement is a
long one such as the current expansion period. Recent production esti
mates for mining and manufacturing are available in the Federal Reserve
Bulletin but, unfortunately, for the nation only. No breakdown by state
or region is available on a frequently recurring basis.
This leaves us with employment, for which comparable national and
state figures are published on a monthly basis and with a great deal
of industrial detail. Although in some instances production in certain
industries may be going up while at the same time employment is
declining because of changes in productivity, such a divergence generally
could be expected to occur at both the regional and national level. Thus,
the data would still be valid for comparative purposes. And, in
some respects, employment is a more relevant variable since it measures
the number of jobs that a region has been able to provide for its resi
dents. It is for these reasons that employment growth becomes the
means of comparison in this discussion.
Although the current expansion, which began early in 1961, is still
continuing, the period from 1961 to 1964 was chosen for consideration.
This enabled us to use annual averages, thus eliminating the problems of
seasonal changes, as well as the possibility that an industry might have
been seriously affected by some sort of irregular occurrence, such as a
strike or unusual weather in a given month.
T h e D is tr ic t L e a d s t h e N a t i o n
In terms of overall employment growth, most states of the Sixth Federal
Reserve District fared rather well between 1961 and 1964, compared
with the nation as a whole, as indicated by Table 1, which is shown on
Page 2. Florida’s employment grew by 195,000 workers. This expansion
was equivalent to an increase of 13.4 percent and was far
above the 5.2-percent change in the nation. Employment
growth rates in Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana also
Table 1
Employment Changes*, 1961-64
1961
1964
Percentage
Change
(Thousands of Workers)
United States**
Alabam a
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Tennessee
A ll District States
61,145
921
1,455
1,226
934
638
1,176
6,342
64,311
969
1,650
1,333
990
661
1,269
6,872
5.2
5.3
13.4
8.7
6.1
3.6
7.9
8.3
♦Includes agricultural and nonagricultural employment.
** Includes Alaska and Hawaii.
Sources: U. S. Department of Commerce and U. S. Department of Agriculture.
exceeded the national average, although their 8.7, 7.9,
and 6.1 percentage increases were less spectacular than
Florida’s. In Alabama, employment rose 5.3 percent,
slightly above the national average, while Mississippi
trailed with a rate of increase of 3.6 percent. However,
total employment in Mississippi is small relative to the
other states and thus did not exert much of an influence on
the rate for all District states. Employment in the sixstate area grew by 530,000 jobs, an increase of 8.3
percent over the 1961 level. Thus, employment oppor
tunities in the District have grown at a rate significantly
above the 5.2-percent national average.
While a general overall comparison of growth rates
is meaningful, one’s curiosity cannot be fully satisfied
unless an attempt is made to isolate the components that
helped shape this growth. Did employment in the District
grow faster because the area’s industrial structure was
more favorable— that is, because the District had a larger
share of employment in fast growth industries— or because
it was able to attract more than a “fair” share of new in
dustries?
M o re F a v o r a b le In d u s tr ia l M ix ? — N o !
A region has a better chance of achieving an overall growth
rate in excess of the national average if it has an industrial
structure that is highly oriented toward fast-growth in
dustries. Thus, if these fast-growth industries were already
well established at the beginning of an expansion period
and accounted for a major portion of total employment,
the region would have a head start toward exceeding the
national average.
To determine if the Sixth District states qualified as
such an area, it was first necessary to compute growth
rates for individual industrial categories in the U. S. The
rapid growth in population and personal income has
greatly increased the demand for state and local govern
ment services and for services provided by the private
sector so that employment in these categories grew by 13.3
and 12.1 percent, respectively. For similar reasons, there
have been large employment increases in the transportation
equipment industry and in contract construction.
The rates of growth for individual industries in the
nation are shown in the left-hand column of Table 2.
These industries have been classified into two basic cate
gories: those that grew faster than the overall national
rate of 5.2 percent and those that grew slower. Thus, the
table shows that employment in the production of stone,
clay, and glass products was just above the average in
crease for all categories, while it was slightly below the
average for firms manufacturing lumber, wood, and fur
niture products. In some industries, such as food process
ing, mining, and agriculture, employment actually de
clined. These industries, together with their rates of de
cline, also are included in the below-average category.
Next, the percentage of total employment of each of
the industries was computed for both the District and the
United States to determine if the District had a higher
concentration of the fast-growth industries in 1961. The
results, shown in the last two columns of Table 2, indi
cate that the District’s industry mix was not as growth
oriented as the nation’s.
Among the faster growing industries, the District had
a significantly larger percentage base in only contract con
struction and state and local government. About the
same proportions of total employment were found in the
manufacture of chemicals and stone, clay, and glass prod
ucts, as well as in finance, insurance and real estate, whole
sale trade, and retail trade. However, the District had a
smaller proportion of all jobs in the service industries, in
the production of transportation equipment, machinery
Table 2
Components of Total Employment, 1961
Percentage of
U. S. Rate of
Employment Total Employment
District
Growth
1961-64
U. S.
States
Above-Average Growth Industries*
State and Local Government . . .
Services ....................................
Transportation Equipment M fg. . .
Contract C o n s tru c tio n ................
Machinery and Electrical
Equipment M fg.
Primary and Fabricated Metal M fg.
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
Wholesale T r a d e .......................
Retail T r a d e .............................
Other Durable M f g .......................
Chemicals M fg .............................
Stone, Clay, and Glass M fg. . . .
T o t a l .................................
13.3
12.1
11.3
10.3
10.7
12.4
2.4
4.6
11.3
11.1
1.1
5.2
9.3
8.8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.0
5.9
5.8
—
4.7
3.6
4.5
4.9
13.6
1.6
1.4
1.0
65.4
1.0
2.1
4.1
5.0
13.8
0.8
1.6
0.9
58.0
Below-Average Growth Industries*
Lumber, Wood, and Furniture M fg.
