The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Atlanta, Georgia September • 1958 4Is o in t h is is s u e : CLOUDS OVER THE COTTON ECO N O M Y LOAN CHANGES AND THE BUSINESS UPTURN SIXTH DISTRICT BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTS SIXTH DISTRICT STATISTICS SIXTH DISTRICT INDEXES ^ feferd Ifysetve Bankcf ^ /a n ta Spending for Better Roads The map below and a completion date perhaps tell many Sixth District motorists most of what they want to know about that portion of the widely publicized Federal-aid interstate highway program to be de veloped in this region—the map shows where the new, limited-access, divided highways will take them, and the completion date tells when the new roads will be ready for use. The routes shown are those desig nated as part of the 41,000 mile network of highways officially known as the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, commonly referred to as “the interstate system.” The entire system is programed for simultaneous completion in all states over a period of thirteen years. Although a study of how the proposed system will improve highway travel would be of major interest, we wish to consider here the pro gram’s origin, its relation to previous Federal-aid programs, and its im pact on highway expenditures in those states lying wholly or partly with in the Sixth Federal Reserve District. Origin of Program The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, approved June 29 of that year, launched the present thirteen-year program to complete the interstate system. Need for such a system had been recognized by official reports in 1939 and 1944. Congress subsequently directed, in the Federal-Aid Designated Interstate Highway System Sixth District States, as of June 27, 1958 Highway Act of 1944, that the Bureau of Public Roads and the states designate an interstate system of highways not to exceed 40,000 miles. The first 37,700 miles of this system were designated in August 1947, and the 2,300 additional miles were designated in September 1955. It was not until several years after 1947, however, that special funds were actually provided to carry out the program, and even then amounts authorized were nominal. For each fiscal year 1954 and 1955, a total of 25 million dollars was authorized on a 50-50 matching basis; each dollar of Federal aid to a state had to be matched by a dollar from state funds. In each of the following two fiscal years, 175 million dollars was author ized on a somewhat more liberal basis— the Federal Govern ment paying 60 percent of the costs of the projects under taken and the state paying 40 percent. Reports of the Bureau of Public Roads in 1949 and 1954 emphasized the inadequacy of progress being made, and Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 in order to accelerate work on the interstate system. The Act authorized a total of 25 billion dollars for fiscal years 195769 to be used specifically for this system and to be made available to states on a very liberal basis— 90 percent of the costs of highway projects to be paid by the Federal Government and only 10 percent by the states. The Act also added another 1,000 miles to the interstate system, bringing the total mileage to 41,000. Funds for Sixth District States The money authorized for the interstate system of highways is not spent directly by the Federal Government. Each state receives a share, as specified in the 1956 Act, which is ad ministered by the respective state highway departments jointly with the Bureau of Public Roads. Generally the funds are apportioned six to twelve months before they will actually be available in order to allow the highway departments time for programing their construction projects. Federal highway funds for the year ending June 30, 1960, for example, were apportioned late in July of this year. The District states were allotted a total of 340 million dollars for fiscal year 1960 for use on the interstate system. With this amount available from the Federal Government to cover 90 percent of the costs of projects on their portions of the interstate system, Sixth District states were enabled to proceed with plans calling for a total expenditure of nearly 380 million dollars in the twelve months ending June 30, 1960. Actually these funds do not have to be spent during fiscal 1960, for the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 makes them available for two years after the end of the fiscal year for which they were authorized. Moreover, “spending” means a formal commitment of funds to specific construction projects rather than actual disbursement of funds to highway builders. Thus, state highway departments have three years in which to commit the funds to specific projects. Actual payment may be made beyond the three-year limit as work progresses. The pattern of spending in each state will depend on the speed with which projects can be programed, contracted for, and roads actually constructed. The funds apportioned to District states, therefore, will not necessarily be spent in any given fiscal year, but they do indicate what will be available for spending beginning that year. The funds already apportioned to Sixth District states for work on the interstate system will bring a very sharp rise in spending on Federal-aid highway projects, as is shown in the accompanying chart. To judge the impact accurately, of course, one must consider