The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
ATLANTA, G E O R G IA , M A R C H 31, 1956 J n % ts ls s u e : F o o d P ro c e s s o rs D is tric t A verage A g ric u ltu re O p e r a tin g D is tr ic t T u r n in g S e rv e M em ber P o in t in R a tio s of B anks C oal and T e x tile s ? D is tr ic t B u s in e s s H ig h lig h t s S ix t h D itf r id S t a t is t ic s : C o n d itio n o f 27 M em b er Banks in Leading C itie s D ebits to Individual Dem and D eposit A cco u n ts D epartm ent S to re Sales and Inventories Instalm ent Cash Loans R eta il Furniture S to re O p erations W ho lesa le Sales and Inventories S ix t h T H ftrid In d e x e s : C o n struction C o n tra cts C o tto n Consum ption D epartm ent S to re Sales and Stocks E le c tric Pow er Production Furniture S to re Sales and Stocks M anufacturing Em ploym ent M anufacturing Payrolls Nonfarm Em ploym ent Petroleum Production Turnover of Dem and D eposits S f c f e r a f l f y s e t v e B a n k Q 0 t f a n t a D I S T R I C T B U S I N E S S H I G H L I G H T S E c o n o m ic trends w ere m ix ed as th e first q u arter en d ed . A lth o u g h in c o m e s fe ll slig h tly an d co n su m ers w ere b u y in g less, em p lo y m e n t w as ste a d y an d h o m e b u ild in g in crea sed . O th er typ es o f co n str u c tio n a lso m o v e d h igh er. B a n k ers fa c e d a stron g d em a n d fo r b u si n ess lo a n s, b u t th eir reserve p o sitio n s co n tin u e d tigh t. F arm ers fo u n d co sts h igh er as th ey b eg a n th eir p la n tin g op eration s. based on preliminary estimates and after adjustment for Easter buying, declined from February. D e p a rtm e n t s to re s a le s , F u r n it u r e sto re s a le s , after adjustment for seasonal variation, declined slightly from January. N e w c a r s a l e s were somewhat smaller in January than a year ago and substan tially less than in December. C o n s u m e r in s t a lm e n t c r e d it o u t s t a n d in g at commercial banks declined slightly in February for the first time since mid-1955. as measured by seasonally adjusted bank debits, declined during Feb ruary but remained well above a year ago. S p e n d in g , N o n f a r m e m p l o y m e n t , after seasonal adjustment, was practically unchanged in January and, according to preliminary estimates, continued high in February. M a n u f a c t u r in g p a y r o ll s , after seasonal adjustment, fell slightly in January because of a shorter work week. In s u re d u n e m p lo y m e n t rose slightly less in February than is customary. increased sharply in February and were above a year ago. Other-than-residential awards also were higher than in February 1955. R e s id e n t ia l c o n s t r u c t io n c o n t r a c t s a c t i v i t y , as measured by seasonally adjusted cotton consumption, declined somewhat in February. T e x t ile H o t e l s a n d m o t e l s i n G r e a t e r M i a m i , according to the University of Miami Business Bureau, maintained the same percentage of occupancy in February 1956, the seasonal peak, as in February 1955, despite the increased number of available accommodations. seasonally adjusted, at all member banks increased during February and, according to preliminary information, continued to gain in March. T o t a l lo a n s , T r a d e l o a n s to wholesalers and retailers increased sharply during the first three weeks of March. i n v e s t m e n t s a t a l l m e m b e r b a n k s declined slightly in February and reflected decreases in all types except state and local securities. T o ta l r e s e r v e s increased somewhat in March largely because of gains at country banks, but in general, reserve positions continued tight. T o ta l m e m b e r b a n k r a i n f a l l favored growth of pastures, cover crops, and winter grains, but cold weather retarded vegetable output, and frost damaged some fruit crops, notably peaches and strawberries. A m p le o f b r o i l e r s exceed last year’s by a large amount; and with current chick placements up sharply, future marketings will be large. M a r k e t in g s F a r m p l a n t i n g c o s t s have risen from last year: wages and prices of gasoline, oil, hardware, and tires are partly responsible. F a r m l a n d v a l u e s increased between November 1954 and November 1955 with the largest gains occurring in Alabama and Florida. F e w e r a c r e s of the most important crops are going to be planted, especially cotton, rice, peanuts, and tobacco which are under allotment; but farmers plan to boost plantings of soybeans and hay. • 2 • F o o d P ro c e s s o rs S e r v e Nowadays tasty food items from Sixth District farms are readily available to American housewives. Canned Louisi ana sweet potatoes, iced Georgia chicken, frozen Florida orange juice, or canned Alabama tomatoes, for example, are in plentiful supply at the local grocery store. The District housewife can also purchase without difficulty such locally produced items as eggs, sausage, frankfurters, ice cream, and cheese. A ll of which indicates that farmers in the District are tapping widespread markets. That welcome state of affairs stems in part from our intricate national distribution system. Much credit, however, must be given to the region’s food processing industry, which funnels