View original document

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

I

IN TH ISSUE:
IS
• The Changing Emphasis
on Mobile Home
Financing
• The Southern
Faim Borrower
• Tennessee Comes
Out Ahead
R

E

V

I

E

W

• District Business
Conditions

FEDERAL RESERVE



BANK

OF A T L A N T A
M ay 19 6 7

T h e C h a n g in g E m p h a s is
o n M o b il e H o m e F i n a n c in g
The pros and cons of financing mobile homes are
frequently debated among bankers. The lack of
a consensus was apparent in a recent survey by
the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in which a
variety of opinions and attitudes on this subject
was expressed by Sixth District bankers. The
responses did suggest, however, that an increasing
number of bankers are enlarging the funds de­
voted to this type of instalment lending. Mobile
home loans held by sampled banks more than
doubled from 1961 to the end of last year, and
the dollar volume grew nearly four-fold.
Specifically, the survey sought to determine the
extent and manner in which bankers in this Dis­
trict are helping finance this expanding segment
of the housing market and to obtain some idea
of their overall impression of mobile home lend­
ing. The Southern region provides an excellent
area to study the response of bankers to recent
changes in the industry.
A representative sample of banks in this Dis­
trict was chosen for the study, including those that
regularly report their consumer loan activity to
the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. The list

M o n th ly R eview , Vol. L I I , No. 5. Free subscription
and additional copies available upon request to the
Research Departm ent, Federal Reserve B a n k of
Atlanta, Atlanta, G eorgia 30303.


58


was then expanded to incorporate the 50 largest
banks in the District. Thus, in addition to a
sample of banks of all sizes, the survey also cov­
ered those banks which probably account for most
of the outstanding mobile home loan volume in
the Sixth District. The final list was made up of
121 banks to which a specially designed ques­
tionnaire was mailed in February of this year.
Out of this number, 113 responded, and about
one-half reported making mobile home loans.
When the responding banks were grouped ac­
cording to size (using total deposits as the mea­
sure) , it was apparent that larger banks made
proportionately more mobile home loans. Banks
with total deposits of $26 to $50 million were
about equally divided between those making and
those not making mobile home loans. Banks with
deposits greater than $50 million granted pro­
portionately more of these loans, while the re­
verse was true for smaller banks.
While these figures indicate a direct relation­
ship between bank size and mobile home lending,
many large banks do not make instalment logins
for this purpose. Sixteen of the 40 largest banks
in the District do not presently make such loans.
Thus, while close to two-thirds of the banks mak­
ing these loans in 1966 had total deposits in
excess of $50 million, a large number in this
deposit size category did not.
A much higher concentration of the outstandM O N TH LY

R EV IIE W

T a b le I: B a n ks R e s p o n d in g to S urvey

M ak in g M obile
H om e L oans

D e p o sit S ize

N ot M aking
M obile H om e
L oans

T otal

M illions $
U n d e r $10.0

4

15

19

10.0— 24.9

9

12

21

25.0— 49.9

8

8

16

50.0— 99.9

10

7

17

100.0 a n d o v e r

24

16

40

All R e p o rtin g B an k s

55

58

113

The more rapid rate of growth in volume out­
standing than in number of accounts has resulted,
in part, from the trend toward larger and more
expensive units financed. For example, the aver­
age mobile home loan at the responding banks,
including loans for both new and used units, in­
creased from around $2,000 in 1961 to approxi­
mately $3,300 in 1965 and to over $4,000 last
year. Thus, roughly 20 percent of the increase last
year was attributable to a gain in the average
loan amount.
The rise in mobile home lending did not merely

T a b le II: B a n ks M a k in g M o b ile H om e Lo an s
N u m b e r o f Lo a n s a t R e s p o n d in g B an ks

D e p o sit S ize
M illions $

V o lu m e O u ts ta n d in g ,
End of Y ear 1966
T housands $

U n d e r 10.0
142.5
10.0— 24.9
3 9 5.5
25.0— 49.9
1,258.9
50.0— 99.9
3 ,2 7 0 .8
100.0 a n d o v e r 9 3 ,0 3 0 .8
All R ep o rtin g
B an k s
98,0 9 8 .5

%
0.2
0 .4
1.3
3.3
94.8
100.0

A verage
O u ts ta n d ­
in g s p e r
B an k

B an k s
%

Thou­
sands $

4
9
8
10
24

7.3
16.4
14.5
18.2
43 .6

3 5 .6
43 .9
157.4
327.1
3 ,8 7 6 .3

55

100.0

N um ber

1,783.6

ing volume of mobile home paper was held by
the larger banks. Banks with deposits below $50
million accounted for about two-fifths of those
reporting mobile home loans, but only about 2
percent of the outstanding volume. On the other
hand, the largest two-fifths (those with deposits
of $100.0 million and over) held approximately
95 percent of the reported volume. Banks with
deposits in excess of $100 million held, on aver­
age, about $3.9 million in mobile home paper,
compared with average holdings of about $1.8
million for all banks.

1961

1965

1966

T he n u m b e r of m o b ile h o m e lo a n s a t b a n k s in th e Sixth Dis­
tr i c t re s p o n d in g to th e su rv e y h a s in c re a s e d ra p id ly s in c e 1961,

O u ts ta n d in g V o lu m e o f Loans
a t R e s p o n d in g B an ks
Millions $
10 0

80 -

60

40

20

0

1961

Changing Attitudes
Unquestionably, many bankers in this region are
seriously considering adding more mobile home
loans to their consumer portfolios. Such loans at
responding banks grew from around 10,000 in
1961 to slightly over 24,000 at the end of last
year. The corresponding dollar volume at these
banks increased from approximately $21 million
to around $98 million during the same period.
No attempt was made to estimate the total vol­
ume of mobile home paper outstanding at all Dis­
trict banks. However, since the survey did in­
clude a representative cross-section of banks, as
well as the 50 largest, the results should provide
an indication of the relative growth of this type
of lending activity.
Digitized 1 9 6 7
M A Y for FRASER


1965

a n d th e d o lla r v o lu m e o u ts ta n d in g

1966

h a s grow n fa s te r .

M o b ile H om e L e n d in g A c tiv ity
By B a n ks o f V a rio u s S izes

Deposit Size
Millions $

Making Mobile Home Loans
\
Not Making Mobile Home Loans ^

S u rv ey b a n k s of all s iz e s re p o rte d m a k in g m o b ile h o m e lo a n s,
b u t la rg e r b a n k s a re th e m o s t a c tiv e le n d e rs in th is field.

