The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
IN THIS ISSUE: • Growing Corner of the Nation’ s Egg Basket REVIEW • Lumber on the Rebound • Banking Notes • Bistrict Business Conditions FED ER AL RESERVE BANK OF A T LA N T A SEPTEM BER 1970 G ro w in g C o rn e r o f t h e N a t i o n 's E g g B a s k e t There is a whole lot of cackling going on in the Southeast these days. The noise around the hen houses is up not only because the number of lay ing hens and pullets have been increasing rapidly, but because the hens have been working harder —as evidenced by the rapid growth in egg output per layer. Consequently, egg production has as sumed an increasingly important role as an in come-producing enterprise of Southeastern farm ers. This was particularly apparent during the period of relatively high egg prices throughout most of 1969. Since total egg production in the U. S. and per capita egg consumption have both trended downward recently, the continually ris ing total production within the Sixth Federal Reserve District is further evidence of the area’s growth in relative importance as an egg-producing area. T o ta l E g g P r o d u c tio n Total egg production within the region tripled from 1958 to 1969, increasing from 5 billion to 15 billion eggs annually (Chart I ) . During the same period, total U. S. production increased by about Monthly Review, Vol. LV, No. 9. Free subscription and additional copies available upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 126 8 billion eggs and since 1967, actually de clined. Regional production has also grown at a less rapid rate since 1967, but is still increasing. Recently, indications are that output has been stimulated further by unusually high egg prices. At the farm level, regional egg prices have consistently ranged between 3 cents and 8 cents per dozen above the U. S. average, but have fol lowed the national pattern rather closely (Chart II). The higher prices received by Southeastern farmers have undoubtedly been an important factor in stimulating increasing egg output in the region when output for the rest of the nation has been holding constant or declining. It is interesting to note the sharp dips in prices during 1959 and 1967, the years of abrupt in creases in total production. However, egg prices undergo wide swings in response to even relative ly minor changes in total production because of the somewhat rigid demand for eggs. Although production increased in all six Dis trict states during the past decade, the rate of change varied significantly (Chart I I I ) . The lion’s share of growth occurred in Georgia, where total annual production has approximately quadrupled (up 4.0 billion eggs) since 1958 and accounted for over one-third of the District total in 1969. Production in Tennessee, by contrast, increased by less than 0.3 billion eggs dining the same period. Other states accounting for nearly equal M O N T H L Y R E V IE W C hart I The Southeast has been accounting for an increasing proportion of the nation’s egg supply. D istric t S ta te s 15 B illio n 1958 portions of the District’s growth are Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, where production within each state has risen by about 2.0 billion eggs. More recently, production has leveled off in Mississippi and Alabama but is continuing to rise in Florida. Although production has approxi mately doubled in Louisiana since 1958, the 0.8 billion eggs produced in 1969 could not be con sidered a significant part of total District output. At the end of 1969, it appeared that only Georgia and Florida were continuing the upward produc tion trends that characterized the entire District during the last decade. P r o d u c tio n Per Layer The gain in egg production per layer has been even more remarkable than the long-term growth in total egg production. Egg farmers in the Dis trict can point with justifiable pride to this marked improvement in efficiency. In 1958, average an nual production per hen within the District lagged more than 20 eggs behind the national average. By 1968, however, the gap had nearly closed (Chart IV). That accomplishment is further enhanced by the fact that national aver age production increased by nearly 20 eggs per layer during this period, requiring District pro ducers to increase egg production by almost 40 SEPTEM BER 1 9 70 1969 eggs per layer in order to catch up. A number of factors have contributed to the rapid gain in efficiency per hen: chiefly, improved rations, genetic composition of breeding stock, and disease control. The year 1969 was unfavorable for South eastern laying flocks because of an extended pe riod of unusually hot, dry weather which took its toll on the physical condition and production ability of the layers. As a result, average produc tion per layer in the District exhibited its most serious decline of the decade and fell back signif icantly from the national average. With the re turn of favorable weather, it is expected that the rate of lay in the District will equal or even exceed the national average within the near future. Wide differences in productivity existed among layers in individual states in the early part of the last decade. Rates of production per layer in 1958 ranged from a low of 161 eggs in Mississippi to 209 eggs in Florida (Chart V ). In 1969, how ever, those between-state differences were con siderably narrower. Less than 10 eggs per layer separated flocks in Tennessee and Florida, states occupying the low and high positions, respec tively. Although the productivity of laying flocks im proved in all states, the most remarkable gain oc 127 curred in Mississippi, where production jumped from 163 eggs to 227 eggs, or 64 eggs per layer, within the period from 1958 to 1968. Although production per bird dropped sharply in 1969, it probably reflected the debilitating effects of last year’s severe summer drought and extremely high temperatures. The rate of egg production in Florida did not improve greatly when compared with production in other states, but the annual average per layer maintained a level considerably above both the District and U. S. average throughout the period. Further improvement will undoubtedly be made in egg production per layer within the region, but Florida’s experience seems to indicate that a point is usually reached where increased gains are slow in developing. After 1964, production per layer did not change much in Florida until the effects of adverse weather were felt in 1969. P e r C a p ita Chart III The lion’s share of District growth in egg production has occurred in Georgia. B IL L IO N S L o u is ia n a - 2 n n n n n n n n n m H l . T e n n e sse e —2 nnnnnnnnrill C o n s u m p t io n F lo r id a While egg production and efficiency are up, Chart VI shows that the number of eggs consumed per person has declined markedly since the early 1950’s. But the greatest drop occurred after 1956. Although the trend was reversed in 1967 and 1968, per capita consumption by 1969 again hovered near the previously established low of 313 eggs—55 eggs below the 1956 level. Based on the U. S. average per capita con sumption of 314 eggs in 1969, and based on an estimated Regional population of approximately 24.3 million persons, a total of about 7.6 billion eggs were consumed within the District states last