farmers’ produce to consumers in usable, attractive form. There is scarcely a rural area in the District that does not feel an economic impact, directly or indirectly, from the food processing industry. Operators of food processing plants not only create payrolls by employing local labor, they also provide markets for farmers to sell their produce. In helping communities to increase their income, food processors have promoted the District’s economic progress. S c o p e o f t h e P r o c e s s in g In d u str y The food processing industry in District states is varied and diverse. Some processors make specialty items like pralines and fancy jams; others manufacture more prosaic products like corn meal, grits, and sauerkraut. Some proc essing plants are very large, such as the raw sugar mills in Louisiana; others, such as creameries, are quite small. Food processing activities bulk large in the region’s econo my; in 1947 there were about 4,000 food processing plants in District states, judging from census data. In 1954, the labor force in such plants totaled about 148,000 persons, or about an eighth of all workers engaged in manufacturing. Most of them were employed by canners, meat packers, and producers of dairy and sugar cane products. Food processing in the District is also widely dispersed, since processors often locate their plants near centers of farm production. Vegetables like snap beans, limas, peas, and tomatoes are usually produced and processed in the same locality; fruits are packed locally; and meat packing and dairy plants are scattered throughout the region, be cause meat and milk production is so widespread. S lo w G r o w th Food processors perform essential services for both con sumers and producers. Their principal function is to put raw materials into shapes, sizes, and conditions that will make them more desirable to the consumer. Sometimes this involves making a new product from one or more other foods, as is done in the manufacture of ice cream; sometimes it simply involves the standardizing of a food item, as in the grading and packing of eggs. Perhaps processors’ greatest achievement lies in their acquired ability to make perishable food products last even after they are out of season. Another major skill they have developed is that of reducing bulkiness of farm produce so it can be handled with greater ease and economy. By rea D i s t r ic t A g r ic u lt u r e son of those services, farmers’ produce can be economically shipped throughout the year for use at places far from areas of production. To successfully serve their own purposes as well as their customers, processors have had to organize their opera tion so as to achieve maximum use of their capital and labor. Fluid milk handlers, for example, often widen their product lines by manufacturing dairy products. Canners adjust their operations to harvests of various local crops: In some instances they pack snap beans in early spring, then later peaches, then pimientos. Still later in the year they import beans for packing pork and beans. A grow ing tendency toward that type of organization has strength ened the food processing industry in the District. The development of modern and complex forms of food processing was slow at first. It could come about only after the advent of such facilities as all-weather farm-to-market roads, motor trucks, new technology like refrigeration, and new ways of merchandising like the self-service supermar ket. Then too, processors had to gear their expansion to the development of specialized areas of farm production. Finally, foods in packaged, prepared, and easily handled forms are luxuries rather than necessities, and consumer demand for them has not always been strong. For all these reasons the cracker barrel died hard. E ffe c ts o n F a rm I n c o m e Farmers have gained income benefits from the food proc essing industry in several ways. They have been provided with large markets because processors buy sizable volumes of produce. District farmers’ output of vegetables for proc essing in 1955, for example, was valued at 10 million dollars, and their gross income from sales of cattle, calves, and hogs, largely to local packers, totaled 500 million dollars. By having markets that can take such large quanti ties, farmers can realize the economies that volume produc tion often brings. Also, since processors usually establish their plants in the area of production, nearby farmers are favored by economical marketing costs. Food processors have widened the sales area for District products through their sales outlets and advertising pro grams in distant places. Citrus growers in Florida have received notable help in selling their oranges through activi ties of processors who manufacture and merchandise frozen concentrated orange juice. That product is sold over the nation. Even in the rival citrus area on the Pacific Coast more than six million gallons of frozen concentrated orange juice from Florida was sold in the 1954-55 crop season. True, when Florida citrus growers sell to processors they give up a portion of the consumer’s food dollar for the processor’s services, but they may sell a larger volume of produce at a favorable price. And they may sell their highly seasonal crop on national markets throughout