Full text of Federal Home Loan Bank Review : September 1937, Vol. 3 No. 12

View original document

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

No. 12

Vol.3

FEDERAL
HOME LOAN BANK

REVIEW
SEPTEMBER
1937

ISSUED BY
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD
WASHINGTON D.C.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK REVIEW

Issued Monthly by the

Federal Home Loan Bank Board
JOHN H. FAHEY, Chairman
WILLIAM F. STEVENSON

•

T. D. WEBB, Vice Chairman

F. W. CATLETT

•

H. E. HOAGLAND

Federal Home Loan Bank System
Federal Savings and Loan Associations
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation
Home Owners9 Loan Corporation

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE OF REVIEW
THE FEDERAL 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 $1.40; 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

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Insured savings week in New Orleans

401

Taxation of homes

404

Small home for Norris, Tennessee

408

Home ownership and income

410

The architect and the Home Building Service Plan

413

Building society cooperation

414

Residential construction and home-financing activity

416

Indexes of small-house building costs

417

Monthly lending activity of savings and loan associations

418

Federal Savings and Loan System

419

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation

420

Federal Home Loan Bank System

420

Statistical tables

421

Nos. 1, 2, Number and estimated cost of new family dwelling units

421

No. 3, Indexes of small house building costs

424

Nos. 4, 5, 6, Estimated lending activity of all savings and loan associations

425

No. 7, Monthly lending activity of reporting savings and loan associations

427

No. 8, Index of wholesale price of building materials

428

No. 9, Institutions insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.

429

No. 10, Monthly operations of State-chartered insured associations

429

No. 11, Monthly operations of Federal savings and loan associations

430

Nos. 12, 13, Federal Home Loan Bank System

430

Nos. 14, 15, 16, Home Owners' Loan Corporation

431

Resolutions of the Board

433

Directory of member, Federal, and insured institutions added during July-August

435

Index of Volume 3—FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK REVIEW

SEPTEMBER 1937

437

Insured Savings Week in New Orleans

ECOVERY of public confidence and the
general progress of the homestead associations in New Orleans has been the result of a
unique example of cooperative action by mutual
home-financing institutions. When 13 established
associations were approved as a group for share
insurance by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation during the summer of 1935,
they began a record of organized cooperation that
has attracted the attention of other savings and
loan institutions throughout the United States.
It is not surprising that this cooperation should
receive formal recognition in an effective concentrated public relations campaign widely advertised
as "Insured Savings Week".
The association's participating in the program
had a most convincing basis for their appeal for
the support of the entire city. They had lost
that support during the early years of the depression but they could now point to the fact that
during a period of two years every association in
the city doing active business had been granted
Federal insurance and had joined in their cooperative activity. By the end of the first half of 1937,
there were 37 insured institutions, with total
assets of more than $50,000,000, and reserves and
undivided profits of more than $5,000,000. During June these associations had accepted private
investments of about $356,000, and anticipated
even greater activity.
They had successfully established their position
after the depression by cooperative action, and
were anxious to convince the city by a concentrated campaign that homestead associations,
backed by Federal share account insurance, had
more than regained their old position in the civic
life of the community. They accordingly decided to hold an "Insured Savings Week", making
the progress of the homestead associations an
occasion for civic celebration.
The results accomplished by this campaign
show that the methods followed deserve the interest of savings and loan associations all over
the country. "Insured Savings Week" was held
between June 27 and July 3, and during the first

September 1937

two weeks in July the participating associations
received investments amounting to $828,000,
which was ample evidence that the message of
the home-financing institution had been successfully presented.
The first reason for the success of this public
relations effort was the cooperation of all the
insured homestead associations in the city. This
cooperation had extended over a period of more
than two years, and had involved the expenditure
of more than $60,000 on a joint advertising campaign that won an award from the United States
Building and Loan League.
The establishment of the highly successful
Central Appraisal Bureau also testifies to the
cooperative character of their relations. This
Bureau operates as a professional organization
with the sole duty of appraising property in New
Orleans and nearby parishes for all insured homestead associations. It does this without knowing
for which institution its work is being done.
Another reason was the judicious choice of a
time to present the campaign. There were
several advantages in holding "Insured Savings
Week" at the end of June. It was one of the
two times during the year when the homestead
associations make their strongest appeal for public
investment: It was a time when the public could
get funds for investment from other sources
without losing dividends or interest payments; it
coincided with the offer by insured associations of
free dividends from July 1 on all money invested
in share accounts up to July 15; and it was
the time when the granting of semiannual dividends gave concrete evidence of the benefits of
saving.
The program made the fullest possible use of
all channels of advertising. One leading New
Orleans newspaper carried a 28-page supplemental
section on June 27 devoted entirely to homestead
associations and "Insured Savings Week"; another
came out with a similar 18-page section in the
middle of the week. The advertisements reproduced on page 403 are from one of these
supplements.

401

Radio stations, which were used for advertising,
gave additional time for speeches on subjects
related to thrift and home financing. Two
speeches daily were made from each of three radio
stations on insured homestead shares, with leading
local business and professional men joining homestead association officials in explaining the benefits
of investments in insured associations.
Other business organizations, which were accustomed to profit from the home-financing activity
of the homestead associations, were called on for
cooperation. Along with the individual and joint
advertisements of the associations appeared those
of residential utility companies and home-furnishing establishments. The telephone company
stamped "This is Insured Homestead Savings
Week" on its outgoing bills during the period.
Street car cards and auto stickers carried the
message still farther.
Another reason for the tremendous success of
the occasion was the enlistment of the thorough
cooperation of civic and public agencies. The
Governor of the State of Louisiana and the Mayor
of New Orleans gave official recognition to the
occasion by public proclamations. Special resolutions of support were voted by the New Orleans
Association of Commerce and other civic bodies.
Every businessmen's luncheon club meeting during
the week had as its principal speaker a representative of the homestead associations.
The support of the Federal agencies with which
the New Orleans associations had cooperated so
thoroughly was freely given. " Insured Savings
Week" was attended by the Chairman of the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the General
Manager of the Federal Savings and Loan
Insurance Corporation, and the Director of
Public Relations of the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board. The Chairman made an address
by radio which permitted savings and loan officials
all over Louisiana to participate in the occasion,
since every association in the State had been
informed by telegram of the address and urged
to gather an audience for it.
It is estimated that between $25,000 and $30,000
was spent by the homestead associations and the
businesses that cooperated with them in advertising "Insured Savings Week".
In presenting the progress of the insured homestead associations, a particular effort was made
402

to avoid rash generalizations and promises, and to
teach the general public the principles of thrift
and home financing. The relationship of the
homestead associations to the general welfare and
civic life of the community was carefully emphasized, and the cooperation of the homestead
associations was extended to other elements in
the business and social life of the city.

Census of Construction
STATISTICS on building permits are more useful to
the home-financing institution than statistics on
residential construction contracts awarded, principally because the latter figures are related to the
city where the construction company is located
rather than where the house is to be built. The
Census of the Construction Industry for 1935, by
showing what proportion of work by various types
of contracting establishments was done outside
of their home city and home State, illustrates this
point.

