The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
No. 7
Vol.5
FEDERAL
HOME LOAN BANK
REVIEW
APRIL
1939
ISSUED BY
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD
WASHINGTON D . C .
CONTENTS
FEDERAL
HOME
FOR
SPECIAL
APRIL
(939
ARTICLES
Page
Mortgage recordings—a new statistical service
The housing industry—a key to recovery
Obstacles to housing
Albert Farwell Bemis Foundation
202
206
211
213
LOAN
STATISTICS
BANK
REVIEW
Published monthly by the
FEDERAL HOME L O A N
BANK BOARD
John H. Fahey, Chairman
T. D. Webb, Vice Chairman
F. W. Catlett
W. H. Husband
F. W, Hancock, Jr.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK SYSTEM
Residential construction and home-financing activity
Residential construction
Small-house building costs
Foreclosures
Mortgage-lending activity of savings and loan associations
Federal Home Loan Bank System
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
Federal Savings and Loan System
Statistical tables
Nos. 1, 2: Number and estimated cost of new family dwelling units . . . .
No. 3: Indexes of small-house building costs
Nos. 4, 5: Estimated lending activity of all savings and loan associations . .
No. 6: Index of wholesale price of building materials
No. 7: Monthly operations of Federal and State-chartered insured associations
No. 8: Institutions insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
No. 9: Lending operations of the Federal Home Loan Banks
Nos. 10, 11, 12: Home Owners* Loan Corporation
214
216
216
217
217
218
218
219
220
220
222
224
225
226
226
227
227
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
INSURANCE CORPORATION
HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORPORATION
w
REPORTS
Resolution of the Board
209
From the month's news
210
Directory of member, Federal, and insured institutions added during FebruaryMarch
228
F. H. L. B. Directors announced
228
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE OF REVIEW. The FEDEKAL HOME LOAN BANK REVIEW is the Board's medium of communication with member
institutions of the Federal Home Loan Bank System and is the only official organ or periodical publication of the Board. The REVIEW
will be sent to all member institutions without charge. To others the annual subscription price, which covers the cost of paper and
printing, is $1. Single copies will be sold at 10 cents. Outside of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the insular possessions, subscription price is $1.60; single copies, 15 cents. Subscriptions should be sent to and copies ordered from Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
APPROVED BY THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET.
137442-—39
1
MORTGAGE RECORDINGSA NEW STATISTICAL SERVICE
With the cooperation of savings and loan associations and other mortgage lenders, the Division of Research and Statistics presents the first
State and national study of mortgage recordings by all types of lenders.
•
SAVINGS and loan associations are continuing
as a predominant factor in the field of home
finance in the United States. This is clearly evidenced by a new study of the Division of Research
and Statistics of the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board which revealed that 33 percent of the number
and 30 percent of the dollar amount of all nonfarm mortgages of not more than $20,000 recorded
during the month of February were registered by
these associations. This was a greater volume both
in number and dollar amount than that of any other
class of mortgage lender.
I t is estimated that there were 85,160 mortgages
valued at $227,000,000 recorded against nonfarm
property during February. Although this mortgage
activity represented a 7-percent decline from the
volume in January, this can hardly be attributed to a
reversal in the progress of real estate financing, but
rather to a normal decline at this period of the year,
together with the fact that February was a short
month.
The relative participation of each class of lender
is shown in the accompanying "pie" chart which
indicates that banks and trust companies were second
to savings and loans in the dollar volume of recordings; however, a sizeable portion of their recordings
is ascribable to the activity of trust departments
which function within these institutions. These
were followed in order by individuals, "other"
mortgagees, insurance companies, and mutual savings
banks.
Insurance companies recorded the highest average size mortgage during February, ($5,200,); mutual
savings banks were next with $3,400; the "other"
mortgagee classification registered an average mortgage of $3,200; banks and trust companies, $3,000;
savings and loan associations, $2,500; and individuals
the lowest at $1,900.
T H E F I R S T INDIVIDUALIZED SURVEY
T h a t a reader may appreciate the significance of
this mortgage-recording project, the R E V I E W desires
202
to point out that this is the first time that a State and
national survey of mortgages segregated by class of
mortgage lender has ever been available. Never
before have those engaged in the business of making
loans on urban properties been able to gauge accurately the extent of their participation in the total
mortgage market as compared with that of other
classes of lenders. Beginning with this issue, the
R E V I E W will present each month a picture of the
mortgage-recording activity in every State. (See
Table 1.) Readers and lenders may follow the trend
of activities and determine the extent of various
mortgagee participation by reference to this material
in forthcoming issues.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOTAL DOLLAR VOLUME OF MORTGAGES
RECORDED DURING FEBRUARY BY TYPE OF MORTGAGEE
Savings and Loan Associations
^mm^>*^
Mutual Savings
3.1%
25.5%
Banks'^
The recording of mortgages is necessarily a local
function, for every mortgage to be most effective
and assure priority of lien must be registered by the
county clerk or similar local official in charge of
maintaining the records of land ownership. The
data which accumulate in these local offices are a
guide to general real estate conditions and provide
an index of mortgage-financing activity.
As an index of mortgage-financing activity, however, it is evident that the inherent nature of mortgage-recording procedure will not allow for a direct
comparison between the totals of mortgage recordings and the totals of mortgage lending as reported
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
Table 1.—Estimated volume of mortgage recordings on nonfarm property in February 1939
[Based upon county reports submitted by cooperating savings and loan associations]
[
(Amounts shown a r e i n t h o u s a n d s of d o l l a r s )
1
OTHER
1
BANKS AND
MUTUAL
INSURANCE
SAVINGS & LOAN 1
INDIVIDUALS
1
MORTGAGEES
TRUST
COMPANIES SAVINGS BANKS
COMPANIES
ASSOCIATIONS
| Numbe r A m o u n t N u m b e r j A m o u n t Numbe r A m o u n t N u m b e r Amoun t 1 N u m b e r 1 A m o u n t [ N u m b e r [ A m o u n t
STATE
and
DISTRICT
27,666 $68,840
UNITED STATES
3,688 $19,278 19,138 $57,843
2,059 $7,031 22,903 $42,528
994
187
107
490
131
63
16
5,218
108
3,844
1,266
15,662
333
12,295
3,034
1.74
1.40
2.37
4,467 13,120 !
985
638
787
688
1,343 1,670 j
183 1,756
876 1,296
399 3,262
178 f 1,119
162 2,245
27,983
1,834
3,436
5,015
3,289
3,949
2,857
1,315
6,288
1.40
7.06
4.22
2.21
2.83
1.82
1.60
4.27
1,444
163
893
388
2,301
232
1,668
401
838
62
528
248
2,888 8,263
175 1,220
2,027 5,178
686 1,865
20,711
3,004
15,296
2,41 1
2.09
2.72
1.72
995
471
524
1,795
624
1,171
707
261
446
2,579 6,234
642 3,516
1,937 2,718
16,731
7,596
9,135
3.13
2.25
1,120
479
641
2,867
1,395
1,472
920
814
106
4,063
3,571
492
4,977
3,296
1,681
16.803
11,960
4,843
1.80
2.35
155
15
140
1,618
395
385
701
44
93
2,535
555
7I3|
1,043
57
167
653
89
75
460
29
1,866
157
192
1,462
55
5,753
1,521
1,598
2,206
211
217
13,092
3,225
4,299
4,868
363
337
2.16
2.58
1.94
1.28
l.ll
282
U708
167
333
108
104
996
3,387
220
978
197
178
1,814
1,167
101
109
118
82
757
3,696 6 , 4 8 4
154
712
257 1,121
300
444
26 2
354
2,723 3,853
18,637
1,475
3,444
1,097
1,031
ll,590j
2.01
2.71
1.70
3.90
3.34
764
192
141
13
418
2.057 4,594
607 j 906
347 1,238
47
598
1,056 1,852
9,608
2,204
2,231
1,033
4,140
2.93
1.90
1.30
3.02
3,551
436
444
598
409
1,419
245
7,492
899
1,140
1,075
884
2,810
684
3.50
3.42
1.47
2.25
2.23
4.49
1.225 12,002
135
475
1,069 11,390
21
137
31.275
1,173
29,758
344
3.49
5.88
4.61
District Number 2:
New Jersey
New York
2,308
915
1,393
7,658
3,184
4,474
357
127
230
2,356
838
1,518
2,233
1,088
1,145
9,099
4,566
4,533
District Number 3:
Del aware
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
1.659
39
1,205
415
4,387
95
3,145
1,147
213
1,271
28
5
1,047
157
196
51 1
1,359
21
894
444
4,595
83
3,483
1,029
6
1
5
13
5
8
District Number 4:
Alabama
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Maryland
North Carol ina'
South Carolina
V rginia
3,465
198
305
368
475
718
483
389
529
7,872
245
1,492
1,273
798
1,559
562
618
1,325
721
65
46
198
123
8
3,461
285
310
790
567
41
354
60
354
II
270
6,294
277
325
707
1,091
550
1,413
281
1,650
60
69
1,399
2,991
160
53
224
484
159
1,268
251
392
District Number 5:
Kentucky
Ohio
Tennessee
3,546
665
2,390
491
8,281
1,542
6,240
499
520
97
311
112
2.557
418
1,764
375
1,853
233
994
626
4,447
637
3,360
450
62
237
62
237
District Number 6:
Indiana
Michigan
2,196
1,662
534
4,224
2,838
1,386
444
213
231
2,227
980
1,247
1,862
879
983
5,839
2,445
3,394
30
30
67
67
District Number 7:
Illinois
Wisconsin
1,797
1,254
543
4,931
3,475
1,456
247
I7C
77
1,439
1,043
396
893
579
314
3,503
2,476
1,027
District Number 8:
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
2,019
545
673
614
102
85
4,613
1,059
1,994
1,212
208
140
362
81
213
68
1,515
362
832
321
1,050
403
209
363
36
39
2,408
1,077
428
830
43
30
,51
8
43
2,461
268
633
138
101
1,321
6,679
520;
1,979
338
258
3,584
293
23
23
28
21
198
2,277
84
191
142
184
1,676
742
153
23
52
44
470
2,316|
497j
39
120
144
1,516
113
District Number 10:
Colorado
Kansas
Nebraska
Oklahoma
1.754
183
504
376
691
3.601
433
879
717
1,572
IS7
23
53
4C!
71
677
92
185
87
313
654
101
264
58
231
1,412
281
439
97
595
District Number 1 I:
Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
1,341
171
244
203
61
599
63
2,824
417
545
405
149
1,088
220
151'
16
36
36!
20 j
43
550
72
192
108
53
125
888
78
*44
120
221
367
58
2,200
180
175
301
508
849
187
District Number 12:
Arizona
California
Nevada
3,071
112
2,929
30
8,151
339
7,730
82
183
12
168
3
889 4,146
50
136
827 3,958
12
52
1
3.67
1.62
1,720
234
166
417
128
121
363
194
97
217
423
700 2,438
86
15
685 2,352
5
277
1,86 1
1.235
407
791 i
276
381
III
85
441 1
604
-
33,594
14,368
19,226
5,535
389
621
902
650
569
483
169
1,752
53
82
I3,777|
417
13,201
159
4,169 9,648
2,250 3,961
1,919 5,687
4,163
328
217
463
546
230
1,148
274
957
50
43
1.64
1.85
2.CI
2.49
1.92 |
4.67
759
15
657
87
7
43
15,403
2,495
1,161
8,305
1,002
1,287
1,153
1,222
2,528
58.
27 |
2,044
926
426
269
1,953
355
133
825
2
III
5,316
782
579
2,7y8
340
398
419
$2.46
1,051
590
461
467
86
47
199
1
$226,991
7,874
3,444
4,430
59
9
District Number 9:
Arkansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
Texas
9,706 $31,471 85,160
2,999
1,226
1,773
10
3
I
Amount
3,424
434
261
2,482*
86
131
30
5,619
323
554
3,359
443
335
605
!
Number 1
Amount
Per
Capita
(Non-Farm)
1,468
224
145
960*
47
67
25
3,375
830
187
1,639
464
230
25
2,049
117
264
1,149
157
.91
271
District Number I:
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
TOTAL
IIG
110
-
328
165
16
973
544
26
5
117
25
9
324
70
808
140
89
215
36
269
59
1,188
193
191
225
50
417
112
320
31
31
24
71
98
65
4,123
171
3,909
43
7,233
232
6,931
479
44
426
9
70
2,868
64
2,568
236
620
37
37
36
124
221
165
* Includes Insurance Companies, Individuals, and Other Corporations
April 1939
203
in Table 4 on page 224. The period covered by
mortgages recorded and loans made is not necessarily
the same. Lending statistics are reported as of
the date of loan commitment, while recording
figures reflect the actual date of mortgage registration. Further, any alteration in the terms of an
existing contract necessitates a new registration. In
the refinancing (recasting) of an association's own
mortgage, for example, the face amount of the instrument would appear in the recording totals whereas
only that portion which represented an increase of
funds loaned would be included in the monthly
lending figures. From this fact it may be seen that
the mortgage-recording data will usually show a
greater volume of activity than will the information
on mortgage lending.