the year. The growers receive a further benefit when their volume production helps the local processor to shave his costs. Farmers can thus profit by selling to the processor even though their marketing margins may be larger: A farmer • 3 • who stands a marketing margin of 60 percent, yet sells all he produces, is certainly better off than one who obtains 100 percent of the consumer’s dollar by doing his own processing, yet sells only a small portion of his crop. Larger incomes in local areas are generated by food processing activities that promote more intensive use of local resources. Sometimes farmers can increase the use of their available capital, particularly land, when processors stand ready to buy their output. Those District farmers who have recently shifted from cash crop production to live stock found the shift easier by virtue of the 300-odd meat packing plants in the region which provided necessary local markets. Other farmers used their surplus labor to produce broilers for processing into iced or frozen forms. Farmers who shift some of the grading, packing, and manufacturing jobs to processors can specialize their own production efforts and thus use their resources more inten sively. In the first place, they can put more effort, time, and study into their best adapted production activities. And in so doing, they can exploit their advantages over growers in other areas. As large-scale pimiento canning facilities developed, for example, Georgia pimiento growers have been able to take greater advantage of the favorable cli matic and soil conditions for pimiento production. By specializing, they can produce enough to support large-scale, low-cost processing plants, such as the broiler dressing stations in Georgia and Alabama. Actually, profit able broiler processing in an area is impossible until farm ers specialize sufficiently to provide processors with a siz able and dependable supply of birds. As farmers become production specialists, they generally increase their yields, lower their unit costs, and upgrade the quality of their produce, and hence raise their income. F u r th e r P r o g r e s s P o s s i b l e Processing activities will probably continue to have a favor able influence on District farm income, provided obstacles to low costs are avoided or overcome. Both processors and farmers will have to share in that task. Processors have to avoid excess processing capacity and duplication of facili ties. A study of District broiler processing made in 1952 showed that under existing conditions further expanding capacity may raise rather than lower unit costs for proc essed broilers with ill-effects on farmers, processors, and consumers. Furthermore, canners in some areas are prob ably packing volumes far below their possible outputs. In Louisiana in 1945, for example, seven canneries with a daily capacity of 16,000 cases of vegetables packed only 96,000 cases for the season, which was actually just six days of production at full capacity. In such a case local farmers have high marketing costs that eat into their share of the consumer’s food dollar. Processors who battle against the problem of excess capacity, therefore, will serve our farm economy well. Their efforts will be even more rewarding when they use better mechanical and technical methods, improved work systems, and more serviceable containers. Farmers will strengthen the District’s food processing industry as they concentrate on growing quality produce. Such produce will reduce waste, will pack or manufacture well, and will have sales appeal. To raise the quality, more farmers will have to plant improved varieties, grade or sort their produce more closely, and handle it so it remains free from blemishes and is clean and wholesome. Local lenders have a place in sparking improvements within the food processing industry. Not only can they learn about existing needs for improving services, cutting costs, or gaining efficiencies, but also they can become suf ficiently familiar with the financial requirements of local processing firms to risk some funds for use by such firms. Lenders may therefore help solidify the position of District food processing as a vital adjunct to the farm economy. A r t h u r K a n t n e r This is the first in a series of articles that will appear in the o n t h l y R e v i e w in which various phases of the food proc essing industry will be discussed. M B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is pleased to welcome the F irst National Bank at Winter Park, Winter Park, Florida, as a new member in the System M arch 1 ,1 9 5 6 . The bank’s officers are W. R . Rosenfelt, President; P . E . Davis, Executive Vice President and Cashier; H . W. Barnum , Vice President; R . B . Colville, Vice President and Trust O fficer; and D . M . M cB rid e, T . G . Grant, and T . L . M attox, Assistant Cashiers. Its capital amounts to $250,000 and surplus to $500,000. On M arch 1, the Commercial Bank, a nonmember bank at Thomasvvlle, Georgia, began to remit at par for checks drawn on it when received from the Federal Reserve Bank. Its officers are L . D . Ferguson, President; W. J . M ille r, J r ., Execu tive Vice President; W. B . B u l loch, V ice President; D avid G . Hutchings, Assistant Vice President; A . F . Kim