More than one-third of building by general contractors (this term includes operative builders) is
done outside of their home cities and one-eighth
is done outside their home States. A little over
one-fifth of all construction by special trade contractors, on the other hand, is done outside their
home cities.
In spite of the growth of the operative builder,
special trade contractors, working directly for
prospective home owners or for general contractors, did more than two-thirds of the building work
on 1- and 2-family homes reported to the Census
of the Construction Industry for 1935. Trade
contractors accounted for $183,476,000 of the
$268,375,000 volume of 1- and 2-family home
building reported by 46,429 construction establishments to the Bureau of the Census.
The Census showed that general contractors (including operative builders) played an even smaller
part, by comparison with special trade contractors,
in other types of residential construction, including apartments.
The volume of repair work by special trade
contractors on 1- and 2-family homes was greater
than their volume of new construction, while the
reverse was true for the general contractors and
operative builders.
Federal Home Loan Bank Review

ADVERTISING

$700,000.00

USED D U R I N G

I N S U R E D SAVINGS

WEEK

OhldL

TO 71.000

INSURED HOMESTEAD SHAREHOLDERS
June 30, 1937
YOU Can Share in the Next Dividend By Buying Insured Homestead Shares NOW!

UHE p i n t ' s
*~ ' HOME Omni* 1
in the mails to•s who had the
s
i the 36 Insured

cel

jlar semi-anfannum-anexIday of low in-

sEtUSF0RWAH5
o.o»lrVo»» r , l * B I #

1,0110

«oWer,nanangP-WeWs

^*-~r 0 purs

br with money
\t his money is
loss up to
in Insurance
fcinot decline
ICTUALLY

, lasses?'

What other invi
curity plus this/
In these days of
think about InF

Shares Row]

under our "tv„___

Insured Horn*/
15th earn dh/
from July Is*
that date. '

—reof

~->»*tnat;

PER PBR

FORLCl
Ff you wish tcf
borrow on yotj
steads has mill
to suit your ra
» . .no premivl
f Kfe,

ACME
ALGIERS
AMERICAN
CANAL
CARROLLTON
CENTRAL
CITIZENS

September 1937

COMMONWEALTH
CONTINENTAL
CRESCENT CITY
DIXIE
DRYADES
EQUITABLE
EUREKA

FIDELITY
FIFTH DISTRICT
FRENCH MARKET
GENERAL
GLOBE
GUARANTY
HIBERNIA
HOME

HOMESEEKERS
IDEAL
ITALIAN
JACKSON
OAK
ORLEANS
PELICAN

PEOPLES
SECURITY
SIXTH DISTRICT
SUBURBAN
THIRD DISTRICT
UNION
WASHINGTON

403

Taxation of Homes

HE community becomes the individual's
silent partner whenever he undertakes to
build or buy a home. Aside from such restrictions as code and zoning regulations, it has little
voice in the management of his affairs. But it
regularly collects a percentage of the values that
the individual accumulates in his home, and it
varies that percentage from time to time according to its own needs and efficiency. Its lien on
the property, if its levies are unpaid, is usually
prior to that of any other creditor. Mortgage
lenders have often discovered that such liens have
diminished or destroyed their security. The savings and loan association thus has a direct interest
in the local and national conditions affecting the
taxation of residential property.
The total revenue from the general property
tax in America's 94 largest cities increased in 1935
to $46.72 per capita, from the 1934 figure of
$45.17, the Bureau of the Census recently announced. The most reliable computation of the
effective tax burden in 230 of the country's
largest cities showed that for 1936 there was an
increase, as compared with 1935, in the average
adjusted tax rate of from $25.69 to $26.30 per
thousand, and a rise of $2.00 in the average per
capita assessment.1 Since the latest figures show
slight increases in the total collections, the average rate, and the assessments of the general
property tax, the mortgage lender and the home
owner become even more directly concerned with
the future of taxation of homes.
The average taxpayer is bewildered by the
complexity of the situation since there are usually
several local jurisdictions to which taxes must be
paid. If State governments are not counted,
there are in the United States 182,000 taxing
jurisdictions, of which about 128,000 are school
districts, about 3,000 are counties, about 14,000
are minor special taxing jurisdictions, and the
remainder are cities, townships, and other municipal governments. Let us see how, over an
1
"Comparative Tax Rates", published each December
in the National Municipal Review. The "adjusted rate"
is "what the total tax rate would be if the assessments of
all the cities were made by a single assessor or by uniform
assessing standards at full value."

404

extended period, the burden of these units on home
ownership has grown. Census figures show that,
between 1912 and 1932, the per capita total levies
of the general property tax for all States, their
subdivisions, and the District of Columbia rose
from $13.91 to $40.37. In the meantime, the net
debt of the cities, towns, villages, and boroughs
increased 208 percent and the combined net debt
of the school districts, townships, and other civil
divisions increased 1,611 percent. Such debts will
probably be paid largely from the property tax.
The tremendous increase in the debts of special
taxing jurisdictions shows that increasing community services are responsible for the greater
part of the growing expense of municipal government. The larger city, which provides more
complex services for its citizens, usually pays a
higher tax rate.
The most significant and pronounced trend
relating to general property taxation during the
twentieth century has been the rise in the costs
of community services as cities grew larger and
higher standards of urbanization were reached. In
cities of more than 100,000 population, the sum
spent for health and sanitation has nearly trebled,
the cost of education nearly quadrupled, and the
cost of charities, hospitals, and corrections
increased about ninefold between 1903 and 1935.
To illustrate these points, the accompanying
chart shows how general property tax levies, net
debt, and governmental-cost payments have increased during the past 20 years and are generally
higher in large cities than in small. It is significant to note that the cost of local government
steadily increased from 1915 to 1930. Between
1930 and 1935 it declined in two of the three sizegroups, probably to a great extent because of
Federal expenditures for relief and public works
that would normally have required the use of
local funds, but still it remained well above the
1925 levels. To pay for this increasing cost, the
general property tax levy also rose steadily, but
its decline after 1930 was sharper. Although the
per-capita levy in 1935 was higher than in either
of the two preceding years, it still remained close
to or actually below the 1925 level.
Federal Home Loan Bank Review

With the increasing burden of community
services, it seems that the importance of the general property tax as a source of revenue is gradually decreasing, although not enough to reduce the
rate of taxation materially. From 1903 to 1931,
this tax grew gradually but steadily in importance,
providing 61.4 percent of the net revenue receipts
of 146 specific cities covered by the Census report
in the former year, and 68.0 percent in the latter.
Since 1931, however, the 94 largest cities have
gradually been obtaining a steadily smaller proportion of their total revenue from the general
property tax, but in 1935 they still received 60.2
percent of all revenue receipts from that source.
The slight decrease in the ratio of the property
tax to all revenue receipts is to some extent due
to the increase in importance of subventions and
donations, especially from the State and Federal
governments. While local governments were
receiving State and Federal help, they were
nevertheless adding to their debts. When the
general tax levy fell off after 1930, as is shown in
our chart, the net debts of cities in the two larger
PER CAPITA

GENERAL
AND NET

groups continued to rise, and those of the smaller
cities remained at nearly their 1930 level.
No other one form of municipal taxation,
however, had become of sufficient importance to
be considered seriously in comparison with the
general property tax. In 1935 it still furnished
the 94 largest cities with nearly nine times the
revenue produced by all other taxes, just as it
furnished all local taxing jurisdictions in the
country with nine-tenths of their tax revenue,
distinct from "nontax" revenue, in 1932.
A considerable proportion of the property-tax
burden falls on 1-family homes, since it is easier
for personal property than for real property to
escape tax assessment, and, according to a Census
study of realty tax delinquency in 1932-1933,
taxes on 1-family homes were paid more faithfully than taxes on any other form of residential
property or on vacant lots. The President's
Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership, in 1931, reported that the small singlefamily homes were assessed more heavily than
other forms of property. A recent sample study