Despite the usefulness of the mortgage-recording
material it is only recently that there has been any
country-wide arrangement for gathering together
these statistics and making them available in detail
to the general public. I t is true that there have been
regional and local studies made in some parts of the
country. Almost a year ago, the R E V I E W pointed
to the valuable contributions which were being made
by the various "Business Reviews" published by the
Business Administration departments of many of the
colleges and universities. These publications contain
a variety of business analyses and usually include
material on building permits, lending activity, mortgage recordings, and other measurements of real
estate activity.
One association in a large metropolitan area undertook the study of mortgages recorded in its and a
neighboring county to learn the facts about the mortgage-financing activity in its lending area. After
a 7-month survey, sufficient information had been
gathered to enable the Board of Directors of this institution to make a complete appraisal of their lending policies in comparison with other mortgagees
with which it competed for loan business. The report itself suggested changes in policy which would
offer that association an opportunity to extend
its participation in the mortgage activity of that
community.
In some of the larger metropolitan areas such as
Wayne County (Detroit), Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Marion County (Indianapolis), Cook County
(Chicago), and Los Angeles County, there were individual studies made by mortgage companies, title and
abstract firms, and others interested in home-mortgage statistics. In July of last year, the Division of
Research and Statistics gathered together the mort204
gage-recording data available at that time anc r as
able to present a summary of the first quarter of i938
which included only eight large cities and the State
of Massachusetts—a combined population of about
16,000,000. Many important areas were not represented at all and no reports were received from
communities smaller than 350,000 population.
From this small sample it was clearly evident that
a wealth of information would be available if the data
could be collected in a uniform manner throughout
the whole country. Keeping in mind the possible
benefits of such a survey, the initial steps to organize
a cooperative program for monthly reports of nonfarm mortgage recordings were begun last summer
through the voluntary response of several associations
to an appeal made in the July issue of the R E V I E W .
Encouraged by the results of this cooperative
program, and motivated by the realization that a
national and State trend analysis could be developed
if data were secured from a sufficient number of
communities, the Division of Research and Statistics
during the latter months of 1938 undertook a
definite program to extend the coverage of this
initial study of mortgage recording by type of mortgagee. Through the cooperation of savings and
loan executives, the active support of the United
States Building and Loan League home office and
its State league secretaries, and endorsement by the
National Association of Title Companies, and the
National Association of Mortgage Bankers, the
report has grown until in February it included 408
counties, which contained 42.4 percent of the total
nonfarm population of the country and were located
in 46 States. Early returns for the information on
March recording activity indicate that the survey
for that month will be even more inclusive.
SIGNIFICANCE OF STATE AND NATIONAL TOTALS
The question which naturally arises in the mind of
every savings and loan executive is: " W h a t can I
learn from this new statistical service of mortgage
recordings that will be helpful in conducting my association's lending program?"
First of all one must remember that the structure
of home finance is built upon a foundation of conditions in the local residential market and that a
thorough knowledge of the mortgage activity in one's
own community is a prime requisite. However, to
gauge one's position in the entire financial picture
accurately, one must be able to correlate his knowledge of local conditions with the situation in his own
State and in the neighboring or comparable areas.
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
T1OPV~
will now be possible monthly through the State
a n l national estimates of mortgage recordings which
will be prepared for the R E V I E W by the Division of
Research and Statistics. By comparing his local information with the more comprehensive State and
national figures, the manager has a story which
should prove to be very valuable. If the comparison
is a favorable one, the shareholders will welcome the
results, and if it is not the Board of Directors may
well find it a suitable topic for consideration and
action at their next meeting.
From the table on page 203, it will be possible for
any lender to compute the average size of mortgage
made by all types of mortgagees operating within
his State. Such a ratio may be used in testing the
safety of the mortgage portfolio as well as a guide
to future lending. From these figures it is clear
that there are variations in the size of mortgage
written by the same type of lending institution in
different States. There was $1,800 difference during
February in the average size mortgage made by insurance companies in the New York Bank District
($6,600) and those made in the Winston-Salem
Region of the Federal Home Loan Bank System,
where the average size mortgage recorded was approximately $4,800.
The extent to which various lenders are participating in home-financing activity in a given region
is another important analysis which may be made
from these figures. This can be done by dividing
the mortgages recorded by each class of mortgagee
by the total for all lenders in that area, with regard
to both the number and the dollar amount of these
instruments. The percentages will vary in accordance with the difference in the average size of mortgage made. In Illinois, during February, savings
and loans reported 38 percent of the total number
of mortgages registered, but due to a smaller average size loan ($2,800) these institutions accounted
for only 29 percent of the dollar volume.
This leads to another possibility of analysis, that
of comparing a mortgagee's percentage of participation in different parts of the country. A study of
this nature will show the dominance of savings and
loan associations in such States as Maryland, South
Carolina, Ohio, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia, while banks and trust companies obtain the
greatest share of mortgages in the States of California and Michigan.
By studying these reports over a period of several
months (Table 2) it will be possible to discover
whether there is a trend toward or away from a
particular type of lender as a source of mortgage
money. I t will surely be significant if, next September in Michigan, savings and loan associations
are recording 30 percent of all mortgages, whereas in
February these institutions were making only 20
percent of the urban home-property registrations.
One other provision for comparisons between
States is already included in the "amount per capita"
column of the summary table. These figures are
derived by dividing the total dollar amount of mortgages recorded in a State by the 1930 population in
(Continued on p. 213)
Table 2.—Estimated volume of mortgages recorded/ by type of mortgagee
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
Savings a n d
loan associations
Period
Total
Number:
December 1938 32, 934
Percent
Banks a n d
trust
companies
Insurance
companies
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
Mutual
savings
banks
Total
Individuals
Percent
Total
Percent
Other
mortgagees
Total
All mortgagees
Per- Combined Percent
Total
cent
32
5,491
5
21, 970
21
3,601
4
25, 927
25
13, 424
13
103, 347
100
30
33
4,866
3,688
5
4
20, 003
19, 138
22
23
2, 143
2, 059
2
2
24, 974
22, 903
28
27
11, 286
9,706
13
11
90, 555
85, 160
100
100
17 $39, 786
14
$278, 322
100
20
19
15
14
244, 015
226, 991
100
100
1939
January.
February
__
_
27, 283
27, 666
Amount:
December 1938 $80, 838
1939
January _
66, 114
February
68, 840
April 1939
29 $27, 217
27
30
22, 704
19, 278
10 $71, 061
9
9
62, 697
57, 843
26 $10, 838
26
25
7,525
7,031
4 $48, 582
3
3
49, 032
42, 528
35, 943
31, 471
205
THE HOUSING INDUSTRY—A KEY TO RECOVEfY
The Temporary National Economic Committee hearings reveal
the extent to which the smooth working of our economic
system depends upon the continued revival of house building.
•
I N 1937, this country reached a peak in its
economic recovery. In that year, the output of
shoes, of cotton textiles, of cigarettes and similar
non-durable goods stood at the highest levels in
history. Yet in t h a t same year, we built less than
half as many houses as we built annually on the
average during the decade 1920-1929. We produced less pig iron, cement, lumber, automobiles
and other durable goods than in earlier years.
Why did this marked difference exist between the
production of durable goods such as houses and the
output of non-durable necessities of every day life
such as shoes and clothing? Testimony before the
Temporary National Economic Committee by Dr.
Isador Lubin, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, in
his review of the performance of the American
economic system in recent years, revealed that
"apparently the modern depression is a durable
goods depression". 1 When we speak of durable
goods we mean goods that are consumed over a
period of years: houses, automobiles, refrigerators,
furniture, machinery, transportation equipment.
These are among the first things which people stop
buying. Some of these products are used directly
by consumers, and some are used in producing other
goods. A rule-of-thumb definition would include
under durable goods most products for which we postpone our expenditures. We must have food from
day to day, we must have clothes and shoes, but we
often make an automobile last an extra year or two
and we defer a proposed expenditure for building or
modernizing a house, or for renting better quarters.
Yet Commissioner Lubin's review of the ways in
which our economic system has operated in the past
and during recent years makes it clear that for continued recovery it is of prime importance today to
stimulate the durable goods industries. The housing
industry is expected to play the key role in supplying
this stimulus.
i The Temporary National Economic Committee, suggested by the President
in a message on Apr. 29,1938, was authorized by a joint resolution of the Senate
and the House of Kepresentatives, approved June 16, 1938. Included in the
duties of the Committee was a thorough study of the basic factors underlying
the operation of our national economy.
206
T R E N D S IN O U R NATIONAL ECONOMY
These hearings revealed that from 1850 to 1929
our physical output of goods was increasing more
rapidly than our population was growing. The infrequent declines were brief and previous high levels
were soon surpassed. In 1929 our manufacturing
industries were producing approximately three times
as much in total as in 1899, and twice as much for
each consumer.
Since 1929, however, there has been a sharp contrast to these trends. In no one of the last nine
years has the total output of American industry
UNITED STATES NATIONAL INCOME
PER CAPITA
OOIXARS
DOLL
1
A
700
1
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
O
"1850
160
'70
'80
'90
1900
'10
'20
'30
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND W. I. KING
The national income is a reasonably accurate measure in dollar terms
of the net volume of goods and services made available to the people of
the United States each year. There was an almost uninterrupted increase from 1850 until 1929 both in total national income and in per capita
national income. Since 1929, both figures have dropped off sharply and
have in no succeeding year approached the 1929 level.
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
re^ hed the high levels of earlier years. As a result,
in v *J32 the per capita volume of industrial production was at the level of 1899. In 1938, it was estimated, the per capita volume had risen only to the
1905 level.
What has been the result of this nine years of
maladjustment in our economic system? One answer was supplied by Commissioner Lubin in graphic
terms. He pointed out as a result of the failure of
our economic system to function smoothly and
regularly, that, eliminating the effect of price changes,
UNITED STATES INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
1899=100
INDEX
TOTAL
300[
uA
r
r
I
1/* VV
h
250[
•
200[
150k
/
IOOL
,*
50
1
^V
/\t
rV
/
!\
f
INDEX
200
150
PER CAPITA
300
250
/\
^ '
^
186,J65
s*<V
^V
r*
r"*s
tf* i
V
200
A
V f\
"70 75 180 B5 90 '95 1900'05 "10 '15 '20 "25 30 '35
150
100
50
0
Fi om t he Civil Wf ir to 1929 output of factories increased much more
rapi dlyt ban the popillation, with the exception of a few scattered y ears.
Froin 187 0 to 1900 to tal output multiplied 5 times; per capita oiLtput
2H times . In 1929 frtvice as much goods were being produced for each
as had bee*n produced in 1899. For the nine years, 1930cons umei*ustrial
prodiiction has averaged nearly 15 percent smaller than
1938 ind
in tlle pr eceding nine years, despite an increasing population.
there was a real loss in national income over the last
nine years of over $130,000,000,000. In other
words, had our economic system functioned as effectively in the nine years from 1930 to 1938 as it did
in 1929, and this amount of income in terms of physical goods had not been lost, there would have been
available an additional thousand dollars for every
man, woman, and child in this country.
This basic weakness in the operation of our
national economy can be reduced to a simple stateApril 1939
ADJUSTED TO 1929 PRICES
If our economic system had functioned as effectively in the nine years
from 1930 to 1938 as it did in 1929, the people of this country would have
had 133 billion dollars more real income than they actually had.
250
50
200h
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
300
100
y
NATIONAL INCOME LOST IN DEPRESSION
ment: Although from 1930 to 1938 we had an increasing number of people to clothe, to feed, and to
shelter, our industry in no year produced as much
in total output as in the late 1920's.
I t is notable that the sharpest declines after 1929
took place in the industries producing durable goods.
The chart of the Federal Reserve index of manufacturing production on the following page shows
clearly that during this period of time non-durable
goods production varied very little. Every break
in the index of total manufacturing was caused
primarily by a break in the durable goods industry.
One factor which made the sharp declines in
durable goods production even more important to
our national economy was that over the course of
time durable goods have come to play an increasingly
important part. In 1879, for example, durable
goods made up 31 percent of our industrial output
but by 1929 they constituted 44 percent, according
to estimates of the National Bureau of Economic
Research. In the years following 1929 industrial
production has averaged nearly 15 percent smaller
than in the preceding nine years and the proportion
of the total output which is made up of durable
goods has fallen relatively swiftly. In 1933, durable
goods constituted only 27 percent of our total output
of commodities.
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Industries which produce durable goods include a
large group intimately allied with building. Iron,
steel, steel products, lumber and furniture, stone,
207
clay, glass, brick and tile are all vitally affected by the
condition of the building industry, in which residential construction is the most significant factor.
The actual number of nonfarm residences which
were built fell from 937,000 units in 1925 to 54,000
in 1933. Even in 1938, residential construction is
estimated at only 347,000 units.
We are now experiencing a revival in home building, but the rate of this recovery varies greatly in
different parts of the country. In the South, for
example, home building is moving much faster
relatively than in the Northeast. The North
Central States occupy a place intermediate between
the Northeast and the South, but the South is building new houses at a greater rate than any other part
of the United States.
Industrial production itself never moved in such
violent swings from peak activity to depression lows
as did residential building, but those durable goods
industries dependent in large part upon home-construction activity have been seriously retarded in
their recovery. Lumber, for example, shows this
picture: 41 billion feet produced in 1925, 10 billion
produced in 1932—a drop of 75 percent. In 1937
the lumber industry was not even back to the 1921
production level. This same general trend is sb^wn
by the cement industry and by other major ii .wastries which depend upon home building.