the expanded interstate highway program in relation to previous Federal programs to aid the so-called primary, secondary, and urban highway systems— special networks designated at different times in the past as warranting Federal interest. In fiscal years 1952 and 1953, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ten nessee received a total of about 55 million dollars in Federal funds for use on the primary, secondary, and urban highway systems. As Congress authorized more aid for these systems in subsequent years, those states shared in the increase. The latest apportionment makes about 100 million dollars avail able in those states for fiscal year 1960. Funds available as a result o f the expansion of the inter state highway program, however, have increased even more, as shown by the top portions of the bars in the chart Comparatively speaking, only meager sums were parceled out in 1954 and 1955 for use on the interstate system; for all six states they totaled less than 3 million dollars in each year. Acceleration of the program of improvement in 1956, how ever, brought a sharp increase in available Federal funds be ginning with fiscal year 1957. As a result, District states will have 340 million dollars for work on the interstate system for fiscal 1960. With another 100 million dollars available for primary, secondary, and urban systems, Federal aid in these states will total 440 million dollars. Matching funds added by the states will enable the highway departments to carry for ward projects costing a total of nearly 580 million dollars. This total, for Federal-aid projects only, is more than double the average expenditure of 274 million dollars in fiscal 1954 and 1955 on all state-administered highways, including Fed eral-aid and other projects. Authorizations already made for the interstate system assure that highway spending will be sustained at a high level for a number of years. If Sixth District states continue to share authorizations as they are going to share in funds for Allocation of Fedoral-Aid Highway Funds Sixth District States, 1952-69* Million | •1952-60 Actual; 1961-69 Estimated fiscal 1960, and if funds for other Federal-aid systems remain fairly stable, the pattern suggested on the chart will emerge'"' no change in available funds in 1961, a drop to a somewha lower level in fiscal years 1962-67, and further declines 10 1968 and 1969 as the program nears completion. Actual spending, of course, will build up more gradually and will be sustained for a l o n g e r period of time. B ecause •2 • funds are available for two years beyond the fiscal year for which authorized, some projects in Sixth District states may not be contracted for until mid-1971. Construction may well be extended on to 1972 and 1973. In all likelihood work on the programs will be stretched from thirteen years to fifteen years or more. Increasing Costs Will Add to Spending As the interstate highway program progresses, even greater spending than we have discussed seems assured. Estimates submitted to Congress in January of this year by the Secretary of Commerce indicate the interstate highway system will cost about 37 percent more than was provided for in the 1956 Act. The increase reflects principally the necessity to con struct highways able to carry more traffic than originally forecast, the necessity to build new grade separations, inter changes, and frontage roads to better serve local needs, and increases in construction costs. The funds each District state will receive over the entire period for use on the interstate system will depend, of course, on the construction costs in each place. The estimates shown were made by each state on the basis of mileage designated as of July 1, 1956. At that time, the cost estimates ranged from 441 million dollars for the Mississippi portion of the system to nearly 1.1 billion dollars for the Tennessee portion. Mississippi had nearly 13 percent of the mileage, but it was estimated that Mississippi would need less than 9 percent of the funds going to District states because the cost of construc tion there, averaging 652,000 dollars per mile, will be less than in other District states. Louisiana, because of a much higher average cost, will require nearly 19 percent of the funds to build only 11 percent of the mileage. Since July 1, 1956, the base period for the cost estimates, Highway 12, shown on the map as connecting Baton Rouge with Highway 59 in Mississippi, has been added to the pro posed system, as has the extension of Highway 24 northwest of Nashville. This means, of course, that the figures for Lou isiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee now are somewhat higher. About 10 Percent Programed Substantial progress has been made already toward comple tion of the interstate highway system in District states, as the table shows. At the end of May this year the six states had programed a total of 575 million dollars, or about 10 percent of the total estimated cost of completing the system. This figure includes amounts committed for specific projects, committed for use or already spent for preliminary engineering Mileage and Estimated Cost of Interstate Highway System Designated for Sixth District States As of July 1, 19561 And Funds Programed as of May 31, 19582 Total Average Total Designated Estim ated Cost Funds Programed May 31, 1958 Mileage _____________ Cost________ Per Mile State Number of Miles Alabama 878 Florida 1,111 Georgia 1,112 Louisiana 595 Mississippi 676 Tennessee 988 5,360 Total Percent Millions of . °1 Total Dollars 16.4 20.7 20.8 11.1 12.6 18.4 100.0 755 929 906 940 441 1,076 5,047 Percent of Total 15.0 18.4 18.0 18.6 8.7 21.3 100.0 Thous. Millions Percent of of of Dollars Dollars Est. Cost 860 836 815 1,580 652 1,089 942 86 91 127 80 82 109 575 11.4 9.8 14.0 8.5 18.6 10.1 11.4 iU. S. Congress, “A Report of Factors for Use in Apportioning Funds for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways,” Jan. 7, 1958. 