59

represent the more intensive lending activity
of the same banks. The number of banks making
mobile home loans has also increased. One-fifth
of the banks making these loans in 1966 had less
than three years’ experience and one-half less
than six years’. Thus, it would appear that mobile
home lending, once limited primarily to the more
specialized and experienced banks, is now attract­
ing the attention of other banks in this area. Close
to three-quarters of the increase in the number
of accounts and about one-half of the increased
volume between 1961 and 1966 were contributed
by banks not previously engaged in this type of
lending activity. These new entrants represented
banks of all sizes, but over nine-tenths of the
resulting volume was accounted for by those with
total deposits of $50 million or more.
In order to gain some insight into the attitudes
of bankers, we asked them to summarize their
current policy on mobile home lending. Onefourth were definitely attempting to increase this
type of lending, and approximately 55 percent
indicated no change. But the remaining one-fifth
were trying to decrease their outstanding volume
of mobile home paper. As mobile home lending
becomes more pervasive, bankers are in disagree­
ment on the relative merits of consumer financing
of mobile home paper, primarily because of the
lengthening of maturities and their poor repos­
sessions experience. Even though mobile home
lending has become more pervasive, the varying
experiences of bankers continue to contribute to
a difference of opinion as to the relative merits
of consumer financing of mobile homes.
Although these opinions cover the period of
tighter credit conditions of 1966, they neverthe­
less express longer-run policy objectives. It could
be that some banks’ attempts to decrease volume
reflected the overall credit restraint of last year.
However, the overwhelming majority reported
that neither their lending standards nor interest
rates on instalment loans changed during this
period. The small percentage reporting changes
in lending standards or interest rates on mobile
home loans generally cited changing money mar­
ket conditions and the increased likelihood of
younger borrowers being drafted as their reasons.
Less than one-tenth of the respondents classi­
fied mobile home loans as below average in risk,
compared with other types of instalment lending.
The majority of bankers apparently view these
loans as equally desirable or more attractive than
other types of consumer loans. This may be fur­
ther evidence that a majority of bankers are
attempting to increase mobile home lending and

60


possibly why lending standards in most instances
were not changed last year.
The old axiom that the requirement of a good
instalment loan is a good dealer has particular
significance in financing mobile homes. Because
of the mobility factor and the restricted market
for used mobile homes, most mobile home paper
held by banks is purchased from a dealer. This
is true at practically all District banks. In most
cases the bankers have full recourse to the dealers.
About three-fifths of the banks reported no
differences in rates charged on direct and pur­
chased paper. However, of the remaining twofifths, a majority indicated that rates on pur­
chased paper were generally more liberal.
Down Payments and Maturities
The ratio of down payment to total selling price
and the length of the note have special signifi­
cance for mobile home loans compared with other
durable goods. Because of the rather limited mar­
ket for resales, any changes in maturities and
interest cost of the structure not offset by down
payment requirements may have a direct bearing
on the amount of equity the purchaser holds. A
relaxation of terms in this manner could have a
direct bearing on the possibility of repossessions.
Generally, banks in this region require between
10 and 30 percent down payment on a mobile
home loan. The most frequently required down
payment, however, is around 25-30 percent. Very
seldom will the bank accept less than 10 percent
down. In a few instances, however, the down pay­
ment is figured as the difference between the sell­
ing price of the unit and the dealer’s invoice. For
loans to purchase a new mobile home, the mini­
mum down payment is usually around 15 percent,
and for resales slightly more.
The average maturity of loans to purchase new
mobile homes is generally from five to seven
years. Over three-fifths of the loans outstanding
at District banks in 1966 had maturities falling
in this range. About one-quarter were to run for
less than five years, while close to 10 percent had
maturities in excess of seven years.
For loans to buy used mobile homes, virtually
all of those outstanding in 1966 at surveyed banks
were to run for less than seven years, and most
of these were for less than five years.
Delinquencies and Repossessions
Most banks reported an end-of-year delinquency
rate between 2 and 3 percent in 1965 and 1966.
In a few instances, the rate was 4 percent or
M O N T H L Y R E V IE W

Table III: Delinquencies and Repossessions
At Reporting Banks
1965

1966

N um ber

P e rc e n t

N um ber

P e rc e n t

16,556

100.0

2 4,188

100.0

385

2.3

729

3.0

30-59 d a y s

291

1.8

550

2.3

60-89 d a y s

66

0 .4

103

0.4

28

0.1

76

0.3

476

2.9

647

2.7

of a mobile home is around $6,000, completely
furnished, while the conventional home averages
considerably more. The young married couple
will not lose equity in the mobile home should
they relocate; they will move their home.

T otal A c c o u n ts a t
R ep o rtin g B an k s
D e lin q u e n t A c c o u n ts

90 d a y s o r ov er
R e p o s s e s s io n s

slightly above, but this represented only a small
percentage of the total accounts outstanding. In
1965, the average delinquency rate was 2.3 per­
cent, with most of the overdue accounts in the
30-59 day range. The delinquency rate rose to
3.0 percent in 1966, as a result of the increase
in past due accounts of less than two months.
A frequently used indicator of the quality of
a group of loans is the repossessions ratio, the
percentage of loans made during the year that
subsequently must be repossessed. Banks in this
area in recent years have experienced a repos­
sessions rate of around 3 percent or less. In 1966,
however, the rate of repossessions at District
banks declined slightly to 2.7 percent from 2.9
percent in 1965.
Mobile Home Living Today
Last year, while conventional housing was de­
clining, dealer shipments of mobile homes held
around their 1965 level of 216,000 units. With
the trend toward more expensive mobile struc­
tures, last year’s dollar volume probably in­
creased. A better comparison of the impact on the
total housing industry is the growing share of
the market claimed by mobile homes. In 1965
one in every six single-family housing starts was
of the mobile type. As recently as 1961, they rep­
resented less than one-tenth of the market. A sig­
nificant factor in the growth of mobile home
living has been the provision of less mobility and
more housing. Mobile structures today may never
be moved any farther than from the factory to the
park. Even though the likelihood of movement is
not as great as it once was, the potential for mo­
bility is still available. This is particularly ap­
pealing to young married couples and retired
persons, who represent the greater share of the
market for mobile homes.
For young married couples, the home on
wheels provides a completely furnished residence
at a comparatively low price. The average cost
Digitized 1 9 6 7
for FRASER
M AY


Who Are the Residents?
Part of the reason for banks’ re-examination of
financing mobile homes may be the shifting image
of residents. The Mobile Home Manufacturers
Association estimates that there are over 4 mil­
lion mobile home owners in the U. S. The age-old
idea that people lived in mobile homes because
they could not afford to live elsewhere has proven
erroneous by several recent surveys. A University
of Michigan survey indicated that about twothirds of all mobile home dwellers have annual
household incomes in excess of $6,000, with a
median level of close to $8,000.
The rising average income level for mobile
home residents, which is above the average for
all U. S. residents, largely reflects the changing
composition of occupational groups preferring to
live in a mobile home. This same survey reported
that one-fourth of the mobile home heads of
households are skilled workers, and about onefifth are professionals, proprietors, or self-em­
ployed. Military personnel, accounting for about
10 percent by occupation, are not as prevalent
among residents as they once were.
According to the 1965 University of Michigan
survey, nearly half of the mobile homeowners
previously owned conventional homes, and
another one-fifth lived in apartments. Thus, it
would appear that the convenience and mobility
factors have certainly attracted a growing number
of desirable tenants. This, coupled with the fact
that approximately one-fourth have lived in a
mobile unit for nine or more years, supports the
view that this type of living is satisfactory to
many families.
Manufacturers
The improved design of the mobile home and
more desirable parks have also contributed to the
changing image of mobile home living. The trailer
10 feet wide by 50 feet long was in demand for
many years. Now, because they are moved less
often, the 12-wide has become very popular. This
unit may be as long as 70 feet and include three
or four bedrooms and two or three baths. If the
units are to remain mobile, however, this is prob­
ably the maximum width attainable.
Recently, however, “Doublewides” (two inde­
61

pendent units joined together lengthwise at the
site) and expandable units (one or more sections
that fold or pull out from the basic unit) are
being used quite frequently.
While the structures have changed, the same
basic design is used in constructing most units.
Manufacturers have taken advantage of cost re­
duction through mass production in building
units, and the retail price has been held down.
Of course, the interiors in most cases can be
altered to suit the buyer without any appreciable
change in costs. The assembly-line type produc­
tion also provides almost instant housing.
According to the Mobile Home Manufacturers
Association, approximately 350 mobile home fac­
tories are scattered in almost every state. How­
ever, certain areas remain important production
centers. In 1965, over one-half of all mobile homes
produced were in the East North Central and
South Atlantic regions, and close to one-half of
the plants were there. Within these regions, how­
ever, the major part of the production is localized
in only a few states. Michigan and Indiana man­
ufacture most of the units in the East North
Central region, while Georgia is the number one
producer in the South and the second in the en­
tire nation. According to the Georgia Mobile
Home Association, 41 mobile home manufacturMobile Home Shipments
Thousands

2 0—
0
10—
0
1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

O ne in d ic a tio n of th e g ro w th of m o b ile h o m e s a le s is th e
in c re a s in g n u m b e r of s h ip m e n ts by U. S. d e a le rs .