T H E HOUSING INDUSTRY AND RECOVERY
I t was clearly indicated in the testimony that the
recovery which reached its peak in 1937 was most
marked in durable goods industries, but with a few
exceptions the output of these products failed to
regain the ground lost since 1929. In large part
this was due to the slow rate of improvement of the
construction industry. Commissioner Lubin summed
up his analysis with the statement that we must keep
the durable goods industries going if we are to have
continued recovery, and that the requisite stimulus
may be looked for immediately in the housing industry. He pointed out that housing still has a
tremendous distance to go before its output even
approaches the present rate of total industrial
production.
Home-financing institutions will be especially
interested in Commissioner Lubin's conclusions as
to the outlook for home building. In brief, he
stated that prior to the last decade we had more
and more people to house, and that in itself created
FEDERAL RESERVE INDEX OF MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION
ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL VARIATION
1 9 2 3 - 2 5 AVERAGE FOR TOTAL * 100 POINTS
POINTS IN
TOTAL INDEX
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
POINTS IN
TOTAL INDEX
1933
PREPARED BY THE STAFFS OF THE CENTRAL STATISTICAL BOARD AND THE NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
During the past few years, production of non-durable goods varied very little. The production of durable goods was much more severely affected by the
depression, and showed the most marked improvement during the recovery which reached its peak in 1937. Every break in the index of total manufacturing
was primarily caused by a break in the production of durable goods.
208
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
a ( rket for industry. The rate of growth of our
population, however, is declining. In 1960 it is
estimated that there will be but 10 percent more
people in the United States than there will be in
1940. This means in turn that the housing industry,
like all industrial production, will have to find its
market not in a growing population but in a higher
standard of living for the people already here.
In his opinion, if we are able to stimulate and keep
going the durable goods industries, the income of
workers will be increased and factory pay rolls will
remain more or less stable. The opportunities for
building, selling, and renting houses will likewise
increase. We cannot expect, however, to maintain
house building at high levels unless we have some
stability in the incomes of our wage earners, bearing
in mind that approximately half of the people in
the country are wage earners.
FAMILY INCOMES AND THE H O U S I N G M A R K E T
The fact was stressed that American industry
cannot expect to maintain itself profitably in the
future on sales to the income group that receives
$2,500 or more (less than 13 percent of all our families, and in numbers a population approximately
equal to that of the State of New York). Even in
the income range of $1,250 and above, we only reach
approximately one-half of our families. "Half our
market in this country for these industries that produce these goods and employ our laborers lies in
families that earn less than $1,250 a year."
Two points stand out clearly from the mass of
data submitted at the hearings: (1) The market for
homes in the future is going to depend more and
more on a higher standard of product for a relatively
static population, less and less on a need for new
homes to accomodate a steadily increasing number of
families; (2) the housing industry, like other industrial producers, must build good houses in volume
for the families of moderate means in order to tap
this vast potential market in which one family out
of every two has an income below $1,250.
From 1930-1938, American industry, geared for
the most part to large-scale production, failed to
operate at full capacity. Wider markets are needed
for its products today if the necessary expansion is
to take place. The home-building industry, which is
expected to provide the essential stimulus to the
durable goods industries, can find a vast outlet for
its products by finding means of meeting more
adequately the needs of the 16 million American
families which receive incomes of $1,250 or less.
April 1939
137442—39
Resolution of the Board
AMENDMENT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN SYSTEM, AUTHORIZING
FEDERALS TO CONVERT INTO STATE-CHARTERED THRIFT
AND HOME-FINANCING INSTITUTIONS: Adopted March
13, 1939; effective March 14, 1939.
A new section 204.6 was added to the Rules and
Regulations for the Federal Savings and Loan
System, which reads as follows:
204.6 Conversion into a State-chartered institution. Any
Federal association may convert itself into a State-chartered
thrift and home-financing institution, upon the vote, cast at
a legal meeting called to consider such action, specified by
the law of the State in which the home office of the Federal
association is located, as required by such law for a Statechartered institution to convert itself into a Federal association, and upon compliance with other requirements reciprocally equivalent to the requirements of such State law
for the conversion of a State-chartered institution into a
Federal association, provided legal titles are protected by
such conversion or provided proper conveyances of legal
titles are made.
Spending Habits of Factory Workers
•
I N the majority of cases, from 75 to 100 percent of the earnings of factory workers' families
are spent by the end of the day following pay day,
according to a recent study of factory wage earners
and their families in 16 cities. Home-financing institutions will find interesting data disclosed by this
study by the Ross Federal Research Corporation,
reported in the United States Department of Labor's
Monthly Labor Review for January 1939. Approximately one family out of every two would spend a
moderate increase in pay in moving to a better home,
in making the present home more attractive, or in
buying or building a house. Important from the
point of view of market study was the fact that
more men than women stated that they would use an
increase in salary to buy or build a house, but that
women are apparently more interested than men
in improving the attractiveness of their present
dwellings.
Institutions seeking investments from the public
will pay attention to the fact that more women than
men would use a moderate increase in pay to increase
savings. Very few wage earners in any group or
city expected earnings in 1939 to be less than in
1938, with one-third expecting them to be greater
and one-third expecting them to be the same.
209
2
«
« « FROM THE MONTH'S NEWS
DUTY: " I believe it is the duty of
every private citizen and every public
official to cooperate in creating in
every community in this land institutions directed and managed by worthy
citizens of that commnuity who provide thrift and savings facilities, and
who take the leadership in assisting
people to own, build, buy, or repair
homes."
Frank W. Hancock, Jr., Member,
Federal Home Loan Bank Board,
Meeting of the North Central Conference of the U. S. Building and
Loan League.
NO TRUCE: "To date there has been
no real reconciliation between technical improvements and labor displacements in the construction industry,
but for that matter, there has never
been any such reconciliation in any
industry. ,,
M. H. Hedges, Director of Research,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Public Housing
Progress, February 19S9.
AGREEMENT; "While the 200 specialists present showed substantial agreement on the virtues of standardization,
prefabrication of parts, integration of
structure and equipment, and modular
planning, there was little concrete evidence that the building industry was,
except in isolated cases, doing anything about it."
Report of the Yale-Life Conference
on House Building Technics, Architectural Forum, March 1989.
PROTECTION: " I t is sometimes said
that the F. D. I. C. insures liquidity
and the F. S. L. I. C. insures safety.
The statement is not true, for both
insure both liquidity and safety, and
to the same degree."
Ray B. Westerfield in Bankers*
Monthly, March 19S9.
NEED: "More than a good five-cent
cigar, this country needs a better
dwelling unit at a price to fit the purse
of the great mass of our people. The
satisfaction of this great need could
busy the nation for years and years
and do more to dispel the unemployment of both men and money than any
pursuit of a mythical golden calf."
L. Seth Schnitman, Barron's Financial Weekly, February VJ, 1999.
210
» » >
Monetary Ease
"In recent years it has been the policy of the Government and of the
Federal Reserve System to encourage the expansion of credit. This
has constituted the so-called policy of monetary ease, which has been
directed at keeping banks supplied with an abundant volume of
reserves, so as to encourage them to expand their loans and investments. This policy has been one of the factors in the creation of the
existing large volume of deposits in the hands of business enterprises
and of individual and corporate investors, and has resulted in reducing
interest rates to the lowest level in history. It has been reflected in a
decline in the carrying charges on mortgage debt for farmers and urban
householders, has enabled many corporations to refund their debt at
lower rates, and has lightened the cost of current financing to commerce, industry, and agriculture.
"Nor is there any immediate reason for considering a reversal of
this policy. There is nothing in the present monetary or banking
situation that would point to a proximate danger of injurious credit
expansion.
Annual Report of Board of Governors, Federal
Reserve System, for 19S8.
Competitive Efficiency
"The need for housing in the United States is estimated in millions
of units. I can't say that I am prepared to challenge the figure, but
there are some questions I'd like to ask about it. For instance, what
is a housing shortage? It isn't like a shortage of wheat or cotton,
produced by drought or other natural causes, nor does it appear to be
a shortage due to lack of architects or builders . . . . It's a shortage
based on industry's failure to produce better housing than now exists
at the same or lower prices and rentals now paid . . . . The price of
housing is based on a series of controlled prices and artificial costs—
materials, labor, land, and financing. And until such time as competitive efficiency in building is restored all along the line, there can
be no real increase in the value of housing received per dollar cost."
Beardsley Ruml, Treasurer R. H. Macy &
Co., Architectural Forum, March 1959.
Inventory Trends
Manufacturers and wholesalers during 1938 curtailed inventories
by 8 percent while independent retailers decreased their stocks by
only 5 percent. Wholesalers, however, were the only group ending
the year below the 1936 level. Inventories reached their low point in
many trades during the fall of 1938, about one year after the high
point of inventory holdings in the fall of 1937. Some reaccumulation
had started apparently by the close of 1938.
More than half of the 455 lumber and building material dealers
reported lower inventories at the end of 1938 than at the end of the
previous year, the average being about 3 percent less. They sold 5
percent less in 1938 dollar volume in spite of the fact that both total
and residential building contracts were 9 percent greater.
Survey of Business Trends—1988, Dun's
Review for March 1989.
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
OBSTACLES TO HOUSING
•
L E A D I N G forecasters of the country predict
that 1939 residential building activity will
exceed that of any year since 1929. Even with a
revival of residential construction, the country has a
long way to go toward an adequate rate of construction that will reduce the accumulated housing need.
During the depression years, supply failed to keep
pace with need and today many observers estimate
that we need between 1,500,000 and 3,000,000 dwelling units. In addition, estimates show that in order
to meet the normal annual rate of replacement and
the normal increase of families some 500,000 units
must be erected in nonfarm areas each year. I n
1938, it is estimated by the U. S. Department of
R E N T LEVELS AND BUILDING COSTS
The movement of market rentals has always been
a determining factor for new construction. Since
the early 1930's, rentals have been at considerably
lower levels in relation to a 1926 base than building
material prices, which are indicative of building
costs (Chart B ) . So long as this condition existed,
there was very little inducement to private building.
However, since midyear 1937, building costs have
been on the down-grade while rents have remained
comparatively stable, and the two curves have tended
to close the gap, indicating an improving rent-cost
relationship.
CHART B
CHART A
INDICES OF MARKET RENTALS AND BUILDING MATERIAL PRICES
UNITEO STATES - 1926 THROUGH OEC. 31, 1938
1926 = 100 (Converted)
NUMBER OF NEW NON-FARM DWELLING UNITS BUILT
BY TYPE OF DWELLING; 1920-1938
100
^^>£ •*••••, •y4
/'*\
--BUILDING MATERIAL
| PRICES!')
80
V
.
»•***•.
1 /
j
\
.-RENTS®
V \
\[
s
y
40
Labor that 346,600 were built—a total far below the
average building of the decade of 1920-1929, when
the yearly construction rate averaged slightly more
than 700,000 residential units (Chart A ) .
The relationship between rents and building costs,
the "overhang" of repossessed real estate, high building costs, existing building industry practices, inadequate real estate laws, and high real estate taxes are
the primary impediments to a more substantial recovery of home building. I n its Sixth Annual Report x covering the fiscal year 1937-1938, from which
the following facts and quotations are taken, the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board points out these
various obstacles and suggests possible solutions.
1
Copies of this report may be secured from the Superintendent
of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, for
30 cents each.
April 1939
REPOSSESSED REAL ESTATE
Another factor hindering the revival of new construction is the existence of a large number of residential properties awaiting sale. During the period
1929-1936, the volume of institutionally-owned real
estate increased tenfold. Although during 1937
there was a slight reduction of this "overhang",
estimates by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board
show that at the end of 1937 a total of $4,000,000,000
in repossessed real estate of all types was held by
commercial and mutual savings banks, life insurance
companies, and savings and loan associations. Oneto four-family nonfarm dwellings alone represented
$2,600,000,000 of this "overhang"—or about 870,000
dwelling units.
2II
Best indications are that the improvement noted
in 1937 continued throughout 1938, although at a less
rapid rate. Savings and loan associations and commercial banks, on the basis of preliminary figures,
showed an improved position. Real estate holdings
of life insurance companies increased slightly during
1938, but so substantial was the increase in their
other assets that for the second successive year the
ratio of real estate owned to total assets was lowered.
The Board stressed the fact that "the reduction
of the 'overhang' will in part determine the time
and extent of any further revival of private building
activity."
BUILDING COSTS AND PRACTICES
Between the early months of 1936 and summer of
1937 the costs of both labor and building materials
increased by 14 percent and 12 percent, respectively.
Since that time, labor has remained at the same high
level but material prices have declined (Chart C ) .
However, according to the Annual Report, "High
building costs are not due exclusively to prices of
materials and labor. Equally responsible, among
other factors, are excessive waste, faulty construction, poor methods of distribution, the present smallscale operation of the building industry, lack of
standardization, and frequently extravagant profits
of contractors and sales agents."
Modern mass production has been applied to
many fields of American industry, yet in the homebuilding field little has been done. I t is true that
today building standards and qualities are somewhat
better and costs are lower, but the prospective home
builder as yet is not offered benefits comparable to
those offered by other fabricated products.