year. Thus, the District consumed only 50 - 2 L i l l i M is s is s ip p i - 2 J l a 0 A la b a m a - 2 II Chart II District egg prices have been consistently higher than the national average, but both series have followed a similar pattern. — G e o r g ia -4 C e n ts Per Doz. A nn . A v e ra g e s -45 \ /— D is t r ic t -2 y\ -35 v U .S . ’60 ’62 ’64 ’66 ’68 in CM 00 to 128 | ’66 i | | | | | | .1 1 ’58 ’60 ’62 ’64 ’58 M O N TH LY R E V IE W percent of the 15 billion eggs it produced during 1969. Similarly, about 7.3 billion eggs were con sumed within the Region in 1958 when per capita consumption was 349 eggs and population was about 21.2 million. In 1958, however, total Re gional production was only 5.0 billion eggs, mak ing the Region a deficit producer. Thus, within the past decade the Region has developed into a substantial net exporter of eggs and appears to be well on the way to becoming a major sup plier for the nation. Chart IV The gap between U. S. and District egg pro duction per layer has nearly closed. No. of E g g s P e r Y e a r F in a n c in g The egg industry has become highly integrated. Producers are typically engaged by contract with a company or cooperative organization that pro vides a market for the eggs and often supplies feed for layers, replacement chicks, and other Chart V In 1958, the rate of lay varied widely among the District states, but by 1969 all the states ap proached Florida’s high level. No. of E g g s P e r Y e a r M iss is sip p i -2 4 0 — 240 T ennessee -2 0 0 SEPTEM BER 1970 129 producer needs. The integrator, in turn, exercises some degree of control over the managerial deci sions of the grower. The grower or producer typically provides not only the labor but also the physical facilities needed for the laying operation which includes laying houses, land, and equipment. To finance his initial investment, the producer typically ob tains a real estate or facility loan from the local bank or Production Credit Association. This loan might carry a term ranging up to 7 years. Al though some loans are reportedly retired in ad vance, many are often extended when the pro ducer refinances to remodel and modernize his facilities. Operating expenses are born by the integrator who, in the case of large feed companies, finances these from internal funds. Smaller companies, in the role of integrator, may negotiate short-term production loans directly with commercial banks or, in the case of cooperative egg producer or ganizations, from the Bank for Cooperatives. Operating loans typically are repaid within a year and are more attractive to financing agencies having a need to maintain flexibility in the use of their funds. The independent egg producers, only a few of whom remain, negotiate production loans directly with commercial banks or Production Credit As sociations. Such loans often have payments co ordinated with receipts from egg sales so that the farmer makes biweekly or at least monthly in stallments until the loan is retired. F u tu re T re n d s The decline in per capita egg consumption is likely to continue as Americans become more diet-conscious and as long as wider selections of high-protein foods become available. If the popu lation continues to engage in forms of employ- 130 Chart VI Egg consumption per individual has dropped sharply since the early 1950’s. E g g s P e r P e rso n - 390 -350 1 1 ’65 L ’50 ’55 ’60 jl ’69 310 ment involving less physical activity, there will be less demand for eggs, particularly for breakfast foods. However, eggs continue to be a relatively cheap high-protein food and will probably retain popularity, especially in the diets of youngsters. Thus, total demand and production will probably increase, though not in proportion to the rate of population growth. The Southeast appears to be well on its way to becoming a major supplier for the nation. And it is likely to continue to increase in importance as an egg-producing area because of its favorable climate, the increasing availability of economical sources of feed, a plentiful local supply of com petent managerial labor, and an increasingly favorable financial environment for efficient pro ducers. G e n e D. S u l l i v a n M O N T H L Y R E V IE W B a n k On A ugust A n n o u n c e m First Security Bank, E r w in , T e n n e s s e e , 3, a n e w l y o r g a n i z e d n o n m e m b e r b a n k , b e g a n t o r e m it a t p a r fo r c h e c k s F e d e ra l d ra w n R e se rve Bank. p re s id e n t; W illia m c h a ir m a n of on th e it w h e n O ff ic e rs r e c e iv e d fro m the a r e J. W . T h r e e t , Jr., L. R e e c e , c a s h ie r ; a n d A . R . M o rg a n , b o a rd . C a p it a l is $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 ; s u r p lu s a n d o t h e r c a p ita l fu n d s , $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 . A ugust as a n e w ly o r g a n iz e d 12. O ff ic e rs a re Ben nonm em ber G r if f in , s u r p lu s a n d o th e r c a p ita l fu n d s , $ 3 6 0 , 0 0 0 . A ls o on A u gu st bank, an othe r F lo r i d a , opened fo r b u s in e s s . K e lle r , p r e s id e n t ; a n d W i l l i a m and c a s h ie r . n e w ly o r g a n iz e d C a p it a l is O f f ic e r s a re E. A b e ll v ic e $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 ; s u r p lu s non H a lla n d a le , G e ra ld A. p r e s id e n t and oth er $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 . on A n e w l y o r g a n i z e d r x in m e m b e r b a n k , Security Bank and Trust Com pany of Albany, A l b a n y , G e o r g ia , o p e n e d o f th e fo r b u s in e s s o n A u g u s t 3 1 . O ff ic e r s a re E. C. L a n c a st e r, bank c h a ir m a n 12, City Ban k of H allandale, m em ber c a p ita l fu n d s , Ban k of E ast Orange, O r la n d o , F lo r i d a , o p e n e d f o r b u s in e s s e n t s b o a r d ; R . E . J a c k s o n , p r e s id e n t ; G e o r g e D . W a l k e r , v i c e p r e s id e n t ; p r e s id e n t ; c a s h ie r . C a p i t a l i s $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ; s u r p l u s a n d o t h e r c a p i t a l A. T e rry C o lv ille , B. P a t t e r s o n , Jr., c a s h i e r ; a s s is t a n t c a s h ie r . C a p it a l is and D a v id $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 ; fu n d s, and R. 0. C lo u t ie r , v ic e p r e s id e n t and $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 . Recent Publications A R e v ie w of A labam a's E co n o m y 1960 -70 , revised September 1970 Reprint of Charles D. Salley’s article, “A Decade of Holding Company Regulation in Florida,” which appeared in the July 1970 M o n th ly R eview . 