Paper and Allied Products M fg. . .
Textiles and Apparel M f g .............
Petroleum, Rubber, and Leather M fg.
Printing and P u b li s h i n g .............
Federal G o v e r n m e n t ................
Transportation and Public Utilities
Food P r o c e s s i n g .......................
Other Nondurable M f g .................
M ining
....................................
A gricu ltu re.................................
T o t a l .................................
5.0
4.8
4.7
3.8
3.8
2.5
1.9
- 2.6
- 3.0
- 5.5
-1 1 .5
—
1.6
1.0
3.5
1.5
1.5
3.7
6.4
2.9
0.1
1.1
11.3
34.6
2.4
1.2
4.6
0.8
0.9
4.2
6.0
2.9
0.9
1.3
16.8
42.0
A ll Industries.................................
5.2
100.0
100.0
♦Above-average growth industries are those that grew at a faster rate in the
United States between 1961 and 1964 than did total employment. Belowaverage growth industries are those that grew slower.
•2 •
and electrical equipment, primary and fabricated metals,
and other durable goods.
In the United States, industries with above-average
rates of growth accounted for 65 percent of total employ
ment in 1961. In the District, this proportion was 58
percent. Thus, instead of a head start, the District actually
began the period with a handicap.
The most striking difference between the employment
mixes of the U. S. and the District occurred in agriculture,
which accounted for almost 17 percent of the total jobs
in the District but for only 11 percent in the U. S. To some
extent, the less favorable growth structure in the District
is also reflected by the higher proportion of employment
in the relatively slower-growing textile and apparel in
dustry, lumber and wood products industry, and in Federal
Government employment. In most other slow-growth cate
gories, the proportions are either about the same or a
slightly higher percentage is recorded by the U. S.
The industry mix, moreover, was less favorable for
growth in all of the District states except Florida, where
over 76 percent of employment was in above-average
growth industries. Mississippi’s base was least favorable
for growth since almost 55 percent of the state’s employ
ment was in the below-average growth categories. About
58 percent of the employment in Georgia and Tennessee
was in the faster expanding industries, while these in
dustries accounted for 63 and 60 percent, respectively,
of employment in Alabama and Louisiana.
Thus it appears that the reason employment has grown
at a faster rate in the District than in the U. S. in this cur
rent period is certainly not because the District began with
a higher proportion of employment in those industries that
have grown most rapidly. Quite the contrary— the District
grew faster despite its industrial mix, not because of it.
The answer, therefore, must be found in the District’s
ability to attract more new employment opportunities than
other areas. If so, a District-U. S. comparison of the
average growth rates for individual industries should offer
confirmation.
M o re C o m p e titiv e ? — Y e s !
Just because an area begins a growth period with an
employment composition that is oriented toward the
slower growth industries does not mean that it will have
a below-average rate of expansion. The area may be more
successful in attracting additional employment opportuni
ties because of available labor, lower wages, tax induce
ments, natural resources, the development of a large con
sumer market, and a number of other factors. Such ad
vantages could enable the area to achieve above-average
rates of growth even in those industries that were classified
nationally as slow-growth industries. In addition, the area
may show a tendency toward rapid development of the
faster growing national industries despite the low propor
tion of employment in these industries at the beginning of
the expansion period. Both these tendencies seem to have
been operative in the District.
The District’s more rapid rate of employment expansion
in the group of industries with national growth rates below
the national average is apparent in Table 3. This table
shows the percentage growth in employment from 1961
to 1964 in various industries— grouped into above- and
below-national average categories— for the United States
and the District. For instance, the textile and apparel
industry, which grew at a less-than-5-percent rate from
1961 to 1964 nationally, increased over 26 percent in
the District during the same period. While textiles and
apparel already was one of the larger manufacturing
employment categories in the District in 1961, its rapid
growth contributed substantially to the expansion of the
District’s employment, while at the same time its na
tional performance was classified as “slow growth.” To
a lesser extent, the same can be said for most of the other
so-called “slow growth” industries. Of those showing posi
tive rates of growth, only employment in the production of
Table 3
Employment Growth Rates, 1961-64
Percentage Change
U . S.
D istrict States
Above-Average Growth Industries*
State and Local Government
13.3
12.1
Services
Transportation Equipment M fg.
11.3
Contract Construction
10.3
Machinery and Electrical Equipment M fg. 9.3
Primary and Fabricated Metal M fg.
8.8
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
7.8
7.6
Wholesale Trade
7.4
Retail Trade
7.0
Other Durable Mfg.
Chemicals Mfg.
5.9
Stone, Clay, and Glass M fg.
5.8
Below-Average Growth Industries*
Lumber, Wood, and Furniture M fg.
Paper and Allied Products Mfg.
Textiles and Apparel M fg.
Petroleum, Rubber, and Leather M fg.
Printing and Publishing
Federal Government
Transportation and Public Utilities
Food Processing
Other Nondurable M fg.
M ining
Agriculture
—
—
—
—
5.0
4.8
4.7
3.8
3.8
2.5
1.9
2.6
3.0
5.5
11.5
13.4
16.6
39.0
18.5
66.3
13.0
11.2
9.1
9.8
23.7
11.4
11.6
7.1
2.0
26.2
11.4
8.4
5.6
4.7
3.4
-6 3 .0
- 0.6
- 9.9
*Above-average growth industries are those that grew at a faster rate in the
United States between 1961 and 1964 than did total employment. Belowaverage growth industries are those that grew slower.
paper and allied products failed to grow at a faster rate
in the District than it did nationally. The rest showed
significantly faster rates of growth.