"Cooperative agreements which will eliminate jurisdictional labor disputes and bring about a revision
of prevailing wage rates for the sake of steadier
CHART C
USED IN
INDEXES OF COST OF MATERIALS AND LABOR
CONSTRUCTION OF STANDARD SIX-ROOM FRAME HOUSE
i| I I I I [ I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I UNITED STATES AVERAGE MONTH 1936=100
212
employment and higher annual income would -3so
help to reduce the cost of building."
INADEQUATE REAL ESTATE LAWS
Also retarding new construction are present-day
real estate mortgage and foreclosure laws, many of
which are cumbersome and obsolete. Studies made
by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation show t h a t
legal procedures are extremely varied and in many
States are both costly and time-consuming, forcing
lenders to raise interest charges on home mortgages
and to lend smaller amounts than could be safely
granted under more equitable statutes. "Simplification of such wasteful procedures would be instrumental in protecting real estate as an investment
and in encouraging building activity." "From the
standpoint of the consumer, . . . it is highly desirable that the several States give consideration to
the passage of a modernized and standardized real
estate mortgage and mortgage foreclosure law which
would give adequate protection to the mortgagor
and to the mortgagee, prevent waste, and encourage
liberal home finance."
The time and cost of title examination and proof
impose a similar burden on the borrower.
"The
same considerations hold true of a reform of land
title registration and for a modernization of antiquated building codes and zoning ordinances.
Simple, rapid, inexpensive, and secure methods of
dealing with land and buildings are imperative.
Regional variations should be reduced."
REAL ESTATE TAXES
The burden of taxes on real estate is also a drag
on the revival of residential building. During the
20-year period, 1912-1932, the per capita total levies
of the general property tax for all States, their subdivisions, and the District of Columbia almost
trebled. Estimates show that this average per capita
levy has continued to increase.
I n many States and communities, at the present
time, taxes on real property are out of proportion
to those on other, and particularly on less tangible,
forms of wealth. Apart from excessively high taxes
based on assessed value rather than on earning power,
the Board pointed out that in many cases small homes
are overassessed, while the reverse is true of many
large ones. "A revision of real estate taxes would
be a desirable incentive for the revival of private
building activity. As a general rule, the tax burden
(continued on p. 228)
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
Mortgage Recordings
( Continued from p. 205)
that area adjusted to include only the nonfarm element. These per capita rates offer a comparison of
trends from a national perspective. In February,
for example, it was found that the highest per capita
rate occurred in the District of Columbia ($7.06) and
that 20 States were above the national average of
$2.46. An institution with a full knowledge of its
own lending position can measure the per capita
rating of its own community with that of its State
as well as the national figure.
The use of this new statistical service by administrative agencies such as State savings and loan
leagues will indirectly reap further benefits for the
individual association manager. These organizations will find a great utility value in this material
for making comparisons of the activity of their
State with that of neighboring or comparable States.
I t will also provide them with an additional method
of checking the progress of the participation by their
membership in the mortgage activity within their
own State. From an educational standpoint, the
dissemination of this information may reveal regional
variations which can be remedied only through reform
or revision of existing legislation. Correction of such
inconsistencies will result in improving the entire
field of home-mortgage finance.
Members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System
which are interested in this material on mortgage
recordings may secure further information by writing
directly to the Division of Research and Statistics
of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Washington,
D. C.
Albert Farwell Bemis Foundation
•
AMONG the newer organizations devoted to
research and study in the field of building materials and construction methods is the Albert Farwell
Bemis Foundation which operates as a division of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Through the broad provisions of its charter, this
Foundation is permitted to conduct any type of
study in the "search for, and dissemination of,
knowledge pertaining to adequate, economical, and
more abundant shelter". At the outset, however,
it is believed that the major emphasis will be given
to problems to which objective physical measurements may be applied—particularly the behavior of
materials, singly and in combination, under conditions of use—together with supporting economic
studies.
The late Mr. Bemis, whose sons established this
Foundation, was a recognized authority in the field
of housing. In 1919, as a member of the National
Civic Federation's Commission, he was sent abroad
to study the economic situation and housing problems in Great Britain and France following the War.
His three-volume work, "The Evolving House", dealing with the history of housing, the economics of
shelter, and rational design, is an important component of housing literature. In 1918, Mr. Bemis
formed an organization known as "Housing Comp a n y " through which he operated a research laboratory and built houses using more than 20 different
April 1939
methods of construction in an effort to produce
individual houses of low cost.
*i
The endowment was designed to provide an organization to act as a clearing house for the latest
scientific knowledge pertinent to the building
industry. I t was planned to coordinate existing
information in this field, to instigate new research
activities, and ultimately to publish its findings. I t
was intended that eventually anyone interested in
obtaining accurate, scientific data concerning housing could turn to the Foundation not only as a source
for information, but also for direction to other
agencies where studies were being made.
At the present time the staff is exploring those
problems in housing which seem to the architectural
profession of most urgent importance. Work in the
interpretation of the science of materials began with
the synthetic resins and the researchers have now
attacked the related subject of paints. These will
be followed later by studies of the use of light metals,
and other building materials.
Although there will not be any printed material
for distribution immediately, available information
is obtainable through personal interviews, or through
correspondence with Mr. John E. Burchard, who was
chosen as Director when the Foundation was organized. Address: Albert Farwell Bemis Foundation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
2I3
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
AND HOME-FINANCING ACTNiiY
I. More than doubling the February 1938 rate of building, the seasonally corrected index of residential
post-depression high in February.
A. Improvement noted in all Federal Home Loan Bank Districts except Boston and Des Moines.
II. Striking advance in business which marked last half of 1938 not extended during first 10 weeks of
A. Industrial production holds to a steady rate without the usual seasonal expansion,
construction reached a new
1939.
III. Savings and loan associations only class of lender to increase loan volume from January to February, according to mortgage-recording
study.
A. All Federal Home Loan Bank Districts record improved lending activity for savings and loan associations, comparing first
two months of 1939 with same period of 1938.
IV. Increase in wholesale prices of building materials for third successive month indicates possible rise in dealers9 prices in near future.
A. Dealers' prices firmed in February, halting the very gradual but persistent downward trend of 1938.
V. Decrease in amount of real estate owned by savings and loan associations indicated
last half of 1938.
by study of trends in insured institutions during
VL Foreclosures continue down.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ACTIVITY AND SELECTED INFLUENCING FACTORS
1926 * 100
600
600
1929
214
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
^RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION and HOME-FINANCING ACTIVITY
•
OPENING months of this year have indicated
favorable conditions in the real estate market,
and according to most forecasts are probably the
forerunners of the best residential construction year
since 1929.
Foreclosure activity, which has been subsiding
since the late depression years, has continued down
thus far in 1939, largely because of seasonal influences. The persistent downward trend of foreclosures, as portrayed on the opposite page, indicates
the returning confidence of mortgagees in the ability
of borrowers to repay and in the fundamental soundness of real estate values.
That borrowers are now better able to pay their
debts than in the early 1930's is evident from increases
exhibited in the indexes of purchasing power (manufacturing pay rolls and total income payments) and
declines shown in the cost of living. It is true that
1938 totals indicated a recession from the previous
year in each of these series, but a decided turn for
the better was felt in the latter half of 1938 which
bids fair to continue into this year.
No adequate over-all measure of real estate values
is available. However, with the rapid recovery of
residential construction continuing into this year at
a fairly stable cost level (as shown by our index of
standard house costs), it appears that the psychological reaction of builders and home-financing institutions is favorable insofar as real estate conditions
are concerned. More favorable interest rates and
more convenient financing terms of recent years are
no doubt partially responsible for renewed residential building activity, which in February reached
a new post-depression high level.
Construction cost indexes have indicated little
change so far this year. Labor costs for home construction tapered off at the end of last year and in
January 1939, whereas the February index moved
slightly upward. Dealers' prices for materials used
in home building steadied in February after moving
fractionally downward during the latter part of 1938
and in January of this year, and have not as yet
reflected the recent increases shown by wholesale
material prices.
ESTIMATED NUMBER AND COST OF FAMILY DWELLING UNITS
IN ALL CITIES OF 10,000 OR MORE POPULATION
(Source: Federal
PROVIDED
Home Loan Bank Board. Compiled from residential building permits reported
NUMBER OF UNITS
to U. S. Dept. of Labor)
COST OF UNITS
PROVIDED
30 r
30
28 [
28
26f
26
24f
24
PROVIDED
120
NO
100
100
\\~
19 VL
—1
1/
22[
20h
,8
22
20
r
l6
18
l
16
14h
14
,2
12
%> 39 1
1938
10
\~J
80
70
60
|
io[
90
90
50
80
\
V
K
\
6
4
I
r
U.-
•
•
I
^
8
-J
39 1
50
40
40
/.931-3 5
DEC.
JAN. FEB. MAR APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SER OCT. NOV.
April 1939
\ -
4
2
2r
4
20
N
: o
DEC.
AV
I
30
6
V
60
l
A93Z-3 5 AVt
8
70
y
-''
30
"*-«•«;
*
x
10
20
10
Div ision o f Rese arch £ Stati;sties
Fe deral \tome 1 .oonB ank Be ard
Q
DEC.
i
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY
JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV.
0
DEC
2I5
Savings and loan associations increased their lending activity in February for each loan purpose except "construction", where the volume remained
practically unchanged from the preceding months.
Most sections of the country indicated greater
mortgage-lending activity in February than in
January.
An independent study of mortgage recordings,
which is introduced in the article on page 202 of this
issue, shows that all types of lenders other than
savings and loan associations registered declines in
financing activity from January to February. Accelerated mortgage-investment activity of savings
and loan institutions brought their proportion from
27 percent of the total dollar amount of recordings in January to 30 percent in the following month.
[1926=100]
Type of index
Residential construction i
Foreclosures (metro, cities)
Rental index (N. I. C. B.)
Building material prices
Manufacturing employment
Manufacturing pay rolls
Average wage per employee
_
—
Feb.
1939
Jan.
1939
Percent
change
Feb.
1938
Percent
change
63.9
138.0
85.0
89.6
89.4
81.8
91.5
56.9
145.0
85.1
89.5
88.0
79.8
90.7
+12.3
-4.8
-0.1
+0.1
+1.6
+2.5
+0.9
29.7
157.0
86.7
91.1
86.8
73.8
85.0
+115.2
-12.1
-2.0
-1.6
+3.0
+10.8
+7.6
I n comparison with February of last year, mv*^family units as well as total units reflected a L £e
precipitous rise, due to a slump during February
1938 in the volume of permit applications for New
York City following a rush in December and January to get under the deadline before a new building
code went into effect. The index of total residential
construction has been adjusted for the bias which
would otherwise be introduced by the inclusion of
New York City figures during the first half of last
year.
According to the index of residential building,
February activity was 12 percent higher than January, even after adjustment had been made for the
8-percent seasonal rise which usually occurs between
these months. Rises over the past 12 months have
brought the February index to a level more than
double that of the same 1938 month, and within 36
percent of the average month of 1926.
All Federal Home Loan Bank Districts, other
than Boston and Des Moines, showed a greater
number of units built in February than in February
of last year. Eight of the 11 States within these two
Districts recorded declines, while only 7 of the remaining 37 States showed less activity in February
(Table 2, page 220).
i Corrected for normal seasonal variations.
The striking advance in business activity which
characterized the closing months of 1938 has not
extended through the opening months of 1939.
Since the beginning of the year, industrial volume
has remained steady, but the seasonally adjusted
indexes have recorded declines because of the absence of the usual seasonal expansion in activity.
Industrial activity during February and the first
half of March approximated the January rate. Improvement was noted, however, in the capital-goods
industries, evidenced by larger operating revenues of
railroads and a larger volume of new orders for machine tools during February. During the first two
months of 1939, expanding construction activity was
reflected by an increased volume of orders to industries supplying construction materials.
Residential Construction
A N E W high level for the seasonally adjusted
index of residential construction was established in February, due principally to increased multifamily building activity. Several low-cost housing
projects contributed to the January-to-February rise.
Small-House Building Costs
[Table S]
F O E three consecutive months wholesale lumber
prices have risen rapidly, and by the end of
February were at the January 1938 level, having
regained all the ground lost in the early months of
1938. Other material prices have also steadied and
most of them have increased slightly so that the
combined index of wholesale material prices of the
U. S. Department of Labor has now risen continuously for three months.
In the meantime, however, dealers' prices for
materials used in building a standard 6-room frame
house, which had continued a very gradual but per•
Construction costs for the standard house
[1936 = 100]
Element of cost
Feb.
1939
Jan.
1939
Percent
change
Feb.
1938
Percent
change
103.0
112.2
103.0
111.9
0.0
+ 0.3
105.6
103.4
-2. 5
+ 8. 5
106.0
106.0
0.0
104. 9
+ 1.0
•
216
Material
Labor
Total
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
sir^nt downward trend in 1938, finally firmed
in February and remained unchanged from the
January level, 3 percent higher than the average
month of 1936. There seems to be a definite tendency for dealers' prices to lag behind wholesale
material costs; hence, increases in the dealers'
price series may be expected in the near future in
line with recent wholesale movements.
Costs for labor used in the standard house moved
up fractionally in February, after slight declines in
the preceding two months. The index in February
stood 12 percent above the average 1936 month.