1969 O perating R a tio s of S ix th D istric t M em b e r B a n ks. This is a summary report of various ratios computed for 1969 from the Reports of Condition and Consolidated Reports of In come. Member bank groupings are by deposit size for the District and for the state. These publications are now available upon request to the Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 . SEPTEM B ER 1 9 70 131 Lu m b e r on th e R e b o u n d The 1960’s marked the end of a long-term decline in Southern lumber production. With virtually no change in employment or man-hours worked, the production of lumber and wood products in the Southeast soared more than 70 percent since 1958. Nationally, the industry is producing only 10 percent more than it did in the late 1950’s. In the South, lumber has always been ex tremely competitive and its fortunes have been inextricably tied to shifting national as well as regional demands, fluctuating prices, and cost pressures. The incentive to modernize, therefore, has been a question of survival. As a result, plant expansions and innovations in machinery have improved labor productivity in the South and have helped firms to operate on a more efficient scale. This ability to constantly adapt to a chang ing business environment has been of paramount importance. The consistent increase in produc tivity evident throughout the 1960’s has been a salient feature of the continually rising output of lumber in that decade. And the expansion has generated financing needs which banks have been called upon to accommodate. The production of lumber and other forest products is found in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee—states that lie wholly or partially within the Sixth Federal Reserve District. Ample rainfall and a long growing season make the region particularly adaptable to the production of the raw materials for forestry products. The Lum ber In d u s tr y In a generic sense, the lumber industry encom passes loggers, sawmills, planing mills, millwork 132 T h o u sa n d s - 30 - 15 ■ — aU SI— M SB — — m— BOM.— M B __ o Ala. Fla. Ga. La. Miss. Tenn. Lumber is produced in all District States, but most of the employment in 1969 was in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. and veneer plants, box plants, and wood preserv ing plants. A particular firm might be involved in one or more of these activities, but for the purpose of this article, the discussion will be largely confined to logging and sawmill opera tions. The principal product in most of the Dis trict is yellow pine lumber, but hardwoods pre dominate in some areas, such as Tennessee and the Mississippi Delta. Lumber production is relatively more impor tant in the Southeast than it is in the nation as a whole. At the national level, lumber ship ments account for only about 2 percent of total manufacturing shipments, whereas they account for nearly twice that much in the District. In 1967, the District states accounted for over $1.5 billion in lumber shipments—about 3.5 percent of total manufacturing shipments in the six states. In that same year, payrolls were $400 million, a little over 4 percent of the District’s total factory payrolls. M O N T H L Y R E V IE W The District lumber industry employs approxi mately 125,000 persons, about 6.5 percent of the nearly 2 million workers on factory payrolls. Thirty percent of all manufacturing establish ments in the District produce lumber and wood products, and at least four-fifths of these are unincorporated enterprises. In total manufactur ing, about half of the establishments are unin corporated. Moreover, lumber is a highly labor-intensive industry. At the District level, the lumber in dustry’s labor costs amount to a little over 50 percent of value added, compared with a little over 45 percent for all manufacturing and well under 30 percent for chemicals. There is also a great deal of activity in the District’s furniture and paper industries, both important lumber products customers. Lumber, furniture, and paper accounted for about 13 per cent of value added and for about 15 percent of factory employment in 1967. The typical sawmill in the South still produces only 3 million board feet or less of lumber per year, and average employment per sawmill is still small. However, the average plant size is increasing, with the result that sawmills produc ing over 10 million board feet a year make up a third of total output. The typical established sawmill today has somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 in vested in plant and equipment, but the trend in new mills is to start with an outlay of approxi mately $750,000 or more. Such a mill will produce at least 25 million board feet a year and employ 20 to 30 persons. There are only a few mills in the District producing more than 100 million board feet and employing several hundred persons. Since the District lumber industry con sists of a large number of small firms, it is much more subject to competitive forces than are other industries. T r e n d s A f f e c t in g Lum ber Moreover, because of competition from producers in other parts of the country, the lumber industry is affected by many economic forces that are at work throughout the nation. The lumber industry is cyclical because construction is cyclical. Shifts in demand for construction materials invariably exert upward and downward pressures on prices, but the greater effect is on production which must undergo fairly abrupt alterations in order to prevent even more drastic changes in inven SEPTEM BER 1970 tory levels and prices. Lumber prices have generally behaved the same as other industrial prices. However, lumber prices climbed much more dramatically in 1968 and early 1969. Later, they tumbled back to early 1968 levels. Another problem facing lumber producers in the South and in other parts of the nation is the competition from other industries (e.g., cement and steel) that also vie for customers among building contractors. For example, competition from other building materials that affect the producers of Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine also affect Southern Pine and, less directly, Southern Hardwoods. In spite of recent innovations, the lumber industry is still seasonal in nature. This is especially true in the Mississippi Delta where, even with the most modern equipment, the forested hinterlands become an inaccessible bog in the dank months of winter. Southern Pine production is less seasonal than much of the hardwood production because pine is generally situated so that it can be more readily reached even during the winter rains. It is noteworthy that District production undergoes less severe seasonal gyrations than does national production. This seems to be related to the South’s climatic superiority and longer harvesting season. Con struction activity is also seasonal and thus con tributes to the seasonality in lumber production. H o w the S o u th is D iffe re n t The Southern lumber industry has some characteristics that are unique. First, trees are more numerous in the South than in many other parts of the country. At the same time, however, the trees are small and, consequently, expensive to process. Because of this there are many small sawmills that are unable to operate with the scale and efficiency of the larger mills in the West. Southern sawmills have, therefore, had more of a need to modernize, and that is exactly what they have been doing during the last few years. New machinery, recently developed by equip ment manufacturers, and the competitive nature of the sawmill industry have forced smaller pro ducers to give up and larger producers to modern ize and expand capacity and efficiency. The debarker and chipper enable a mill to produce three-fourths of a cord of chips per 1.000 board feet of output, and with lumber prices sometimes reaching no higher than $90 per thousand board 133 feet, the up to $25 per cord that paper mills offer for chips can make the difference between surviv al or