brough, Cashier; and M rs. L ila Le e Davis, R . Bruce M cR a e , and F . H . H ancock, Assistant Cashiers. Capital amounts to $200,000 and surplus and undivided profits to $185,609. On M arch 1, the Bank of Thom as County, a non member bank in Thom asville, Georgia, began to remit at par. Officers are W. F . Scott, President; E . A . Dawes, Vice President; H . B . G urley, Execu tive Vice President; Jo e J . Keyton, Cashier; James B . Stubbs, Assistant Vice President; H erbert Whitfield, Assistant Cashier; and H arold H . Spangle, Assistant Cashier and A uditor. Capi tal is $100,000; surplus and undivided profits $211,536. On M arch 7, The Exchange Bank of Palatka, Palatka, Florida, opened as a newly organized, nonmember, parremitting bank. Fran k D . Upchurch is President, James K . Wiley is Vice President, and V ictor M . Cavanaugh is Vice President and Cashier. Its capital totals $300,000 and its surplus and undivided profits $210,000. On M arch 8, the newly organized, nonmember First Bank of Boca R aton, Boca R aton, Florida, began op erations as a par-remitting bank. Thom as F . Flem ing, Jr ., is President, William M . Stowe is Executive Vice President, and Spencer E . Bowen is Cashier. Capital amounts to $200,000 and surplus and undivided profits total $100,000. • 4 • A v e r a g e O p e r a tin g SUMMARY RATIOS: 1950 Percentage of total capital accounts: Net current earnings before inc. taxes ............................... 16.7 Profits before inc. taxes . . . . 14.5 10.6 Net profits.......................... Cash dividends declared . . . . 3.2 Percentage of total assets: Total earnings............................... 3.05 Net current earnings before inc. t a x e s ....................................... 1.18 Net profits............................................ 75 SOURCE AND DISPOSITION OF EARNINGS: Percentage of total earnings: Int. on U. S. Govt, sec................ 21.9 Int. & div. on other sec. . . . 6.0 Earnings on lo a n s ...................... 57.5 Serv. chgs. on dep. accounts . . 6.9 Trust department earnings1 . Other current earnings ................. 7.7 Total earnings.......................... 100.0 Salaries and wages...................... 30.7 Interest on time deposits2 . Other current expenses . . . . Total expenses .......................... Net current earnings before inc. taxes ................................... Net losses (or net recoveries + ) 3 Net increase (or net decrease + ) in valuation reserves . . . . Taxes on net income.................. Net profits................................... 1951 16.1 13.8 9.4 3.1 16.4 14.1 9.0 3.2 1953 1954 16.3 14.2 9.0 3.1 15.5 15.1 9.9 3.1 1955 16.2 13.2 8.5 3.0 3.05 3.12 3.25 3.26 3.43 1.13 .68 1.14 .64 1.15 .64 1.10 .71 1.18 .63 21.2 6.0 58.5 6.9 22.1 5.9 58.7 6.6 23.0 5.7 58.6 6.4 22.4 5.9 58.8 6.7 21.8 5.9 59.7 6.6 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.6 7.4 100.0 31.7 6.7 100.0 31.7 6.3 100.0 32.0 6.2 100.0 32.3 6.0 100.0 31.6 7.6 8.4 9.1 10.4 10.8 30.8 61.5 31.0 62.7 31.7 63.4 32.5 64.5 33.9 66.2 34.2 65.8 38.5 4.4 37.3 4.8 36.6 4.5 35.5 3.8 33.8 + 1.0 34.2 3.5 9.0 25.1 10.0 22.5 11.4 20.7 .47 11.3 19.9 1.4 11.4 22.0 2.3 9.9 18.5 1.9 2.6 2.04 2.67 2.06 2.60 2.12 2.52 .1 .08 + .27 .17 6.3 6.30 6.19 6.35 .1 .20 .17 .10 RATES OF RETURN ON SECURITIES & LOANS: Return on securities: Int. on U. S. Govt. sec. . . . 1.7 1.8 Int. & div. on other sec. . . . 2.7 2.6 Net losses (or net recoveries+ ) on total sec.4 .......................... .1 Return on loans: Earnings on loans ...................... 6.0 6.0 Net losses (or net recoveries + ) on loans5 ................................... .2 .1 DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS Percentage of total assets: U. S. Govt. sec. . . . Other sec....................... Loans .......................... Cash assets ................. Real-estate assets . . All other assets . . . Total assets . . . 1952 R a tio s 35.9 7.6 30.1 25.4 .8 .2 100.0 33.8 7.6 30.4 27.1 .9 .2 100.0 OTHER RATIOS: Total cap. accts. to: Total assets ............................... 7.3 Total assets less Govt. sec. and cash assets ............................... 20.8 Total deposits............................... 8.0 Time deposits8 to total deposits . 23.7 Int. on time deposits6to time deposits 1.0 7.3 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.7 20.4 8.0 22.7 1.0 20.1 7.9 22.6 1.1 20.0 8.2 23.5 1.23 19.6 8.4 24.8 1.36 18.9 8.5 25.8 1.42 UMBER OF BANKS ...................... 350 353 33.9 7.7 29.8 27.5 .9 .2 100.0 355 33.4 8.1 31.5 25.8 1.0 .2 100.0 33.9 7.9 30.8 26.2 1.0 .2 100.0 358 362 33.0 8.6 32.8 24.3 1.1 .2 100.0 369 }Banks with none were excluded. Ratio included in “ Other current earnings." 2Banks with none were excluded. Ratio included in “ Other current expenses.” 3The 1950-52 ratios include net recoveries or losses and net changes in valuation reserves; the 1953-55 ratios exclude changes in valuation reserves. 4The 1950-52 ratios include changes in valuation reserves. 5Net recoveries or losses excluding changes in valuation reserves. 