Two of the 29 cities reporting as of March 1, 1939,
indicated rises of over $100 in the total cost for
constructing the standard house from the preceding
quarter-year; only one community (Atlanta) reported
a decline of over $100; most of the cooperating cities
showed very little change.
Foreclosures
•
REAL estate foreclosures in metropolitan communities during February dropped 4.8 percent
below those for January to attain a new low in the
decline from the peak period of 1933. This downward movement from the preceding month, however,
was somewhat short of the usual seasonal Januaryto-February decline of 6.9 percent. The February
index number of 138 (1926 = 100) stands only one
point above the average month of 1927.
February foreclosures in these communities in
relation to those for February 1938 were 12.1 percent
lower. For the first two months of 1939, the index
shows metropolitan foreclosures to be 13.5 percent
less than for the corresponding period of last year.
Of the 82 communities reporting, 45 showed decreases
in foreclosures from January, while 31 indicated increases, and 6 reported no change.
Mortgage-Lending Activity of Savings
and Loan Associations
[Tables 4 and 5]
•
SEASONAL rises in lending activity were felt
generally throughout the savings and loan industry in February. Total loans for the United States
were 5 percent higher than in January, and 16 percent above February 1938.
Federal savings and loan associations led other
types of institutions in the February increase, both
as compared with the previous month and with the
corresponding month of last year. Nonmembers'
April 1939
loans for the first two months of this year were only
7 percent above the same period of 1938, while volume of State members, rose 10 percent, and of Federals', 26 percent.
The table below affords a valuable comparison of
the relative activity of the various types of savings
and loan associations. In each year Federals maintained by far the highest rate of activity. The rates
were successively lower for State members and nonmembers. The rate of lending activity in terms of
total assets allows a direct comparison between different classes of associations, taking into consideraNew mortgage loans as a percent of assets
1938
1937
1936
Percent
24
13
9
Percent
31
15
10
Percent
38
12
9
14
16
13
Class of association
Federal
State member
Nonmember
Total
tion the affiliation of nonmembers with the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board program, and the conversion of State-chartered institutions to Federal charter. Federal associations which are newly organized
have a much higher lending rate than other institutions, but this margin has steadily diminished due to
the rapid growth in assets of new Federals.
February construction loan volume remained constant in comparison with January, while all other
classes of loans—home purchase in particular—
recorded increases. Gains over February 1938 indicate greater emphasis on construction loans especially, and on home-purchase loans to a lesser extent,
as may be seen from the following table. Although
refinancing loans increased in volume from a year
ago, this increase was below the average recorded by
loans for all purposes.
Mortgage loans distributed by purpose
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
Purpose
Construction
Home purchase
Refinancing
Reconditioning
Other
Total
Feb.
1939
Jan.
1939
Percent
change
Feb.
1938
$16, 027 $16, 009
19, 118 17, 503
12, 551 11, 749
3,593 3,389
7,020 6,827
0 $11,669
+ 9 16, 117
+ 7 11,293
+ 6 3,662
+ 3 7,352
58, 309 55, 567
+ 5 50, 093
Percent
change
+ 37
+ 19
+ 11
-2
—5
+ 16
2I7
TOTAL LOANS MADE BY ALL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS
UNITED STATES - BY TYPE OF ASSOCIATION
MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS
CUMULATIVE
JAN.-FER
(MILLIONS OF COLLARS)
120 (-
110
3 8 39
STATE
38 3 9
NOMHEM.
mum
nmiin
MAR JUN. SER I I MAR JUN. SEP. DEC.
1937
1936
JUN. "SER
1938
l 1,1 l I
JUN. SER
1939
Associations in eight Federal Home Loan Bank
Districts made more loans in February than in the
preceding month. Three of the four remaining
Districts—Boston, New York, and Pittsburgh—were
located in the Northeastern section of the country
(Table 4, page 224). All sections of the United States
showed improved lending activity in the first two
months of this year as compared with the same
period of 1938.
Federal Home Loan Bank System
[Table 9]
•
DURING the month of February 1939 the current declining trend in total advances outstanding was again evidenced, although the decline during
this month was less than half as great as that of
January 1939. Total new advances made by the
Banks during February amounted to $2,300,000, and
repayments amounted to $10,500,000 (only half of
the volume of repayments reported for the month of
January). This resulted in a net reduction in
advances outstanding for the month of $8,200,000,
and brought the total of advances outstanding to
$170,600,000, a slight decline from the balance of
218
advances outstanding reported for the same m< ^h
last year.
Although the amount of new advances made during February 1939 was only about half of the amount
of advances made during February 1938 and February 1937, total repayments during February 1939
exceeded those in February of both the preceding years.
Only four of the Federal Home Loan Banks made
a larger volume of new advances during February
than in January. Repayments during the month of
February exceeded the amount of new advances in
every Bank District, although every Bank received
less repayments during February than January 1939.
Of the total advances outstanding at the end of
February 1939, 81.3 percent were long-term advances and 18.7 percent were short-term advances.
There were two additions to the membership of
the Federal Home Loan Bank System during the
month of February, and 10 withdrawals (three due
to mergers and sale of assets, six due to liquidations,
and one voluntary withdrawal), which resulted in a
net membership of 3,944 at the end of the month*
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation
[ Tables 7 and 8]
M MORTGAGES held by insured savings and
loan associations increased during the last six
months of 1938, while real estate owned declined,
according to a recent survey conducted by the
Division of Research and Statistics. It was revealed that private repurchasable funds continued
in the latter half of the year the rising trend of
recent years. In actual volume outstanding, Government investment in insured savings and loan
associations remained almost unchanged in the
June-December 1938 period; however, the proportion of this item to total assets declined.
In the development of this survey, the factual
data were combined from a group of identical institutions in order to eliminate the expansion influence resulting from insurance of associations at
any time during the period under consideration.
The pronounced difference in the distribution of
balance sheet items between new Federals and the
two classes of older institutions is exemplified in the
table on the facing page. In those associations organized in recent years it is natural that mortgage holdings are large and real estate owned small; while on
the liability side, reserves have not yet been built up
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
^ercentage distribution of principal balance-sheet items of identical insured savings and loan
associations, June and December 1 9 3 8
State-chartered
Asset and liability items
ASSETS
First mortgages held
Real estate owned
Cash and Government obligations
Other assets
Total assets
Converted Federals
New Federals
Dec. 31,
1938
June 30,
1938
Dec. 31,
1938
June 30,
1938
Dec. 31,
1938
June 30,
1938
Percent
71.7
10.5
6.2
11.6
Percent
70.0
11.3
0)
Percent
74.9
9.7
5.6
9.8
Percent
73.8
10.6
Percent
89.7
0.6
6.2
3.5
Percent
89.7
0.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
73.3
5.4
7.1
14.2
72.0
5.3
69.8
12.5
5.7
12.0
68.3
13.0
52.4
29.6
2.4
15.6
47.5
33.3
0)
0)
0)
LIABILITIES
Private repurchasable capital
Government investment
Reserves and undivided profits
Other liabilities
Total liabilities
100.0
0)
100.0
P)
0)
100.0
100.0
100.0
P)
P)
100.0
Not compiled for periods prior to December 1938.
to the same extent as in older institutions. Due to
their relatively small average size and their infancy,
new Federal associations have a larger proportion of
Government investment than other associations
but as indicated in the above table this proportion
diminished during the last six months of 1938.
State-chartered institutions and converted Federals showed some similarity in the ratios for their
respective asset and liability items. In both of
these classes of institution first mortgages increased
in relative importance, while real estate declined from
June to December 1938. Repurchasable capital of
these two classes rose during this same period while
Government investment remained nearly stationary.
Referring to the monthly operations of insured
State-chartered associations, as shown by Table 7
for comparable associations on page 226, it may be
seen that both private repurchasable capital and
investments of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation
increased in February from January as did the number of private shareholders. Advances from the
Federal Home Loan Banks to insured State institutions, as well as borrowings by these institutions
from other sources, declined in February.
Lending activity of comparable State-Charted
insured associations increased in February due to
sharp rises in the repair loan classification. As a
result of this accelerated activity, the balance of
mortage loans outstanding in these institutions rose
about $3,000,000 during the month of February.
April 1939
Federal Savings and Loan System
[Table 7]
•
REPAYMENTS by Federals on advances from
the Federal Home Loan Banks and repurchases
of Treasury and H. O. L. C. shares continued to
exceed new advances and new Government investments in February although at an abated pace from
the unusually large January repayment activity.
Table 7, page 226, shows that private repurchasable
capital in a group of 1,307 Federals reporting in both
months increased over $13,500,000.
New mortgage-lending activity by these comparable Federal associations expanded for each purpose from January to February. The balance of
mortgage loans outstanding rose $9,600,000 in these
1,307 associations, and total assets were reported as
rising $12,500,000.
Progress in number and assets of Federal savings
and loan associations
Number
Type of
association
New
Converted
Feb.
28,
1939
638
736
Jan.
31,
1939
Approximate assets
Feb, 28, 1939 Jan. 31, 1939
638 $356, 209, 000 $349, 828, 000
732 977, 521, 000 969, 056, 000
Total. __ 1,374 1,370 1, 333, 730, 000 1, 318, 884, 000
2I9
Table 7.—Number and estimated cost of new family dwelling units provided in all cities of 10,
population or over, in the United States 1
0
[Source: Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Compiled from residential building permits reported to U. S. Department of Labor]
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
Number of family units provided
Jan.-Feb.
totals
Monthly totals
Type of dwelling
Jan.
1939
Feb.
1939
1-family dwellings
2-family dwellings
Joint home and business 2
3-and-more-family dwellings
Feb.
1938
1939
Total cost of units
Monthly totals
Jan.-Feb. totals
1938 Feb.1939 Jan.1939 Feb. 1938
1939
1938
9,447 9,195 5,785 18, 642 12, 040 $36, 707. 5 $35, 433. 5 $21, 935. 8 $72, 141. 0 $44 637 7
594 1,370 1,704 1, 774. 3 1, 693. 1 1, 490. 5
718
652
3, 467. 4
4, 070. 2
51
44
92
95
50
179.6
160.9
182.9
340.5
302.5
13, 135 9,197 2,066 22, 332 23, 676 43, 227. 5 27, 212. 0 5, 536. 5 70, 439. 5 75, 512. 0
23, 278 19, 161 8,495 42, 439 37, 512 81, 870. 2 64, 518. 2 29, 145. 7 146, 388. 4 124, 522 4
Total residential
1
Estimate is based on reports from communities having approximately 95 percent of the population of all cities with population of 10,000 or over.
* Includes 1- and 2-family dwellings with business property attached.
Table 2.—Number and estimated cost of new family dwelling units provided in all cities of 10,000
population or over, in February 1939, by Federal Home Loan Bank Districts and by States
[Source: Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Compiled from residential building permits reported to U. S. Department of Labor]
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
All residential dwellings
Number of family
dwelling units
Federal Home Loan Bank Districts
and States
Feb.
1938
Feb.
1939
23, 278
UNITED STATES
Feb.
1938
10, 143
Feb. 1939 Feb. 1938
6,429 $38, 642. 7
$23, 609. 2
337
322
1, 724. 1
1, 499. 7
87
4
219
6
89
1
95
6
255
29
21
0
445.4
18.0
1, 161. 9
22.0
398.0
3.8
465.8
22. 1
1, 069. 1
56.5
88.2
0.0
87
4
184
6
55
1
92
6
192
11
21
0
445.4
18.0
1,011.9
22.0
223.0
3.8
457.8
22. 1
899. 1
32. 5
88. 2
0.0
11, 899
960
41, 292. 9
3, 838. 6
1,142
487
5, 071. 1
2, 340. 6
269
11, 630
137
823
1, 273. 7
40, 019. 2
690.4
3, 148. 2
169
973
137
350
841.0
4, 230. 1
690.4
1, 650. 2
653
323
3, 119. 9
1, 755. 9
635
297
3, 043. 4
1, 687. 7
i
o
1
590
63
2
271
50
0.0
2, 927. 5
192.4
36.8
1, 543. 0
176. 1
0
572
63
2
253
42
0.0
2, 851. 0
192. 4
36.8
1, 493. 8
157. 1
1, 879
1, 792
5, 664. 1
5, 416. 8
1, 388
1, 105
4, 452. 7
3, 671. 3
207
369
439
139
92
252
378
115
1
314. 0
1 1, 374. 9
1 1, 488. 4
!
386. 9
214. 0
85
809. 1
80
1, 477. 7
351
386. 9
105 1
163. 8
525. 0
1, 171. 0
250. 9
-
No. 4—Winston-Salem
8,495 $81, 870. 2 $29, 145. 7
Feb.
1939
1, 701. 7
No. 3—Pittsburgh
220
Feb. 1939 Feb. 1938
Estimated cost
2, 049. 1
New Jersey
New York
Alabama
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Number of family
dwelling units
406
No. 2—New York
Delaware
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Estimated cost
406
No. 1—Boston
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
All 1- and 2-family dwellings
1
182. 5 |
965. 0
1, 227. 5
269. 4 1
127 i
140
434
139
Federal He>/ne loan Bank Review
Tc' fe 2.—Number and estimated cost of new family dwelling units provided in all cities of 10,000
population or over, in February 1939, by Federal Home Loan Bank Districts and by States—Contd.