U. S. Population
20-29 and 65-74
Millions
50

40 —

30

I

1 1
1960

1 1
1963

* U .S .
D e p a rtm e n t
p ro je c tio n s .

I I
1965

of

I
1970*

C o m m e rc e ,

I
1975*

B u re a u

of

th e

A s tim u lu s to in c re a s in g s a le s h a s b e e n th e e n la rg e m e n t in
th e n u m b e r of re s id e n ts in th e y o u n g e r a n d re tir e m e n t a g e
g ro u p s. It is c u rre n tly e s tim a te d th a t th e s e g ro u p s w ill e x ­
p a n d a t a n a c c e le ra te d ra te in c o m in g y e a rs.


62


ing plants are located in Georgia with annual
payrolls of over $12 million. Estimates show that
these plants produced approximately 30,000 mo­
bile homes last year and accounted for 11 per­
cent of total industry production.
Travel trailer and recreational vehicles, as well
as special unit structures not classified as mobile
homes, are also increasing at many of these man­
ufacturing plants. These special units are becom­
ing more and more popular for use as school
rooms, offices, and other types of structures.
Implications
All indications point to a continued rapid
growth in mobile home sales. The younger and
older segments of the population are increasing
rapidly and should continue to find this type of
living desirable. The demand for mobile homes
will probably also be stimulated by the growing
number of families purchasing second homes.
The continued orderly and steady growth of
the industry depends, to a large extent, on the
ability and desire of lenders to provide adequate
financing to dealers and customers. Recent ex­
perience indicates that 75-80 percent of all mobile
homes sold are financed.
Historically, commercial banks and sales fi­
nance companies have supplied most of the direct
retail financing of mobile homes, with the largest
share going to the latter. Lending institutions spe­
cializing in housing loans such as savings and
loan associations and mutual savings banks are
legally restricted from making consumer loans.
However, with mobile homes claiming an increas­
ing share of the homebuilding industry, savings
and loan associations are pushing vigorously for
legislation to allow an expansion of their lending
powers to cover consumer instalment loans, in­
cluding mobile homes.
Many commercial banks, too, are now making
a serious bid to become more active competitors
for a larger share of the conventional home login
market. Loans to finance mobile homes could
well be the competitive arena in which a claim
on a larger share of the total single-family hous­
ing market will finally be decided.
How far the mobile home industry will be able
to penetrate the housing market is uncertain.
However, further penetrations will likely occur,
which may hasten the aggressive bidding of lend­
C en su s,
ers for a bigger share of the housing dollar. What­
ever the outcome, some bankers now seem more
willing and anxious to devote more funds to this
type of lending.
Joe W. McLeary
M O N T H L Y R E V IE W

T h e S o u th e rn F a rm B o rro w e r
Dynamic changes are taking place in the agri­
cultural sector of the economy. In the last decade,
advances in animal husbandry, agronomy, agri­
cultural engineering, and agri-business have ap­
peared with clock-like regularity. And the ad­
justments in agriculture are reflected in changes
in the type of farmers borrowing at commercial
banks in the Sixth Federal Reserve District.
Since 1956, total assets, net worth, gross sales,
and bank indebtedness have all advanced sharply
for the average southeastern farm borrower. The
total volume of bank loans to farmers has more
than doubled, while the number of borrowers has
declined. There has been a marked increase in
the number of part-time farmers and producers
of single commodities. And the tenant and share­
cropper appear less frequently. To better under­
stand the impact of agricultural adjustment on
farm producers and bankers, it is necessary to
identify specific areas of change from these aggre­
gate data and then to evaluate their influence on
production and farm finance.
Personal Characteristics
Throughout the Southeast and other predomi­
nantly rural regions in the U.S., farm populations
have migrated to urban areas. Generally younger
Digitized 9 6 7 FRASER
for
MAY 1


persons have been the most likely prospects to
leave the farm. Many older persons have found
moving much less attractive and therefore have
remained on the farm.
These developments have caused the total num­
ber of farm borrowers in the District to decline
nearly 12,000, or 5 percent, since 1956, while the
average age of borrowers remaining on the farm
has advanced from 45 to 48. Because propor­
tionately more young people are leaving the farm,
borrowers 44 years of age and younger now ac­
count for 38 percent of all farm borrowers, com­
pared with 50 percent ten years ago. This group
is responsible for most of the total reduction in
borrowers, because the number of farmers 45
years old or over has actually increased.
Although young borrowers are proportionately
fewer, they have been expanding their average
bank indebtedness much faster than those 45
years or older. Since 1956, the average volume
of bank loans held by farm borrowers 35-44
years of age has more than doubled; that of their
counterparts under 35 years has gained 90 per­
cent. As a group, farmers over 45 increased their
average bank loan by only 8 percent.
Part-Time Farmers—Contrary to the trend toward
fewer farmers, however, the number of part-time
63

farmers, those receiving one-third or more of their
gross income from nonfarm sources, has advanced
nearly 60 percent in the last decade. Currently,
36 percent of all individual farm operators for
which data are available are part-time. The pro­
pelling force causing many farmers to seek nonfarm employment is the increasing difficulty to
derive adequate income from relatively small
farming units. Improved methods of transporta­
tion and greater job opportunities in most parts
of the Southeast now make it easier for rural citi­
zens to earn extra incomes without moving from
their community. This availability of nonfarm
employment has probably held down the rate of
migration from farms.
The total volume of bank loans to part-time
farmers has advanced nearly four times since
1956 because of the increased number of these
operators and the 147-percent jump in the av­
erage bank debt per borrower. In 1966, the
average amount of loans outstanding for these
borrowers was $3,775, compared with $3,881 for
full-time farmers. Surprisingly, average credit
requirements of part-time farmers do not differ
significantly from their full-time counterparts.
Farm Type—For both the full-time and part-time
farmer, the general farm is still the most common
production unit in the Southeast. In 1966, 56 per­
cent of all farm borrowers, about the same propor­
tion as ten years ago, operated general farms.
However, the absolute number of these farms has
declined, reflecting the total reduction in farm
numbers. These farmers had average bank in­
debtedness of $2,923, well below the $3,806average of all farm borrowers.
While the relative importance of the general
farm has changed little since 1956, the number
of specialized farms except cotton has increased
sharply. For example, the number of borrowers
operating meat animal farms has doubled in the