6Banks with none were excluded in computing these averages. o f D is tr ic t M e m b e r B a n k s Total earnings of member banks in the Sixth District amounted to 274 million dollars in 1955. Although that was the most they’ve ever earned, the rate of return on their capital was below that of 1954; the primary reason was that they incurred losses in selling Government securities. The divergence in trends in earnings and profits during the year is shown in the operating ratios for 1955, just completed by this Bank. These ratios were computed by using averages of data taken from reports of condition for December 31, 1954, June 30, 1955, and October 5, 1955, along with earnings and dividends reports for the year. Total earnings as a percent of total assets increased from 3.26 percent in 1954 to 3.43 percent in 1955. This gain was caused by such changes during the year as higher interest rates earned on most types of assets, a reduction in cash holdings, and a shift from low-yielding securities to higher-yielding loans. Reflecting somewhat the tighter money conditions in 1955, most interest rates rose. The banks increased their earnings on Government securities to 2.12 percent from 2.06 percent in 1954. On municipal and other types of securities, average earnings declined slightly, but on loans they increased from 6.19 percent to 6.35 percent. Because of the general increase in rates, banks paid more for their funds they borrowed. By drawing down cash holdings and operating with smaller balances at other banks, they utilized existing assets more fully. Also, they shifted some of their assets from investments to loans, which yield a higher return. Thus the ratio of Governments to total assets dropped from 33.4 percent to 33.0 percent. In shifting funds from investments to loans, however, banks sold securities on a falling market and took some losses, in contrast with gains the previous year. Primarily because of these losses, the rate of profit was not as great as it was in 1954. Net profits as a percent of total capital accounts and as a percent of total assets declined. Operating expenses were not of over-riding im portance during the year, since total expenses as a percent of total earnings declined from 66.2 percent to 65.8 percent. Nevertheless, for some banks expenses in creased considerably. Salaries and wages for officers and employees continue to be the most important item and constitute about 47 percent of all expenses. C harles S. O v e r m il l e r SIXTH DISTRICT MEMBER BANKS BY SIZE GROUPS (Year EndhgDecember 31, 1955) Current Operating Expenses Salaries: officers.......................................................................................... Salaries and wages: em ployees.............................................................. Fees paid to directors and members of executive, discount, and advisory committees......................................................................... Interest on time deposits......................................................................... Interest and discount on borrowed money............................................. Taxes other than on net income.............................................................. Recurring depreciation on banking houses, furniture, and fixtures Other current operating expenses .............................................................. Number of b a n ks............................................................................................... Average expenses (D o lla rs)............................................................................... BANKS GROUPED BY AMOUNT OF AVERAGE TOTAL DEPOSITS (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) 2 to 5 5 to 10 Ito 2 10 to 25 Up to 1 25 to 50 50 to 100 Over 100 100% 39.7 12.0 100% 32.0 17.7 100% 27.6 21.1 100% 21.0 25.7 100% 18.6 29.6 100% 16.4 31.0 3.3 15.6 .2 3.4 2.9 22.9 10 20,601 2.2 15.5 .1 4.8 4.4 23.3 38 39,263 2.4 18.0 .1 4.3 3.4 23.1 108 86,076 2.1 16.8 .1 4.6 4.4 25.3 86 176,081 1.2 14.1 .1 4.0 4.5 27.9 67 366,116 .9 14.6 .6 3.8 4.6 28.1 27 913,720 • 5 100% 15.7 33.1 100% 14.2 31.6 .6 .6 10.0 10.4 .3 1.1 5.5 6.3 3.7 2.9 31.1 32.9 14 19 1,492,790 3,653,648 • Turning Point in Coal and Textiles} C o tto n B it u m in o u s C o a l P r o d u c t io n * m illions of tons *U. S. output includes some lignite; Alabama and Tennessee produce most of coal in District states. After many lean years, 1955 brought new hope to this area’s bituminous coal operators and their 15,000 em ployees. Sharing in soft coal’s nation-wide recovery, pro duction in the District was up 18 percent from the previous year. Between 1947 and 1954, output had dropped almost steadily; in 1954, it was the smallest it had been in sixteen years. Was 1955 the turning point or but a pause in coal’s long slump? Many people contend that the soft coal business is finally on its way up, because railroads, which were once the major consumer, have used less coal each year until their consumption is now so small that their purchases have little effect on total coal sales. Other consumers who are now using more coal than ever hold the key to coal’s future. Responsible for last year’s recovery were an upsurge in exports, a heavier demand for coke by steel mills and, most notably, a further rise in coal usage by electric utilities. Partly because of the greater-than-national rate of gain in District electric power production, soft coal consumption by utilities rose more in the District than in the nation. District utilities used 58 percent more than in 