failure. Meanwhile, the number of sawmills in the Dis trict has decreased from 2,718 in 1963 to 2,278 in 1967. This has been a function of technological innovation and mechanization. The firm that is to survive the rigors of competition must pur chase, among other things, expensive debarking and chipping equipment. The inexorable march of progress has brought the chain saw in the late 1940’s, the debarker and chipper in the early 1950’s, and rubber-tired log skidders in the early 1960’s. But even with the declining number of saw mills, the lumber industry still has far more firms than any other manufacturing sector. The industry is, therefore, still highly price competi tive. Also, the Southern mills still have difficulty competing with those of the Northwest. Douglas Fir even finds its way into the sunny South to compete in Yellow Pine’s own primary market areas. S p e c t a c u la r In c r e a s e in P r o d u c tiv ity The Southern lumber industry has been able to expand its output in spite of competition from Western mills and from other construction ma terials such as steel and cement. Even in the face of declining stumpage quality, progress has not been blocked. Tremendous strides in productivity have made this expansion possible. First, there has been technological innovation and mechanization. Back in the good old days, the procedure was for a couple of lumberjacks, 19 5 7 -5 9 = 1 0 0 - 180 - 140 -100 1965 The long-term decline in Southeastern lumber production reversed itself in the 1960’s, and since then regional lumber production has grown faster than in the rest of the nation. 1970 E m p lo y m e n t O u tp u t p er M a n -h o u r 1 9 5 7 -5 9 = T h o u sa n d s A n n . A v e ra g e s ^ s'N s^ ^ D i s tric t D is tric t 800 ------------------------- / - - 700 U .S . \ y . U .S . «sS = - " 600 1 ’47 I I i ’50 i i i i i ’55 I t i 1 I ’60 1 i I i i ’65 * i i i I ’69 1960 1 1 1 1 1 1965 1 1 I 1 1969 Employment, however, has not increased, but stabilized well below postwar peaks. Output per man-hour, therefore, has sharply increased. No. of S a w m ills Lumber is now produced in larger quantities and by fewer mills, but the industry is still the most highly com petitive of all manufacturing sectors. 134 M O N TH LY R E V IE W armed with axes and a crosscut saw, to attack a tree, fell it, and saw it into logs. At the sawmill, the logs were sawed into square cants and then further processed into lumber. The slabs, includ ing bark, were either discarded, burned along with the sawdust, or sold for fuel. The end of an era is marked by the demise of the peckerwood mill. The days are numbered for the rugged operator who could throw his sawmill onto the bed of a truck and follow the tree harvest. Then in the late 1940’s, the chain saw came into general use and modernized logging opera tions. In the early 1950’s, the debarker and pulp wood chipper came into vogue. This permitted more complete utilization of by-products and to day can mean the difference between survival or failure for a mill. In the early 1960’s, the advent of rubber-tired, log-handling equipment caused more forests to become all-weather sources of raw material and helped to smooth seasonal patterns of production. Hardwood logging in the Mississippi Delta, however, is still highly sea sonal, since operations get bogged down in the winter months. In the latter half of the 1960’s, tree length logging became popular. This freed the sawmill to determine its own board lengths, rather than letting the logger determine them. Also, a good many improvements have occurred within the sawmills themselves. Automated lum ber and log handling equipment have increased productivity and permitted mills to save on labor costs. The profile chipper eliminates a step in the production of wood chips. Instead of chipping the sawed-off slabs, this machine chips the log into a squared cant. The upshot of all this is that sawmill invest ment, while still small compared with heavier manufacturing, has been increasing with the cor responding increase in the size of the average firm. And the medium-sized sawmill today may require several hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment in the form of debarkers, headsaws chippers, profile chippers, gang saws, and con veyor systems. The incinerator is declining in im portance as less and less residue is wasted. Slabs can be chipped; sawdust can be compressed into particle board; and even the bark can be used as mulch. must be acquired. Many larger sawmills own their stumpage, which they use largely as an emergency source of supply. Next, the trees must be harvested and brought to the mill. Finally, inventories and accounts receivable must be carried. Also, equipment must be acquired by loggers and sawmills. Therefore, banks have made specific arrangements in accordance with the specific needs. In the matter of stumpage procurement, saw mills generally buy trees from the owner of the land and the trees must be paid for in advance. This often requires a bank loan with a 12- to 18-month repayment period. These loans gen erally require personal endorsements by sawmill owners. The bank may take a mortgage on the timber, but this practice seems to be waning. Typically these loans are repaid as the timber is cut. Often sawmill operators are asked to co-sign a bank loan to a logger for the purchase of a skidder, loader, or truck. In some cases, the saw mill lends directly to the logger. The logger has to have about $100,000 invested in a skidder, loader, and truck. His equipment purchases may be financed by the manufacturer and, in some cases, by the sawmill. Such a loan is generally paid out in five years or less. Also, manufacturers finance equipment purchases by sawmills. Inventories and accounts receivable are fre quently financed by a short-term bank loan. The bank may take an assignment on the asset. Some times receivables are factored. There is little seasonal pattern in loan de mand—except in hardwoods, where the lending takes place in autumn before the rains and is repaid in the spring when activity picks up. P o s t s c r ip t The Southern lumber industry has fared re markably well during the last decade. Technology and innovation have enabled productivity and output to increase rapidly, in spite of sluggish ness at the national level and quality declines in raw material. The optimum size of firms has increased, but lumber is still a highly competitive and atomized industry. Most firms are still un incorporated and have financing problems. F in a n c in g R e q u ir e m e n ts Needs for financing occur at several stages in the process of production. First, the stumpage SEPTEM BER 1970 R obert E. W il l a r d 135 B A N K IN G S T A T IS T IC S B illio n $ D E P O S IT S LATEST MONTH PLOTTED: JULY Note: All figures are seasonally adjusted and cover all Sixth District member banks. :;:Daily average figures. **Figures are for the last Wednesday of each month. SIX T H B D IST R IC T A N K I N G T IM E N AND S A V IN G S O T E S D E P O S IT S D ecem ber 1 9 6 8 = 1 0 0 ^ - 1 1 0 F la . - 1 3 0 / M is s * / N . > / ^ 'A la . J / T e n n .