Moreover, for the industries that showed negative rates
of growth— that is, where employment actually fell— the
rates of decline in the more important employment cate
gories were slower in the District than nationally so that
the loss of jobs was not as severe. For instance, the 10percent drop in agricultural employment caused a loss
of 106,000 farming jobs. If the national rate of decline in
agriculture had applied, the District’s reduction would have
been 123,000. Food and beverage processing employment,
which also declined nationally, grew about 3 percent in
the District. Moreover, employment in mining was just
about unchanged in the District, although a 5-percent
decline took place nationally. The remaining category,
other nondurable goods manufacturing, fell much more in
• 3 •
the District than in the nation, but since it accounted for
such an insignificant amount of employment initially only
a relatively small number of jobs were lost.
The District also has enjoyed a faster-than-national rate
of increase in each of the “above-average” job categories.
Some of the more marked differences occurred in the
production of transportation equipment, machinery and
electrical equipment, and other durable goods— all cate
gories in which the U. S. had a higher percentage of em
ployment in 1961 than did the District.
Does this mean that the District is increasing its share
of the “fast growth” industries? Indeed it does! If the
distribution of employment in Table 2 were computed for
1964 instead of 1961, it would show that the percentage
of District employment in above-average growth industries
was nearer the national average than in 1961. The per
centage of District employment in the faster growing
industries increased from 58.0 percent in 1961 to 61.2
percent in 1964. During the same period, the U. S. figure
rose from 65.4 percent to 67.9 percent.
Thus, not only is employment in the District growing at
a faster rate than in the U. S., but its composition is
changing also. Can this pace be maintained? Perhaps, but
it will become more and more difficult. As additional
industries move into an area, the supply of available labor
begins to shrink, other resources become less abundant,
wages increase, and tax incentives vanish as other areas
also grant concessions. However, just reaching a point
where the natural advantages disappear will signify real
progress.
n . D. O’B annon
N o te: Supplementary tables relating to employment
changes and composition in each of the Sixth District states
are available on request to the Research Department, Fe d
eral Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Tennessee’s Business: Still Running Ahead
The spirit of competition moves our economy. Even our
states and localities do not escape it, for the stakes in
attracting new sources of employment come high. This
lesson is especially clear to states whose economic fortunes
are not yet on a par with the national average. To catch
up, these states have to grow faster, even faster than the
nation.
The Volunteer State has tried to do just that. In 1940,
Tennessee’s per capita income was not much more than
one-half of the national average. By 1950, it had moved
up to more than three-fifths and, by 1960, it was close
to three-quarters.
From 1960 to 1964, Tennessee’s total personal income
(according to recently published official U. S. Depart
ment of Commerce figures) climbed another 28 percent.
The national average rose 22 percent. Tennessee, there
fore, was not just sharing in the overall economic expan
sion but was doing slightly better.
Long-run comparisons, of course, often obscure more
recent developments. It is, therefore, important to know
whether these trends have continued. On the basis of
1964 figures, the answer is “yes.” Tennessee’s personal
income gain of 7 percent nosed out the 6-percent increase
in the national average. Since these two figures are not far
apart, one might, with little else to go on, pay scant atten
tion to this difference. However, that would be shortsighted.
Every major source of nonfarm income in 1964 rose
faster in Tennessee than in the United States as a whole
or equally as fast. Government and construction payrolls
in the state scored the highest percentage gains, while a
solid increase in factory payrolls was another major factor
behind the upswing in income.
More recent data reveal that the state’s income gains
are continuing. According to estimates of this Bank, the
rate of growth of seasonally adjusted personal income
received by Tennesseans during the first quarter as a
whole was fractionally ahead of that for the nation,
although it declined in March.
E m p l o y m e n t C h a r ts
Ir r e g u la r U p w a r d C o u rse
Employment indicators have followed a roughly similar
course, but gains have been less dramatic. During 1964,
Tennessee’s rate of growth in nonfarm employment did
little more than match that of the United States as a whole.
And through April 1965, employment showed only a small
gain after allowances were made for seasonal changes.
Wet, cold weather contributed to a lag in construction em
ployment this year, while labor disputes also held down
employment increases. The number of jobs this April,
however, was 49,000 higher than it was a year ago. More
persons— 22,600 to be exact—were holding jobs with
state and local governments and with retail stores and
other trade concerns than they were last year. Apparel, the
leading employer in the manufacturing field, added nearly
5,000 factory workers to its roster, more than any other
industry. Jobs in chemicals, the number two manufacturer,
also increased. But in textiles and food— two other leading
industries— the number of jobs only rose slightly.
As one might expect from the improved overall employ
ment picture, the unemployment situation took a turn for
the better. Insured unemployment, as a percentage of
covered employment, fell to 3 percent in April. This was
well below last year’s level and under the national average.
More comprehensive measures available for several
major Tennessee cities confirm the reduction in the ranks
of the unemployed. In Nashville and Knoxville, unemploy
ment, as of mid-March, was only 3.1 percent of the labor
force. And while this rate was slightly higher for the
Chattanooga area, unemployment there was no longer
the problem it was several years ago.
F a rm A c tiv ity — B r ig h t b u t S k e tc h y
Unless one belabors the point somewhat, Tennessee is no
more of an agricultural area than is the United States as
a whole. Still, farm activity provides one-tenth of all jobs
in Tennessee and is thus important to the state’s econ•4 •
om y. G en era lly , th e farm p ictu re h as b e e n r ea son ab ly
g o o d , as is in d ica ted b y th e 4 -p er c e n t in crea se in ca sh
receip ts du rin g 1 9 6 4 .
R ea d in g b e tw e e n th e lin es su g g ests va rio u s crosscurrents
at p la y th ou gh . D e sp ite a c u tb a ck in to b a c c o a creage, crop
receip ts w ere w e ll a h ea d o f the 1 9 6 3 to ta l, th an k s to in
crea sed c o tto n p ro d u ctio n and h igh er so y b e a n ou tp ut.