1954 and 449 percent more than in 1947. The lion’s share of planned increases in electric output is likely to go to coal-burning plants, since suitable hydro electric sites and surplus natural gas have become com paratively scarce. Looking further ahead, demand for coal may drop when atomic energy becomes competitive. But at the moment, atomic energy installations are among coal’s good customers. Soft coal operators, however, are not without immediate problems. Recent increases in freight rates have boosted shipping costs. Also, wage raises are about to go into effect. To hold down price increases, therefore, operators are likely to mechanize further. Rapid mechanization al ready made possible a doubling in Alabama’s daily average output per man between 1940 and 1953; the increased production last year was accomplished with about the same number of men as was used for 1954 output. Although not entirely over the hump, the soft coal in dustry at long last faces brighter prospects. C o n s u m p t io n 11tons of tons Textile production has tended to follow a two-year cycle. Because it reached a low point in the summer of 1954, therefore, some people predict a downturn this spring. Others contend that the end of the cycle is not yet in sight. Whether it is or isn’t will depend partly on what happens to inventories and to consumer demand. Expanded consumer buying was mainly responsible for the District’s mills using more cotton in 1955 than in the previous year— 8 percent more, to be exact. At the nation’s department stores, consumers increased their purchases of all major types of textile goods. A ll retail sales of apparel in the nation showed a 6-percent increase over 1954; and industrial demand for textiles was higher. Greater production can be explained also to some extent by inventory rebuilding. Textile manufacturers tended to expand their stocks in 1955, whereas they had reduced them in 1954. Retailers increased their apparel stocks somewhat and, to an even greater extent, so did dry goods and apparel wholesalers. More recently, part of the heavy buying from textile mills was, according to trade sources, for the purpose of building up stocks before the rise in the minimum wage on March 1, 1956, increased labor costs. Unlike some of their customers, many Southern mills, however, raised their wage rates as early as last fall. Exports of cotton cloth, totaling 542 million square yards, were the lowest since 1942. Imports of both cotton cloth and finished goods rose sharply: Cotton cloth im ports, totaling 133 million square yards, advanced 81 percent over the like period of 1954, but they were still small in relation to total domestic textile output. Imports of certain types of wearing apparel and fabrics, such as plain and twill back velveteens, however, were large in comparison with domestic production. What can be expected in the future? On the one hand, order backlogs of cotton broadwoven goods are high, which makes any sharp drop in production in coming months improbable. On the other hand, mills are not likely to receive the same stimulus from customers de siring to restock, as they did in past months. Beyond the spring, it is the customer and industrial buyer who hold the key to output and employment levels. H arry B ran d t •6 S ix th In s t a lm e n t C a s h D is tr ic t S ta tis tic s C o n d it io n o f 2 7 M e m b e r B a n k s in L e a d in g C i t i e s L o a n s (In Thousands of Dollars) Lender No. of Lenders Federal credit unions . . . State credit unions. . . . Industrial banks................. Industrial loan companies . Small loan companies. . . Commercial banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 14 8 12 20 32 Percent Change Volume Outstandings Feb. 1956 from Feb. 1956 from Jan. Jan. Feb Feb. 1955 1956 1955 1956 +6 + 35 +2 —4 —2 + 10 + 99 + 32 +3 —3 + 13 —4 +0 +5 +2 +0 —1 +0 +21 +43 + 11 +8 +6 + 16 R e t a il F u r n it u r e S t o r e O p e r a t io n s Percent Change February 1956 from Jan. 1956 Feb. 1955 Item +6 —5 +7 —2 + 10 +1 Total sales ...................................... Cash sa le s ....................................... Instalment and other credit sales Accounts receivable, end of month Collections during month . . . Inventories, end of month . . . W h o le s a le S a le s a n d +2 —0 +2 + 10 +2 —3 In v e n t o r ie s * ___________ Percent Change__________________ Sales Inventories Feb. 1956 from Feb. 29, 1956, from No. of Jan. Feb. No. of Jan. 31 Feb. 28 1955 Firms 1956 1955 Type of Wholesaler______________ Firms_______ 1956 Grocery, confectionery, meats . . 27 +1 +16 20 +7 —2 Edible farm products.................. 13 —2 +13 12 —4 +7 Drugs, chems., allied prods. . . 11 —9 +7 6 +0 +8 Automotive...................................8 +0 +39 Electrical, electronic and appliance goods...................... 8 —5 —7 8 +2 +11 Hardware, heating & plumbing g o o d s....................................... 10 +10 +34 10 —0 —2 Lumber, construction materials. 6 — 18 — 16 Machinery: equip, and supplies . 