last ten years and now represents 12 percent of
the District’s farms. The number of borrowers
operating poultry farms has increased over 2x
/z
times. Also, the number of borrowers specializing
in cash grain, fruit, sugarcane, and other major
products has advanced sharply since the mid1950’s.
Generally, the types of specialized farms listed
above are more capital and less labor intensive
than tobacco, small cotton, and general farms.
Partial evidence of this tendency is apparent from
the average outstanding loan of these farmers
which totals more than $5,000, well above the
average for all farms. With average loans ex­
ceeding $25,000, citrus fruit producers have
higher credit needs than any other group of fann
borrowers in the Southeast.
The drop from over 53,000 to less than 20,000
cotton farms in ten years is perhaps the most
spectacular development in southeastern agri­
culture. Reduction in cotton acreages, increased
production costs, lower prices, and better alter­
native uses for land have made cotton a secon­
dary crop on most District farms. Since many
cotton farmers still operate small farms, their av­
erage indebtedness has advanced to only $2,971.
Tenure—Along with the decline in the number of
general farms and cotton farms has been the re­
duction in the number of borrowers that are ten­
ants and sharecroppers. In 1956 these borrowers
represented 20 percent of banks’ farm borrowers;
today, less than 10 percent. Similarly, there has
been a 50-percent cutback in the number of bor­
rowers who are landlords, while the group of
farmers owning all or part of the land they op­
erate has increased slightly in number. Average
credit requirements have advanced about 2*/2
times for both owner-operator and tenant farmers,
while the average landlord has borrowed 88 per­
cent more in the last ten years.

Farm Borrowers at District Banks
Percent

10
0

Age of Borrower

Tenure

—10
0

Net Worth

80 —

— 80

60 —

— 60

40 —

— 40

1956
1966

2—
0

—2
0
□ —i

0■
Under 35

35-44

45 or Older

Landlords

Tenants
or Croppers

Full or
Part Owners

Under

$10,000

$
10,00024,999

$25,00099,999

—0
Over
$100,000

S in c e 1956, th e p ro p o rtio n of y o u n g p e o p le , la n d lo rd s , a n d te n a n ts h a s d e c lin e d . Of th o s e re m a in in g , fa rm e rs w ith h ig h e r n e t w o rth s


64


M O N TH LY

R E V IE W

Asset and Credit Requirements
Changes in the type of farming and the charac­
teristics of borrowers fail to show some important
developments in the asset structure and financial
requirements of many farmers. From 1956 to
1966, the financial needs of all farmers continued
to advance rapidly. No longer are the major costs
of production embodied in the farmer’s labor and
the homegrown feed supplies for work stock.
Today production credit is needed for fertilizer,
seed, feed, equipment, gasoline and other pe­
troleum products, repairs, labor and other pur­
chased items. Intermediate- and long-term credit
are required to purchase farm machinery, to im­
prove land and buildings, and to buy additional
acreages. And as the amount and price of many
of these items advance, so does the producer’s
need for credit.
Bank Indebtedness—These trends are, in part, re­
flected in a lesser number of farm borrowers with
small loans. Farmers owing the bank less than
$1,000 have dropped from nearly 145,000 to less
than 88,000 since 1956, and the number owing
$1,000 to $1,999 has advanced only slightly.
Meanwhile, the number of borrowers owing larger
amounts increased quite sharply between 1956
and 1966. For example, borrowers with indebted­
ness of $2,000 to $4,999 rose in number by 71
percent, while 130 percent owed banks $5,000 to
$9,999. Similarly, three times as many farmers
owed $10,000 to $24,999 in 1966 than in 1956, and
those owing $25,000 to $99,999 and $100,000 and
over gained five and one-half and ten times,
respectively.
These adjustments caused a significant shift
in the distribution of loans at District banks.
On June 30, 1966, 60 percent of the borrowers
had loans of $2,000 or less and accounted for
only 12 percent of the total volume of farm debt

at banks. However, borrowers owing $50,000 or
more made up less than one percent of the bor­
rowers but held over 15 percent of the loans.
Net Worth—Just as changes in the sizes of loans
identify advances in the financial needs of farm
borrowers, the modifications in net worth reflect
changes in the size of farm units. Currently, only
one-half as many borrowers as ten years ago have
net worths of less than $10,000. Part of this de­
cline is the result of the expansion of farming
units or repayment of previous indebtedness.
However, most of the reduction was probably
caused when farmers with these low equities quit
farming. Reflecting a generally increased need
for production credit, however, the farmers with
low net worths that remained on the farm nearly
doubled their average bank borrowings.
Contrary to trends toward fewer farming units,
the number of farms with higher net worths is
actually increasing. At all levels of net worth
above $10,000 per borrower, there are now more
farmers than in mid-1956. And these individuals
account for increasing proportions of the total
farm loan portfolios of District bankers. Cur­
rently, borrowers with net worths exceeding
$25,000 account for approximately 65 percent of
the volume of loans outstanding. In 1956, 40 per­
cent of the loans went to farmers reporting this
much equity in their farm.
Income—Information relating to the 1956 farm
sales is not available, but the 1966 survey indi­
cates that 45 percent of all borrowers had gross
incomes below $5,000. Certainly, incomes are
near subsistent levels, since farm operators must
repay bank loans averaging $1,658, plus various
production expenditures not reported in the sur­
vey. Discounting the fact that living expenditures
are usually lower in rural areas and that many of
the borrowers had nonfarm incomes, these small

—1 0
0

Type of Farm Operated

— 80
— 60
— 40

—2
0
'"
I
I .." I
Under
$999

and

h ig h e r b a n k

Dairy

lo a n s a p p e a r m u c h

Digitized 1for FRASER
MAY
9 67


Poultry

Meat
Animals

n .
Cotton

Other
Major
Crops

General

—0

m o re fre q u e n tly , a s d o p ro d u c e rs s p e c ia liz in g in “ o th e r m a jo r c ro p s ” a n d liv e sto ck .

65

production units will find it difficult to remain
operative in the years to come. Those borrowers
with incomes below $5,000 will probably be the
best candidates to leave the farm, and the aggre­
gate demand for credit from those that remain
will grow only slowly. The remaining farm bor­
rowers were about equally divided between those
with gross farm incomes of $5,000 to $9,999 and
$10,000 and more.
In 1966, 99.4 percent of all farm borrowers at
District banks were individual operators. Of the
remaining farms, 0.4 percent, or 742, were part­
nerships, and 0.2 percent, or 468, were corporatetype business structures. These data indicate that
the family farm is still the bulwark of south­
eastern agriculture. However, in certain types of
production with extremely high capital require­
ments and greater economies of scale, such as
Florida citrus, the corporate-type business struc­
ture appears more frequently. The average in­
debtedness for partnerships and corporate farms
was $19,790 and $64,312, respectively, compared
with $3,612 for individuals.
Future
In anticipating future changes in the charac­
teristics of farm borrowers and agriculture, it is
safe to assume that past performances will prob­
ably continue but perhaps at a more rapid rate.
Farm sizes will expand further as more people
leave agriculture and the consolidation of farm­
ing units continues. These trends will be re­
inforced by the movement toward more mech­
anization and specialization of farm production.
Generally, the adaptation of advanced produc­
tion techniques and mechanization has been
slower in the South than in other regions. A
large number of social and economic factors, such
as a relatively cheap labor supply, a large num­
ber of subsistence type farms, highly diversified
agriculture in some areas, and a single crop cot­
ton economy in others, have all contributed to
the problem. However, in recent years, adjust­
ments in farm production have proceeded more
rapidly. Labor shortages, larger farming units,
increased credit supplies both from credit agen­
cies and businesses, and higher educational levels
of farm operators have all contributed to the
adjustments. However, District farmers still rank
below their national counterparts in the rate of
adjustment in these areas. The proportion of
southeastern farm borrowers with total assets
under $10,000 and net worths of less than $5,000
is nearly twice as high as in the U.S. Similarly,