R e c eip ts from liv e sto c k and p o u ltry p ro d u cts, o n th e oth er
h an d , fe ll slig h tly b e ca u se o f p rice w e a k n esse s for b e e f
and eggs and a slig h tly red u ced ou tp u t o f m ilk , w h ich is
im p o rta n t to th e sta te ’s farm ec o n o m y . A lth o u g h th e u n
im p ressiv e liv e sto c k pattern carried o v er in to th e first
quarter o f 1 9 6 5 , to ta l farm receip ts sta y ed ah ead o f th o se
o f a year ago.
H ig h er in c o m es o n and off th e farm e n a b led T e n n e s
sea n s to step up their sp en d in g co n sid era b ly . D e m a n d for
n ew a u to s h as b e e n p a rticu larly brisk , ju d gin g fro m a 2 8 p ercen t in crea se in registration s in 1 9 6 4 . T h is strength in
a u to sa les carried in to 1 9 6 5 . In crea sed d ep a rtm en t store
sa les p ro v id ed a further stim u lu s to retail trade.
B y sh arp ly step p in g u p their cred it v o lu m e , c o m m ercia l
b a n k s con trib u ted to th e h igh er sp en d in g o f co n su m ers
and b u sin esses. A t th e en d o f 1 9 6 4 , to ta l lo a n s o f m em b er
b an k s lo ca ted in th e eastern tw o-th ird s o f T e n n e sse e {i.e.,
th e S ix th D istr ic t p o rtio n o f th e sta te ) h a d m o v e d 15
p ercen t h igh er th an a year earlier. M o re recen tly , cred it
d em a n d s see m e d to a ccelera te. B a n k s r e sp o n d ed b y in
crea sin g th eir lo a n s in th e first fou r m o n th s o f 1 9 6 5 m ore
th an on e-fifth at a se a so n a lly adjusted a n n u al rate.
D o e s this m ea n th at ev ery th in g is b u o y a n t in th e sta te’s
e co n o m y ? N o t at all. O n th e b a sis o f co n str u c tio n aw ards
for the first quarter, o n e m ajor typ e o f activ ity — resid en tial
h o u sin g — ap p ears to h a v e slo w ed d o w n sligh tly. T h is
w ea k n ess c o m e s o n th e h eels o f fairly g o o d in creases
during 1 9 6 4 . F o rtu n a tely , oth er ty p es o f co n str u c tio n h ave
b een h o ld in g up w ell.
E con om ic In d icators— T e n n e sse e
P e r s o n a l In c o m e
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 E m p lo y m e n t
M a n u f a c t u r in g P a y r o lls
F a rm C a s h
R e c e ip t s
m oving o v e r a g e
B a n k D e b its
What About the Future?
A s w e n o ted in ou r la st ro u n d u p ,1 T e n n e s s e e ’s e c o n o m y
h as b eh a v e d in crea sin g ly lik e th at o f th e U n ite d S tates as
a w h o le. W ith T e n n e sse e ’s stak es so c lo s e ly in terw o v en
w ith th e fortu n es o f th e n a tio n a l e c o n o m y , o n e m u st start
w ith a n a tio n a l b u sin ess fo r ec a st to p red ict b u sin ess in
th e state during th e rest o f th e year. W h ile su ch a p red ic
tio n is b e y o n d th e sc o p e o f this report, o n e ca n , n ev erth e
le ss, m a k e tw o g en era liza tio n s. F irst, h o w th e en tire state
w ill fare p ro b a b ly is g o in g to h in g e very m u ch o n d e v e lo p
m en ts in its m ajor m etro p o lita n areas (C h a tta n o o g a , K n o x
v ille, N a sh v ille , an d M e m p h is) b ec a u se e m p lo y m en t is
b ec o m in g in crea sin g ly c o n cen tra ted in th e se fou r cen ters.
S e co n d , th e state o f T e n n e sse e c o n tin u es to fa c e the
ch a lle n g e o f o u td ista n cin g th e U n ited States as a w h o le if
M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s it s
it is to ca tch up e c o n o m ica lly .
100—
— 100
1111111111111
111111111111
111111111111
111111111111
111111
19 61
1962
1963
* F o r S ix th D is tr ic t p o rtio n o f state only.
1964
1965
H ar r y B r a n d t
This is one of a series in which economic developments in
each of the Sixth District states are discussed. Develop
ments in Louisiana’s economy were analyzed in the April
1965 R e v ie w , and a discussion of Florida’s economy is
scheduled for a forthcoming issue.
1 See the M a r c h 1964 issue o f the
Monthly Review.
•5 *
Bank Announcements
Debits to Demand Deposit Accounts
Insured Commercial Banks in the Sixth District
(In Thousands of Dollars)
On M a y 1, T h e F i r s t S t a t e B a n k , Phil C ampbell, A la
bama, a n o n m em b er bank, began to rem it at par for checks
d ra w n on it when received fr o m the Federal R eserve Bank.
Officers are Walston Hester, President; F. N . Parrish, Vice
President; and S. P. Allm an, Cashier.
The C i t i z e n s B a n k o f W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y , Sander s ville, Georgia, a new ly organized n o n m em b er bank, op en ed
f o r business on M a y 3 and began to rem it at par. Officers in
clude D r. Thom as W. G ilm ore, Chairman o f the Board;
J. B. Wall, Jr., President; and E. P. Lee, E xecutive Vice
P resident an d Cashier. Capital is $2 00,000, and surplus
an d undivided profits, $200,000.
On M a y 6, the B e d f o r d C o u n t y B a n k , Shelbyville, T en
nessee, a new ly organized n o n m e m b er bank, o pe n ed fo r
business an d began to rem it at par. Officers are Jack E.
Short, President and Chairman of the Board; A . K . Minter,
Jr., Vice President an d Cashier; John E. G a n t an d Dr.
John S. D erryberry, Vice Presidents; an d A lfr e d L. English,
G eneral Counsel. Capital is $200,000, an d surplus and un
divide d profits, $200,000.