34 +19 + 25 23 +2 +15 +22 +27 11 +1 +19 In d u s t r ia l.............................. 13 Iron and steel scrap and waste materials......................8____________—2_______ +64________„ *Based on information submitted by wholesalers participating in the Monthly Wholesale Trade Report issued by the Bureau of the Census. D e p a rtm e n t S to r e S a le s a n d In v e n t o r ie s * Percent Change Place Sales Feb. 1956 from Jan. Feb. 1956 1955 2 Months 1956 from 1955 Inventories Feb. 29, 1956, from Jan. 31 Feb. 28 1955 1956 ALABAMA .................. +9 +8 +8 + 11 + 11 Birmingham . . . . + 12 +7 +5 +2 +9 M o b ile ...................... +6 + 15 + 11 Montgomery . . . . —3 +5 +1 —0 + 14 + 13 +7 + i5 FLORIDA ...................... —2 + 15 + 22 Jacksonville . . . . + 14 + 11 Orlando...................... +2 + 14 + 11 St. Ptrsbg-Tampa Area + 6 + 14 + 11 St. Petersburg . . + 8 + 10 +3 + i7 + 11 T a m p a ................. +4 + 18 + 11 +5 +7 +6 + 12 GEORGIA ...................... +1 +4 —2 +4 +3 A tla n ta **................. + 11 —1 Augusta...................... +4 +1 + 20 + 10 + 10 Columbus................. + 13 + 11 +7 + 19 +8 + 13 M a c o n ...................... + 10 + 30 + 29 +2 +8 Savannah** . . . . +9 + 16 +9 + i5 —5 +13 + ii LOUISIAN A.................. +26 +8 + 19 +15 +3 Baton Rouge . . . . +7 +8 + 16 —7 New Orleans . . . . + 11 + 12 + 14 + 10 MISSISSIPPI . . . . —3 + 11 +7 + 15 +8 Jackson ...................... — 1 +7 +21 Meridian** . . . . — 16 + 16 + 15 +4 +7 + ii +3 TENNESSEE .................. + 18 + 18 +6 + 12 Bristol (Tenn.&V a.)**+ 13 Bristol-Kingsport+7 + 14 Johnson City** . . + 12 +5 —1 +6 Chattanooga . . . . +42 +7 +2 +5 +3 K no xville.................. +4 +8 +4 +7 +4 N ashville.................. + 10 +9 + 11 + 10 DISTRICT ...................... +1 ^Reporting stores account for over 90 percent of total District department store sales. **ln order to permit publication of figures for this city, a special sample has been con structed that is not confined exclusively to department stores. Figures for non-depart ment stores, however, are not used in computing the District percent changes. Percent Change March 21,1956, from Feb. 22, Mar. 23, 1956 1955 Mar. 21, 1956 Feb. 22, 1956 Mar. 23, 1955 3,309,639 1,706,536 1,734,110 3,263,360 1,683,645 1,710,019 3,224,489 1,486,180 1,510,450 +1 +1 +1 +3 + 15 +15 947,444 934,274 850,957 +1 +11 35,604 32,847 19,094 +8 +86 47,778 155,295 9,821 538,168 1,603,103 43,019 158,341 8,491 533,049 1,579,715 34,330 122,415 27,770 455,884 1,738,309 + 11 —2 + 16 +1 +1 +39 +27 — 65 + 18 —8 569,437 718,893 314,773 519,511 49,290 550,317 713,777 315,621 499,551 50,897 614,258 799,038 325,013 485,381 45,776 +3 +1 —0 +4 —3 —7 — 10 —3 +7 +8 278,092 Demand deposits adjusted . 2,361,794 Time deposits...................... 626,425 U. S. Gov’t deposits . . . 125,305 Deposits of domestic banks. 700,859 Borrowings.......................... 37,000 257,430 2,378,307 618,855 67,805 672,589 28,950 246,507 2,293,349 621,250 83,115 684,925 36,755 +8 —1 +1 +85 +4 +28 + 13 +3 +1 +51 +2 +1 Item Loans and investments— T o t a l .............................. Loans— N e t .......................... Loans— G r o s s ...................... Commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans . Loans to brokers and dealers in securities. . Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities. . Real estate loans. . . . Loans to banks . . . . Other loans ...................... Investments— Total . . . . Bills, certificates, and notes..................... U. S. bonds ...................... Other securities . . . . Reserve with F. R. Bank . . Cash in vault ...................... Balances with domestic D e b it s t o I n d iv id u a l D e m a n d D e p o s it A c c o u n t s (In Thousands of Dollars) Percent Change ALABAMA Anniston . . . Birmingham . . Gadsden . . . Montgomery. Tuscaloosa* . FLORIDA Jacksonville . Miami . . . . Greater Miami* Orlando . . . . Pensacola . . St. Petersburg . . . . . . West Palm Beach* GEORGIA Augusta . . Brunswick . Columbus . Elberton . Gainesville* Griffin* . . . . . . . . Rome* . . . . Savannah . . Valdosta . . LOUISIANA Alexandria* . Baton Rouge Lake Charles New Orleans . MISSISSIPPI Hattiesburg . . . . . . . . . . . Meridian . . . Vicksburg . . . TENNESSEE Bristol* . . . Chattanooga . . Johnson City* . Kingsport* . . Knoxville . . . Nashville . . . SIXTH DISTRICT 32 Cities . . . UNITED STATES 345 Cities . . . Feb. 1956 from Feb. Jan. Feb. 1955 1956 1955 Feb. 1956 Jan. 1956 34,475 595,882 22,811 26,660 214,153 115,609 37,120 36,555 664,287 24,526 30,116 228,772 119,159 43,616 28,011 434,307 18,146 22,957 177,493 107,362 33,744 537,189 593,083 934,565 130,010 68,733 132,267 271,346 84,772 575,140 643,470 1,020,520 140,078 70,034 150,301 283,675 100,888 482,235 517,800 830,530 113,907 56,275 119,435 225,416 74,159 —7 —8 —8 —7 —2 — 12 48,795 1,395,032 87,204 16,040 94,557 5,432 37,881 14,411 96,977 13,074 36,592 136,888 22,269 52,799 1,538,689 91,846 17,404 100,424 5,975 43,156 15,451 110,192 15,385 39,249 135,620 26,064 55,869 143,313 74,910 1,110,366 -6 Year-to-date 2 Months 1956 from 1955 + 23 +37 +26 +16 +21 +8 +10 + 19 +36 +26 + 16 +18 +10 + 13 — 16 + 11 + 15 + 13 + 14 +22 + 11 +20 + 14 +12 +17 +16 + 12 +22 + 13 +20 + 18 42,256 1,243,429 86,384 13,536 79,434 4,025 29,547 12,663 90,254 12,017 31,424 116,766 19,412 —8 —9 —5 —8 —6 —9 — 12 —7 — 12 — 15 —7 +1 — 15 + 15 + 12 +1 +18 +19 +35 +28 + 14 +7 +9 + 16 +17 + 15 + 12 + 14 —1 +21 + 13 +34 + 27 + 11 +5 + 11 +17 +8 + 18 62,859 170,101 76,217 1,165,942 44,807 135,134 60,487 1,010,957 — 11 — 