PROPERTY TAX, GOVERNMENTAL-COST
DEBT BY SIZE OF CITY, 1915-1935

PAYMENTS,

(Source: Financial Statistics of Cities, Bureau of the Census)

120 h

September 1937

405

by the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company on apartments and homes in 48 cities
showed that 1-family homes paid taxes amounting to more than a quarter of their rental rates,
and more than double the proportionate amount
paid by apartments.
The property tax remains the means by which
the average municipality raises its funds, and is
often the balancing item in the budget, being adjusted to provide whatever necessary revenue that
other methods fail to bring in. Cities continue
their reliance on this form of taxation partly because it is fairly effective. According to a Dun
and Bradstreet study, taxes levied by 91 representative cities in 1933, the year of peak delinquency, remained only 4.4 percent uncollected,
in the median city, at the end of the 1936 fiscal
year. Cities with weak collection systems, large
speculative developments, or reliance on personal
property taxation, the study indicates, had considerably higher delinquency ratios.
The property tax rates become of greater importance to the savings and loan association because of the present trend toward loans on a
higher proportion of appraised valuation, to be
repaid over a longer period of amortization. The
property tax in the United States, unlike any
other country's major source of revenue, is a tax
that is levied against the holder of the equity in
the capital value of property. This burden on
the borrower discourages further home ownership, and any increases impair the equities that
provide security for the mortgage lender.
Property taxation, however, is not primarily a
matter of national averages. Let us consider
two cities of between 50,000 and 75,000 population which we have recently surveyed. One has
a property tax rate that has been declining steadily, with extremely efficient collections, since 1929.
Its total tax rate is about $37.50, and the effective rate, because of its customary 50-percent
valuation, is about 118.75. The city's bonded
debt is less than 5 percent of the market value of
its assessed property, and the total accumulated
delinquency in 1935 was only $130,000. On the
other hand, the second city has an effective tax
rate of over $45.00, a bonded debt amounting to
about 9 percent of the market value of its assessed
property, and an accumulated delinquency of over
a million dollars.
406

In the former city rentals are higher than in
1929 and the growth in population has produced
a substantial market for medium-priced dwelling
units. In the latter, families are moving outside
the city limits to escape the high taxation, rentals
have dropped to between 50 percent and 80 percent of 1929 figures, and the entire real-estate
market is inactive. Economic factors other than
taxation have contributed to the differences between these cities, but the contrast illustrates the
discouraging effect on real-estate values and home
ownership that unduly high taxation produces in
specific localities.
T A X LIMITATION
W I T H the cost of local government in general
increasing, the method employed most frequently
to check increases in property taxation has been
the imposition of statutory limits on such taxation. These limits have been imposed in many
States on either the rates or the per-capita amounts
of the taxes to be raised by specific jurisdictions.
A more drastic method of limitation has been
to restrict the aggregate rate imposed on the
same property irrespective of the number of
jurisdictions.
During 1936, voters favored tax limitation
measures in two States, continuing the existing
40-mill over-all limit in Washington, and adopting
a 50-mill over-all limit in Nevada. Limitation
amendments were voted down, however, in Colorado, Georgia, and Oregon; and Michigan voters
defeated an amendment to limit property taxes
to those for debt service only. Proposed limitation measures failed to get on the ballot in Arizona
and Pennsylvania because of legal technicalities.
In all States there is some limitation on the
indebtedness that local governments may incur.
Thirty State constitutions include such limitations, and six others specifically permit the
legislatures to impose them. The remaining
States resort to special acts for the purpose.
There is little protection, however, against
pyramiding indebtedness, or the formation of
taxing jurisdictions other than the city or county
governments to carry debts for specific purposes.
The weakness of these measures of limitation
is that they may fail to provide for the administration of services that become necessary with city
growth, with improvement in social standards, or

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

with emergencies of various kinds. To take care
of such services and emergencies when the ability
of local property owners to pay taxes had been
exhausted, the Federal Government was forced
during the depression to take over functions,
such as relief, that had formerly been considered
purely local responsibilities. If these responsibilities are completely returned to the local
governments, the effect on the taxation of homes
might be serious. In view of the difficulty of
paying for new services on the old basis of taxation, the proposal has often been advanced that
State governments collect revenue from sources
not available to municipalities and distribute
funds to them. The increase in the use of subventions from the State and Federal governments
to localities illustrates the practical trend toward
finding a more satisfactory basis than property
taxation for the support of increased governmental
functions.
To substantiate this point, figures recently
compiled from various governmental statistics
by the Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., show how
striking has been the growth in shared taxes and
grants-in-aid as means of support of local governmental functions. These figures, which assume
that grants-in-aid and State-shared taxes are
local tax revenue, show that local governments
in 1935 got only 59 percent of their tax revenue
from taxes that they themselves administered, as
compared with 82 percent in 1933. There had
been very little change during the 2-year period
in the proportion of contributions by the State
governments in shared taxes and grants-in-aid,
but they too had declined from 16.9 to 16.5 percent. This leaves nearly a quarter of the local
governments' 1935 revenue to be accounted for.
The answer is that the Federal Government,
which contributed only 1.1 percent of local tax
revenue in 1932, contributed 24.5 percent of such
revenue in 1935. The increase in the burden of
local expenditures has thus been borne to a great
extent by the income-tax payer rather than the
property-tax payer.
In this connection, it is interesting to consider
the effect on local finances of the stabilization in
home values effected by the Home Owners' Loan
Corporation. In clearing up back taxes owed to

TAXES AND CITY PLANNING

WHILE insisting on careful administration of
municipal government and its tax policy, the
home owner and the mortgage lender will benefit
from promoting more effective city planning and
zoning requirements. The irregular and inefficient
extension of community services required by haphazard city growth, and the high cost in disease
and crime caused by the creation of further slum
areas, add to the burden of taxation on the home
owner. The destruction of property values by
ineffective zoning and consequent neighborhood
blight makes certain property owners less able to
pay their share, and increases the tax burden on
others. From even a purely financial point of
view the restricted residential district is concerned
with community planning and the prevention of
neighborhood blight.
The burden of taxation on real property is not
a problem to be solved by any single simple
formula. It is connected with the development
of cities and their services, with the structure of
local government, and with the entire fiscal system
of the country. But no matter how complex, it is
a problem that affects the home-financing institution as well as the home owner because of the
extent to which the tax burden rests on the singlefamily home.
407

September 1937
10609—37

various State and local taxing jurisdictions the
H. 0 . L. C. disbursed about $224,981,000, and
consolidated such payments in the loans made to
the home owners. The annual accrual of taxes
against properties securing the H. O. L. C.'s loans
is estimated at $100,000,000, and the payment of
these taxes has surely been facilitated by the
H. O. L. C.'s assistance to the home owner.
The great variations among cities of comparable
size in taxation and delinquency, and in extent
of indebtedness suggest that much may be done
to lower the burden of taxation by economy
and careful municipal administration. Provision
for centralized payment of all property taxes, for
notification of the mortgagee before title passes to
third parties as a result of tax delinquency, and
for periodical or installment payment of back and
current taxes, may all be beneficial to both the
taxpayer and community.

es»«is

•rV*

^feA
, * * * < * > «* * ^ 5

%-*#%

T. V. A. E X P E R I M E N T A L HOUSE NO. 54,
NORRIS, TENNESSEE

408

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Small Home for Norris, Tennessee