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
All 1- a n d 2-family dwellings
All residential dwellings
N u m b e r of family
dwelling units
Federal H o m e Loan B a n k Districts
a n d States
Feb.
1939
Feb.
1938
E s t i m a t e d cost
F e b . 1939
Feb. 1938
N u m b e r of family
dwelling units
Feb.
1939
Feb.
1938
E s t i m a t e d cost
Feb. 1939
Feb. 1938
N o . 4—Winston-Salem—Continued.
Maryland _
_
North Carolina. _
_
_
South Carolina _ _
_
Virginia _ _
_
103
229
228
165
489
200
69
197
$342.
521.
661.
574.
6
1
6
6
$1, 417. 6
500.8
141.0
713.0
99
212
88
149
101
174
69
140
$334. 6
497. 1
189. 6
543.7
$417. 5
465.6
141.0
536.5
N o . 5—Cincinnati
992
397
3, 537. 9
1, 605. 0
503
333
2, 292. 0
1,411.0
505
385
102
98
212
87
1, 159. 3
2, 034. 2
344.4
303. 5
1, 072. 2
229. 3
67
334
102
94
162
77
167.4
1, 780. 2
344. 4
295. 5
904. 2
211. 3
__ __
946
361
4, 416. 6
1, 663. 6
798
357
3, 782. 6
1, 656. 6
_
118
828
79
282
442. 5
3, 974. 1
282. 2
1, 381. 4
118
680
75
282
442. 5
3, 340. 1
275. 2
1, 381. 4
554
191
2, 893. 7
1, 100. 0
348
187
1, 885. 7
1, 093. 3
475
79
121
70
2, 551. 3
342.4
735.0
365.0
273
75
117
70
1, 551. 3
334. 4
728. 3
365. 0
285
308
1, 089. 0
1, 077. 0
252
264
1, 015. 8
955. 1
41
77
162
0
5
65
104
127
2
10
156. 1
350. 2
574. 6
0.0
8. 1
216.8
445. 7
394. 7
3. 1
16.7
41
77
129
0
5
47
95
110
2
10
156. 1
350,2
501.4
0.0
8. 1
1,877
1,381
5, 290. 0
3, 414. 1
1,568
1,197
4, 253. 7
2, 754. 8
41
316
115
43
1,362
53
130
53
43
1, 102
84.7
1, 020. 7
217. 5
148. 6
3, 818. 5
77.3
366. 0
84. 1
125. 9
2, 760. 8
41
172
99
39
1,217
46
130
49
39
933
84.7
462. 1
186. 0
140.0
3, 380. 9
66.
366.
73.
114.
2, 133.
448
275
1, 597. 3
956. 1
400
249
1, 509. 3
.
147
71
29
201
51
84
14
126
629. 7
199. 7
109.9
658.0
170. 5
211. 1
74.7
499. 8
99
71
29
201
40
69
14
126
541.7
199. 7
109. 9
658.0
__ ___
331
299
1, 058. 2
851. 1
319
234
1, 035. 2
3
14
111
29
165
9
10
4
76
29
150
30
5.3
27.9
410. 7
66. 8
508.5
39.0
20.0
16. 2
285.2
70.0
381.3
78.4
3
14
107
29
157
9
10
4
69
25
120
6
5.3
27.9
399. 7
66.8
496. 5
39.0
3,008
1,802
9, 861. 5
5, 765. 8
2,453
1,397
8, 577. 1
4 918. 8
53
2,946
9
32
1,768
2
165.4
9, 673. 4
22. 7
87.3
5, 666. 4
12. 1
53
2,391
9
29
1,366
2
165.4
8, 389. 0
22. 7
82 5
4 824 2
12. 1
-
_
_ _
Kentucky._
Ohio
Tennessee
N o . 6—Indianapolis _
Indiana
Michigan
_
__
_
_
N o . 7—Chicago__
Illinois
_
Wisconsin
_
__ _
No. 8—Des Moines
__
Iowa
Minnesota _ __
Missouri _
North Dakota
South D a k o t a - __
No. 9—Little Rock
_
_
Arkansas
Louisiana. „
Mississippi _
New Mexico
Texas
___
__
_
__
-_
_______
____
___
_
N o . 10—Topeka
Colorado.
K a n s a s __
Nebraska.
Oklahoma-
_
N o . 11—Portland
Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
_ _
__
_
_
N o . 12—Los Angeles
__ _
Arizona
California.
Nevada
_ _
April 1939
___
_
__ ._
_
_
163.
409.
361.
3.
16.
8
7
8
1
7
3
0
7
9
9
913. 2
156.
182.
74.
499.
1
6
7
8
707. 1
20.
16.
270.
66.
306.
28.
0
2
2
0
3
4
221
Table 3.—Cost of building the same standard house in representative cities in specific month
N O T E . — T h e s e figures a r e subject t o correction
[Source: Federal H o m e Loan B a n k Board]
t
Cubic-foot cost
F e d e r a l H o m e Loan B a n k Districts
and cities
1938
1939
Mar.
1938
Mai.
1937
Mar.
1939
Mar.
Dec.
N o . 1—Boston:
Hartford, Conn
N e w H a v e n , Conn
Portland, M e
Boston, Mass
Manchester, N . H
Providence, R. I
R u t l a n d , Vt
Total cost
Sept.
June
Mar.
$0. 244 $0. 243 $5, 865 $5, 877 $5, 807 $5, 659 $5, 823 $6, 043
5,771
5,775
5,616
5,620
5,629
5,617
.240
. 235
5,252
5,543
5, 264 5,259
5,526
5,307
.231
.219
6,384
6, 191 6,412
6,079
6,298
. 266
. 258 6,377
5,652
5,392
5,554
5,440
5,431
5,507
.227
. 229
5,768
5,991
5,933
5,910
5,893
. 250 5,938
.247
5,723
5,739
5,676
5,547
5,472
. 228
. 239 5,472
No. 4—Winston-Salem:
Birmingham, Ala
Washington, D . C
Tampa, Fla
West P a l m Beach, F l a
A t l a n t a , Ga
Baltimore, M d
Cumberland, M d
Asheville, N . C
Raleigh, N . C
Salisbury, N . C
Columbia, S. C
Richmond, Va
Roanoke, Va
.236
. 242
. 231
. 241
.203
. 205
. 230
. 212
. 219
. 197
. 202
. 212
. 223
.253
. 249
.236
. 261
.216
. 213
.233
.225
. 227
. 196
. 198
. 222
. 220
5,663
5,813
5,536
5,788
4,876
4,916
5,529
5,085
5,251
4, 719
4,838
5,080
5,355
5,668
5,854
5,513
5,834
5,006
4,922
5,443
5,074
5,273
4, 741
4,888
5,081
5,306
5,857
5,833
5,545
5,806
5,063
4,955
5,511
5,090
5,298
4, 744
4,868
5,057
5,299
6,068
5,989
5,608
6, 166
5,207
4,983
5,535
5, 194
5,430
4,776
5,249
5,268
6,068
5,988
5,666
6,260
5, 190
5, 105
5,603
5,408
5,444
4, 703
4,755
5,337
5,269
No. 7—Chicago:
Chicago, 111
Peoria, 111
Springfield, 111
Milwaukee, Wis
Oshkosh, Wis
. 285
. 268
. 284
.249
. 245
.293
.279
.290
.242
. 252
6,829
6,441
6,812
5, 974
5,874
6,838
6,441
6,811
5,752
5,898
6,805
6,469
6,812
5,752
5,907
6,904
6,695
6,965
5,754
6,040
No. 10—Topeka:
Denver, Colo
Wichita, K a n
Omaha, N e b
Oklahoma City, Okla_.
.265
. 254
. 241
. 245
.273
.237
. 243
. 244
6,353
6,087
5,787
5,883
6,431
5,964
5,717
5, 875
6,569
6,464
5, 866
5,814
5,840
5,808
5,827
1936
Mar.
$5, 636
5,500
5, 124
5,717
5,427
5,478
5,329
5,468
5,351
4,838
5,373
5,923
4,911
4,769
5,399
4,784
4,991
4,789
5,215
5,051
4,629
4,868
4,572
7,021
6,700
6,961
5,800
6,040
7,037
6,557
6,917
5, 920
5,812
6,734
6, 108
6,502
5,056
5,466
6, 562
5,677
5,841
5,850
6,445
5,593
5,918
5, 693
5,964
5, 164
5,565
5,217
5,742
5,578
6,374
5,228
5,385
5,670
1
T h e house on which costs are reported is a detached 6-room home of 24,000 cubic feet volume. Living room, dining
room, kitchen, a n d l a v a t o r y on first floor; 3 bedrooms a n d b a t h on second floor. Exterior is wide-board siding with brick a n d
stucco as features of design. Best quality materials a n d workmanship are used t h r o u g h o u t .
T h e house is not completed ready for occupancy. I t includes all fundamental s t r u c t u r a l elements, an a t t a c h e d 1-car garage,
an unfinished cellar, a n unfinished attic, a fireplace, essential heating, plumbing, a n d electric wiring e q u i p m e n t a n d complete
insulation. I t does not include wall-paper nor other wall nor ceiling finish on interior plastered surface, lighting fixtures, refrigerators, water heaters, ranges, screens, weather stripping, nor window shades.
R e p o r t e d costs include, in addition t o material a n d labor costs, compensation insurance, a n allowance for contractor's
overhead a n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of materials, plus 10 percent for builder's profit.
R e p o r t e d costs do not include t h e cost of land nor of surveying t h e land, t h e cost of p l a n t i n g t h e lot, nor of providing walks
a n d driveways; t h e y do n o t include architect's fee, cost of building permit, financing charges, n o r sales costs.
I n figuring costs, current prices on t h e same building materials list a r e obtained every 3 m o n t h s from t h e same dealers, a n d
current wage r a t e s a r e obtained from t h e same reputable contractors a n d operative builders.
222
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
RATE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN ALL CITIES OF 10,000 OR MORE POPULATION
REPRESENTS THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PRIVATELY FINANCED FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED PER 100,000 POPULATION
Source: Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
FEDERAL
Compiled from Building Permits reported to U S . Department of Labor.
HOME
LOAN
BANK
DISTRICTS
DISTRICT 4 1
WINSTON SALEM
DISTRICT 3
PITTSBURGH
DISTRICT 2
NEW YORK
DISTRICT I
BOSTON
^
M
"1933
rif'"°
U
/JSH
/ 93 / - 3 5 AVG.-j
f
L
-[_
n ru
i
i
1
_r
.
1:
j
!
_ AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC.
:
EB. MAR. APR. MAY ,
I. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY
JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC.
DISTRICT 8
DES MOINES
DISTRICT 7
CHICAGO
DISTRICT 6
INDIANAPOLIS
!. SEP OCT. NOV. DEC.
,-!93/-35 AVG.
'
_ AUG SEP. OCT NOV DEO.
DISTRICT 5
CINCINNATI
.._.
. . AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC.
y>929
DISTRICT II
PORTLAND
DISTRICT 10
TOPEKA
DISTRICT 9
LITTLE ROCK
{~/938
1—
P _n_
l_
rX"
DISTRICT 12
LOS ANGELES
^U
W93/-35 AVG.
P")
I
—
/—i._.n
•
SjTL-n
.. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC.
i. FEB. MAR. APR. lb
J. FEB MAR APR MAY
.
3. SEP OCT. NOV. DEC.
UNITED STATES AVERAGE
1930-1939
5^fc
EXCLVDING
SEP
April 1939
I,
I
I
DEC.
I
I
L_I
I
I
I
I
L_
SEP.
DEC.
NEW YORK CITY~>
CITY-
«
L
_J
I
I
I
1 _
SEP.
DEC.
223
Table 4.—Estimated volume of new lending activity of savings and loan associations, classifie ' Sy
District and type of association
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
1
New loans
Federal H o m e Loan B a n k
District a n d t y p e of
association
United S t a t e s : T o t a l
Federal
State member. _
Nonmember
F e b . 1939
J a n . 1939
$58,309
22, 298
24, 191
11, 820
$55, 567
20, 894
23,071
11, 602
Percent
change,
J a n . 1939
to
Feb. 1939
+
+
+
+
New
loans,
Feb. 1938
$50,
17,
22,
10,
4.9
6.7
4.9
1.9
Percent
change,
Feb. 1938
to
F e b . 1939
Cumulative new loans (2 months)
1939
1938
Percent
change
093
520
073
500
+ 16.4
+ 27. 3
+ 9.6
+ 12.6
$113,876
43, 192
47,262
23,422
$99, 195
34, 301
42,952
21,942
+ 14. 8
+ 25.9
+ 10.0
+ 6.7
9,306
2,551
4, 529
2,226
8, 788
2,292
4, 233
2,263
+ 5. 9
+ 11. 3
+ 7.0
-1.6
8,475 1
2, 149
2,482
3, 844
+ 24.
+ 51.
+ 4.
+ 23.
8,231
1, 553 '
2, 478
4,200
+ 2. 3
+ 26. 7
-5.6
-2. 0
No.
1: T o t a l
Federal __
State member
Nonmember
4,415
1,271
2, 125
1,019
4,891
1,280
2,404
1, 207
-9. 7
-0.7
-11.6
-15.6
4,381
1,128
2, 150
1, 103
+ 0.8
+ 12.7
-1.2
-7.6
No.