2U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. or right-of-way acquisitions, and committed for construction contracts— all essential steps in a complex process. By the time the highway network is completed in the early 1970’s, the interstate system should be able to handle traffic ade quately. The highways are being designed to accommodate the traffic anticipated in 1975. If we catch up with traffic needs, the problem then will be to keep up. P h i l i p M. W e b s t e r Clouds Over the Cotton Economy This nation’s cotton economy is under pressure. Total do mestic cotton consumption has been falling for 15 years. Exports fluctuate violently, and during the last few years have depended heavily on governmental price support. Lower consumption and reduced exports in some years created large surpluses which have been expensive to store, hard to manage, and depressing to the cotton econ omy. Only a little relief is in sight. The United States Department of Agriculture’s first 1958 forecast of cotton production has been released, and if it materializes, 11>583,000 bales will be produced— 6 percent more than last year. Production Up in 1958 The nation’s farmers will produce more cotton this year on about 12 percent fewer acres than were harvested ast year. This will be the smallest acreage harvested since 1876. Because of unusually favorable weather in exas and the far western states, yields will reach a record 1&h, according to the USDA. Those states will supply over 60 percent of the cotton crop this year. Sixth District farmers, on the other hand, are growing cotton on the smallest acreage ever recorded, and weather has been less favorable here than in the far western states. Cold, damp weather in many areas delayed plantings and reduced stands; some farmers had to replant their entire crop. Weather conditions are better now, however, and the outlook is for better quality cotton and higher yields than were produced last year. Nevertheless, District cot ton production will be substantially under the 2,780,000 bales harvested in 1957. The greatest declines in produc tion may be in Alabama and Georgia, where the crop is expected to be about 25 percent smaller than last year. Weak Demand Plagues Industry A weak demand for cotton at established prices plagues the industry. Last year both domestic use and export sales were below 1956. Cotton consumption in the United States has shown a declining trend, indeed, since the early 1940’s when it reached a peak. Domestic consumption is declining principally because competition from other fibers is becoming keener. Some synthetic fibers are cheaper than cotton. Rayon, for ex ample, has been priced under cotton since 1944 and per •3 • Per Capita Fiber Consumption capita cotton consumption has fallen from 37 pounds to around 25 pounds. During the same period, per capita rayon and acetate consumption has jumped from 3.5 to 7 pounds. The newer synthetics—nylon and orlon— were virtually unknown in 1940, yet last year over 3 pounds per capita were used in the United States. The day of the single cotton fiber mills is over, according to a report from the American Cotton Manufacturers Insti tute, and a new type multi-fiber manufacturing establish ment is emerging capable of handling either cotton or the man-made synthetics. As these mills are developed and the markets for synthetic fibers are expanded, the market for cotton fiber could shrink further. Meanwhile, although foreign cotton consumption has grown enormously, this country has not shared in the increase. Only at times when the United States Govern ment has sold cotton to foreign buyers at prices under those in domestic markets have other countries been able to buy cotton from us. Lower world prices and the situation at home have brought about a real weakness in demand for our cotton. terializes, the carry-over next August will probably be around 7.5 million bales—the lowest since 1953. Large Surpluses Depressing Healthy Demand Would Brighten Skies The large surpluses resulting from low consumption at home and low exports between 1953 and 1956 have brought sharp downward adjustments in cotton acreage. The carry-over reached a peak at the end of the 1955 season; 14.5 million bales were reported in stock on August 1, 1956. Since that time stocks have been declin ing. Reduced cotton acreage combined with bad weather last year produced the smallest cotton crop since 1878, and as a result only 8.7 million bales remained in our stock on August 1, 1958. Although we may have a small increase in national production this year, cotton stocks probably will decline by August 1959. Should domestic consumption and ex ports remain at the 1957-58 level of 13.6 million bales, the carry-over next year could be reduced to 6.8 million bales. Since some further decline in exoorts is expected this year, and if the