* - 1 2 0 - 1 0 0 / \ / * \ A / / / " L a - - 9 0 \ ^ X —''' V- i 00 o \ - 1 1 0 G a. 1 DJ i i i i i i i i i i J I 1 i DJ 1 9 6 9 i i i I i J 1 9 7 0 i i I i 1 D DJ i i i i i i J 1 9 6 9 i i i i i 1 DJ - 1 0 0 i i i i i i i i i i J i D 1 9 7 0 LATEST MONTH PLOTTED: JULY Note: Figures shown are unadjusted indexes and cover all Sixth District member banks. ♦Sixth District portion only M O N TH LY R E V IE W L a r g e - d e n o m in a t io n c e r tific a te s o f d e p o s it ( C D ’s ) LARGE D ENOMI NATI ON C D ’S a t n a t io n a l a n d D i s t r i c t b a n k s e x p a n d e d r a p i d l y a ft e r th e r e la x a t io n i n R e g u l a t i o n Q o n J u n e 24. A t t h a t tim e , in t e r e s t c e ilin g s o f 6V 2 3 0 -5 9 d a y m a t u r it ie s a n d 6y4 3 2 Larg e M illio n $ B a n k s p erce n t o n p e r c e n t o n 60-8 9 d a y m a t u r it ie s w e re su sp e n d e d . L a r g e - d e n o m in a t io n C D ’s a re bank d e p o s it s is s u e d in a m o u n t s o f $ 100,000 o r m o r e a n d a re g e n e r a lly n e g o tia b le . T h e se C D ’s a re o n e w ay t h a t b u s in e s s e s , g o v e r n m e n t a l b o d ie s, a n d in d i 1 1 v i d u a l s c a n in v e s t fu n d s , u s u a l ly fo r s h o r t p e r io d s. 1 D J P o t e n t ia l b u y e r s o f C D ’s h a v e th e o p t io n to u se th e f u n d s to b u y o t h e r f in a n c ia l in s t r u m e n t s s u c h 1 1 J 1 D J 1 J 1 9 6 9 D 1 9 7 0 LA TEST M O N TH PLO TTED: AU G U ST a s T r e a s u r y b ills , b a n k e r s ’ a c c e p ta n c e s, a n d c o m m e r c ia l paper (sh o rt-te rm u n secure d I O U ’s of c o r p o r a tio n s ). Under th e p r o v is io n s of R e g u la tio n b a n k s a re a llo w e d to p a y o n Q, th e t im e a n d s a v in g s d e p o s its . T h r o u g h o u t 1969, Q c e i li n g s w e re w e ll m a rke t rate s on c o m p a r a b le s h o r t -t e r m f in a n c ia l in s t r u m e n t s , w it h th e r e s u lt t h a t o v e r o n e - t h ir d o f th e v o lu m e o f C D ’s o u t s t a n d i n g a t D i s t r i c t b a n k s r a n off. O n J a n u a r y 21, 1970, th e m a x i m u m r a t e s t h a t b a n k s m a y p a y o n C D ’s ( a n d a ll o t h e r t im e a n d s a v in g s d e p o s it s ) w e re ra ise d , w it h th e r e s u lt t h a t fr o m F e b r u a r y t h r o u g h M a y , th e v o lu m e o f C D ’s o u t s t a n d in g in c r e a s e d b y 50 p e rce n t a t D is t r ic t b an ks. of c o m m e r c ia l p a p e r, c o m p a n ie s , s o m e in v e s t o r s in e s p e c ia lly June f in a n c e becam e re lu c t a n t to b u y o r e v e n r e t a in t h e ir c o m m e r c ia l p a p e r. C o n s e q u e n t ly , n o r m a lly so m e r a is e f u n d s t h r o u g h c o r p o r a t io n s that th e s a le o f c o m m e r c ia l p a p e r w e re n o lo n g e r a b le to r o ll it o v e r a t m a t u r i t y a n d t u r n e d to th e b a n k s to f in a n c e t h e ir o p e r a tio n s . The B o ard of by r e m o v in g th e te d th e b a n k s to p a y th e c o m p e t it iv e r a t e s o n C D ’s r e q u ir e d to a tt r a c t f u n d s f o r m e r ly g o in g in t o p a p e r. Banks th e n in c r e a s e d th e ir r a t e s o n s h o r t - m a t u r it y C D ’s, t h u s a t t r a c t in g i n v e sto rs. O t h e r s w e re a tt r a c te d b y th e r e la t iv e ly g r e a t e r s e c u r it y o f a b a n k d e p o sit. W i t h to fin a n c e c o m p a n ie s o f J u ly . L a r g e D i s t r i c t b a n k s d u r i n g J u l y in c r e a s e d th e v o lu m e o f C D ’s o u t s t a n d in g b y $67 m illio n . I n A u g u s t , t h e y is s u e d a t o ta l o f $171 m i ll io n in n e w C D ’s, t h e r e b y r e p la c in g $ 1 2 7 m i ll io n in m a t u r i n g is s u e s and a d d in g $44 m i ll io n to th e am ount o u t s t a n d in g . T h e b u lk o f th e n e w C D ’s w a s s h o r t m a tu r itie s . M o r e t h a n $ 1 4 0 m i ll io n — o v e r fo u r - f ift h s o f th e t o t a l— h a d m a t u r it ie s o f le s s t h a n 9 0 d a y s , d o u b le th e J u n e v o lu m e . I n d i v i d u a l s a n d b u s in e s s e s have been th e m a jo r p urch asers of th e se m a r k e t a b le in s tr u m e n t s . a d v a n t a g e s , h a s a d d e d s o m e n e w d im e n s io n s in d e p o s it m a n a g e m e n t t h a t m u s t b e c o p e d w it h b y b a n k s . B a n k s w a n t in g to h o l d o n to t h e ir C D ’s a re n o w fa c e d e a c h m o n t h w it h th e t a s k o f r o ll in g o v e r la r g e r a m o u n t s o f th e se in t e r e st-se n s itiv e , s h o r t -t e r m fu n d s . A t la r g e D i s t r i c t b a n k s , C D ’s t o t a lin g $ 1 2 7 m i l l i o n m a t u r e d d u r i n g A u g u s t , u p fr o m a n a v e r a g e o f le s s t h a n $11 5 m i ll io n in th e t h u s r e c h a n n e le d in t o th e b a n k i n g 1970 w ill h a v e to r o ll o v e r C D ’s t o t a lin g n e a r ly $ 1 6 0 m illio n . T h u s , b a n k s a re n o w in th e p o s it io n to c o m p e te fo r n e w d e p o s it s t h r o u g h la r g e - d e n o m i n a t io n C D ’s and th e r e b y expand lo a n s and p u r c h a s e s o f se c u r itie s . H o w e v e r , to d o so, b a n k s w il l h a v e to a c c e p t th e p r ic e o f a c q u ir in g a n d h o ld in g o n to th e in t e r e s t- s e n s it iv e c e rtific a te s. fu n d s sy ste m , the b a n k s — i n c lu d i n g t h o se in the D i s t r i c t — w e re a b le SEPTEM BER le n d in g se c o n d q u a rte r. I n S e p te m b e r , th e se la r g e b a n k s G o v e rn o rs, R e g u l a t i o n Q c e ilin g o n 3 0 -8 9 d a y C D ’s, p e r m it c o m m e r c ia l th e ir T h e s u s p e n s io n o f r a te c e ilin g s , w h ile o ffe r in g C o n c e r n e d o v e r th e l i q u id it y o f s o m e la r g e i s su e rs in c r e a s e d u r i n g th e la tt e r p a r t o f J u n e a n d th e firs t p a r t B o a r d o f G o v e r n o r s s e ts th e m a x i m u m r a te t h a t b e lo w to Jo h n M. G odfrey 137 S i x t h D is tr ic t S t a t is t ic s S e a so n ally A djusted (A ll d a t a a r e i n d e x e s , 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 , u n l e s s i n d i c a t e d o t h e r w i s e . ) L a t e s t M onth 1970 One M onth Ago Tw o M o n ths Ago O ne Year Ago S IX T H D IS T R IC T Tw o M on ths Ago One Year Ago 355 174 367 r 176 366 164 333 218 180 176 181 134 97 180 178 181 136r 91 179 176 179 137 89 174 180 173 135 98 F L O R ID A IN C O M E IN C O M E AND SP E N D IN G . J u ly M a n u fa ctu rin g P a y ro lls . . F arm C a sh R e ce ip ts . . . . . Ju n e C r o p s .........................................................................Ju n e L iv e s t o c k ...................................................................Ju n e In sta lm e n t C red it at B a n k s* (M il. $) New Lo a n s ....................................................... . J u ly J u ly R ep a ym e n ts ................................................. 