The C i t i z e n s N a t i o n a l B a n k , Florence, Mississippi, a
conversion o f the Citizens Bank, a n o n m em b er bank,
o pen ed for business as a national bank on M a y 14 an d b e
gan to rem it at par. Officers include W. P. M cM ullan,
C hairman of the Board; W. M . M c K ell, President; G. W.
Barlow, Vice President; an d Mrs. D o ris T. Bradshaw,
Cashier. Capital is $ 10 1,250, and surplus an d undivided
profits, approxim ately $133,500, as reported by the C o m p
troller of the C urrency at the time the charter was granted.
On M a y 14, the M i d w a y B a n k a t T a m p a , Tampa, Flor
ida, a new ly organized n o n m e m b er bank, op en ed for busi
ness and began to rem it at par. O fficers include R alph A .
Marsicano, President and Chairman of the Board; J. R.
M yn a tt, Vice President; an d A . H. Vermeulen, E xecutive
Vice P resident and Cashier. Capital is $250,000, and
surplus and undivided profits, $112,500.
The S i l v e r C r e e k S t a t e B a n k , Silver Creek, M issis
sippi, a n o n m em b er bank, began to rem it at par on M a y
15. Officers are Earl R. Wilson, Chairman of the Board;
R . B. Shivers, P resident and Cashier; T. E. Daniel, Vice
P resident an d Assistant Cashier; and J. W. Waller, Vice
President.
On M a y 17, the B a n k o f W e s t B l o c t o n , W est Blocton,
A labam a, a new ly organized state m e m b e r bank, op en ed
fo r business and began to rem it at par. Officers are E ddie
G. D ow ns, President; E. P. Jones, Vice President; and
W. W. Findley, Secretary. Capital is $ 75,000, and surplus
a n d oth er capital funds, $51,000.
The S a n J o s e B a r n e t t B a n k , Jacksonville, Florida, a
n ew ly organized n o n m e m b er bank, o p en ed fo r business on
M a y 2 0 a n d began to rem it at par. Officers include L ero y
Gardner, Chairman o f the Board; John T. Cannon, III,
President; H arry L. K inne, Jr., Vice President; a n d J. R ic h
a rd Kasell, Vice President and Cashier. Capital is $ 35 0,000,
a n d surplus an d un divided profits, $175,000.
Percent Change
Year-to-date
4 Months
Apr. 1965 from 1965
Mar.
Apr.
from
1965
1964 1964
Apr.
1965
Mar.
1965
Apr.
1964
1,258,211
60,696
177,125
435,455
247,804
78,986
1,225,180
58,441
171,882
408,018
286,691
76,026
1,108,382
51,941
150,264
378,371
231,328
73,355
+3
+4
+3
+7
— 14
+4
+ 14
+ 17
+ 18
+ 15
+7
+8
+10
+ 11
+ 11
+ 10
+8
+7
556,642
1,360,391
1,886,192
457,633
194,247
1,101,273
398,245
87,728
3,718,872
162,888
182,944
198,131
224,083
419,528
110,962
124,091
1,992,229
480,399
501,852
402,742
1,292,563
570,444
l,377,379r
l,982,778r
455,234
199,552
1,154,711
410,824
84,675
3,781,746
173,987
189,608
208,704
244,130
470,567
97,476
106,896
2,119,762
504,807
509,279
394,815
1,064,121
506,654
1,205,912
1,798,654
439,924
161,521
1,038,005
370,547
65,748
3,428,721
159,364
161,185
177,964
215,881
374,436
85,208
98,243
1,857,123
424,378
433,643
360,623
1,071,676
—2
—1
—5
+1
—3
—5
—3
+4
—2
—6
—4
—5
—8
— 11
+ 14
+ 16
—6
—5
—1
+2
+21
+ 10
+ 13
+5
+4
+ 20
+6
+7
+ 33
+8
+2
+ 13
+ 11
+4
+ 12
+30
+ 26
+7
+ 13
+16
+ 12
+21
+6
+ 11
+6
+1
+ 16
+6
+9
+ 23
+ 12
+3
+ 12
+ 14
+5
+20
+ 17
+7
+ 11
+ 11
+ 10
+8
+6
STANDARD METROPOLITAN
STATISTICAL AREASf*
Birmingham . .
Gadsden . . . .
Huntsville . .
Mobile . . . .
Montgomery . .
Tuscaloosa . .
Ft. LauderdaleHollywood .
Jacksonville . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Orlando . . . .
Pensacola . . .
Tampa-St. Petersburg
W. Palm Beach
Albany . . . .
Atlanta . . . .
Augusta . . . .
Columbus
. . .
Macon.......................
Savannah
. . .
Baton Rouge
. .
Lafayette
. . .
Lake Charles
. .
New Orleans . . .
Jackson . . . .
Chattanooga . . .
Knoxville . . . .
Nashville . . . .
OTHER CENTERS
Anniston . . . .
Dothan . . . .
Selm a.......................
Bartow . . . .
Bradenton . . .
Brevard County . .
Daytona Beach . .
Ft. MyersN. Ft. Myers
Gainesville . . .
Monroe County . .
Lakeland . . . .
O c a la .......................
St. Augustine . .
St. Petersburg . .
Sarasota . . . .
Tallahassee . . .
Tampa
. . . .
Winter Haven . .
Athens
. . . .
Brunswick . . .
Dalton
. . . .
Elberton . . . .
Gainesville . . .
Griffin
. . . .
LaG range
. . .
Newnan . . . .
R om e.......................
Valdosta . . . .
Abbeville . . . .
Alexandria . . .
Bunkie
. . . .
Hammond
. . .
New Iberia . . .
Plaquemine . . .
Thibodaux . . .
Biloxi-Gulfport
Hattiesburg . . .
Laurel.......................
Meridian . . . .
Natchez . . . .
PascagoulaMoss Point . .
Vicksburg
. . .
Yazoo City . . .