2: T o t a l
Federal _ _
State m e m b e r
Nonmember
4, 854
1, 377
1,252
2, 225
5, 733
1, 877
1,350
2, 506
-15.3
-26.6
-7. 3
-11.2
3,818
1, 142
1,084
1,592
+
+
+
+
No.
3: Total
__ _
Federal _
__ '
State m e m b e r
N o n m e m b e r _ __ __
4,051
1,076
1, 106
1,869
4, 373
892
1,233
2,248
-7.4
+ 20.6
-10.3
-16. 9
3,806
822
1,069
1,915
+ 6. 4
+ 30. 9
+ 3.5
-2.4
No.
4: T o t a l .
Federal _
_ __
State member
Nonmember
8,778
3,274
3,636
1,868
7,665
2,938
3,274
1,453
+
+
+
+
14.5
11. 4
11. 1
28.6
6,838
2,365
3,312
1, 161
+ 28. 4
+ 38.4
+ 9.8
+ 60.9
16,443
6, 212
6,910
3,321
14,
4,
6,
2,
No.
5: Total
F e d e r a l . __
State member
Nonmember
9,585
3,259
4,794
1,532
8,541
3,518
4,073
950
+ 12. 2
-7.4
+ 17.7
+ 61.3
7,890
3,147
3,701
1,042
+ 21.5
+ 3.6
+ 29. 5
+ 47. 0
18, 126
6, 777
8, 867
2,482
14, 818
5,955
6,679
2,184
No.
6: T o t a l
._
Federal
State member. _ _
Nonmember
3,215
1,566
1,450
199
2,441
1, 133
1,200
108
+
+
+
+
31.7
38.2
20. 8
84.3
2, 554
1, 192
1, 184
178
+
+
+
+
25.9
31.4
22.5
11.8
5, 656
2,699
2, 650
307
4,641
2, 154
2,147
340
+ 21. 9
+ 25. 3
+ 23.4
-9. 7
No.
7: T o t a l .
Federal _
._
State member
Nonmember
5,444
1,787
2, 561
1,096
5,134
1,665
2,051
1,418
+ 6.0
+ 7. 3
+ 24.9
-22. 7
4,437
1,531
2, 160
746
+
+
+
+
22. 7
16.7
18.6
46. 9
10, 578 1
3,452 '
4, 612
2,514
9, 176
2,931
4,640
1,605
+ 15. 3
+ 17. 8
-0.6
+ 56. 6
No.
8: T o t a l . . .
_____
Federal __ __ _
State member
Nonmember
_ _
3,305
1,498
1,057
750
2,576
1,067
980
529
+ 28. 3
+ 40.4
+ 7.9
+ 41. 8
2,730
1,060
951
719
+ 21. 1
+ 41.3
+ 11.1
+ 4.3
5,881
2, 565
2,037
1,279
4, 924
2,031
1,677
1,216
+ 19. 4
+ 26. 3
+ 21.5
+ 5. 2
No.
9: T o t a l _ _ . . .
Federal _ _
State member
Nonmember.
4,235
1,772
2,253
210
3,853
1,601
2,037
215
+ 9.9
+ 10.7
+ 10.6
-2.3
3,396
1,244
1,869
283
+ 24.7
+ 42.4
+ 20.5
-25. 8
8,088
3,373
4,290
425
6,331
2,474
3,405
452
+ 27. 8
+ 36. 3
+ 26.0
-6.0
2,888
1,234
923
731
3,023
1,394
873
756
-4.5
-11.5
+ 5.7
-3.3
2,949
1,185
1,012
752
-2. 1
+ 4.1
-8.8
-2.8
5,911
2,628
1,796
1,487
5,640
2,452
1,672
1,516
+ 4.8
+ 7. 2
+ 7.4
-1.9
1,915
1,174
581
160
1,721
962
668
91
+ 11.3
+ 22.0
-13.0
+ 75.8
1,615
927
604
84
+ 18.6
+ 26.6
-3. 8
+ 90. 5
3,636
2, 136
1,249
251
3,245
1,919
1, 113
213
5,624
3,010
2, 453 1
161 1
5,616
2, 567
2,928
121 1
+ 0.1
+ 17.3
-16.2
+33. 1 1
5, 679
1, 777
2, 977
925 1
-1.0
+ 69. 4
-17.6
-82.6
11, 240
5,577
5,381
282
...
N o . 10: T o t a l
Federal.
State member
Nonmember _
No. 11: T o t a l . .
Federal
State member
Nonmember
. . .
N o . 12: T o t a l
Federal.
State member _
Nonmember
224
!
27. 1
20. 6
15.5
39. 8
10, 587
3,254
2,602
4,731
8,
1,
2,
4,
424
968
339
117
203
759
738 1
706
10, 723
3,632
5,688
1,403 1
9
4
8
1
+ 15. 8
+ 30. 5
+ 2.6
+ 22. 7
+
+
+
+
22.
13.
32.
13.
+
+
+
+
3
8
8
6
12.0
11.3
12. 2
17.8
+ 4.8
+ 53.6
-5.4
-79.9
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
-Estimated volume of new loans by all savings and loan associations, classified according
to purpose and type of association
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
Type of association
Purpose of loans
Mortage loans on homes
Period
Reconditioning
Loans for
all other
purposes
Construction
Home
purchase
Refinancing
1937
$234, 102
$326, 629
$180, 804
$62, 143
$92,901
1938
220, 458
265, 485
160, 167
58, 623
93, 263
12, 572
11, 669
16, 648
17, 710
19, 400
19, 892
19, 096
22, 575
21,018
22, 099
18, 627
19, 152
14, 896
16, 117
21, 056
25, 494
24, 123
25, 636
21, 924
23, 833
25, 698
24, 677
21, 205
20, 826
11,334
11,293
14, 391
15, 772
15, 281
13, 885
13, 194
14, 701
12, 416
12, 913
12, 182
12, 805
3,409
3,662
4,953
5,683
5,416
5,211
5,397
5,528
4,791
5,727
4,821
4,025
6,891
7, 352
8, 170
8, 648
8, 059
8, 443
8, 028
8, 072
7, 724
7, 515
7, 235
7, 126
16, 099
16, 027
17, 503
19, 118
11,749
12, 551
3,389
3,593
6, 827
7, 020
January
February
March ..
April..
May.
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1
Total
oans
State
members
Nonmembers
$896, 579 1 $307,278
$379, 286
$210, 015
797, 996 1 286, 899
333, 470
177, 627
49, 102
50, 093
65, 218
73, 307
27, 279
73, 067
67, 639
74, 709
71, 647
72,931
64, 070
63, 934
16, 781
17, 520
23, 356
26, 107
24, 721
26, 310
23, 823
26, 858
25, 650
26, 534
24, 220
25, 019
20, 879
22, 073
27, 835
30, 238
31, 196
30, 350
28, 973
29, 506
29, 255
30, 546
26, 115
26, 504
11, 442
10, 500
14, 027
16, 962
16, 362
16, 407
14, 843
18, 345
16, 742
15, 851
13, 735
12,411
55, 567
58, 309
20, 894
22, 298
23, 071
24, 191
11, 602
11, 820
Federals
1939
January
February
Table 6.—Index of wholesale price of building materials in the United States
[1926=100]
[Source: U. S. D e p a r t m e n t of Labor]
Period
All building m a terials
Brick a n d
tile
Cement
Lumber
Paint and
paint materials
Plumbing
a n d heating
Structural
steel
Other
1937
February
93.3
91.0
95.5
99. 0
83. 4
77.4
104.7
95.0
91.8
91. 1
91. 5
91.2
90.4
89.7
89.2
89.4
89.5
89.8
89.2
89.4
91.8
91.5
91. 1
90.4
90. 5
90. 6
90. 7
90. 6
90.9
91. 1
91.5
91.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
92. 6
91.0
91.3
91. 1
89.3
88.7
88. 8
90.2
90.4
90.3
90.2
90.9
80. 1
79.2
82. 2
81.4
80.9
80. 1
80.5
80.5
80.4
81. 1
80.9
81.0
79.6
79.6
78.9
77.2
77.2
77.2
79.5
79.2
78.5
78.5
78.7
78.7
114. 9
114. 9
114. 9
114. 9
114.9
113.0
107.3
107.3
107.3
107.3
107.3
107.3
95.8
95.3
94.8
94.8
94. 1
93.3
91.2
91.3
91.3
91.7
89.7
89.7
92.4
92. 4
95.5
95.5
91.7
92.6
81.0
80. 5
78.7
79.2
107.3
107.3
89.6
89.3
1938
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1939
January
February
Change:
F e b . 1939-Jan. 1939.
F e b . 1939-Feb. 1938
April 1939
+ 0.1%
-1.6%
0. 0 %
+ 1.0%
0. 0 %
0.0%
+ 1.0%,
+ 1.8%
- 0 . 6%
+ 1.6%
+ 0. 6 %
-0.5%
0. 0 %
-6. 6 %
- 0 . 3%
-6.3%
225
ed
Table 7.—Monthly operations of 1,307 identical Federal and 657 identical insured State-cha
savings and loan associations reporting during January and February 1939
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
1,307 Federals
Type of operation
February
January
657 insured State members
Change
January
to February
February
Change
January
to February
January
Share liability at end of month:
Private share accounts (number)
1, 188, 025
1, 174, 201
Percent
+ 1.2
809, 899
804, 380
Paid on private subscriptions
$881, 689. 5
209, 224. 3
, 145. 4
209, 503. 8
+ 1.6
-0. 1
$562, 559. 7
i 37, 778. 7
$559, 821. 4
i 37, 454. 2
1, 090, 913. 8
1, 077, 649. 2
+ 1.2
600, 338. 4
597, 275. 6
+ 0.5
25, 336. 7
11,983. 7
53, 232. 5
24, 909. 1
-52. 4
-51. 9
10, 651. 5
7, 901. 2
22, 580. 9
16, 164. 6
-52. 8
-51. 1
_
7, 594. 0
6, 051. 7
4, 769. 2
1, 106. 9
2, 070. 5
7, 471. 6
5, 452. 7
4, 604. 7
1, 022. 6
1, 661. 6
+ 1.6
+ 11.0
+ 3. 6
+ 8.2
+ 24. 6
2, 979. 6
3, 291. 9
1, 935. 9
544. 6
1, 230. 4
3, 033. 8
2, 903. 7
2, 152. 2
446. 3
1, 259. 9
-1.8
+ 13.4
-10. 1
+ 22.0
-2.3
Total
Mortgage loans outstanding end of month...
21, 592. 3
1, 019, 284. 5
20, 213. 2
1, 009, 658. 7
+ 6. 8
+ 1.0
9, 982. 4
536, 642. 5
9, 795. 9
533, 681. 5
+ 1.9
+ 0.6
82, 019. 8
2, 722. 1
88, 235. 0
2, 172. 0
-7.0
+ 25. 3
34, 057. 2
3, 236. 4
35, 343. 6
3, 473. 4
-3.6
-6.8
84, 741. 9
90, 407. 0
-6.3
37, 293. 6
38, 817. 0
-3.9
1, 293, 067. 7
1, 280, 538. 3
+ 1.0
755, 258. 9
751, 360. 0
+ 0.5
Treasury and H. O. L. C. subscriptions._
Total
Private share investments during month
Repurchases during month
Mortgage loans made during month:
a. New construction
b. Purchase of homes
c. Refinancing
d. Reconditioning
e. Other purposes
Borrowed money as of end of month:
From Federal Home Loan Banks
From other sources
Total
Total assets, end of month
1
Percent
+ 0. 7
+ 0.5
+ 0.9
Includes only H. O. L. C. subscription,
Table 8.—Institutions insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
Cumulative number at specified dates
Number of
investors
Assets
Private repurchasable
capital
Feb. 28,
1939
Feb. 28,
1939
Feb. 28,
1939
Type of association
Dec. 31, Dec. 31, Dec. 31, Dec. 31, Jan. 31, Feb. 28,
1936
1937
1935
1938
1939
1939
State-chartered associations
Converted F. S. and L. A.
New F. S. and L. A__
Total
136
406
572
382
560
634
566
672
641
1, 114
1,576
1,879
737
723
637
746
3 725
638
2,097
2, 109
2
747
728
638
991, 100
902, 600
321, 600
$825, 060
976, 230
356, 209
$614, 498
704, 234
204, 482
2, 113
2, 215, 300
2, 157, 499
1, 523, 214
4
1
Beginning Dec. 31, 1936, figures on number of associations insured include only those associations which have remitted
premiums.
Earlier figures include all associations approved by the Board for insurance.
2
In addition, 6 Federals with assets of $1,505,000 had been approved for conversion but had not been insured as of Dec. 31.
3
In addition, 7 Federals with assets of $1,467,000 had been approved for conversion but had not been insured as of Jan. 31.
P5 * In addition, 8 Federals with assets of $1,291,000 had been approved for conversion but had not been insured as of Feb. 28.
226
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
9.—Lending operations of the Federal
Home Loan Banks
[Amounts are shown in t h o u s a n d s of dollars]
[Thousands of dollars]
F e b r u a r y 1939
Federal H o m e
Loan Banks
Boston
New York__
Pittsburgh
Winston-Salem
Cincinnati
IndianapolisChicago
_
Des Moines _
Little Rock
Topeka _
Portland _
Los Angeles
Total
Jan.-Feb.