USDA’s production forecast ma- Maintaining a manageable stock of cotton is important, but building and maintaining a healthy demand for cot ton is more basic to a healthy cotton economy. Accord ing to a trade report, this year’s cotton crop may not furnish mills with enough good quality cotton to supply their needs. Shortages in certain grades could cause prices to be bid up and thus further weaken cotton’s competi tive position in the fibers field. The loss of still more mar kets to synthetics may be hard to recoup in the future. Herein lies the most serious threat to the cotton economy. To overcome it and to build the demand for cotton, the industry may have to accept downward adjustments in prices so that mills can buy good quality cotton at prices competitive with synthetic fiber prices. Perhaps that would be a major step toward improving a declining cotton economy. N. C arson B ranan United States, 1940-57 Loan Changes and the Business Upturn Mirroring the national pattern, the District economy has improved this summer. Nonfarm employment in the Dis trict began turning up in June, after seasonal factors were taken into account, as did other basic indicators. Past experience suggests that if recovery is well under way, it will soon be followed by an expansion in business loans at banks in leading cities in the Sixth District, that is, the large banks in Atlanta, Birmingham, Chattanooga, Jacksonville, Knoxville, Miami, Mobile, Nashville, New Orleans, and Savannah. There was such an expansion after the recessions in 1948-49 and 1953-54. By midAugust 1958, however, business loans at banks in leading cities still had not turned up. Business Loans Weak Any pickup would reverse recent trends in business loans at these banks. In July this year, business loans there dropped more than in any other July of recent years— even in 1954, a recession year. Nearly every major type of business, including manufacturing of metals and metal products, shared in this decline in borrowing. In June, however, total business lending at these banks increased. At that time many persons anticipated a price increase in steel, and metal fabricators, encouraged to re b u ild inventories, turned to banks for financing help. Except for March and June, business loans at banks in leading cities have been weak each month this year. At the end of July, they were 56 million dollars lower than at the end of 1957. This year’s decline greatly ex ceeded the 11-million-dollar one in 1954. During the same period in other years loans rose, except in 195 when they dropped less than they did this year. A large part of the 1958 decline came about because borrowers repaid their debts at a higher rate than they did a year ago. New loans this year held up well. An increase in repayments in a recession year is not • 4 • surprising because when sales fall off businessmen fill orders from their shelves and use the money they take in from those orders to repay bank debts. Many manu facturers are still cutting back their stocks although their sales have improved. This, however, is not uncommon; in the past businessmen have often reduced their stocks even after sales picked up. Keeping this tie-up of business loans with inventory changes in mind, we can understand why these loans have not yet increased in the present situation although other business indicators have. Changes in Business Loans Banks in Leading District Cities 1958 Compared with 1957, First Seven Months (In Millions of Dollars) Total Business Loans Banks in Leading District Cities 1948-58* 'Includes unclassified loans. Another reason for the slackened loan demand this year has been the drop in plant and equipment spending. We can get some idea of how large this decline has been from the announcements of plans for new and expanded manufacturing plants in the Sixth District. The cost of projects announced in the second quarter was only about one-tenth of what it was in early 1956, when the peak was reached. Although many such projects are being financed from outside this District, banks here do finance a sizable proportion of them. District banks are im portant lenders to buyers of equipment in fields other than manufacturing, and the loans they make to finance equipment purchases are usually term loans, maturing in over a year. Term loans have gained steadily in impor tance at District banks; late last year, every third out standing business loan originally granted was a term loan. M o s t Businesses Borrow Less The drop in business credit at the larger banks this year has been widespread. Petroleum and chemical companies, food processors, commodity dealers, and sales finance companies all borrowed less than they did during the same months in any of the last four years. Finance companies repaid banks from money obtained through the sale of an exceptionally large amount of securities. Construction businesses, on the other hand, borrowed more from the larger District banks than in any compa rable period since 1954. Need for financing the construchon of houses at a rate ahead of last year undoubtedly accounted for part of the increase. A group of builders in metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson ville, Nashville, and New Orleans recently reported to jhe Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 74 percent more homes were started in the second quarter of 1958 than jn the same quarter of 1957. A 23-percent