Bristol
. . . .
Johnson City . . .
Kingsport
. . .
53,206
47,926
33,602
33,694
53,986
188,674
77,582
53,937
49,464
32,456
33,424
52,736
186,273
77,595
51,058
44,986
32,795
27,076
52,705
169,276
75,371
—1
—3
+4
+1
+2
+1
—0
+4
+7
+2
+ 24
+2
+ 11
+3
+6
+8
+3
+21
+2
+11
+1
68 686
70,290
32,076
110,728
51,545
17,447
276,336
105,732
109,189
604,857
63,185
59,970
38,501
89,581
10,847
62,903
26,121
21,205
23,924
60,351
43,654
8,913
99,910
5,061
32.619
31,107
7,963
18,350
77,458
44,456
34,666
57,102
30,347
70,900
72,076
32,403
116,293
54,976
17,684
283,063
95,475
98,379
649,837
58,862
60,445
40,998
83,047
11,924
60,019
27,872
19,632
23,209
63,699
46,235
9,067
99,886
4,564
29,118
31,966
8 866
18,483
79 285
44,067
30,509
57,890
29,172
65,864
64,450
25,647
100,366
52,563
17,664
266,847
102,022
86,509
548,975
53,965
51,454
37,315
84,472
12,301
57,517
24,063
19,129
22,120
56,644
39,961
8,254
90,635
4,594
28,191
28,166
7,596
18,054
71,690
40,906
31,322
52,585
28,833
—3
—2
—1
—5
—6
—1
—2
+ 11
+ 11
—7
+7
—1
—6
+8
—9
+5
—6
+8
+3
—5
—6
—2
+0
+ 11
+ 12
—3
— 10
—1
—2
+1
+ 14
—1
+4
+4
+9
+ 25
+ 10
—2
—1
+4
+4
+ 26
+ 10
+ 17
+ 17
+3
+6
— 12
+9
+9
+ 11
+8
+7
+9
+8
+ 10
+ 10
+ 16
+ 10
+5
+2
+8
+9
+ 11
+9
+5
+5
+ 11
+ 20
+8
+6
—3
+5
+2
+ 13
+ 11
+7
+ 14
+6
+ 17
+8
+6
+ 11
+5
+1
+4
+ 13
+8
+9
+ 13
+ 12
+5
+7
+2
+6
+7
—1
+4
+1
45,022
33,834
20,270
62,051
62,752
120,333
42,072
33,130
19,763
61,409
64,359
147,934
41,787
27,105
21,487
54,111
58,186
105,687
+7
+2
+3
+1
—2
— 19
+8
+25
—6
+15
+8
+ 14
+ 10
+ 16
+9
+9
+8
+ 13
25,188,008r 22,717,021
—0
+10
+9
+1
—2
—1
—4
—1
+7
+ 11
+8
+ 11
+10
+ 10
+ 14
+8
+8
+ 13
+ 12
+8
+5
SIXTH DISTRICT, Total 25,078,283
Alabama-- . .
?
Floridaf . . . .
Georgiaf . . . .
Louisiana--** .
?
Mississippi- ** .
?Tennessee--** .
?
.
.
.
.
3,230,375
8,006,612
6,055,684
3,329,399
1,069,107
3,387,106
3,190,632
8,178,600r
6,107,249
3,475,916
1,080,938
3,154,673
2,899,105
7,397,210
5,449,031
3,018,847
969,306
2,983,522
*Year-ago data have revised for all states and for all SMSA's except Birmingham,
Tuscaloosa, Miami, Albany, Lafayette, and Lake Charles.
r Revised.
**Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state. fPartially estimated.
•6 •
S i x t h D i s t r i c t S ta tis tic s
Seasonally Adjusted
(All data are indexes, 1957-59 =
Latest Month
(1965)
One
Month
Ago
Two
Months
Ago
TOO, unless indicated otherwise.)
One
Year
Ago
Latest Month
(1965)
SIXTH DISTRICT
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) .
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .............................
Farm Cash R e c e ip ts ..................................
Department Store S a l e s * * .......................
Two
Months
Ago
One
Year
Ago
G EO R G IA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Mar. 46,378 46,320r 45,970r 42,858
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .................................. Apr.
157
156
143
155
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................ Mar.
137
140
125
125
Crops ............................................................... Mar.
162
158
163
166
Livestock .........................................................
114
119
119
110
Department Store S a l e s * / * * ....................... May
147p
141r
140r
139
Instalment Credit at Banks, *(Mil. $)
Apr.
215
182
New Loans.........................................................
205
205r
Repayments.................................................... Apr.
167
185
178
183
One
Month
Ago
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................
M anufacturing..............................................
Apparel.........................................................
Chem icals...................................................
Fabricated M e t a ls ..................................
Food...............................................................
Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . .
Paper .........................................................
Primary M e ta ls ........................................
Textiles.........................................................
Transportation Equipment
. . . .
Nonmanufacturing........................................
Construction..............................................
Farm Employment..............................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Construction Contracts*..................................
R e sid e n tia l...................................................
All O th e r.........................................................
Industrial Use of Electric Power . . . .
Cotton Consum ption**..................................
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.**
FINANCE AND BANKING
Membei Bank Loans*
All B a n k s.........................................................
Leading Cities ..............................................
Member Bank Deposits*
All B a n k s.........................................................
Leading Cities ..............................................
Bank D e b it s * / * * ..............................................
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
122
121
148
115
130
108
100
108
112
98
342
122
120
73
2.4
41.5
181
174
188
126
115
173
121
121
147r
115
124r
108
100
109
lllr
97
140
121
120
73
2.5
41.5
139
148
131
127
115
173
121
120
145
115
129
108
98
109
112
98
140
121
118
78
2.6
41.5
137
139
136
128
113
176
116
116
139
111
121
105
97
105
107
96
125
117
109
79
3.2
40.8
145
152
149
122
102
169
Apr.