February
Jan.-Feb.
Februarv
Jan.-Feb.
Advances
$505
653
626
1,929
1,998
683
1,232
683
469
516
575
702
2,334
10, 571
State-chartered
J a n u a r y 1939
AdRepaym e n t s vances
$94
547
225
119
480
120
175
69
152
57
30
266
Table 10.—H. O . L. C. subscriptions to shares
of savings and loan associations 1
Advances
outstandat
Repay- ting
h e end
ments of t h e
month
$210 $1, 144
1,430
690
428
846
247 3,910
165 2, 102
94 2 , 2 7 1
246
1,522
110
1,887
1, 482
86
971
330
1,184
74
243 4, 165
$7, 222
17, 408
16, 571
14, 227
22, 463
11,563
29, 470
14, 703
8,806
10, 508
4,828
12, 845
2 , 9 2 3 22, 914 170, 614
1939.__ 5,257 33, 485
7,090
4,071
1938
7 , 7 9 3 20, 370
1938__
4, 260 6,800
1937___
1937 __ 10, 829 15, 025
Uninsured
F. H.
L. B .
members
Requests a n d subscriptions
Requests:
Oct. 1935-Feb. 1939:
Number
Amount
F e b r u a r y 1939:
Number
Amount
Insured
associations
141, 205
2
862
70
4,500
5, 432
$4, 098 $53, 860 $195, 790 $253, 748
Subscriptions:
Oct. 1935-Feb. 1939:
Number
Amount
F e b r u a r y 1939:
Number
_
Amount--
0
0
1
032, 202
656, 576
414, 263
649, 070
976, 216
All figures are subject to adjustment. Figures do not include 52,269 reconditioning jobs, a m o u n t i n g to approximately
$6,800,000, completed by t h e Corporation prior to t h e organization of t h e Reconditioning Division on J u n e 1, 1934.
2
Includes all p r o p e r t y management, advance, insurance,
a n d loan cases referred to t h e Reconditioning Division which
were n o t withdrawn prior to preliminary inspection or cost
estimate prior to Apr. 15, 1937.
April 1939
8
$385
3
$62
11
$447
2
699
4, 114
16
4, 829
$808 $42, 244 $173, 164 $216, 216
0
0
9
$399
4
$75
13
$474
1
Refers to n u m b e r of separate investments, n o t to n u m b e r
of associations in which investments are m a d e .
2
Reduction due to insurance or federalization of associations.
Table 12.—Properties acquired by H . O . L.
through foreclosure and voluntary deed 1
Period
Feb. 1,1939
J u n e 1, 1934
Cumulative
through
through
through
Feb. 28,
F e b . 28, 1939
J a n . 31,1939
1939
1,
8,973
1, 023, 229
Cases received 2_
C o n t r a c t s awarded:
Number _
7, 125
649, 451
Amount
$126, 869, 999 $1, 544, 264 $128,
Jobs completed:
Number
641, 986
7,084
Amount
$123, 417, 330 $1, 558, 886 $124,
Total
187, 518
Table 11.—Reconditioning Division—Summary of
all reconditioning operations of H. O . L. C.
through Feb. 28, 1939 l
T y p e of operation
Federal
savings
a n d loan
associations
Prior to 1935
1935: J a n . 1 through
July 1 through
1936: J a n . 1 through
J u l y 1 through
1937: J a n . 1 through
J u l y 1 through
1938: J a n . 1 t h r o u g h
July
August
September
October
November
December
1939: J a n u a r y
February
June
Dec.
June
Dec.
June
Dec.
June
Number
30
31
30
31
30
31
30
Grand total to F e b . 28, 1939
9
114
983
4,449
15, 875
23, 225
26, 981
28, 386
4,056
3,886
3,856
3,616
3,534
3,585
3,400
2,771
128, 726
1
Does not include 10,435 properties bought in by H . 0 . L. C.
a t foreclosure sale b u t awaiting expiration of t h e redemption
period before title in absolute fee can be obtained.
I n addition to t h e 128,726 completed cases, 694 properties
were sold a t foreclosure sale to parties other t h a n the H. O. L.
C. a n d 17,149 cases have been withdrawn due to p a y m e n t of
delinquencies by borrowers after foreclosure proceedings were
authorized.
227
Directory of Member,
Federal/ and Insured Institutions
DISTRICT NO. 5
OHIO:
Painesville:
Lake County Federal Savings <fe Loan Association, 172 Main Street.
DISTRICT NO. 6
MICHIGAN:
Albion:
Homestead Loan & Building Association, 403 South Superior Street.
Ann Arbor:
Ann Arbor Federal Savings & Loan Association, 116 North Fourth
Avenue.
Detroit:
Standard Savings & Loan Association, 405 Griswold Street.
I. INSTITUTIONS ADMITTED TO MEMBERSHIP IN
THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK SYSTEM BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16, 1939, AND MARCH 15, 1939 i
(Listed by Federal Home Loan Bank Districts, States, and cities)
D I S T R I C T NO. 1
MASSACHUSETTS:
Winthrop:
Winthrop Co-operative Bank, 15 Bartlett Road.
™ ™,™
F. H. L B. Directors Announced
D I S T R I C T NO. 4
MARYLAND:
Baltimore:
Govanstown Land Loan & Building Association of Baltimore County,
5304 York Road.
D I S T R I C T NO. 5
0HI0.
Gallon:
Guaranty Savings & Loan Company.
Hicksville:
Hicksville Building, Loan & Savings Company, 100 North Main Street.
WITHDRAWALS FROM THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK SYSTEM BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16, 1939, AND MARCH 15, 1939
N E W JERSEY:
Ridgewood:
Godwinville Building & Loan'Association, 6 South Broad Street (merger
with Glen Rock Building & Loan Association, Ridgewood, New Jersey, which changed its name to Community Building & Loan Association of Ridgewood).
OHIO:
Wellsburg:
Brooke County Building & Loan Association (voluntary withdrawal).
II. FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS
CHARTERED BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16, 1939, AND
MARCH 15, 1939
•
T H E appointment of Horace S. Wilson, President of the Southern California Building and
Loan Association, Los Angeles, California, to the
Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank
of Los Angeles has been recently announced by the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Mr. Wilson will
serve as Class A Director for the unexpired portion
of the 2-year term ending December 31, 1939.
The Board has announced also the appointment of
Horace S. Haworth as Public Interest Director of
the Federal Home Loan Bank of Winston-Salem.
Mr. Haworth, member of the firm of Roberson,
Haworth, & Reese, Attorneys, at High Point, North
Carolina, will fill the unexpired portion of a 4-year
term ending December 31, 1942.
DISTRICT NO. 3
PENNSYLVANIA:
Philadelphia:
E. F. Houghton Federal Savings & Loan Association, 240 West Somerset
Street (converted from E. F. Houghton Building & Loan Association).
Waynesburg:
^
^
First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Greene County (converted
from Home Building & Loan Association of Greene County, Carmichaels, Pennsylvania).
MARYLAND:
DISTRICT
N0
-
4
Baltimore:
Vermont Federal Savings & Loan Association, 2830 Edmondson Avenue
(converted from Vermont Building & Loan Association, Incorporated).
TUrrnrrrn
, XT-
DISTRICT NO.
6
MICHIGAN:
Ann Arbor:
Ann Arbor Federal Savings & Loan Association, 116 North Fourth
Avenue (converted from Huron Valley Building & Savings Association).
DISTRICT NO. 12
CALIFORNIA:
Los Angeles:
Republic Federal Savings & Loan Association, 761 South Olive Street
(converted from Coast Mutual Building-Loan Association).
CANCELATIONS OF FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
CHARTERS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16, 1939, AND MARCH
15, 1939
PENNSYLVANIA:
Mt. Lebanon:
. .
Mt. Lebanon Federal Savings & Loan Association (merger with Fort
Pitt Federal Savings & Loan Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).
III. INSTITUTIONS INSURED BY THE FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION
BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16, 1939, AND MARCH 15,
1939
MARYLAND:
D I S T R I C T NO. 4
Baltimore:
, .
.„ , .
^
Govanstown Land Loan & Building Association of Baltimore County,
5304 York Road.
i During this period 1 Federal savings and loan association was admitted to
membership in the System.
228
Obstacles to Housing
(Continued from p. 212)
on real property should be more nearly equalized
with that borne by other forms of property, and
similarly, the burden upon home properties should
be reduced and more nearly equalized with that borne
by other types of real property."
The exemption of homesteads from taxation also
has a bearing on home ownership. U p to the present
time, approximately 30 States have had homestead
tax exemption bills before their legislatures and half
of these have passed laws exempting homesteads or
reducing the tax rates.
The Federal Home Loan Bank Board pointed out
that removal or alleviation of these obstacles would
contribute to a substantial recovery of residential
construction, which "is an important, if not essential,
element in any decisive upturn of the business cycle.
The building industry holds a key position in the
national economy. I t is the largest industrial employer of labor. If building flourishes, the country
generally is prosperous. If it languishes, other
economic progress is impeded."
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1939
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK DISTRICTS
»
I
S. DAK.
I
Q
" > v WJSC
\<0\
M —
•
BOUNDARIES Or FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK DISTRICTS
FEOERAL HOME LOAN BANK CITIES.
OFFICERS OF FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS
BOSTON
CHICAGO
B. J. ROTHWELL, Chairman; E . H . W E E K S , Vice Chairman; W. H .
C. E . BROUGHTON, Chairman; H . G. ZANDER, J R . , Vice Chairman; A. R.
NEAVES,
President;
H.
N.
FAULKNER,
Vice President;
FREDERICK
W I N A N T , J R . , Treasurer; L . E . D O N O V A N , Secretary; P . A. H E N D R I C K ,
G A R D N E R , President; J O H N BARDWICK, J R . , Vice President-Treasurer;
CONSTANCE M . W R I G H T , Secretary; UNGARO & SHERWOOD, Counsel.
Counsel.
NEW
DES
YORK
MOINES
Chairman;
C. B . R O B B I N S , Chairman; E . J. R U S S E L L , Vice Chairman; R. J. R I C H A R D -
G. L. BLISS, President; F . G. STICKEL, J R . , Vice President-General
SON, President-Secretary; W . H . LOHMAN, Vice President-Treasurer;
J. M . M A R T I N , Assistant Secretary; A. E . MUELLER, Assistant
GEORGE
MACDONALD,
Counsel; R O B E R T
Chairman; F . V.
D.
LLOYD,
Vice
G. CLARKSON, Vice President-Secretary;
DENTON
T R E A S U R E R ; E . S. T E S D E L L , Counsel.
C. L Y O N , Treasurer.
PITTSBURGH
LITTLE ROCK
E . T . TRIGG, Chairman; C. S. T I P P E T T S , Vice Chairman; R. H . R I C H ARDS,
President;
G.
R.
PARKER,
Vice
President;
H.
H.
GARBER,
Secretary-Treasurer; R. A. CUNNINGHAM, Counsel.
W. C. J O N E S , J R . , Chairman; B . H . W O O T E N , President; H . D . W A L L A C E ,
Vice President; W. F . TARVIN, Treasurer; J. C. CONWAY, Secretary;
W . H . CLARK, J R . , Counsel.
WINSTON-SALEM
TOPEKA
S. F . CLABAUGH, Chairman; E . C. BALTZ, Vice Chairman; O. K . L A R O Q U E ,
President-Secretary; G. E . WALSTON, Vice President-Treasurer; Jos. W.
H O L T , Assistant Secretary; RATCLIFFE, H U D S O N & F E R R E L L , Counsel.
G. E . M C K I N N I S , Chairman; P . F . GOOD, Vice Chairman; C. A .
STERLING, President-Secretary; R. H . BURTON, Vice President-Treasurer; JOHN S. D E A N , JR., General Counsel.
CINCINNATI
PORTLAND
T H E O . H . T A N G E M A N , Chairman; W M . M E G R U E BROCK, Vice Chairman;
F. S. MCWILLIAMS, Chairman; B . H . H A Z E N , Vice Chairman; F . H .
W A L T E R D . SHULTZ, President; W . E . J U L I U S , Vice President; D W I G H T
JOHNSON,
W E B B , J R . , Secretary; A. L. M A D D O X , Treasurer; T A F T , STETTINIUS &
Treasurer; Mrs. E . M. SOOYSMITH, Assistant Secretary.
President-Secretary;
IRVING
BOGARDUS,
Vice
President-
HOLLISTER, General Counsel; R. B . JACOBY, Assigned Attorney.
Los ANGELES
INDIANAPOLIS
F. S. CANNON, Chairman-Vice President; S. R. LIGHT, Vice Chairman;
F R E D T . G R E E N E , President; B . F . B U R T L E S S ,
Secretary-Treasurer;
J O N E S , HAMMOND, BUSCHMANN & G A R D N E R , Counsel.
D . G. D A V I S , Chairman; J. F . TWOHY, Vice Chairman; M . M . H U R FORD, President; C. E . B E R R Y , Vice President; F . C. N O O N , SecretaryTreasurer;
VIVIAN
SIMPSON,
PATRICK, General Counsel.
Assistant
Secretary;
RICHARD
FITZ-
@FedFRASER