264 178 167 183 2 6 1r 205 154 230 259 172 152 302 254 184 204 173 347 329 336 302 3 24 337 316 307 151 146 175 140 173 118 106 127 129 113 194 153 132 55 151 145 17 2r 13 6r 1 7 3r 120r 105 127 130 112 196 1 5 4r 134 57 152 146 173 137 175 119 105 128 130 112 198 154 137 56 150 150 175 143 176 115 111 130 133 117 211 151 140 57 4.3 4.3 4 .3 3.4 2 .9 4 0.5 229 276 189 168 100 294 244 206 167 229 262 193 1 69 253 288 171 183 167 198 239 362 609 3 78 2.8 4 0 .4 230 247 214 167 99 283 241 r 203r 164 226r 256r 197 167 253 287 169 182 16 7r 198 242 354 600 379 2.7 4 0 .4 242 228 255 165 100 286 238 205 162 231 2 54 199 167 251 2 78 166 185 168 194 2 44 342 570 358 1.9 4 0 .9 2 40 265 219 162 106 275 2 29 199 155 225 250 195 166 255 266 167 198 167 191 233 356 536 333 . J u ly . J u ly 3 52 298 350 290 3 50 295 327 273 . J u ly . J u ly . J u ly 237 196 280 235 190 286 234 194 288 229 191 268 E M P LO Y M E N T AND PR O D U C TIO N N onfarm E m p lo y m e n t t .............................. . J u ly . J u ly M a n u fa ctu rin g .................................................Ju A pparel ...................................................................J u ly . J u ly C h e m i c a l s .............................................................Ju . J u ly Fa b ric a te d M e t a l s ...........................................J . J u ly F o o d ................................................................... . J u ly L b r., Wood Prod ., F u rn . & F ix . . . J u ly P ap er ............................................................. . J u jy ly P rim a ry M e t a l s .................................................Ju . J u ly T e x tile s ........................................... . J u ly Tra n sp o rta tio n Eq u ip m e nt . Ju u ly ly N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g t ...........................................J J u ly C o n s t r u c t i o n .............................. J u ly Farm E m p lo y m e n t .................................................J u ly U nem p loym en t Rate u ly ly (P e rce n t of W ork F o r c e J t ........................ JJ u Insured U nem p loym en t . J u ly (P e rce n t of C ov. E m p .) ...............................Ju . J u ly Avg. W eekly H rs. in Mfg. (H rs J u ly C o nstru ctio n C o n tra cts* . . . J u ly R e s i d e n t i a l .......................................... J u ly All O t h e r ................................................ Ju n e E le c tric Pow er Pro d u ctio n ** Jun ne e Cotton C o n s u m p t io n * * .....................................Ju ; **Auug g ,. P etro l. Prod, in C o asta l L a . and M iss.**A M a n u fa ctu rin g P r o d u c t i o n ........................ J u n e J uune ne N ondurable G o o d s ..........................................., Food ................................................................... J u n e Jun ne e T e x tile s .............................................................Ju Jun ne e Apparel .............................................................Ju Jun ne e P a p e r ...................................................................Ju Ju n e P rin tin g and P u b lish in g Ju n ne e C h e m ic a ls .......................................................Ju Ju n ne e D urab le G o o d s .................................................Ju ne e Lu m b er and W o o d .................................... Ju Ju n ne e F u rn itu re and F i x t u r e s ........................ Ju Ju n ne e Sto ne, C la y and G l a s s ........................ Ju Ju n Ju n ne e P rim a ry M e t a l s ...........................................Ju ne e Fa b rica te d M e t a l s .................................... Ju Ju n Ju n e N o n e le ctrica l M a ch in e ry Ju n ne e E le c tric a l M a c h i n e r y ...............................Ju Ju n e Tra n sp o rta tio n Eq u ip m e nt ...........................J u ly M a n u fa c tu rin g P a y r o lls F a rm C a sh R e c e i p t s ......................................J u n e EM PLO YM EN T N o n farm E m p lo y m e n tt ........................... J u ly M a n u fa c tu rin g ...........................................J u ly N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ..................................... J u ly C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................................J u ly F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ........................................... J u ly U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te (P e rc e n t of W ork F o r c e l t ......................J u ly Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in Mfg. (H rs.) . . . J u ly 2.6 3.3 41 .0 3.3 4 1 .4 3.3 4 1 .7 4 1 .7 395 269 289 395 267 300 398 266 306 370 261 282 269 166 270r 227 263 170 263 157 151 1 39 158 130 46 152 139 158 14 0r 51 152 140 158 143 50 152 144 155 155 50 3 .7 4 0 .5 3.7 4 0 .4 r 3.7 3 9 .6 2 .9 4 1 .1 35 0 238 332 351 234 339 344 232 336 332 24 2 30 6 223 185 21 3 r 162 217 187 215 191 131 120 134 118 47 6 .2 131 12 1r 133 116 51 6 .1 r 132 122 134 122 48 6.3 133 124 135 128 52 4 .9 41 .2 4 1 .7 r 4 1 .9 4 1 .8 287 189 212 286 187 213 290 188 218 268 182 205 285 203 287 r 268 286 189 273 20 4 150 158 147 160 48 15 0r 157 146 157 48 152 159 148 162 49 149 160 144 156 51 5.0 4 0 .2 4 .2 4 0 .8 F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M em b er B a n k L o a n s ..................................... J u ly M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s ................................ J u ly B a n k D e b i t s * * ..................................................... J u ly G E O R G IA IN C O M E M a n u fa c tu rin g P a y r o lls ...........................J u ly F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ..................................... J u n e EM P LO Y M EN T FIN A N C E AND BA N K IN G Lo ans* A ll M em ber B a n k s . . . . Larg e B a n k s .............................. D ep o sits* All M em ber B a n k s . . . . Larg e B a n k s .............................. B a n k D e b it s * / * * ............................... One M onth Ago L a t e s t M onth 19 70 N o n farm E m p lo y m e n tt ...........................J u ly M a n u fa c tu rin g ...........................................J u ly N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ..................................... Ju ly C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................................J u ly F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ...........................................J u ly U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te (P e r c e n t of W ork F o r c e J t ......................J u ly Avg. W e e k ly H rs. in Mfg. (H rs .) . . . J u ly F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ......................................J u ly M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s ................................ J u ly B a n k D e b i t s * * ......................................................Ju ly L O U IS IA N A IN C O M E M a n u fa c tu rin g P a y ro lls ................................ J u l y F a rm C ash R e c e i p t s .......................................J u n e EM PLO Y M EN T N o n fa rm E m p l o y m e n t t .......................................J u l y M a n u fa c tu rin g ....................................................J u l y N o n m a n u fa c tu r in g .......................................J u l y C o n s t r u c t i o n ....................................................J u l y F a r m E m p l o y m e n t ................................................... J u l y U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te J u ly ( P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o r c e J t .......................... A v g . W e e k ly H r s . in M f g . ( H r s .) . . . J u l y F IN A N C E AND B A N K IN G M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * .......................................J u l y M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * ................................ J u l y B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ..........................................................J u l y M IS S IS S IP P I IN C O M E IN C O M E M a n u fa c tu rin g P a y r o lls . . . F a rm C a s h R e c e i p t s ..................... EM PLO YM EN T N o n farm E m p lo y m e n t ! . . . . M a n u fa c tu rin g ........................... N o n m a n u fa c tu rin g . . . . C o n s t r u c t i o n ........................... F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ........................... U n e m p lo y m e n t R ate (P e r c e n t of W ork F o r c e J t • ■ Avg. W e e kly H rs. in Mfg. (H rs.) . J u ly 227 171 221r 163 220 180 219 173 . . . . . J u ly J u ly J u ly J u ly J u ly 133 134 133 123 51 133 132 133 11 9r 55 133 131 134 125 52 133 137 132 129 58 . J u ly . J u ly 4 .9 4 0 .2 4 .8 3 9 .5r 4 .8 4 0 .3 3 .8 4 1 .2 . J u ly . J u ly . J u ly 321 226 236 317 219 239 314 219 247 294 214 236 EM PLO Y M EN T F IN A N C E A N D B A N K IN G M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s ..................... M e m b e r B a n k D e p o sits . . . B a n k D e b i t s * * ................................ 138 M a n u fa c tu rin g P a y ro lls ................................ J u l y F a r m C a s h R e c e i p t s ............................................. J u n e N o n fa rm E m p l o y m e n t t .......................................J u l y M a n u fa c tu rin g ................................................... J u l y N o n m a n u f a c t u r i n g .............................................J u l y C o n s t r u c t i o n ................................................... J u l y F a r m E m p l o y m e n t ................................................... J u l y U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te ( P e r c e n t o f W o r k F o r c e J t ..........................J u l y A v g . W e e k ly H rs . in M fg . ( H r s .) . . . J u l y F IN A N C E AND 4 .9 4 0.7 4 .8 4 0 .0 433 291 264 427 291 285 B A N K IN G M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * .......................................J u l y M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * ................................ J u l y B a n k D e b i t s * / * * ..........................................................J u l y 420 289 289r 389 26 6 256 M O N T H L Y R E V IE W L a t e s t M onth 1970 M a n u fa c tu rin g P a y r o lls . . , F a r m C a s h R e c e i p t s ....................., Tw o M on ths Ago One M onth Ago One Year Ago . . . . . Ju ly . Ju n e 249 174 238r 220 238 150 244 157 . . . . .J u ly . Ju ly 147 153 14 8r 151 148 153 148 158 L a te s t M onth 1970 N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g ................................ C o n s t r u c t i o n ..................................... F a rm E m p l o y m e n t ..................................... U n e m p lo y m e n t R a te (P e r c e n t of W ork F o r c e ) ! . . . . Avg. W e e k ly H o u rs in Mfg. (H rs .) . One Month Ago Tw o M on ths Ago One Year Ago . Ju ly . Ju ly . Ju ly 144 143 57 145 15 2r 58 146 156 58 142 153 56 . Ju ly . Ju ly 4.5 4 0.2 4 .4 4 0 .Or 4.4 3 9 .9 3.6 4 0.3 . Ju ly . Ju ly J u ly 344 218 297 337 220 293 344 21 9 286 313 204 282 F IN A N C E AN D B A N K IN G EM PLO YM EN T N o n farm E m p lo y m e n t ! . . . M a n u fa c tu rin g ..................... . . * F o r S ix th D is t ric t a r e a o n ly ; o th e r to ta ls for e n tire s ix s ta te s M e m b e r B a n k L o a n s * ........................... M e m b e r B a n k D e p o s i t s * ..................... B a n k D e b i t s * / * * .......................................... ‘ D a ily a v e ra g e b a s is t P r e lim in a r y d ata r-R e vised N.A . Not a v a ila b le S o u r c e s : M a n u fa c tu rin g p ro d u ctio n e stim a te d by th is B a n k ; n o n fa rm , m fg. a n d n o n m fg . e m p ., m fg. p a y ro lls a n d ho u rs, an d u n e m p ., U .S . D ept, of L a b o r an d co o p e ra tin g s ta te a g e n c ie s ; co tto n co n su m p tio n , U .S . B u re a u of C e n s u s ; c o n str u c tio n c o n tr a c ts , F. W. D odge D iv., M cG ra w -H ill In fo rm atio n S y s te m s C o .; p etrol, prod., U .S . B u re a u of M in e s; in d u s t r ia l u s e of e le c . p o w er, F e d . Po w e r C o m m .; fa rm c a s h re c e ip ts an d fa rm e m p ., U .S .D .A . O th e r in d e x e s b a se d on d ata c o lle c te d b y t h is B a n k . A ll in d e x e s c a lc u la t e d by 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 u n ts Insured C om m ercial B anks in th e Sixth D istrict (In T h o u s a n d s o f D o l l a r s ) P e rce n t Chang e J u ly 1970 Ju n e 1970 Ju ly 1969 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 t B irm in g h a m G ad sden H u n tsv ille P e rce n t C hang e Year to Ju ly d a te 19 70 7 m os. From 1970 Ju n e J u ly from 19 70 19 69 1 9 69 Year to Ju ly 19 70 F ro m . . 2 ,0 0 3 ,7 7 7 1 ,9 5 8 ,3 6 2 1 ,9 7 1 ,4 9 7 + 2 + 2 + 5 M onroe C o u n ty 7 5 ,6 0 4 7 1 ,7 6 9 6 9 ,2 5 0 + 5 + 9 + 5 O c a la 2 2 9 ,5 6 9 2 1 9 ,4 3 6 2 1 3 ,0 9 0 + 5 + 8 + 10 1 + St. . . 7 1 1,77 1 7 0 7,02 1 6 5 8 ,9 5 5 + 8 + 20 St. P e te rsb u rg 4 0 4 ,4 4 4 3 7 4 ,5 0 6 + 4 + 12 + 6 S a r a s o ta T u s c a lo o s a 1 4 5,77 0 12 7,54 0 1 2 9,69 6 + 14 + 12 + 5 Tam pa 1 ,1 3 9.5 12 1 ,1 4 0 ,9 4 2 1 ,1 1 1 ,1 2 4 - 0 + 3 + 9 A th e n s 2 ,0 8 1 ,8 6 8 2 ,1 1 3 ,8 8 2 2 ,0 0 8 ,7 6 0 - 2 + 4 + 6 B r u n s w ic k 4 ,0 5 9 ,4 8 1 3 ,8 4 7,2 51 3 ,5 5 3 ,5 6 0 + 6 + 14 + 12 . . 1 2 5,01 0 1 0 9.18 3 169,001 1 9 4 ,1 7 3 4 4 ,7 6 6 3 9 ,5 0 0 - 1 0 4,42 3 100,191 9 8 ,1 9 5 + 4 + 6 2 6 ,0 7 3 2 7 ,0 8 7 2 9 ,0 3 0 - J a c k s o n v ille . . D alton . M iam i . O rla n d o . . 8 9 9 ,9 5 6 8 3 4 ,6 6 0 7 6 6 ,2 0 4 + 8 + 17 + 15 E lb e rto n P e n s a c o la . 2 9 0 .4 2 6 3 0 0 ,0 1 6 2 8 0,99 1 - 3 + 3 + 12 G a in e s v ille T a lla h a s s e e T a m p a - S t . P e te W. P a lm B each 4 8 0 ,3 2 8 4 4 4 .1 8 3 + 6 1 6 1,86 8 1 8 5 ,8 0 8 +11 . . 1 ,1 4 3 ,2 8 2 1 ,2 2 6 ,6 7 9 1 ,1 0 6 ,2 4 4 7 9 0 ,0 20 7 9 ,3 0 9 - 7 +6 1 0 3,36 4 - 5 + 38 5 7 ,0 7 7 5 6 ,6 22 5 4 ,4 05 . . 1 1 6 ,8 9 9 1 1 5,745 115,431 . . + 9 + 7 . . L a G ra n g e . . 2 3 ,3 0 8 2 4,111 2 4 ,0 5 8 6 8 3 ,3 1 0 6 5 7 ,7 7 5 7 0 6 ,4 0 4 + 4 - +10 N e w n an . . 3 4 ,0 0 7 3 1 ,5 5 2 2 9 ,0 6 4 - 4 + 17 + 15 + 8 + 15 + 18 . . 9 8 ,2 5 5 99 ,2 61 9 4 ,2 1 4 . . 7 1 ,9 5 9 6 7 ,8 75 6 9 ,0 7 4 . 1 4 ,3 82 13,143 1 6 2,10 0 16 1,54 6 1 7 7,78 0 + 0 - 8 ,3 1 0 7 ,4 6 6 8 ,1 0 7 + 11 + 3 . 