May
199
184
197
181
193
180
172
162
Apr.
May
Apr.
155
146
164
156
143
159r
152
143
155r
140
133
149
8,698
158
116
139
8,611r
160
124
145
8,634r
157
133
138
8,064
145
109
129
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
121
119
122
129
64
1.8
40.9
121
119
122
127r
63
1.9
41.2
120
118
121
127
64
2.0
40.9
117
114
118
119
72
2.4
40.4
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
205
166
172
206
168
171
200
162
169
176
145
155
. Mar.
. Apr.
. Mar.
. Apr.
6,963
137
113
132
6,938r
138
122
121r
6,901r
139
139
132
6,283
128
115
118
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment.................................. . Apr.
Manufacturing........................................ . Apr.
Nonmanufacturing.................................. . Apr.
Construction........................................ . Apr.
Farm Employment..............................................Apr.
Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp.) Apr.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Apr.
114
109
115
125
69
3.1
41.7
114
109
115
130
72
3.1
42.5r
113
109
114
126
75
3.2
42.7
107
104
108
99
80
3.7
41.8
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
179
136
143
179
137
145
178
134
134
157
125
129
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Mar.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .............................
Apr.
Farm Cash R e c e ip ts .................................. . Mar.
Department Store Sales*/** . . . .
. Apr.
3,541
170
134
100
3,578r
162
185
93r
3,532r
160
171
101
3,274
146
127
106
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................Apr.
M anufacturing..............................................Apr.
Nonmanufacturing........................................Apr.
Construction..............................................Apr.
Farm Employment..............................................Apr.
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Apr.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Apr.
125
132
122
128
62
2.8
41.3
124
130
122
126
66
3.2
40.7r
123
129
121
124
72
3.2
41.1
119
121
117
117
76
4.2
40.1
. Apr.
. Apr.
. Apr.
213
165
164
214
167
163
213
167
163
195
152
148
. Mar.
. Apr.
. Mar.
. Apr.
7,390
150
111
119
7,433r
150
113
122
7,458r
150
117
123
6,927
139
119
115
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
122
125
120
137
80
3.0
41.0
121
125
119
140r
77
3.3
41.0
121
125
119
140
87
3.3
41.2
116
119
114
131
84
3.9
40.5
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Lo a n s*.................................. . Apr.
Member Bank Deposits*................................... Apr.
Bank D e b it s * / * * ............................................. . Apr.
199
157
186
197
157
165
192
155
162
173
141
164
. Mar.
. Apr.
. Mar.
. Apr.
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment..................................
Manufacturing........................................
Nonmanufacturing..................................
.
.
.
.
Farm Employment........................................ .
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ..................................
Member Bank D e p o s its .............................
Bank D e b its * * ..............................................
.
.
.
LO UISIANA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) .
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .............................
Farm Cash R e c e ip ts ..................................
Department Store Sales*/** . . . .
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Lo a n s*..................................
Member Bank Deposits*.............................
Bank D e b it s * / * * ........................................
.
.
.
M ISSISSIPPI
ALABAM A
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Mar.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .................................. Apr.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................ Mar.
Department Store S a l e s * * ............................. Apr.
6,241
148
117
109
6,210r
145r
129
115
6,129r
144
141
115
5,731
129
113
107
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
Construction..............................................
Farm Employment..............................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
115
114
115
113
76
2.5
42.1
114
113r
115
113
73
2.6
41.8r
114
113
114
112
76
2.7
41.8
111
107
112
112
79
3.4
40.4
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ........................................
Member Bank D e p o s its ..................................
Bank D e b its * * ...................................................
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
194
155
158
192
155
151
187
154
151
170
141
142
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank Lo a n s*..................................
Member Bank Deposits*.............................
Bank D e b it s * / * * ........................................
FLORIDA
TENNESSEE
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . .
Manufacturing P a y r o lls ..................................
Farm Cash R e c e ip ts ........................................
Department Store S a l e s * * .............................
Mar. 13,545
Apr.
193
Mar.
150
171
Apr.
13,550r 13,316r 12,579
188
189
179
143
138
156
lllr
173r
164
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) .
Manufacturing P a y r o lls .............................
Farm Cash R e c e ip ts ..................................
Department Store Sales*/** . . . .
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment........................................
M anufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
Construction ..............................................
Farm Employment..............................................
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
130
133
130
109
96
1.9
42.6
130r
131
129
109
95
1.9
42.5
FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s ........................................ Apr.
Member Bank D e p o s its .................................. Apr.
Bank D e b its * * .................................................... Apr.
204
155
163
200
156
157r
129
131
129
106
104
2.0
42.3
197
152
153r
125
129
125
101
88
2.6
41.9
174
141
151
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm Employment.................................. .
M anufacturing........................................ .
Nonmanufacturing.................................. .
Construction ........................................ .
Farm Employment........................................ .
Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.)
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . .
*For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states.
r Revised.
p Preliminary,
**Daily average basis.
Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U. S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton
consumption, U. S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; industrial use of elec. power, Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash
receipts and farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. A ll indexes calculated by this Bank.
•7 •
D IS T R IC T
P e rso n a l Incom e
B U S IN E S S
C O N D IT IO N S
A A a j o r in d ic a to r s s u g g e s t th a t D istr ic t e c o n o m i c a c tiv ity c o n t i n u e s to b e
v ig o r o u s . A d v a n c e s in e m p lo y m e n t a n d d e c l i n e s in in s u r e d u n e m p lo y m e n t
h a v e o c c u r r e d r e c e n tly . A fter d e c lin in g o v e r t h e fir st q u a r te r o f 1 9 6 5 , c o n
s tr u c tio n c o n t r a c t s a re r is in g a g a in , e s p e c i a ll y in t h e r e s id e n t ia l s e c t o r .