66


annual sales were less than $5,000 for 45 percent
of the District borrowers, compared with only
one-fourth in the U.S. And while adjustments are
taking place more rapidly for each of the char­
acteristics mentioned, the rate of change during
the last ten years was slower in the Southeast
than in the nation.
Nevertheless, the southern farm scene has been
changing quickly. And, as these trends continue,
very likely today’s medium-size or middle income
farm will become the subsistence farm of to­
morrow. The 131,000 borrowers with total sales
of less than $10,000 will certainly find it difficult
to maintain net incomes and a good level of liv­
ing without increasing the size of their farms or
without sizable amounts of nonfarm incomes.
If present trends continue, banks can expect
only a slight expansion in aggregate loan demand
from this block of borrowers. Even though the
average credit needs of individual borrowers will
increase, ten years from now a substantial num­
ber of them will have left the area. Also, banks
in these areas may experience problems with de­
posit growth from agriculture.
Therefore, banks with both the ability and de­
sire to expand aggregate farm loan volumes will
need to attract or seek out individuals who are
expanding their farming operations. However,
the competition for these accounts may be keen.
Farmers with large loan requests, plus high net
worths and improved income flows, will request
better banking services. Local banks that fail
to compete in this field may lose prime customers
to other institutions with better rates and services.
One future requirement of farm borrowers may
include continuous debt financing to implement
long-run production plans rather than operate
from year to year as in the past. Under these
conditions, bankers may be expected to evaluate
loans more in terms of productivity and less on
value of the collateral pledged by the borrower.
Certainly, the banker will have to require balance
sheets and cash flow information, as well as cost
and return data, to evaluate the productivity and
profitability of various enterprises. The banker
may also be expected to seek new ways to grant
loans exceeding legal lending limits and to dis­
sipate the risk associated with large accounts.
The banker who is aware of these adjustments
and modifies his operations to meet these and
other new demands will be best serving the needs
of farm borrowers and the community.
Robert E. Sweeney
This is the secon d in a series of a rticles on the 1966
farm loan su rvey.
M O N TH LY

R E V II-W

Tennessee
C o m es

O ut

A h ead

When you’re struggling to catch up, whether in
a foot race or in terms of personal income, you’ve
got to go faster than the leader to get abreast
of him. Last year Tennessee, a state whose per
capita income trails the national average, ad­
vanced more rapidly. Personal income, the most
comprehensive indicator of economic growth,
grew 10 percent in the Volunteer state, com­
pared with 8 percent for the nation.
Personal income was not, however, the only
Tennessee economic indicator to outpace those
of the nation. The state’s nonagricultural em­
ployment growth exceeded the nation’s by an
even wider margin than personal income. Mean­
while, unemployment remained lower in Tennes­
see than in the nation.
The number of jobs resulting from investment
in new and expanded plants in Tennessee ex­
ceeded that of each of the other District states,
according to Georgia Tech’s Industrial Develop­
ment Division. Tennessee ran second in the value
of such investment. Its total growth of nonagri­
cultural employment also ran ahead of that of
other District states, although, as was common in
the nation, it did not equal 1965’s gain.

tor, an income source more important in the
state than in the nation and one whose income
growth rate in the state is rivaled only by gov­
ernment. Gains in manufacturing, Tennessee’s
largest employer, were not evenly distributed, of
course. Cities showing particularly strong growth
were Chattanooga, the Tri-Cities (Kingsport,
Bristol, and Johnson City), and Memphis (out­
side the Sixth District).
From August 1965 to August 1966, Chatta­
nooga’s total employment growth led every major
metropolitan area in the nation but one, yet em­
ployment in its major manufacturing industry,
textile mill products, declined during this period

P e rso n a l In co m e
Billions of Dollars
Ratio Scale

Manufacturing Spurred by Chemicals
1964

The most rapid growth of Tennessee employ­
ment was experienced in the manufacturing sec­

M AY 1967


■H i

1965

1966

nHH

1967

In 1966 th e gro w th of T e n n e s s e e 's p e rs o n a l in c o m e c o n tin u e d
to o u tp a c e th e n a tio n ’s.

67

and through the remainder of 1966. Textile mill
employment for the state as a whole also showed
a December-to-December employment decline.
But, despite this weakness in textiles, common
to much of the nation, Chattanooga’s manufactur­
ing employment rose more rapidly than did total
nonagricultural employment.
Employment growth in the nation slowed dur­
ing the fall, but the reverse was true in both
total and manufacturing employment in Chatta­
nooga, where the growth of employment in the
December-to-December period exceeded Augustto-August growth. Sparking this expansion was
a large increase in employment in chemicals, a
rapidly growing sector throughout the state. This
swift rise of chemical and allied products em­
ployment was spurred by the industry’s strong
performance nationally.
The most important chemical industries in
Tennessee are basic chemicals, mainly inorganic
in nature, and fibers, plastics, and rubbers, with
concentration in cellulosic manmade fibers.
While overall chemical gains in the nation were
strong throughout the year, some softness in syn­
thetic fibers, which were plagued by over-capac­
ity, import competition, and price cutting, was
evident in the fall. Explosives, though not a major
industry in the state, are important in some sec­
tions and expanded greatly in response to the
heavy ammunition requirements of the Viet Nam
War. Both Chattanooga and the Tri-Cities bene­
fited from this “boom” in ordnance.
The chemical industry, largest manufacturing
employer in the Tri-Cities, played an important
role in the area’s pace-setting growth of employ­
ment. As in Chattanooga, total nonagricultural,
N o n a g ric u ltu ra l an d M a n u fa c tu rin g E m p lo y m e n t
in T enn esse e
Percent Increase, December 1966 from December 1965
0
4
8
12
16

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Chattanooga

| Manufacturing Employment
Memphis

T he ra te of e m p lo y m e n t g ro w th fro m D e c e m b e r 1965 to De­
c e m b e r 1966 v a rie d s ig n ific a n tly in d iffe re n t s e c tio n s of th e
s ta te , b u t gro w th of m a n u fa c tu rin g e m p lo y m e n t w a s re la tiv e ly
v ig o ro u s a lm o s t e v ery w h ere.


68


manufacturing, and chemical employment in the
Tri-Cities area rose even more rapidly in the December-to-December period than in the Augustto-August period. And again like Chattanooga,
the rate of gain in manufacturing employment
was greater than that in total employment.
In Knoxville, chemicals, though not so im­
portant as in the Tri-Cities, are also the largest
manufacturing employer. Due perhaps to the in­
dustry’s different structure in Knoxville, its rate
of growth in this city fell well below that of
Chattanooga and the Tri-Cities. The growth of
total nonagricultural and manufacturing employ­
ment in Knoxville was also below their rates. And
in contrast to Chattanooga and the Tri-Cities, the
growth of manufacturing employment in Knox­
ville decreased late in the year and its growth
rate was less than that of total employment,
which rose.
In the state’s other large interior city, Nash­
ville, the picture was the reverse of Knoxville in
two respects: manufacturing employment led
total employment growth, and both rates of in­
crease fell off as the year progressed. Yet Nash­
ville’s most important manufacturing industry,
printing and publishing, grew more rapidly. Off­
setting this strength was a December-to-Decem­
ber weakness in other areas of manufacturing and
trade.
The growth rate of trade jobs declined through­
out the state as the year grew older, though
climbing in Chattanooga, Knoxville, and the TriCities. Only in Chattanooga was the rise excep­
tionally large, however. For the state, trade
showed the greatest employment growth outside
manufacturing. This, along with sales tax figures,
suggests that Tennessee’s retailers were not ad­
versely affected by the widespread slowing of
the nation’s retail sales growth.
Autumn Growth Slower
In spite of the faster growth of total employment
in some of its major cities in the December-toDecember period than in the August-to-August
period, the record of the state as a whole more
closely mirrored the national trend, i.e., it ex­
perienced a slowdown in employment growth as
the year progressed. A more moderate rate of
growth was seen in total nonagricultural, total
manufacturing, and durable and nondurable
goods manufacturing employment.
The rise of construction employment in Ten­
nessee compared favorably with the national
level, which was affected by a slump in resi­
M O N T H L Y R E V IE W