F T H E several Government housing developments, the T. V. A. project at Norris,
Tennessee, has probably contributed more than
any other to the basic study of the technique of
small-house design. Experiments undertaken in
this project have been principally concerned with
the effect of variations in size and form on the
cost of construction. They have avoided experimenting with new materials and unusual methods
of construction, except in a small selected group
of dwellings. The dwellings with which we are
concerned are built of either brick veneer, stone
veneer, or wood, the cost of which varied so little
as to be negligible. Consequently, variations in
cost between the different house plans reflect relative efficiency in the use of space rather than
sleight-of-hand methods of construction or the
cost of materials used.
The plan reproduced on the opposite page is one
of 24 designs used in group I of the Norris project.
It is the result of rational methods applied to a
specific problem. Though not typical, the basic
characteristics of this plan are similar to the other
house types of the group.
There is ample porch space, cross ventilation,
and economy of arrangement for comfortable,
though simple, living. The elimination of separate dining space was accepted as justifiable under
the circumstances. It was of course considered
desirable to arrange for service in the living room.
The main porch is admirably located to serve as a
multiple use area; as is readily apparent, it can be
used as a dining porch and sleeping porch as well
as a living porch. The use of the deep porch extending the full length of the living room is limited
to plan arrangements that provide for adequate
window area in another wall, preferably the opposite long wall. During the sun porch era the living room was frequently shut off from natural
light and became a gloomy space relegated to the
Sunday afternoon nap.
Bedrooms Nos. 2 and 3 with bath between are
particularly well arranged in relation to living
room and porch. Their separation from the kitchen by the full length of the living room is generally undesirable in a large house, but is relatively
September 1937

unimportant in small quarters such as these. The
use of the porch as an auxiliary connecting area
between the two is most useful, particularly in a
southern climate. Bedroom No. 1 might be eliminated from the plan, to be added at a later date if
needed. Attic space is adequate as an undivided
dormitory, or could be divided into two bedrooms
and storage space. A separate dining space could
easily be attained by eliminating the laundry.
Laundry equipment could be placed in a partial
basement, which would be required in any case
where electric heating is replaced by conventional
equipment.
The following description is a brief outline of
materials, finishes, etc.: House No. 54 contains
18,700 cubic feet and has Y% habitable stories.
The ratio of habitable floor space to cubage is 13.2
cubic feet to each square foot of floor area. It has
brick foundations with copper termite shields,
white-washed brick veneer with mineral wool
insulation, %-inch insulation board on roof, rived
oak shingles, 100-f>ercent ventilation, and steel
casements with aluminum screens. Plumbing
lines are of copper tubing; shower stalls are aluminum or pre-cast concrete; the heating, cooking,
hot water, and refrigeration are done by electricity.
The interior is paneled with 3-inch wood wainscoting and plywood panels set horizontally above.
The ceilings have "V" joint K-inch insulating
board the full width of rooms. Baths have tempered presdwood on ceilings. Oak flooring is
used throughout.
In building programs that are founded on the
basis of enduring value, the supervision of construction is of vital importance. Iii large scale
production such as the T. V. A. development in
Norris, Tennessee, supervision was an integral part
of the program. Such technical supervision for a
separate dwelling of modest proportions has been
made an important integral part of the Federal
Home Building Service Plan.
NOTE: Information concerning working drawings of the plan shown on the opposite page may
be procured by writing to the Editor of the
REVIEW.

409

Home Ownership and Income
This article, dealing with towns of about 1,000 to 2,500 population, is the last of a series discussing home ownership and
income in communities of various sizes

H R E E significant tendencies were noticed
about home ownership and income in the
metropolis and the large city, in the early articles of this series. First, the business or professional family with a certain income pays higher
rents than the clerical family of comparable income, and the wage-earning family pays the lowest
rents of all. Second, home-owning families live
in better homes than renting families of comparable incomes. Third, wage-earning families, at any
given income level, are most likely to own their
homes.
The first two tendencies held good as the
medium-size and the small city were examined.
But the third tendency, for wage-earning families
to show the greatest inclination toward home
ownership, was not clearly apparent in the
medium-size city; and in the small city, of 10,000
to 20,000 population, exactly the opposite tendency was seen. These facte lead to several
tentative conclusions. The permanence of an
investment in a home leads families to demand
higher standards of shelter when buying than
when renting. Business and professional families
spend a greater proportion of their incomes for
housing than do other families, and turn to home
ownership rather than renting in the smaller
towns where apartments are less popular than
single-family homes; whereas wage-earning families with adequate incomes buy their homes in
large cities where there are various chances of
finding jobs, but hesitate to do so in a small town
where a change in work would more probably
make a move necessary.
These tentative deductions are confirmed by
data from two groups of small towns, most of
which range in population from 1,000 to 3,000—
the smallest urban communities covered by the
recent Study of Consumer Purchases. The survey
of these towns, as well as of certain rural regions,
was made by the Bureau of Home Economics of
the Department of Agriculture, in cooperation
with other Federal agencies. The data released
for publication in this article are preliminary and
subject to revision.
410

The Bureau has compiled figures from a survey
of all native white families including both husband
and wife in each of two groups: one group of 13
small towns in Pennsylvania and Ohio, the other
of 15 small towns in Georgia and South Carolina.
All figures in this article refer to families of this
type who are not on relief unless it is stated
otherwise. The two sample groups, for reasons
of brevity, will be referred to in this article as the
northern and southern group, respectively.
The family incomes in these small towns are
somewhat lower than in the larger communities.
About 48 percent of the families in the northern
group, and 45 percent in the southern, were either
on relief or had incomes of less than $1,000. Only
26 percent of all northern families, and 34 percent
of all southern families, had incomes of $1,500 or
more. This higher income of the southern towns
is due to the exclusion from our data of negro
families, who might be expected to bring the average down considerably.
The northern families pay somewhat higher
rents in spite of their lower incomes. These
differences were more marked as between wageearning families of the two areas than they were
between families of corresponding incomes in the
other occupational groups. These contrasts are
shown in table A. In both the northern and
southern small town groups, business and professional families paid the highest rents by comparison with other occupational groups, as our
previous articles showed that they do in larger
communities.
It is not for rented homes alone that business
and professional families spend the highest proportion of their income. If we consider the rental
value of owned homes for each income level, we
find that in general the business and professional
families rank highest in this respect.
The figures on the proportion of home owners in
the two groups confirm the deduction that the
wage earner in the small town, unlike the wage
earner in the large city, does not show the strongest tendency to home ownership. It is rather the
business and professional family, which shows a
Federal Home Loan Bank Review

tendency to spend a larger proportion of its income
for shelter, that is more likely to own its home than
other families with comparable incomes. Likewise, the wage-earning family in the northern
group of towns, which spends a larger proportion
of its income for rent, is more likely to own its
home than the wage-earning family in the southern group. About 44 percent of the northern
wage-earning families, and only 15 percent of the
southern, own their homes.
Home ownership is far more prevalent among
families with higher incomes, especially in the
southern group, as table B indicates. In the
northern group, 51 percent of families with incomes of $1,000 to $1,500 are home owners, and
the percentage rises to 73 for those families with
incomes of $3,000 or over. In the southern group,
only 28 percent of families in the $1,000-$1,500
class are home owners, but 82 percent of those with
incomes over $3,000 own their own homes.