gain in build ing permits during the first seven months of this year in Georgia further substantiates the pickup in home building, which has been aided by more available credit. J Houses are apparently selling well. The same group of builders sold 37 percent more homes in the second quarter of this year than last. Nevertheless, banks in the leading District cities experienced an increase in real estate loans only slightly larger than last year. It must be noted, however, that these banks account for a fairly small part of funds lent to home buyers. Consumer credit, which is more important at these banks than real estate loans, weakened. Consumer loans so far this year have dropped slightly, whereas they ex panded during like periods in recent years. Fewer sales of cars and other durables help account for this decline. Increases Outside Leading Cities Although total lending at banks in leading District cities declined more during the first seven months this year than it usually does, banks outside these cities enjoyed a loan business much better than is usual for that time of year. Total loans at all District member banks, therefore, in creased more than seasonally despite the recession. Why have District banks outside leading cities enjoyed such a good loan business? For one thing, this group includes several cities such as Orlando, Tampa, and St. Petersburg in which population growth has been rela tively greater than in the older, more established banking centers such as Atlanta and New Orleans that are in cluded in the “leading cities” reporting loans weekly. Secondly, credit demands at banks in many small towns were particularly pressing. Farmers, for example, who rely heavily on these banks for their financing needs, have borrowed from them a great deal more this year than last, judging from reports of condition as of June 23. The year 1957 was a poor one for farmers, which meant that many had to refinance their debts. Others needed credit to build up their livestock herds, and many in North Georgia and Alabama borrowed to buy broiler houses and equipment. Additional comparisons between lending by banks in •5 • leading cities and other banks show that those outside leading cities turned in a more impressive performance in financing real estate. They also financed more repair and modernization work than the larger banks. Yet, there were other more important reasons why lend ing was stronger outside the leading cities. First, business loans, weakest of all major categories, represent a much smaller proportion of total loan activity than they do at banks in leading cities. Secondly, the types of businesses which banks outside leading cities lend chiefly to were not affected too much by the recession. We know that to “country” banks— and presumably to banks in smaller cities as well—retailers are the most important bor rowers. Retail sales this year were fairly well maintained. Service firms, which kept growing despite the recession, are another important group of borrowers. Manufactur ing and mining concerns and sales finance companies, on the other hand, which were hit hardest by the reces sion, are less important customers at country banks than at the larger city banks. Deposits Have Risen Not only did banks in smaller cities make more loans than they did last year, but they also managed to expand their holdings of Government securities and other issues because they were able to retain deposits. In July, invest ments were 9 percent higher than a year ago. Banks in larger cities increased their investments even more— 15 percent—but their deposit growth was somewhat smaller than that at banks in the smaller cities. Can we expect business loans to increase later this year? On the basis of the seasonal pattern alone, they should turn up soon, and if business recovers further, we can expect a more-than-seasonal increase. H arry Brandt _____________ Percent Change______________ ________ Sales________ Inventories July 1958 from 7 months July 31,1958 from June July 1958 from June 30, July 31, Place_________________________ 1958 1957 1957______ 1958 1957 —5 7 —8 _6 .! — 4 — 5 —-b -^8 6 +0 4-0 I 2 —5 + o _7 +0 ____ 5 _4 — 10 —5 _ iq __7 .c +5 .. I? q in o + “ 8 ____ 7 •Reporting stores account for over 90 percent of total District department store sales. ••In order to permit publication of figures for this city, a special sample has been L * is. not confined exclusively to department stores. Figures for nondepartment stores, however, are not used in computing the District percent C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e is available upon re quest to the Publications Section, Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta 3, Georgia. This study classifies economic data for the District by state and 27 trade and banking areas. D is tr ic t Debits to Individual Demand Deposit Accounts (In Thousands of Dollars) July Percent Change July 1958 from 1958 July June July from 1957 1958 1957 1957 June 1958 1958 35,131 722,167 23,186 29,501 241,402 146,974 20,499 50,928 34,978 726,663 23,355 28,529 239,551 139,994 61,451 172,377 36,275 736,759 14,232 64,389 753,891 1,148,090 176,720 79,413 153,564 316,085 117,980 54,878 183,573 33,518 626,514 14,394 63,690 759,119 1,131,635 165,477 76,627 149,060 311,960 109,704 55,474 +12 +11 +10 +2 178,935 — 6 - 4 +9 32,533 + 8 +12 +18 +10 623,355 +18 4 +2 14,877 —1 — +9 58,589 + 1 +10 +5 716,674 —1 + 5 +3 1,109,316 + 1 + 3 +6 167,926 + 7 + 5 86,709 + 4 5 -0 160,894 + 3 — 301,924 + 1 + 5 + 6 106,893 + 8 +10 +9 57,477 36,411 1,648,440 86,774 21,835 100,041 9,6% 50,356 15,927 17,967 107,610 25,104 17,645 37,119 177,071 23,252 54,695 35,892 1,625,495 87,952 19,328 93,990 8,534 49,341 15,782 16,302 101,217 24,032 14,401 35,693 184,156 20,713 53,906 + 5 +7 36,588 +1 lo 1,720,141 +1 - 4 84,308 —1 + 3 19,640 +13 +11 97,915 + 6 + 2 8,088 +14 +20 49,099 +2 +3 15,817 +1 19,871 +10 102,638 + 6 25,501 + 4 ±i 15,981 +23 +u 40,403 + 4 176,325 —4 31,519 +12 69,193 203,207 54,970 81,065 1,238,742 64,665 184,061 51,351 80,804 1,211,772 66,971 + 7 190,595 +10 53,618 + 7 80,520 + 0 1,329,785 + 2 M ISSISSIP P I Biloxi-Gulfport* Hattiesburg Jackson Laurel* Meridian , Natchez* . Vicksburg , 47,283 32,596 273,862 24,034 38,794 19,411 17,843 41,353 29,680 237,149 22,523 36,067 18,414 17,148 4°, U 3 31,088 205,536 23,154 36,502 20,187 20,376 TENNESSEE Bristol* . Chattanooga Johnson City* Kingsport* Knoxville . Nashville . 40,316 287,673 37,631 70,143 206,122 618,139 34,961 291,009 36,718 70,262 198,492 643,465 _1 , , 39,996 281,147 39,026 68,448 212,534 641,221 +3 +4 ±! +3 SIXTH DISTRICT 32 Cities . . 8,685,647 8,400,943 8,627,274 +3 +1 206,521,000 219,477,000 200,572,000 —6 + 3 ALABAMA Anniston Birmingham Dothan . . Gadsden Mobile . . Montgomery Selma* . . Tuscaloosa* FLORIDA Daytona Beach* Fort Lauderdale* Gainesville* . Jacksonville Key West* . . Lakeland* . . Miami . . . Greater Miami* Orlando . . . Pensacola . . St. Petersburg Tampa . . . West Palm Beach*i GEORGIA Albany . . Athens* Atlanta Augusta Columbus . Elberton Gainesville* Griffin* LaCrange* . Macon . . Marietta* . Newnan . . Rome* . . Savannah . Valdosta . LOUISIANA Alexandria* Baton Rouge Lafayette* Lake Charles New Orleans . . . . _ lo _ 0 +3 —2 The first revision of E c o n o m ic S ix th F e d e r a l R e s e r v e Brunswick . Department Store Sales and Inventories* +1 — 2 — 3 A L A B A M A ............................ Birm ingham ........................ + 2 — 1 —3 M obile............................... + 5 — 2 —2 Montgomery........................ — 3 —5 — 4 FLO RID A ..................... . . . — 4 +3 +0 Daytona B e a c h ..................... —6 +1 +1 Jacksonville........................ + 2 — 2 — 4 Miami A r e a ........................ —8 +1 +1 M ia m i............................ — 10 — 1 ______ 3 O rla n d o ............................ — 4 +4 ______ 2 St. Petersburg-Tampa . . . . +3 +13 +6 G E O R G IA ............................ + 1 +5 _j_i A t la n t a * * .........................+ 6 +6 If l A u g u s ta ............................ — 14 —5 ______ 7 Columbus............................ —8 +7 +6 M acon............................... — 2 +11 +3 R o m e * * ............................ — 10 — 38 — 25 Savannah............................— 10 +9 ______ 0 L O U ISIA N A ............................ _ 6 —5 _4 Baton Rouge ...............................—5 +4 —0 New Orleans.........................—6 ____ 4 _5 M IS S IS S IP P I........................ + 1 ____ 3 J a c k s o n ............................ + 3 -7 -5 M e rid ia n **.........................—0 —3 _1 T E N N E S S E E ........................ + 1 _i _ 5 Brlstol-Kingsport-Johnson City** . —12 —1 __q Bristol (Tenn. & Va.)** . . . —8+ 7 ______ 2 Chattanooga........................ + 7 +5 _1 Knoxville............................ + 2 —7 -6 D IS T R IC T ............................ _ 2 +1 —2 STATISTICAL STUDY , . UNITED STATES 344 Cities . . 20,111 43,316 35,371 + 0 — 1 - 3 744,992 —1 —3 -0 4 -1 24,139 —1 — 32,006 + 3 - 8 -7 — 9 -10 264,033 + 1 131,422 + 5 +12 +5 19,444 + 2 + 5 +2 42,471 +18 + 20 +10 +l +5 +1 +11 —3 +10 +* JS i i a JS +3 +7 +3 +2 ±7 S +14 + 10 + 15 +7 +1| +5 +» +4 +"ft ** +' +8 +6 +5 +4 —I 2 +8 +8 t® +3 J +14 —2 —3 i f ± i ±t i+5! +2 +« * Not included in Sixth District totals. 1 Data for West Palm Beach revised to include debits fur an additional reporting off**- • 6 • Sixth District Indexes Seasonally Adjusted (1947-49= 100 ) SIXTH DISTRICT 1957 1958 JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY Nonfarm Employment..................... 135 Manufacturing Em ploym ent.............. 121 Apparel................................... 171 Chemicals................................135 Fabricated M e t a ls ..................... 189 Food...................................... 114 Lbr, Wood Prod., Fur. & Fix. . . . 77 Paper & Allied P ro d u c ts.............. 164 Primary M e t a ls .........................108 Textiles................................... 90 Transportation Equipment.............. 235 Manufacturing P a y r o lls .................. 197 Cotton Consumption**..................... 89 Electric Power Production* * .............. 310 Petrol. Prod, in Coastal Louisiana & Mississippi** . . . . 170 Construction C o n tra cts*.................. 320 Residential................................325 All O th e r ................................ 315 Farm Cash Receipts.........................127 C r o p s ................................... 108 Livestock................................147 Dept. Store Sales*/ * * .................. 173r Atlanta................................... 158 Baton R o u g e ............................ 186 Birm ingham ............................ 131 Chattanooga............................ 148 Jackson................................... 107 Jacksonville............................ 