dential construction. During this period the na­
tion experienced an absolute decline in con­
struction employment. In Tennessee a reduction
of activity in residential construction showed up
clearly in the various construction contract and
building permit series and in the figures on real
estate mortgage loans, as the accustomed flow
of mortgage money fell off sharply. However,
Tennessee savings and loan institutions experi­
enced the smallest contraction of savings flows
of any District state, and, not surprisingly, cut
back less on mortgage lending.
Although the number of residential construc­
tion contracts declined from the previous year’s
total by 14 percent, nonresidential construction
contracts showed a whopping 26-percent gain
and total construction contracts rose 9 percent.
While residential construction contracts managed
to actually post a small gain in Chattanooga, they
fell off by 30 percent or more in the two cities
which in 1965 accounted for a quarter of the
state’s residential construction—Knoxville and
Nashville.
Growth Pattern Important
The manufacturing-dominated pattern of em­
ployment growth last year was encouraging for
a state striving to catch up with national per­
sonal income, for manufacturing pays relatively
well. The vigorous growth of employment in dur­
able goods manufacturing throughout the year
was particularly helpful. Durables’ December-toDecember growth rate at 13.3 percent dwarfed the
6.6-percent rise of nondurable goods and the 6.8percent gain for total nonagricultural employ­
ment. And though durables’ August-to-August
gain was higher than the December increase, the
slowing late in 1966 was slight. In Tennessee, this
sector is less important than in the nation and
pays, on average, slightly higher wages than the
much larger nondurable goods sector. Because
the nation’s distribution of jobs is weighted more
heavily in the faster growing durables than Ten­
nessee’s, the Volunteer state faced a handicap in
outpacing the nation last year.
Agriculture Near Record
In 1966 cash receipts from farm marketings fell
short of the 1965 record level by less than one
percent. This development reflects diverse trends
in the two major sources of farm income: crop
and livestock sales.
In 1966 crop sales dropped to the lowest level
in six years, caused mainly by a sharp reduc­

M A Y 1 9 67


tion in cotton production and prices. Meanwhile,
for the year, sales from livestock, which ac­
counted for 59 percent of Tennessee’s cash re­
ceipts, were the highest on record. Large market­
ings and high prices for cattle, broilers, and hogs
pushed receipts up in the first half of the year.
In the last half, prices for these commodities
moderated. However, milk and egg prices gained
significantly.
Although production expenditures rose further
and cash receipts are down slightly, Tennessee
farmers will probably report net farm incomes
near 1965 levels. Somewhat higher government
payments in the form of price supports and
acreage diversion payments in the cotton pro­
gram will be the balancing factor.
Outlook
Although we are all interested in how we ar­
rived at our destination, we are more concerned
about where we are going. One of the best indi­
cators of this, however, is how we got where we
are. Tennessee’s record indicates that if she is
to hold her own in 1967, she must beat the na­
tion’s overall record. This is the harsh demand
of a vital, growing economy. One must run faster
just to stay in the same place. To pass all the
hurdles, one must advance more rapidly. And
although its prospects now look bright, we will
have to wait and see if the Volunteer state this
year manages to fulfill this requirement.
C a ro le E. S c o tt
T h is is one of a series in w hich econom ic d ev e lo p ­
m en ts in each of th e S ix th D istric t sta te s are d is­
cussed. C opies of A R e v i e w o f A l a b a m a ’s E c o n o m y ,
1960-1966; A R e v i e w o f G e o r g i a ’s E c o n o m y , 19601967; and A R e v i e w o f T e n n e s s e e ’s E c o n o m y , 19601967, are now available upon req u est to the R esearch
D ep a rtm en t, F ed era l R eserve B an k of A tla n ta , A t ­
lanta, G eorgia 30303.

B a n k A n n o u n c e m e n ts
The Sea Island Bank, Statesboro, Georgia, a nonmem­
ber bank, began to rem it at par on A pril 13 fo r checks
drawn on it when received from the Federal Reserve
Bank.
On A p ril 27, The Trust Company of Georgia Bank of
Sandy Springs, Sandy Springs, Georgia, opened fo r
business as a nonmember bank and began to rem it at
par. W illia m L. Henning is president, and S. Jack Hall,
vice president and cashier. Capital is $200,000; sur­
plus and other cap ital funds, $300,000.

69

S i x t h D is t r ic t S t a t is t ic s
Seasonally Adjusted
(All data are indexes, 1957-59 = IOO, unless indicated otherwise.)
Latest Month
(1967)

One
Month
Ago

Two
Months
Ago

One
Year
Ago

SIXTH DISTRICT
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $ Ann. Rate)
Manufacturing P a y ro lls ............................
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s .................................
C r o p s .............................................................
L iv e s t o c k .......................................................
Instalment Credit at Banks, *(M iI. $)

Feb. 56,197
Mar.
195
137
Feb.
Feb.
125
146
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.

54,833r 54,269r 52,067
181
195r
196
147
12 0
131
151
108
116
147
152
148
289r
258

256
253

292
233

136
137
170
132
154
116
108
116
129
107
179
135
135

130
130
159
123
143
113
104

68

136
137
168
131
155
115
106
117r
129
106
177r
136r
132
70

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.3

2.1
40.9
140
159
124
141
117
217

2.1
40.9
142
121
159
146
120
220

2 .2 r
41.4
156
150
160
145
117
216r

2.5
41.8
170
184
157
134
115
198

272
254

Latest Month
(1967)
N o nm anufacturing .......................................Mar.
C o n s t r u c t io n .............................................Mar.
Farm E m p lo ym e n t............................................ Mar.
Unemployment Rate
(Percent of Work F o r c e ) ...................... Mar.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . Mar.

One
Two
Month Months
Ago
Ago

One
Year
Ago

146r
112 r

145

2.6
42.3

2.7
41.6r

2.7
42.4

42.4

256
189
184

252
184
184

250
187
181

228
173
174

146
Ill

12
1
10
0

88

140
115

8
8
2
.6

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s .......................................Mar.
Member Bank D e p o sits................................. Mar.
Bank D e b its * * ....................................................... Mar.

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t...................................Mar.
Manufacturing
............................................ Mar.
Apparel
....................................................... Mar.
C h e m ic a l s ..................................................Mar.
Fabricated M e t a ls ................................. Mar.
F o o d ..................................................................Mar.
Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . Mar.
P a p e r .............................................................Mar.
Prim ary M e t a ls .......................................Mar.
Textiles
....................................................... Mar.
Transportation Equipment . . . Mar.
N onm anufacturing.......................................Mar.
Construction
............................................ Mar.
Farm Em p lo ym e n t............................................ Mar.
Unemployment Rate
(Percent of Work F o r c e ) ......................Mar.
Insured Unemployment
(Percent of Cov. E m p .) ............................Mar.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . Mar.
Construction C o n t r a c t s * ............................Mar.
R e s id e n t ia l....................................................... Mar.
All O t h e r ............................................................ Mar.
Electric Power P ro d u ctio n **...................... Feb.
Cotton C o n su m p tio n **................................. Feb.
Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and M iss.** Mar.