3 1 6 ,0 1 7 3 0 5 ,0 6 9 + 4 + 8 + 6 3 1 2 ,7 5 0 2 9 8 ,8 6 5 29 2 ,8 2 4 + 5 + 7 + 3 A le x a n d ria M a co n 3 8 2 ,3 3 3 3 4 0 ,2 9 6 3 3 6 ,2 3 8 + 12 + 14 + 5 B u n k ie + 1 Savannah 3 4 0,96 1 3 2 8 ,4 4 8 3 5 0,49 1 + 4 - B a to n 9 6 8 ,4 8 3 8 6 4 ,4 0 6 6 5 9 ,0 0 8 + 12 + 47 3 +36 17 8,92 0 1 6 8,93 9 1 8 1,02 9 + 6 - 1 + 6 Lake C h a r le s 1 6 5,63 8 1 7 4,34 5 1 7 9,98 4 - 5 - 8 - 2 N ew O r le a n s 2,9 0 9 ,7 7 7 2 ,7 8 6 ,1 1 9 2 ,8 1 6 ,5 7 1 + 4 + 3 + 5 16 3,80 5 1 5 8,38 9 14 8,70 5 + 3 + 10 . . . C h a tta n o o g a 8 8 3,59 1 8 9 1 ,9 5 6 8 6 7 ,0 7 0 8 8 5,04 7 K n o x v ille 6 3 5 ,3 9 4 6 1 8 ,1 8 9 N a s h v ille 2 ,4 1 8 ,6 0 8 2 ,1 1 3 ,2 9 3 7 8 7 ,6 4 8 + 2 8 2 2 ,4 1 7 + 1 6 4 4 ,0 0 2 + 3 2 ,0 2 4 ,0 2 2 r + 14 + 12 . H am m o n d 5 1 ,4 8 2 4 6 ,2 32 New Ib e ria 4 5 ,7 3 2 +17 13,695 14 ,3 85 + 6 T h ib o d a u x 2 7 ,2 3 5 2 7 ,2 40 2 6 ,1 1 3 - H a ttie sb u rg 6 8 ,9 0 3 6 2 ,6 55 81 ,0 55 L a u re l . . . . . + 12 . . + 8 + 12 - 1 + 3 V ic k s b u r g + 19 + 11 Y azo o C ity B ris to l . Jo h n so n 8 5 ,6 23 7 7 ,0 2 6 + 3 + 15 + 4 D o th an 83 ,8 53 9 0 ,5 8 9 8 2 ,7 20 - + + 13 + 11 3 9 ,3 13 1 4 ,4 68 N a tc h e z 8 8 ,3 5 5 4 9 ,6 9 4 4 5 ,8 1 6 M e rid ian A n n isto n 1 3 ,4 96 P la q u e m in e P a s c a g o u la M oss P o in t 1 . + 24 O TH ER C E N T E R S 7 . . . . K in g s p o rt . 50 ,2 41 8 4 ,9 9 8 8 2 ,9 3 4 95 ,8 19 4 2 ,9 22 5 0 ,7 93 9 6 ,5 2 8 8 9 ,1 6 8 10 0,12 8 5 3 ,0 2 2 4 9 ,9 7 2 4 4 ,6 55 3 9 ,4 2 4 3 8 ,7 72 2 7 ,3 8 8 1 0 2,93 0 1 0 2,39 9 10 0,95 6 1 1 3,40 2 1 1 2,853 10 7,62 8 1 9 3,28 6 1 9 0,68 2 19 8,55 2 . . C ity . S IX T H D IS T R IC T Total 54 ,4 37 5 4 ,4 3 0 4 5 ,6 6 6 4 5 ,5 6 8 ,1 9 9 4 3 ,5 9 4 ,0 8 2 r 4 1 ,7 5 3 ,8 2 1 r + + 4 +0 +1 + 19 - 3 5 1 ,7 44 4 9 ,3 3 9 - 0 + 5 + 2 4 0 ,7 8 3 + 9 - 1 - 6 5 ,2 4 2 ,8 6 9 5 ,0 6 8 ,1 3 9 5 ,0 1 9 ,8 1 4 1 0 7,64 0 9 7 ,5 0 9 10 9,79 3 + 10 - 2 + 5 F lo r id a ! 1 4 ,6 0 3 ,2 9 0 1 4 ,2 7 7 ,3 2 0 1 3 ,6 0 1 ,1 1 0 + 1 2 ,4 85 ,39 3 l l, 7 9 1 ,8 1 3 r 1 0 ,9 9 8 ,3 5 7 + 14 4 ,8 7 2 ,5 6 2 3 B re v a rd C o u n ty 2 2 6 ,7 2 9 2 2 2 ,4 5 0 2 3 1 ,4 5 6 + 2 - 2 - 4 G e o rg ia ! D a yto n a B each 1 2 0,25 0 10 7,84 7 1 1 0,45 6 + 12 + 9 + 6 L o u is ia n a !* 5 ,2 8 1 ,6 0 9 5 ,0 0 3 ,6 1 0 M is s is s ip p i! * 1 ,9 8 9 ,5 5 4 1 ,9 2 1 ,4 9 5 1 ,8 4 7 ,8 3 2 T en n e sse e ! 5 ,9 6 5 ,4 8 4 5 ,5 3 1 ,7 0 5 5 ,4 1 4 ,14 6r + 8 1 3 1,96 4 ‘ Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state SEPTEM BER 1970 - 9 - 2 + 2 fPartially estimated !Estimated + 7 + 15 - 3 + 7 5 3 7 ,0 0 2 1 4 0,76 0 3 +2 +2 +6 +12 + 5 5 1 ,7 21 1 2 8,647 5 5 - +44 4 0 ,4 4 7 F t. M y e r s N. F t. M yers + + +1 + 4 0 +10 - 1 5 - 1 5 + 8 - 0 +12 + 2 -11 - 5 + 6 -10 - 3 B artow A la b a m a ! + 18 9 S e lm a B ra d e n to n + 14 + 1 + 5 +10 +1 +1 - 3 - 0 +10 + 3 - 2 +20 + 19 + 1 + 15 + 1 5 - 9 - 3 - 3 + 8 + 17 +22 - 1 + 4 +8 +6 + 4 V a ld o sta 3 2 9 ,7 8 4 Ja c k s o n 3 9 ,8 3 9 G riffin + 15 A u g u st a B ilo x i—G u lfp o rt 4 5 ,3 07 +15 + 6 C o lu m b u s . 4 5 ,7 7 4 + 20 A b b e v ille . 19 ,7 35 8 2 ,6 11 2 Rom e Lafay ette 1 9 ,1 54 1 0 0,871 0 1 1 2,79 1 R o ug e 19 ,6 67 - 7 ,3 8 0 ,3 0 3 +15 + 18 1 3 9,02 6 - 1 3 6,97 4 3 + 3 - 8 3 ,8 8 7 1 8 7,64 3 7 ,8 6 4 ,6 9 4 + 14 1 3 2 ,4 5 4 2 ,0 5 8 ,1 5 5 1 3 1,65 9 +20 . 9 9 ,2 8 4 +11 +10 + 7 . 2 2 5 ,5 5 9 8 ,4 9 6 ,8 3 2 6 4 -1 0 1 8 0 ,3 6 4 2 ,2 3 0 ,3 7 5 A tla n ta + 7 2 + 11 5 0 8,07 1 2 2 4 ,6 3 4 A lb a n y 6 + 7 - . 2 ,1 8 1 ,2 1 3 3 . - . W in te r H aven Ft. L a u d e r d a le H o llyw o o d Ju n e 1 9 70 4 3 ,7 6 2 A u g u stin e 4 1 9 ,9 9 3 . J u ly 1 9 69 1 1 7 ,2 1 8 . M on tgo m ery M o b ile Ju n e 19 70 1 8 1 ,5 8 9 G a in e s v ille La k e la n d J u ly 19 70 d ate 1970 J u ly from 19 69 19 69 + 4 +11 + 15 +8 +8 +8 + 9 +10 + 8 r-Revised 139 7 D i s t r i c t B u s i n e s s C o n d i t i o n s O n b a la n c e , the S o u th e a s t e r n e c o n o m y h a s b e c o m e a b it stro n g e r. L a te s t d a ta sh o w t h a t m a n u f a c t u r in g jo b s s lig h t ly re m a in e d im p ro v e d , a lth o u g h n o n fa r m u n c h a n g e d . G o o d w e a th e r a n d e m p lo y m e n t c o n tin u e d to drift. The u n e m p lo y m e n t rate h ig h e r p r ic e s h a ve b r ig h te n e d in c o m e p r o s p e c ts fo r fa rm e rs. T h ere are in d ic a t io n s th a t c o n s u m e r s m ig h t be s lig h t ly le s s reserve p re ssu re a n d are e x p e r ie n c in g c o n tin u e d s t e p p in g u p t h e ir s p e n d in g . d e p o s it g a in s . Banks In flo w s to s a v in g s are and under lo a n as s o c ia t io n s are a ls o in c r e a s in g , t h u s im p r o v in g the o u tlo o k for r e s id e n tia l h o u s in g . N o n fa r m e m p lo y m e n t in J u ly sh o w e d s i g n s of th e le ss, a la r g e c o n s t r u c t io n b a c k lo g r e m a in s . h a lt in g its slid e , t h o u g h a s lig h t d ro p d id oc c u r. R e s i d e n t i a l a w a r d s w e re u p s t r o n g ly f r o m M a y N o n m a n u f a c t u r in g a n d J u n e , g a i n s b e i n g b r o a d l y d is t r ib u t e d w it h in e m p lo y m e n t — h u r t by la b o r d is p u t e s in G e o r g i a ’s a n d T e n n e s s e e ’s c o n s t r u c th e D i s t r i c t . t io n b a la n c e , c o n t in u e to s h o w in d u s t r ie s — w a s dow n s l ig h t ly , but m anu f a c t u r in g e m p lo y m e n t in c r e a se d . F o r th e D i s t r i c t S a v in g s a n d lo a n a s s o c ia t io n s , im p r o v e m e n t in on sav in g s in flo w s . a s a w h o le , th e u n e m p lo y m e n t r a te r e m a in e d a t 4.3 p e r c e n t o f th e c iv i li a n la b o r force. I n i n d u s t r ia l p r o d u c t io n in c r e a s e d fo r th e S tro n ge r-th a n -u su a l June, v id in g b a n k s w ith se co n d r e d u c in g c o n s e c u t iv e m o n th . S m a l l in c r e a s e s in a ll ty p e s o f c o n s u m e r lo a n s c o n tr ib u te d to a fr a c tio n a l in c r e a se in to ta l c o n su m e r c re d it o u t s t a n d in g at c o m m e r c ia l banks. I n J u ly , a u t o s a le s p a s s e d th e y e a r - a g o m a r k fo r th e s e c o n d s t r a ig h t m o n t h , th o u gh b a r e ly . Re p o r t s f r o m le a d in g r e t a ile r s in d ic a t e t h a t d o lla r s a le s s h o w e d o n ly a “ m i n i ” in c r e a s e fro m th e p r e v io u s y e a r. T o ta l w as of c o n s tr u c t io n h ig h e r d u r in g the c o n tr a c t s fir s t se v e n t u r it ie s o f m o r e t h a n c o n t in u e s reserve p u r p o se s. S e p te m to d r ift tw o y e a r s. in th e u su al Bank le n d in g la t e su m m er m a n n e r. p ro d u cts m oved u p w a rd in Ju ly on th e str e n g th o f a 2 0 -p e r c e n t in c r e a se in the p ric e o f e g g s . w e re p e rio d fo r a t t r a c t in g c o n s u m e r s to t im e d e p o s it s w it h m a a sam e p ro o n t im e d e p o s it s t a k e s effect. H i g h e r r e t u r n s a re H o w e v e r , J u l y s h o w e d a d e c lin e fr o m d u r in g the are b e r w h e n th e r e d u c t io n i n r e s e r v e r e q u ir e m e n t s m a in m o n t h s o f 1 9 7 0 th a n y ear a go . b o rr o w in g in flo w s fu n d s , t h u s s h a r p ly A d d i t i o n a l r e s e r v e s w ill b e r e le a s e d i n P r ic e s o f a g r ic u lt u r a l d o lla r v o lu m e s u b s t a n t ia lly th e ir d e p o s it in c r e a s e d r e la t iv e ly Egg lo w . o v e rsh ad o w e d by p ric e s , t h o u g h u p , r e Soybean p r ic e p r ic e d e c lin e s advances fo r r ic e J u l y 1969 b e c a u s e o f d e c lin e s in n o n r e s id e n t ia l a n d v e g e ta b le s . C o n s i d e r a b le r a in h a s c o n t in u e d b u i l d i n g a n d o th e r n o n b u il d i n g c a te g o r ie s. N e v e r to b e n e fit c ro p s. N O T E: D ata on w h ic h sta te m e n ts are b a se d have been ad ju ste d w h e n e v e r p o s sib le to e lim in a te s e a s o n a l in flu e n c e s. 140 M O N T H L Y R E V IE W S E P T E M B E R 1970
@FedFRASER