It is true that home ownership is more prevalent
among the business and professional families,
which are more numerous than those of other occupations in the higher income brackets. If this
alone accounted for the increase in home ownership in the higher income groups, that fact would
mean little to the home-financing institution, for
an increase in the general income level, or a decrease in the cost of home buillding, might be responsible for few new home purchases. But in
each occupational group there is a decided rise in
home ownership as incomes increase, which suggests that a decrease in the cost of homes, or an
increase in the stability or the general level of
wages, might benefit the home-financing business
considerably.
We may compare these tendencies with those
discussed in earlier articles on small and mediumsized cities. The sample southern cities in our
previous articles showed higher incomes for white

Table A.—Rent
paid in selected
village
groups by renting families,
classified by
income and occupational
groups

Table B.—Proportion of home owners to all
families in selected village groups, classified by income and occupational
groups

Non-relief native white families with both husband and wife, 1935-1936
[Based on a survey of 1,749 families in 13 Pennsylvania and Ohio
villages, and of 2,255 families in 15 Georgia and South Carolina
villages]
[Source: Bureau of Home Economics, Study of Consumer
Purchases]

Percent of home owners

Amount of average monthly
rent

Income group

All
occupations

Wage
earning

Clerical

Business
and
professional

Pennsylvania and Ohio:
$14. 49 $12. 57 $14. 66 $18. 60
Total non-relief
11.41 11.01 11.88 15.29
Under $1,000
13.69 13.12 15.03 15.75
$1,000 to $1,500
16.07 15.59 15.44 16.93
$1,500 to $2,000
20.81 18.13 17.22 22.65
$2,000 to $3,000
22.35 18.33 22.67 23.36
$3,000 and over
Georgia and South Carolina:
7.89 14.41 15.97
10.89
Total non-relief
5.60 12.30
6.29
Under $500
6.78
$500 to $1,000
6.33 10.25 11.60
7.66
9.12 14.96 14.24
$1,000 to $1,500
11.17
13.28
9.72 16.84 15.47
$1,500 to $2,000
18.10 20.58
17.52
9.69
$2,000 to $3,000
18.60 22.52
21.32
$3,000 and over
0)
1

Only 3 cases.

September 1937

Income group

Pennsylvania and Ohio:
Total non-relief
Under $1,000
$1,000 to $1,500
$1,500 to $2,000
$2,000 to $3,000
$3,000 and over
Georgia and South Carolina:
Total non-relief
Under $500
$500 to $1,000
$1,000 to $1,500
$1,500 to $2,000
$2,000 to $3,000
$3,000 and over

AU occupations

Wage
earning

Clerical

Business
and
professional

51
46
51
53
56
73

44
41
46
47
54

54
40
50
61
74
60

59
63
62
54
49
78

41
29
30
29
37
55
82

54
36
40
37
44
62
83

36
23
20
28
37
57
82

0)
15
10
10
19
21
31
67

Only 4 cases.
411

families, but less tendency toward home ownership among the wage-earning families, than did
the northern cities. They also showed the more
decided difference between low income and high
income families with respect to the prevalence of
home ownership. All of these generalizations are
true of the towns considered in this article.
Another tendency brought out in previous
articles about larger communities is amply confirmed by data on these small towns. The family
which owns its home has higher standards of
shelter than the family which rents. The home
owners in each income class have homes worth
more than those occupied by renting families of
comparable incomes. This tendency may have
various meanings. It may mean an expenditure
that is both individually and socially desirable,
resulting in better standards of family life and a
sound investment. On the other hand, it may
mean the thoughtless assumption of obligations
beyond the power of the purchaser to meet. In
the small town, there is far less chance than in the
city that neighborhood depreciation will ruin a
residential investment.

Whatever the significance, the tendency illustrates the extent of the American family's willingness to invest more in a home than it would
choose to spend for shelter as a commodity. As
the chart on this page shows, the northern homeowning family has a home worth slightly less than
the southern home-owning family of comparable
income, but worth about one-third more than the
homes of the northern renting family. On the
other hand, renting families in the northern
group pay more for their shelter than the southern
renting families, so that the latter's homes are
worth far less than those of home owners in the
same communities.
Less than 1 percent of the families in each of
these groups lived in apartments, or in residential
buildings containing three or more dwelling units.
About one-tenth of the home owners in the
northern group, and one-thirtieth of those in the
southern, lived in 2-family dwellings, while about
one-sixth of the renting families in each group
lived in 2-family dwellings. There was a larger
(Continued on p. 432)

VALUE OF RENTED AND OWNED HOMES COMPARED WITH OCCUPANTS
IN TOWNS OF ABOUT 5 , 0 0 0 POPULATION
(SOURCE- BUREAU

PENNSYLVANIA

oy (NED

OF HOME

ECONOMICS - CONSUMER

AND OHIO

PURCHASE

GEORGIA

HOME

ANNUAL

STUDIES)

AND SOUTH

OWNL 0

CAROLINA

HOMES.

\ s

Q 25
>

INCOME,

\y^

*
-*-*
^^^
^ ^

REN TED

s
HOME. r

* ^
;

01.000
FAMILY

412

1.0001,500
INCOME

15 fc

1.5002,000
GROUPS - DOLL

2,0003,000
ARS

3.000 a
OVER

0500

500
1,000
FAMILY

'NTED

1.0001,500
INCOME

HOM ES

1,0002.000
GROUPS -

2,0003.000

3.000 a
OVER

DOLLARS

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

The Architect and the Home Building
Service Plan
4 MAJOR criticism of small-home building has
r \ always been that it has not had the benefit
of the architect's services. Beauty has been considered a luxury and eliminated from the builder's
budget. Unfortunately, with beauty has often
gone function and utility—two other creations of
the architect seldom taken into account by the
builder.
The value of providing for these intangibles
through the Home Building Service Plan should
not be underestimated. They have a definite
effect on the equity of the lending institution—
preserving values, slowing down neighborhood
deterioration, making property more easily marketable. The home builder needs more than a
well built home; he also needs a well designed
one.
Consequently, the Federal Home Building Service Plan has been established in cooperation with
the American Institute of Architects. Local
architectural groups will provide portfolios of
plans suitable to the particular locality, will provide detailed specifications of materials and construction cost, will supervise construction, and, if
necessary, will modify the plans to suit the needs
of the individual home owner.
A N ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL
SUCH local organizations should open to the architect a new market and should provide him a
steady return for his services. The position of
the architect in relation to small-home building is
best expressed, however, by the architect himself.
Mr. Robert D. Kohn, past President of the
American Institute of Architects and former
Director of the Housing Division of the Public
Works Administration, has long been an advocate
of small-home design by architects. The following are excerpts from a letter by Mr. Kohn to the
Architectural Advisor to the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board:
"As to the desirability of what you are trying
to put through I have not the slightest doubt.
Whatever any of us may think about the great

September 1937

desirability of large scale housing operations and
the necessity for rebuilding our communities, it is
a fact that there is going to be a colossal amount
of individual home building in the next few years.
There is no way in which we can change overnight the American man insofar as he passionately
desires a piece of ground which he can call his own
and on which his house is his own. No matter
how bad it is or how ugly, it is his. Of the millions of children that are born and reared in tenements a considerable percentage drift out and
something in the blood makes them grab passionately even at a miserable wooden soap box of a
house set on a scrap of land.
"As economic conditions improve there is not
the slightest doubt that there will be an enormous
move of the old kind towards the 'own-your-ownhome' business which will be taken advantage of
by the same old gang of unimaginative speculators and jerry builders. What you are planning
to do seems to me to be the only practical way to
mitigate the evils of this whole procedure. If
the architects in various sections of the country
really come along and do their share in organizing
a low-cost professional service there will at least
be established for the first time in the country a
reasonable service to the home builders who have
some slight percentage of common sense in their
make-up. I certainly hope that the plan will be
successful.
"At the same time if the architects fail to see
the opportunity that is thus opened to them they
will indeed be blind. What you are proposing
seems to me to be an approach to that change in
architectural practice which I have urged for a
long time, and have spoken of a number of times
at conventions. The French architect in the
country districts gets most of his income from a
multiplicity of small fees, much like the country
doctor. If we want to get taste and good building
to permeate our communities we have to bring
the service of architects of good taste and building
knowledge within the scope of the average man's
pocketbook."
413