16 —2 —5 +25 +6 +24 + 10 + 26 + 10 +22 +9 27,244 185,706 33,321 15,646 27,585 203,049 33,581 17,443 22,094 158,310 27,467 15,646 —1 —9 —1 — 10 +23 + 17 + 21 0 + 21 + 14 + 16 +2 30,802 239,013 32,651 57,488 151,810 510,143 29,897 316,467 36,219 60,344 181,452 568,839 26,433 209,610 28,254 47,858 154,107 458,593 +3 — 24 — 10 —5 — 16 — 10 +17 + 14 + 16 +20 —2 + 11 + 10 + 17 + 12 +13 —3 + 14 7,149,958 7,821,187 6,263,262 —9 + 14 + 14 162,087,000 187,354,000 149,738,000 — 13 +8 + 12 — 10 —7 — 11 —6 —3 — 15 —4 *Not included in Sixth District totals. • 7 • S ix th D is tr ic t 1 9 4 7 -4 9 M a n u f a c t u r in g M a n u f a c t u r in g C o n s t r u c t io n F u r n it u r e E m p lo y m e n t E m p lo y m e n t P a y r o lls C o n tra c ts S to r e S a le s * / * * Dec. 1955 Jan. 1955 Jan. 1956 Dec. 1955 Jan. 1955 Jan. 1956 Dec. 1955 Jan. 1955 Jan. 1956 Feb. 1955 113r 132r 105 127r 122 113 117 128 113 104 118r 108 149 124 99 119 120r 113r lO lr 140 116r 100 117r 113r 176 163 210 184 158 188 178 177r 158r 214r 188 155 186 178r 156r 138 195r 160r 146 173r 161r HOp 121 117 lllp 104p 93 89 90 126 115 154 126 120 120 119 129r 117 156 129 123r 125 123r 121 110 146 120 114 117 115 118 110 156 124 98 120 118 119 110 156 125 103 120 120r 113r 102 150 116r 98 115r 112r 177 165 227 186 153 182 176 181r 165 227r 192 160 188 179r 158r 139 210 162r 141 168r 160r 93p 102 97 lOOp 90p 87r 92r 91 93r 100 95 99 106 102 89 76 67 74 143p 142 117 130 126 114 127 141 142 121 135 152 135 164p Jan. 1956 Feb. 1955 147r 149 118 130 131 126 133 147 142 127 139 153 127 158 135r 142r 106r 124r 123r 112r 114r 140r 131r 118r 127r 138r 119r 148r Feb. 1956 114p 110 87 106 94 88 91 107 105 91 107 143 108 162p Jan. 1956 113r 111 84 95 95 88 93 104 97 88 114 135 104 146r R e se rv e Bank. C itie s Branch Bank C itie s Branch T e rrito ry Boundaries B o a rd o f G o v e rn o rs o f the F e d e ra l R e se rv e System 260 260 257 298 312 156 209 315 147 336 78 171 140 252 226 194 126 190 O t h e r D is t r ic t In d e x e s Unadjusted D istric t Boundaries — Feb. 1956 118 108 145 124 100 122 119 Feb. 1955 108r 110 79r lO lr 92 86 82r 106r 97 89r lO lr 130r 95 147r JTo permit publication of figures for this city, a special sample has been constructed that is not confined exclusively to department stores. Figures for non-department stores, how ever, are not used in computing the District index. *For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states. ♦♦Daily average basis. Sources: Nonfarm and mfg. emp. and payrolls, state depts. of labor; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; furn. sales, dept, store sales, turnover of dem. dep., FRB Atlanta; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; elec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm. Indexes calculated by this Bank. • Feb. 1955 121 111 139 121 116 119 117 Feb. 1956 O Jan. 1956 126r 116 148 127 121r 122 122 r Adjusted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feb. 1956 126 116 146 127 121 122 121 D e p a rtm e n t S to re S a le s a n d S t o c k s * * DISTRICT SALES4 . . . Atlanta1 ...................... Baton Rouge .................. Birmingham.................. Chattanooga .................. Jackson .......................... Jacksonville.................. Knoxville....................... M acon.......................... Nashville...................... New Orleans.................. St. Ptrsbg-Tampa Area . Tam pa.......................... DISTRICT STOCKS* . . 100 N o n fa rm Jan. 1956 SEASONALLY ADJUSTED District T o ta l...................... Alabama.......................... F l o r i d a .......................... G e o rg ia .......................... Louisiana.......................... Mississippi...................... Tennessee.......................... UNADJUSTED District T o ta l...................... Alabama........................... F l o r i d a .......................... G e o rg ia .......................... Louisiana.......................... Mississippi...................... Tennessee ......................... = I n d e x e s Feb. 1956 Adjusted Jan. 1956 Feb. 1956 253 298 218 160 103r 104 21.7 22.7 18.2 Dec. 1955 142r 97 110 21.0 21.7 18.5 Jan. 1955 165 106 103p 21.7 23.0 18.3 Jan. 1956 261 163 106r 102 22.3 23.8 18.6 Dec. 1955 284 144r 103r 106 20.8 21.9 17.9 Jan. 1955 227 161r 129 152r lllr 86r 157 109r 96 195r 153r 125r 143r 111 82 151r 95r 96r 163r 162 130 153 111 86 157 109 97 189 164r 130 157r 117r 86r 159 109r 97 191r 151r 127r 145r 110 82 151r 96r 96r 163r Construction contracts4 . . . Residential........................... Petrol, prod, in Coastal Louisiana and Mississippi** Cotton consumption**2 . . . Furniture store stocks* . . . Turnover of demand deposits* 10 leading cities . . . . Outside 10 leading cities . 163 100 106p 21.9 22.8 18.9 Jan. 1956 Elec. power prod., total** . . Mfg. emp. by type . 163 129 151 112 Lbr., wood prod., furn. & fix. 86 Paper and allied prod. . . 157 Primary m etals.................. 108 97 Trans, equip.......................... 189 C h e m ic a ls.......................... Fabricated metals . . . . Unadjusted Jan. Feb. 1956 3955 239r 206 239r 233 238r 186 Feb. 1955 2Cotton consumption series has undergone major revision. Data since 1947 are available on request. r Revised. p Preliminary.
@FedFRASER