130 K n oxville................................148 M a c o n ................................... 151 M ia m i................................... 251 New O rle a n s..................! . . 148 Tampa-St. Petersburg.................. 187 Dept. Store Stocks*......................... 201 Furniture Store Sales* / * * .............. llO r Member Bank D e p o s its * ..................159 Member Bank L o a n s * ..................... 261 Bank D e b its*................................ 223 Turnover of Demand Deposits* . . . . 140 In Leading C itie s......................... 160 Outside Leading C it ie s ..................103 136 121 165 135 193 115 77 158 108 90 240 136 136 135 119 166 131 186 135 118 166 131 185 78 161 106 89 76 159 1% 84 299 134 117 167 130 181 114 75 158 96 88 215 187 82 317 133 115 167 129 177 113 74 156 91 87 195 85 303 134 118 164 132 181 111 76 159 100 89 226 194 78 295 182 79 325 133 115 165 127 174 110 72 157 91 85 194 183 79 311 132 114 161 131 176 110 72 158 90 85 187 182 74 306 132 113 167 133 176 109 72 157 93 85 172 183 75 297 133 115 170 131 183 109 72 158 91 84 201 192 80 312 133 115 166 131 187 111 73 157 90 84 198 197 81 n.a. 167 283 334 241 99 84 158 156r 149 187 128 141 161 261 288 239 104 90 152 163r 154 205 123 147 115 130 144 143 231 140 195 206 108 161r 267r 216 136 144 99 175 259 294 229 128 103 172 170r 156 169 264 272 257 119 97 161 157 151 181 170 298 293 303 118 92 156 147 147 171 168 309 279 333 142 109 127 146 139 234 132 192 128 99 116 128 137 227 135 174 199 93 163r 269 226 144 155 162 318 301 332 150 134 177 156r 153 164 117 136 99 108 141 151 242 135 181 190 103 168r 273r 229 141 160 106 164r 369 324 406 157 145 176 166r 154 172 130 145 107 168 n.a. n.a. n.a. 168e n.a. n.a. 174p 168 185p 127 159 147 159 244 137 203 191 104 170r 276r 219 141 155 112 167 387 365 405 165r 146 184 176r 169 199r 129 144 106 126 137 165 259 145r ALABAMA Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. 123 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 114 Manufacturing Payrolls..................185 Furniture Store S a l e s .................. 113 Member Bank D eposits..................140 Member Bank Loan s..................... 218r Farm Cash Receipts..................... 124 201 88 121 164 132 189 111 76 161 107 90 248 200 88 298 297 172 330 319 340 142 131 155 173r 159 177 128 149 119 127 151 147 267 148 183 206r 113r 160r 264r 231 152 168 160 330 341 321 104 79 154 176r 167 194 138 151 111 122 121 135 158 166 274 148 185 203 110 160 266r 225 147 166 106 120 166 133 186 112 77 159 105 90 235 198 91 299 164 315 324 308 89 70 152 169r 154 181 132 147 111 132 156 141 267 151 189 201 105 160r 267r 231 144 158 111 220 102 118 139 136 244 145 177 208 103 160r 267r 221 138 145 110 101 123 109 186 100 139 123 111 101 88 220 122 112 185 120 114 187 131 140 218r 130 123 113 193 125 139 221r 127 180 176 284 124 206 411r 199 180 179 287 114 207 414 144 181 177 290 111 209r 417r 180 179 178 287 106 210r 420r 165 423r 184 129 129 119 198 107 140r 216r 90 129 118 191 107 141 216r ia 129 116 186 103 140r 215r 114 128 118 1% 111 141 r 213r 127 134 134 101 173 133 153r 269r 69 133 132 99 170 135 153r 269r 89 223r 197 106 142r 215r 185 LOUISIANA Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. 133 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 101 Manufacturing Payrolls.................. 171 Furniture Store S a le s * .................. 137 Member Bank D e p o s its * .............. 154r Member Bank L o a n s * .................. 263r Farm Cash Receipts..................... 147 133 101 172 127r 155r 265r 123 172 147 154r 268r % M ISSISSIPPI Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. 124 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 122 Manufacturing Payrolls.................. 208 Furniture Store S a le s * .................. 105 Member Bank D e p o s it s * .............. 153r Member Bank L o a n s * .................. 282r Farm Cash Receipts..................... 137 125 124 217 93r 153r 286 118 124 123 217 75 152r 286r 103 TENNESSEE Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. 121 SUSPS"}* EmP,oyment . . . . 120 Manufacturing Payrolls..................189 Furniture Store S a le s * .................. 86 Member Bank D e p o s it s * .............. 144 Member Bank L o a n s * .................. 230r farm Cash Receipts......................104 120 120 119 192 85 146r 232r 103 119 194 82 147r 233r 120 119 191 82 146r 234r 102 68 100 138r 223 83 FLORIDA Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. 178 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 175 Manufacturing Payrolls.................. 277 Furniture Store S a l e s ..................115 Member Bank D eposits.................. 202r Member Bank Loans..................... 406r Farm Cash Receipts..................... 160 GEORGIA Nonfarm Em ploym ent.................. 128 Manufacturing Employment . . . . 122 Manufacturing Payrolls..................194 Furniture Store S a l e s .................. 105 Member Bank D eposits..................141r Member Bank Loan s..................... 214r Farm Cash Receipts..................... 