Building Society Cooperation

RITISH building societies are attempting to
solve through cooperative efforts the particularly difficult problems that arise in the last
stages of a home-building boom. There is the
danger at these stages of the building cycle, that
gradually increasing competition for gradually
diminishing business will lead to unstable financing
practices. This danger is intensified by the continuous repayment of existing mortgages, which
provides further funds which may tempt institutions into undesirable competitive lending
practices. This danger has been arising in
England, where a tremendous building boom is
slowly tapering off, and building societies, which
have been expanding rapidly, are faced with the
prospect of slackening their rate of growth. To
meet it, more than five-sixths of the associated
building societies of Great Britain, the counterparts in that country of the American savings and
loan associations, set up in 1936 by common consent a Code of Ethics and Procedure. They are
now preparing to stand by its essential features
even if it becomes necessary to amend incidental
provisions.
The Code in question, one of the best examples
of the cooperation that British business has
achieved by voluntary agreement, is no mere
collection of platitudes. I t regulates member
societies in such vital matters as maximum proportions of values to be advanced as mortgage
loans, maximum periods for repayment, minimum
interest charges, minimum equities, the payment
of commissions for the introduction of mortgage
business, and the rate of interest on investments.
These detailed rules were rejected by only 40
societies (out of a total number of 268 in the
National Association of Building Societies) which
remained outside the movement for cooperation.
The majority therefore dissolved the old National
Association and formed a new Building Societies
Association for the express purpose of adopting
and enforcing the Code.
Although it is freely admitted that amendments
may be needed, one society after another, at
annual meetings during the past few months,
has announced that it is determined to continue
414

adherence to the Code. They are led in this
determination by the two largest building societies
in the world, the Abbey Road Building Society
and the Halifax Building Society, the assets of
which total more than $750,000,000. Sir Josiah
Stamp, president of the former institution, recently announced that it would bear whatever immediate sacrifice that cooperation required, in
order to assure its shareholders that its advances
and its policy were sound.
In spite of similar assurances in recent months
from leaders of other prominent institutions, there
is strong opposition to the Code from the seceding
minority. The Code has operated only since
October 1, 1936, and has been weakened by the
withdrawal of one large society. Although most of
the minority societies are following the provisions
of the Code without formally adopting it, it is
generally feared that competition unrestrained by
formal agreement might in the future lead societies
into risky lending policies. To attract the dissenters, some concessions were made by amendments of the Code at the 1937 convention of the
new Association, although the Association stood
firmly by its essential provisions.
To provide for the continuation of home
building and mortgage lending when her actual
quantitative need for homes is satiated by her
tremendous building boom, Great Britain will
probably depend on a demand for higher-quality
homes, resulting from an increase in the standards
of public taste. The most cautious leaders of
home-financing institutions freely admit that
during the current boom many houses have been
built that are inferior both in structure and appearance. To replace them by stimulating a
demand for sounder residences would provide
lending institutions with sounder business. The
elimination of jerry-building by cooperation within
the building industry, in which the building societies are participating, is therefore the objective
of the National House-Builder's Registration
Council, set up early this year. Trade associations representing builders, architects, building
societies, and other groups established this National
Council to administer a nation-wide scheme,
Federal Home Loan Bank Review

which resembles in some of its essential features
the Federal Home Building Service Plan sponsored
by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
The plan includes several steps: First, a minimum standard specification for ordinary houses is
set up. Second, those builders who undertake to
meet these specifications are registered. They
undertake to use only good material and good
workmanship in their construction. Third, the
houses that they build will be inspected during
construction, will be certified individually on
completion, and the buyer will be given a guarantee
that any defects appearing within two years, due
to failure to comply with the specifications, will be
made good. The administration of the system is
to be in the hands of the National Council, which
has the approval of the Ministry of Health and the
Board of Trade as well as the business and professional associations concerned. It is headed by
Sir Raymond Unwin, who is well known as the
dean of British town planners.
Leaders in this movement hope that it will
strengthen public confidence in the building
industry, lead to a public demand for homes of
higher standards, and improve the quality of the
security on which the building societies and other
mortgage lenders may depend.
Such cooperation among the building societies
and other groups interested in residential construction is based on a strong tradition of trade
activity in Great Britain. There are other striking examples in which building societies participate.
The British Societies Inquiry Bureau provides for
the exchange of information about unreliable borrowers and of other types of credit data. At
present it has more than 25,000 warning cards on
record. The Building Societies Institute is an
organization for research and staff education,
which has for several years held tuition courses,
week-end schools, special lectures, and essay
contests. It works through a number of local
organizations to serve more than 1,700 members.
Another example of cooperation in a field of
great importance to the home-financing institution
is the British Building Industries National
Council, developed in 1933 from two older organizations to accomplish greater cooperation within
private enterprise, and make possible greater

415

September 1937
10699—37

influence with the Ministry of Health, the governmental department most directly concerned with
home building. The Council is a league of trade
associations representing building-materials manufacturers, appraisers, building-trades employers,
and workmen, architects, contractors, and manufacturers of mechanical equipment.
The Council itself meets at regular semiannual
intervals, and coordinates the functions of various
special committees. Among the duties of these
committees are those of advocating the spacing
of public construction so as to avoid unduly
irregular demands on the industry, of preventing
delays in the execution of municipal building
schemes, of promoting the standardization of
materials, equipment, and building codes, and of
providing for the training of craftsmen by cooperation with labor groups. Related to this activity is
that of the National Joint Council for the Building
Industry, a loose federation of employers and labor
which sets wage scales, with local variations, for
the entire country.
Because of the Government's extensive participation in building activity, the Building Industries
National Council has sought to cooperate with the
Ministry of Health (which administers the housing
subsidy) to avoid unnecessary fluctuations in the
volume of construction activity. Cooperation
between the Government and industry has not
been meaningless in the past. In 1923, before
the housing subsidy was granted by the Wheatley
Act, the Government made an agreement with
labor and manufacturers to make sure that public
housing plans would not be interrupted by changes
in the supply of labor or the costs of materials.
Labor undertook to recruit new craftsmen, and
manufacturers to increase and stabilize their production to avoid undesirable fluctuations in costs.
The agreements were faithfully carried out in both
respects, although the Government's program was
later interrupted by a change in party control.
Organized cooperation among the British building societies has an important effect both on
public policy and the attitude of the individual
investor. It diminishes the need for public
regulation or supervision, and it assures the
present and potential investors that their funds
will not be subjected to the risks involved in
unrestrained competition,

Residential Construction and HomeFinancing Activity

HE trend of residential building activity
continued unfavorable in July. Not only did
the volume of private construction decline from
June but it lacked the strengthening of public
residential building which was so important a
factor in the earlier month. The high cost of
building and the instability of the supply and cost
of labor continued as the principal retarding
factors. Rentals, wholesale building material
prices, and manufacturing pay rolls remained about
the same as in June while the number of foreclosures declines considerably.
Consequently, the drop in the seasonally adjusted index of residential construction, based on
1926 as 100, well exceeded the expected seasonal
BUILDING

RESIDENTIAL

decline between these two months. In June the
index stood at 27; in July it was 22, the lowest
point since May 1936.
This index is based on the number of family
dwelling units authorized by building permits issued in all cities of 10,000 or more population. The
total number of such units authorized in July was
11,752 involving an estimated cost of $48,795,500.
The number of units was 42 percent less than was
provided for in July 1936, and 24 percent less than
in June of this year (chart page 418). Of this
number, 11,636 units were constructed by private
agencies. Only 116 units were authorized for
Government building as compared to 2,834 for
June. Almost all of the 116 units were for a
project in Cincinnati.