A n d , b a n k c r e d it is e x p a n d in g fu r th e r . C o n s u m e r s h a v e m a in ta in e d th e ir
s p e n d in g a t t h e m o r e m o d e s t r a te o f M a rch . F a r m e r s, h o w e v e r , a r e s u f f e r
in g s e t b a c k s fro m la c k o f rain b u t h a v e b e e n e n c o u r a g e d by t h e r e c e n t
p r ic e r is e s o f s e v e r a l m a jo r fa rm p r o d u c ts .
Nonfarm
E m p lo y m en t
Mfg. E m p l o y m e n t
i*
Average W eekly H o u rs’
Worked in Mfg.
D istr ic t s t a t e s c o n tin u e d to r e g is te r e m p lo y m e n t g a in s th r o u g h A p ril.
S in ce th e first o f th e y ear, m a n u fa ctu rin g e m p lo y m e n t h a s a c co u n te d for m o s t
o f th e in crea se in A la b a m a and M ississip p i. O n th e o th er h a n d , in G eo rg ia
and T e n n e sse e , n o n m a n u fa ctu rin g a ctiv ity h as p ro v id e d th e g rea test stim u lu s.
P h en o m e n a l co n str u ctio n g a in s in L o u isia n a , d a tin g b a c k to ea rly 1 9 6 4 , h a v e
h e lp ed k eep th e sta te ’s e m p lo y m e n t tren d o n an u p w ard tilt. In F lo rid a , c o n
stru ctio n g a in s, w h ich b eg a n in Jan u ary, a lso h a v e b ee n in stru m en ta l in liftin g
the sta te o u t o f th e sligh t em p lo y m e n t d o w n tu rn th a t o ccu rred in th e la st h a lf
of 1964.
Mfg. P a y r o l l s
) C o n stru ctio n
Contracts
5-mo.
I ’ . moving ovg.
A
II
v*
Industrial U s e of E lectric P o w e r
C otton C onsu m p tio n
C o n s id e r a b le im p r o v e m e n t in c o n s t r u c tio n c o n t r a c t v o lu m e o c c u r r e d
in A p ril, r e v e r s in g t h e d o w n w a rd tr e n d o f t h e fir st q u a r te r . R e sid e n tia l
b u ild in g aw ards tu rn ed in th e stro n g est g a in s, a lth o u g h w e a k n e ss w as still e v i
d en t in so m e m ark ets. M o rtg a g e fu n d s c o n tin u e to b e a m p le in sp ite o f a
p ro n o u n ced slo w in g o f g row th in A p r il a m o n g m o st o f th e D istr ic t’s savin gs
and lo a n a sso c ia tio n s.
^
v*
v*
B a n k c r e d it c o n tin u e d to e x p a n d a t b a n k s in m a jo r S ix th D istr ic t c it ie s
th r o u g h t h e fir st th r e e w e e k s o f M ay. L o a n s in cre a se d su b sta n tia lly , as th e
A p ril e x p a n sio n in b u sin ess lo a n s c o n tin u e d in M ay. A ls o , c o n su m e r lo a n s,
w h ich w ere so m e w h a t w ea k du rin g A p r il, sh o w ed n e w stren gth . In v estm en ts,
h o w ev er, d e c lin e d m o re th an u su a l, w ith b o th U . S. G o v e r n m e n t se cu rities and
o th er secu ritie s sh o w in g red u ctio n s. T o ta l d e p o sits reg istered an in crea se as
d em a n d d ep o sits ro se sig n ifica n tly and tim e d e p o sits a d v a n c e d , a lth o u g h at a
slo w er p a c e th an earlier in th e year.
Bank D ebits
Farm C a sh R e c e ip ts
6-mo. moving avg. &
'1 2 5
M em ber B ank Loans
C o n s u m e r s a p p a r e n tly m a in ta in e d th e ir s p e n d i n g fa ir ly w e ll in April
a fte r t h e s h a r p drop in M a rch . D e p a r tm e n t sto re sa les d ec lin e d so m ew h a t
further fro m F eb ru a ry and M a rch le v e ls, b u t d eb its to d em a n d d e p o sits rea ch ed
a n ew p eak . P relim in a ry rep orts, h o w e v er , in d ic a te so m e r e c o v e r y in d ep artm en t
store sa les in ea rly M a y . In M a rch , to ta l retail sa les d e c lin e d , a lth o u g h p erso n a l
in c o m e sh o w e d p ra ctica lly n o ch a n g e. P e r so n a l sa v in g s in crea sed stro n g ly in
F eb ru ary and M a rch b u t a p p a ren tly less so in A p ril. T h e sa m e p attern also
w as ex h ib ited b y co n su m e r in sta lm e n t cred it at co m m e r c ia l b a n k s.
M em ber B ank D e p o sits
-P E R C E N T O F REQUIRED R E SE R V E S
_ B o r r o w i n g s f r o m F. R. B a n k s
\
a
Excess R eserves
19 62
\ i i i ■i I i i i i i I i i i r i
1 9 63
1 9 64
*Seas. adj. figure; not an index.
i■ i I
i
1965
Dry w e a th e r h a s e x e r te d a d ra g on t h e fa rm e c o n o m y . A lth o u g h cro p
p la n tin g s h a v e b een c o m p le te d in m o st p la c e s, p e r sisten t dry w ea th er in m a n y
im p o rta n t fa rm in g lo c a litie s h as c a u se d g ro w in g c ro p s to d eterio rate. It also
h as retard ed p a stu re g ro w th and h a m p ered th e g erm in a tio n o f n e w seed in g s.
L iv e sto c k and p o u ltry m a rk etin g s h a v e in cr e a se d rec en tly as b e e f and b roiler
p rod u cers b o o ste d th eir sh ip m en ts, p artly in r e sp o n se to risin g p rices.
N o t e : D a t a o n w h ic h statem ents are b ased have been adjusted whenever p o ssib le to elim in ate se aso n al
influences.