141 121 112 188 111 126 123 212 85 150r 290r 53 101 172 133 153 268 92 138r 222r 82 178 180 287 111 212r 201 126 145 117 133 156 149 255 147 207 207 113 161r 269 235 149 160 113 121 202 107 162r 269r 227 146 157 111 123 107 173 117 139 121 111 112 87 160 158 157 175 132 141 97 122 139 148 233 125 186 193 95 166 270r 220 139 150 110 122 111 110 127p 139 164 268p 141p 207p 192p 107p 170 278 233 151 166 116 202 191 103r 174 279r 237 147 168 222 120 119 103 162 99 140r 223r 113 165 104 140 224r 128 119 103 162 109 145r 226 152 119 104 166 117 146r 230r 142 119 105 174r 107r 150r 231r 147 119 106 176 123p 150 235 n.a. 177 177 288 126 212r 425r 189 176 171 278 100 212r 425r 162 176 171 273 99 211r 426r 178 175 168 264 95 215r 431 r 151 176 167 271 109 216r 444r 239 177 171 280 107 441r 249 180 174 292 108 227r 447r 305 182 176 300 113p 225 449 n.a. 128 117 190 126 114 177 86 144r 212r 141 126 113 177 91 147 211r 150 125 142 213r 140 128 115 183 107 142r 213r 143 150 124 109 167 104 148r 213r 157 125 114 182 lO lr 152r 217r 167 126 113 189 lOOp 146 213 n.a. 132 96 172 148 153 270r 114 131 98 171 135 153r 266r 116 131 98 169 116 155r 270r 113 130 96 168 137 156 269r 129 % 171 123 154r 269r 96 129 95 169 121 157r 271r 115 127 94 166r 125 159r 272r 148 127 94 164 126p 153 264 n.a. 125 123 124r 123 226 97 186r 337r 145 124 126 229 86 184 367 n.a. 117 114 181r 79 161r 249r 113 116 114 187 83p 156 244 n.a. 110 125 121 205 95 154r 295r 79 107 157r 299r 107 88 164r 302 120 119 118 188 80 147 235r 96 118 116 186 87 147r 237r 98 118 190 82 147r 233r 92 111 121 105 170 123 140r 224 126 123 206 80 151r 293 77 200 125 120 210 119 102 111 171 92 147r 212r 126 125 211 226 79 172r 304r 115 221 221 100 207 77 166r 303r 92 119 116 179 85 148r 239 92 117 118 113 181 75 155 239r 104 118 112 178 84 156 242 116 117 179 72 149r 238r 86 122 122 112 125 112 221 122 125 124 90 185r 308r 128 88 186r 334r 143 112 179 84 158 245r 103 Smm n ? lstrict 8,83 on,l'- Other totals for entire six states. **Dally average basis. n.a. Not Available. p Preliminary. e Estimated. r Revised. '"'vras: Nonfarm and mfg. emp. and payrolls, state depts. of labor; cotton consumption, U. S. Bureau Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, prod., U. S. Bureau " ln« ; dec. power prod., Fed. Power Comm. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. All indexes calculated by this Bank. •7 • S I X T H D Mfg. Em ploym ent Cotton Consumption 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 i c a c t i v i t y in most sectors continued to show some im provement in July. Bank lending, however, changed little. Manu facturing employment recovered slightly further, and factory pay rolls increased. Cotton textile activity edged upward, although it is still comparatively low. Construction, which has increased sharply in recent months, rose further. Favorable prices for many products and higher output expanded farm income. Consumer spending held close to levels of recent months. In late August, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta raised the discount rate. Nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted, held steady in July, after re covering slightly in June. A further increase in manufacturing employment was offset by a slight drop in nonmanufacturing employment. The gain i> the number of manufacturing workers was also reflected in a further increa* in factory payrolls during July. The rate of insured unemployment de clined more than usual. Construction contract awards, seasonally adjusted, have been expanding sharply; figures for the first half of 1958 were above the corresponding period a year ago. Cotton textile activity, as measured by sea sonally adjusted cotton consumption, continued to show modest improvement in July. Output of crude oil in Coastal Louisiana and Mississippi was 19 slightly. Steel mill operations, which had been curtailed in July, showed no improvement in early August. Farm income increased in July to well above a year ago, judging from the trend in seasonally adjusted cash receipts from farm marketings* Total crop output exceeded that of a year ago, principally because of larger harveitl of peaches, other fruits, summer vegetables, and some grains. Poultry and livestock production was larger than a year ago, and exceptionally favorable prices for beef and pork benefited farmers selling cattle and hogs. Pricif of citrus fruits and com were higher than a year ago, but lower prices were received for cotton, rice, and truck crops. Total spending, as measured by seasonally adjusted bank debits, declined slightly in July. Furniture and household appliance stores, however, agato reported larger-than-seasonal sales gains. Department store sales, season ally adjusted, declined slightly in July, but probably set a new record in August; inventories showed little change. Loans at member banks in July, after seasonal adjustment, remained vir tually unchanged as increases at Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi banks offset declines for Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Member bank deposit* seasonally adjusted, that had increased almost continuously this year, fell • all states in July because of lower U. S. Government deposits; investment* rose slightly. In August, total loans outstanding at banks in leading cHW rose about as much as in the same month of 1957. Because of increased bor rowings by trade firms and sales finance companies, business loans at the** banks also showed a somewhat larger increase than a year ago. Member bonk borrowings in August were slightly higher than in July. Effective August 26, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta raised the discount rate from 1% 2 percent.
@FedFRASER