AND

ACTIVITY

FACTORS

INFLUENCING

SELECTED

1926 = 100
600
500
400

600
500

300

400

7v~7

300

IRES'
*FORL 'CLOSL

200

100
90
80
70

$.:z

WUSIh G RENTALS*
1
1
J\
J

-f"•--._ ~r\— '" 1
-——1_
i

60
50
40

''"','.*:
"*•.,

M * •• J

1 /'"*'••••••''

.....J

BUILDING MATERIAL PRICES1

•—••

L...^
1
|

p"'"-'""'!

..-[\ 1 ACTURiNG PA)
1 'ROLLi
MANUF

•••*...• \S

f**"
1

„

1
|

100
90
80
70
6C
50
40
30

. —

30
20

/
\ * \ ~s *

10
9
8

SIOEN rIAL C 7NSTR ICTION3

J
10

7
6
5
4

6
5

i
J

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

J
1935

1936

1937

<938

Source:- I Federal Home Loan Bank Board (County Reports)
2. U S. Dept. of Labor (Converted to 1926 Base)
3. Federal Hom$ Loan Bank Boaja; (U. §. Dept, of Labor Records)

416

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

The drop in Government building is reflected
principally in the multifamily type of dwelling.
Less than half as many of this type were authorized
in July as in June, whereas 10.6 percent less singlefamily dwellings were authorized. (See revised
table 1.)
In spite of this falling-off, the large volume of
building done during the early part of 1937 places
the total for the first seven months well above that
for the comparable period of 1936. Last year
87,499 units at a cost of $351,644,700 were authorized through July. This year, for the same period,
107,290 units at a cost of $431,053,900 were
authorized.
As a result of the small volume of building permits issued in July, the rate of building in cities
of 10,000 or more population declined in all except
three Federal Home Loan Bank Districts. The
United States total dropped from 25 units per
100,000 population to 19 units (chart page 423).
The rate of building in the Indianapolis District,
after making a tremendous jump to 53 in June,
dropped back again in July to 18, almost the same
rate as was effective there in May. This jog
illustrates the immediate effect of Government
projects in building. It does not, of course, show
the long range effect on employment and business
while the project is in the process of construction.
[1926= 100]
July
1937
Residential construction

...

Rentals ( N I C B )
Building material p r i c e s . . . .
Manufacturing p a y r o l l s . . , .
1

June
1937

Percent
change

July
1936

22
214
86
97
98

27
243
86
97
99

-19
-12
0
0
-1

38
279
77
87
77

Percent
change
-42
—23
+12
+11
+27

Adjusted for seasonal variation.

In the Los Angeles District the rate of building
has delined steadily since March when it reached
the highest point registered by any District since
1930. In spite of these declines, it still leads with
a rate of 47 units authorized in July for each
100,000 population. In the Little Rock District
the rate is 32 units and in the Winston-Salem District it is 30 units. In all the rest of the Districts
building is proceeding at a rate of less than 30
units per month.
Although, at present, conditions do not seem
favorable to a release of this stagnation of building,
September 1937

it is not expected that it is more than a temporary
set-back. The quick rise in costs, as reported in
the Index of Small-House Building Costs, acts
principally as a psychological deterrent. If costs
remain stable for the next few months the comparison with costs a year ago will not be so vivid.
This, coupled with a possible increase in rentals
and in purchasing power and heavier demands for
housing resulting from the consummation of
delayed marriages, should bring a renewal of
building.
FORECLOSURES

T H E drop in the foreclosure index from 243 in
June to 214 in July was one favorable note in the
residential picture. This decline of 12 percent
compares with a normal seasonal drop of 5 percent.
The index is based on reports from 82 metropolitan
communities and is adjusted to a 1926 base of 100.
Declines in foreclosures were registered from all
parts of the country by about two-thirds of these
communities. The new level of 214 is the lowest
of the recovery period with the exception of
February 1937.
The July index was 23 percent below the index
of 279 recorded for July 1936. For the first seven
months of 1937 the average index was 21 percent
below the corresponding average for 1936. Only
17 communities showed a higher total of foreclosures for the first seven months of 1937 than
for the same period in 1936.
INDEXES OF SMALL-HOUSE BUILDING
COSTS
[TABLE 3]
ACCORDING to estimates of building costs reported
from 24 cities for August, the cost of construction
in some areas continues to rise, in others it has
halted, and in still others it has dropped slightly.
This tendency towards a leveling off in cost was
noted last month in reports from another group
of cities for the Index of Small-House Building
Costs. However, the margin between costs a
year ago and costs today remains so great that
a substantially increased rate of building cannot
be expected until the effect of stabilized building
costs has a chance to be felt by potential buyers.
There was, as usual, no regional uniformity
in the fluctuations between May and August, nor

417

in the total costs of the standard house on which
the index is based. In general, however, costs
in the Pittsburgh and Los Angeles Districts
showed less fluctuations than in the Cincinnati
and Little Rock Districts. Costs in all Delaware
aijd Pennsylvania cities rose less than 1 percent,
while in Charleston, West Virginia, the cost of
materials forced the total up 8.4 percent. Costs
in California and Nevada cities remained almost
stationary.
The greatest decline in costs during this
3-month period was 5 percent: reported from
Houston, Texas. This was entirely due to
materials costs, particularly of lumber and millwork. The greatest rise was in Columbus,
Ohio, of 6.8 percent, reported as due to labor
rates. The trend during this reporting period
has been for labor costs to continue to increase
and materials costs to level off.
There is only one city out of the 24 in which the
cost of building may be said to have remained stable during the past year. The cost of building in
Little Rock is still about $5,200. It is the only city
in this group which reports a cost under 22 cents
a cubic foot. A year ago there were seven such
ESTIMATED

cities. The greatest increase during the past year
was in Pittsburgh with a rise of 24.8 percent.
But Pittsburgh did not have the highest total
cost in August. Building was most expensive in
Cleveland where the standard house would have
cost $6,981, or 29.1 cents a cubic foot in August.
MONTHLY LENDING ACTIVITY OF SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS
[TABLES 4, 5, 6, AND 7]

THE estimated volume of loans for new construction by all savings and loan associations in the
United States declined from $22,225,000 in June to
$20,584,000 in July. This was, however, not so
great a drop as took place in home-building activity in cities of 2,500 or more population which fell
from $70,227,000 to $62,675,000 during these two
months, as indicated by estimates based on building permit reports (see chart next page).
In fact, savings and loan lending during July fell
off in all the categories listed in table 4, reducing
the total loans 10.5 percent from June to $72,057,000. No type of association avoided this reduction. The nonmember associations suffered most
heavily, making 14 percent fewer loans, while the

NUMBER AND COST OF FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED
IN ALL CITIES OF 10,000 OR MORE POPULATION

(Source: Federal Home Loan Bonk Board. Compiled from residential building permits reported to U S. Dept of Labor)
COST OF U N I T S

NUMBER OF UNITS PR( )VI0 ED

PROVIDED

30
28
1937

1936

T t

24
193?
<o
i-

_...

1 °
5

r—i

<
ih
O
X

14
12

\
1

•
•

2
0

418

A )3/-35

i 93t-3 5 AVG.