136
136
165
129
154
116
105
117
126
106
174
136
132

11
1

113
103
168
130
132
70

G E O R G IA

INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $ Ann. Rate) . Feb.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls ................................. Mar.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s .......................................Feb.

10,838
192
137

10,649r 10,632r 10,087
182
195r
197
145
141
134

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t................................. Mar.
M anufacturing ..................................................Mar.
N onm anufacturing .......................................Mar.
C o n s t r u c t io n ............................................ Mar.
Farm E m p lo ym e n t............................................ Mar.
Unemployment Rate
(Percent of Work F o r c e ) ...................... Mar.
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . Mar.

135
130
137
133
55

134
130
136
131r
59

135
131
137
132
66

130
127
131
143
55

3.4
40.4

3.2
40.6r

3.0
41.2

4.2
41.3

258
204
215

257
204
207

253
202
196

251
189
199

8,604
177
147

8,312r
178r
133

8,162r
173
132

7,768
159
142

FINANCE AND BANKING
Member Bank L o a n s .......................................Mar.
Member Bank D e p o sits ................................. Mar.
Bank D e b its * * ....................................................... Mar.

INCOME AND SPENDING

FINANCE AND BANKING

Personal Income, (Mil. $ Ann. Rate) . Feb.

Member Bank Loans*
247

244

229

222

245
223

222

2 10

185
170
193

183
167
190

183
167
186

173
157
183

Feb.

Member Bank Deposits*
Bank D e b its * / * * .................................

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
127

ALABAMA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $ Ann. Rate) . Feb.
Manufacturing P a y r o lls ................................. Mar.
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s .......................................Feb.

7,388
175
148

7,257r
177r
140

7,276r
177
112

6,934
169
154

125
124
126
126
73

12 1

126
123
75

125
124
126
124
80

4.1
41.1

3.9r
41.l r

4.5
41.5

4.0
42.1

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Unemployment Rate
(Percent of Work Force) . . .
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) .

127

128

10
2
12
1
11
2
146
6
6

12 1

Mar.
Mar.

125
12 2

12 0

Unemployment Rate
(Percent of Work Force
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg.,

. Mar.
. Mar.

12 1

129
153
64

129
159
61

4.2
42.2

4.2
42.6r

4.0
42.3

4.2
42.6

205
151
165

FINANCE AND BANKING
220

221

158
163

Member Bank Loans* .
Member Bank Deposits*
Bank Debits*/** . . . .

156
161

223
158
168

12 1

126
69
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $ Ann. Rate) . Feb.

231
181

229
180

218
173

FLORIDA
INCOME AND SPENDING
Personal Income, (Mil. $ Ann. Rate) . Feb. 15,974
Manufacturing P a y r o lls ................................. Mar.
241
Farm Cash R e c e ip t s .......................................Feb.
126

15,691r 15,588r 14,899
235r
236
207
116
126
147

4,006r

2 12

2 12

20
0

145
234
184

4,122r

2 11

FINANCE AND BANKING
Mar.
Member Bank L o a n s ............................
Mar.
Member Bank D e p o sits ......................
Bank D e b its * *....................................................... Mar.

12 1

129
154
60

140

10 2

168

138
146
135
146
61

139
148
135
144
62

139
149
135
151
60

131
143
126
139
64

3.9
40.5

4.1
40.7

4.3
41.1

3.5
41.7

294
223
207

298

296

268

222

220

20
1

209

194

192

4,352

4,089

PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
. Mar.

C o n s t r u c t io n ............................
Farm Em p lo ym e n t............................
Unemployment Rate
(Percent of Work Force) . .
Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.)

. Mar.

FINANCE AND BANKING
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Nonfarm E m p lo y m e n t ................................. Mar.
M anufacturing..................................................Mar.


http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/
70
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

147
155

147
155

146
154

141
142

Member Bank Loans* . . . .
Member Bank Deposits* . . .
Bank D e b its * /* *.................................

M O N TH LY

R E V IE W

La te st M o n th
(1 9 6 7 )

One
M on th
Ago

Two
M on th s
Ago

One
Year
Ago

TEN N ESSEE
IN C O M E A N D S P E N D IN G
P e r s o n a l In c o m e , (M il. $ A n n . R a te )

Feb.
Feb.

9,0 4 1
19 2
12 7

8 ,8 0 2 r
191r

8 ,6 0 5 r
1 93

12 0

110

8 ,2 9 0
178
124

La te st M o n th
(1 9 6 7 )
N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g ...........................M a r.
C o n s t r u c t i o n .............................. M a r.
F a r m E m p l o y m e n t .............................. M a r.
U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te
(P e rc e n t of W o r k F o r c e ) ............... M a r.
A v g . W e e k ly H rs. in M fg ., (H rs.) . . . M a r.

134
165
77

O ne
M on th
Ago

Two
M onths
Ago

134
170r
70

134
177
75

3.2
3 9 .9 r

3.2
4 0 .6

238
173
208

3.3
4 0 .0

O ne
Year
Ago
127
156
82

238
173
193

3.0
4 1 .5

F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G
P R O D U C T IO N

AND

EM PLOYM ENT
138
14 5

138
14 7

* F o r S ix t h D is t r ic t a re a o n ly . O th e r t o t a ls fo r e n t ire s i x sta te s .

139
148

131
138

* * D a i l y a v e r a g e b a s is.

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

240
173
215

225
168
198

r-R e v ise d .

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

D e b its to D e m a n d D e p o s it A c c o
Insured Commercial Banks in the Sixth District
( In T h o u s a n d s o f D o lla r s )

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

M ar.

Feb.
1 96 7

1967

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

Y e a r-to -D a te
3 m o s.
M a r. 1 9 6 7 fro m 1 9 6 7

Y e a r-to -D a te
3 m o s.
M a r. 1 9 6 7 fro m 1 9 6 7

M a r.
1966

Feb.
1967

M a r. fro m
1966 1966

T u s c a lo o s a

.

.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
. .

.
.
.
.
.
.

Ft. L a u d e r d a le
H o lly w o o d
J a c k s o n v ille
M ia m i
. . .

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

l , 4 2 6 ,6 9 4 r + 15
6 3 ,5 1 9 r + 10
1 8 3 ,5 9 0 r + 17
4 6 7 ,2 7 l r + 1 2
2 9 2 ,7 7 1 r + 13
+ 17
8 9 ,1 0 7

+6

+ 11

-7

-6

+2
+ 1

+3
+4
+5
+7

+5
+ 10

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

+1 + + 7
2 2
+ 17
+6 +6
+8 + 9
+ 19
-3
+3
+ 15
+1 + 7 + 1 1
0

120,393

-8

+ 7

l,3 0 5 ,9 8 8 r
4 4 9 ,0 9 5 r

+ 14
+7

+6

+ 11

-1 7

+21
+ 12

+8

6 5 6 ,5 2 4 r
l , 5 5 5 ,4 9 0 r

1 ,38 0,371
4 4 6 ,6 8 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 9 4 ,9 6 2

+ 11

-1

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

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

+2
+8
+22

-5
+ 16
-4

+21

6 1 9 ,4 1 6

5 8 9 ,3 5 5

5 8 4 ,2 0 5 r

+ 5

+6

+ 10

Jackson

.

.

C h attan o o ga
K n o x v ille
N a s h v il le

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

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

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

O r la n d o
. .
P e n s a c o la
T a lla h a s s e e .
T a m p a - S t . P e te rsb u rg
W. P a lm B e a c h

Feb.
1967

M a r.
1966

1 24 ,7 4 1
3 8 ,7 0 6
5 6 .4 9 2
19,6 1 5
3 6 1 ,9 4 0
1 0 1 ,6 7 9
6 9 2 ,5 9 4
6 2 ,6 8 8

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

1 2 8 ,3 0 9
3 8 ,2 0 2

+7
+21

-3
+1

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

-1
+13
+20
+10
+13

-5

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

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

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

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

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

1 0 ,0 1 5
1 3 2 ,6 0 4
5,72 7
3 4 ,6 0 8
3 0 ,8 4 3
1 1 ,6 3 4
1 9 ,5 0 8

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

B ilo x i-G u lfp o rt
. .
H a t t ie s b u r g
. . .
L a u r e l ...................
M e r i d i a n ...............

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

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

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

L a k e la n d

S T A N D A R D M E T R O P O L IT A N
S T A T IS T IC A L A R E A S !
B ir m in g h a m
.
G adsden
. . .
H u n t s v ille
. .
M o b ile
. . .
M o n tgo m e ry
.

M ar.
1967

128,230

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

1 1 1 ,0 0 2

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

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

+ 14

+21
+20

+ 24
+ 10
+ 13

-1

+ 15
+5
+ 14
+ 10

+ 10
+ 6
+ 14

+15
+7
+3
-4
+9
+ 15
+ 10
+ 10
+9
+7
+3
+3

+ 9
+ 10
+ 16

. .

M o n ro e C ounty
O c a la
. . . .
St. A u g u s t in e .
St. P e t e r s b u r g
Sa ra so ta . . .
Tam pa
. . .
W in te r H a v e n .
A th e n s
B r u n s w ic k
D a lt o n . .
E lb e rto n
G a in e s v ille
G riffin
. .
L aG ran ge
N ew nan
Rom e
. .
V a ld o s t a

N a t c h e z ...............
P a s c a g o u la —

6 4 ,1 3 2
3 9 ,7 4 7

Feb.
1967

+6

M a r. fro m
1966 1966

-8
+14
-9
+1
-9

+1
1
+ 17
+9
+55

+8

-1 3
+36
+26

+8 +
0

+17
-5

+1
2

-6
-1 7

+ 15
+ 16
+ 5
+ 18
+ 10
+9

-8
+ 17

+20
+ 12
+8
+9
+ 19

+5
+4
+4
+7
+5

-1
+6
+3

+1
2
+5
-6
+18
+13
+9

-1
+
1
+4
+1
2

+5
+23
+24
+ 15
-4
+9
+4

+21
+5
-5
+4

+ 12

+6
+26

+22
+23

-2
+22
+3
+ 13
+5

-1
+7
+13

M o s s P o in t . . .
V ic k s b u rg
. . . .

5 4 ,0 1 4
4 0 ,8 2 8

+8
+6

26 ,4 4 7

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

5 1 ,0 3 1
3 9 ,3 4 2

Y a z o o C it y

2 4 ,1 8 5

+ 11

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

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

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

+ 18
+ 13
+26

-5

+8

+9
+ 11

+5

+ 11

+ 15

+5

+8

10

+3

15
18
15
+9
+ 15

+6
+8
-1

+8
+6

. . . .

+6

+ 13

+4
+9

+ 10

+ 10

O THER C EN T ER S
A n n is t o n
D otha n
S e lm a

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

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

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

+ 16
+ 16
+ 11

+2
+9
+ 8

+4
+ 13

B r i s t o l ...................
J o h n s o n C it y . . .
K in g s p o r t
. . . .

+8
S IX T H

B a rto w
B ra d e n to n
B revard C o u n ty
D aytona B e ac h
Ft. M y e r s —
N. Ft. M y e r s
G a in e s v ille . .

3 6 ,7 9 3

-1

+27
+ 1
+7

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

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

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

+4
+23
+ 13
+30

+20

8 2 ,4 6 6
8 6 ,6 7 9

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

78,0 1 1
7 8 ,1 0 9

+ 16
+ 16

+6
+ 11

In c lu d e s o n ly b a n k s in th e S ix t h D is t r ic t p o rtio n o f th e state.


M AY 1967


3 0 ,7 2 0 ,0 3 9

2 6 ,7 5 0 ,1 9 4 r

2 9 ,1 2 7 ,4 5 3 r

3 ,8 4 9 ,4 0 6
9 ,6 1 9 ,8 8 0

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

3 ,7 2 6 ,8 4 6 r

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

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

+8

+30
-3

D IS T R IC T , T o ta l

+6
+9

t P a r t ia lly e s tim a t e d .

A la b a m a !
. . . .
F l o r i d a ^ ...............
G e o r g i a ! ...............
L o u is ia n a *!
M ississ ip p i*!
T e n n e sse e *!

. . .
. . .
. . .

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

+
+
+
+

+9

+8

^ E s t im a t e d .

71

+9

+6
+ 10
+ 11

D is tric t B u s in e s s C o n d it io n s

The District echoed the somewhat brighter tone of national business statistics for March. The expan­
sion of nonmanufacturing jobs overshadowed the weakness in manufacturing, and consumers loosened
their purse strings. More tangible evidence of recovery in construction appeared. Bankers assumed a more
receptive attitude toward business borrowers. Meanwhile, farmers coped with flood or drought-like
conditions.
Nonfarm jobs gained in March, but manufactur­
ing activity again slackened. Setbacks in jobs, the
length of the workweek, and electricity consump­
tion—a measure of capital usage—characterized
February manufacturing activity. Further de­
clines in manufacturing jobs and the workweek
occurred in March even though total nonfarm
jobs advanced. The unemployment rate continued
to fluctuate around 3 ^ percent.
District consumers spent more of their rising
incomes in March after several months of subdued
spending. Car sales, though still below the high
rate of March 1966, advanced from the previous
month and pushed extensions of automobile
loans up sharply at commercial banks. Bank
loans for retail purchases, an indirect measure of
spending for other types of durable goods, also
expanded in March.
Total construction experienced a 15-percent in­
crease over February in contract volume. However,
for the first quarter both residential and non­
residential construction totaled substantially less
than for the same period last year. Savings flows
to mortgage lending institutions continue to im­
prove, as evidenced by an all-time record net

72


savings inflow to Florida savings and loan asso­
ciations in the first quarter. A slight decline in
conventional mortgage rates at several District
markets enhanced mortgage lending volume.
Bank lending to business has revived, judging
by April gains in business loans at large city banks.
Having acquired substantial volumes of invest­
ments in the past five months, most city banks
are in a better position to expand their loan port­
folios. Time-deposit growth retained its force,
despite some moderation in the issuance of large
denomination certificates of deposits.
Divergent weather patterns slowed field work.
A record rainfall in mid-April damaged vegetable
and field crops in southern Louisiana. However,
very dry and unseasonably warm weather in the
eastern two-thirds of the District delayed plant­
ings. In March, average prices received by farmers
were well below year-ago levels, while prices paid
by them advanced. District bankers report the
demand for farm loans equals or exceeds last
year’s.
NOTE: D ata on w h ic h s ta t e m e n ts a r e b a s e d h a v e b e e n a d ­
ju s te d w h e n e v e r p o s s ib le to e lim in a te s e a s o n a l in­
flu e n c e s.
M O N TH LY

R E V IE W