I93S

20fcr
k.

/-''
•

AV 6

]

„.«•

-«.,

— ^^

4
101

2
O

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

State-chartered members made 11 percent fewer,
and the Federal savings and loan associations
made 9 percent fewer. These reductions shifted
slightly the proportion of total loans made by each
type of association. In July Federal associations
made 41 percent of total loans instead of 40, as in
June, and nonmember associations made 14 instead of 15 percent. State members still represent
the largest category with 45 percent of total loans.
The July estimates were based on reports received
from 2,582 associations.
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN SYSTEM
[TABLE 11]

to the continued drop in residential
construction is a falling-off in mortgage lending by
Federal savings and loan associations. For the
two months, June and July, 1,181 identical Federal
associations submitted reports which reveal a drop
of 10 percent in the total mortgage loans made.
Loans for new construction and reconditioning,
which reflect most directly changes in the volume

PARALLEL

of home construction, dropped 5.9 percent and
13.2 percent respectively. Home purchase loans
were 15.0 percent less, refinanced loans were 10.9
percent less, and loans for other purposes were
2.8 percent less. Nevertheless, these 1,181 associations had mortgage loans outstanding in the
amount of $722,442,200 on July 31—an increase
of 2.6 percent during the month.
In contrast to this slackening of activity, the
volume of funds available for lending increased
during July. Even though $15,058,000 of private
shares was repurchased, private investments made
during the month amounted to $23,551,900. This
was 243.4 percent more than was repurchased
and 96.4 percent more than was invested during
June—an expected flurry following dividend
payments, but more pronounced than last year.
Progress in number and assets of Federal
savings and loan
associations
Number
June
July
30,1937 31,1937

120i

1120

100

• HOME BUILDING A C T I V I T Y ^

© Estimated for all cities of 2J500 or more population based on building
pernrws for I & 2 family dwellings reported to U S. Department of Labor..
< Estimated for all active associations by Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
D

September 1937

June 30, 1937

July 31, 1937

647
639

New
HOME CONSTRUCTION LOANS MADE BY ALL SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS COMPARED WITH HOME BUILDING ACTIVITY

Approximate assets

Total

648
645

$222,468,480
763,769,368

$222,481,875
767,932,165

1,286

1,293

986,237,848

990,414,040

H. O. L. C. subscriptions increased the investment of Government money by $4,223,200. Consequently, the total share liability at the end of the
month was up 1.9 percent to $765,271,000.
In addition, advances to these associations by
the Federal Home Loan Banks were up 3.5 percent while borrowings from other sources increased
18.2 percent. The Banks are, however, the
principal source of credit with $74,000,000 outstanding to these Federals as compared with
$2,000,000 from other sources of credit. Their
assets had increased during the month 5.6
million dollars to $939,751,900.
On July 31, 1937, there were 1,293 Federal
savings and loan associations—seven more than
were on the list at the end of June. The number
of associations which have changed from the State
to the Federal charter almost equals the number
of newly organized Federals. At the last reporting date there were three more of the new type
but of the seven added during July, six were converted associations. The total assets of all
Federal savings and loan associations amounted to
$990,414,040 on July 31, 1937.
419

FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
INSURANCE CORPORATION
[TABLES 9 AND 10]

T H E number of thrift and home-financing institutions whose shareholders receive the protection
of Federal insurance was increased by 25 during
the month of July and of this number 19 were
institutions operating under State charters. This
continuation of the steady month-by-month
spread of the protection of insurance brings the
total number of insured institutions to 1,781
with assets of $1,448,000,000 and with 1,508,354
shareholders.
For both June and July, comparable reports
were submitted by 306 of the insured Statechartered associations. The composite statement of operations, based on these reports, shows
much the same trend as was reported by Federal
savings and loan associations (tables 10 and 11).
A much smaller volume of loans was made during
July than during June; the volume dropped off
in every classification for which loans are made
except reconditioning, which increased 4 percent.
As a result of a drop of 23.6 percent in loans for
new construction, of 13.9 percent in loans for
home purchase, of 12.4 percent for refinancing,
and of 26.6 percent for other purposes than
those listed, the total loans made during the
month decreased 16.9 percent—a slackening of
sufficient strength to hold mortgage loans outstanding at about the same level of $290,000,000
as at the beginning of the month.
During July the volume of private share investments increased 111.3 percent over June and the
volume of repurchases, 169.0 percent. This
extreme activity is not unusual in July; it commonly follows dividend payments in June. A
promise of semiannual dividends during the spring
tends to freeze investments until those dividends
have been realized.
Because repurchases almost equaled investments during July the total share liability
remained stationary. H. 0 . L. C. share subscriptions increased 2.2 percent during the month.

420

These 306 State insured associations have
total assets of $427,968,300. Their borrowings
from the Federal Home Loan Banks decreased
2.6 percent to $18,903,100.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK SYSTEM
[TABLES 12 AND 13]
DURING July the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks
advanced $10,221,000 to member institutions.
This was $7,547,000 less than was advanced during June—the peak month since the organization
of the Bank System. Accompanying this decrease in lending was an increase in repayments
of 3.5 million dollars. But in spite of this unfavorable trend, the balance of advances outstanding increased $2,520,000 to $169,571,000.
The demand for advances was probably affected
by the nation-wide slackening in the real-estate
market and in home financing which left sufficient
ready funds with the individual associations to
meet the past dividend, investment, and repurchase
activity.
During July, 12 mortgage-lending institutions
were added to the list of members, which brought
the total to 3,898. Of this total, 2,591 were
State-chartered savings and loan associations,
1,282 were Federal savings and loan associations,
8 were mutual savings banks, and 17 were
insurance companies. These institutions have
a potential borrowing capacity from the Banks
of $1,045,000,000.
INTEREST RATES

ON JULY 15 the board of directors of the Federal
Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis authorized a
change of interest rates to be effective on September 1, 1937. On and after that date all secured
advances will be written at 3% percent, but interest will be collected at 3% percent until further
notice. All unsecured advances will be written
at 4 percent and collected at 3% percent until
further notice. Up to the time of going to press
no other Banks had reported changes of their
rates on advances.

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Table I.—Number and estimated cost of new family dwelling units provided
10,000 population or over, in the United States x
[Source: Federal Home Loan Bank Board .

Compiled from residential building permits reported to U. S. Department of Labor]
Total cost of units (thousands of dollars)

Number of family units provided
January-July totals

Monthly totals

Type of structure or agency
July
1937

June
1937

July
1936

1937

9,060
632
67
1,993

10,137
848
85
4,495

9,450
818
85
9,929

69,140
5,878
646
31,626

11,752

15,565

20,282

107,290

11,636
116

2-family dwellings
Joint home and business 2 . .
3- and Jmore-family dwellings..

in all cities of

12,731
2,834

15,585
4,697

July
1937

1936

103,681
3,609

January-July totals

Monthly totals
July
1936

June
1937

$305,214.8
16,168.6
2,330.8
107,339.7

$228,325.1
11,485.8
1,513.0
110,320.8

82,210.1

431,053.9

351,644.7

57,147.9
25,062.2

414,730.1
16,323.8

308,939.4
42,705.3

52,095 $38,507.0 $44,282.0 $39,639.5
1,747.1
2,332.0
4,126
2,290.9
265.2
334.5
336.4
402
8,276.2 18,384.5 39,904.1
30,876
87,499

48,795.5

79,877
7,622

48,190.4
605.1

65,293.8
52,477.8
12,816.0

1936

1937

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.
2
Includes 1- and 2-family dwellings with business property attached.
8
Includes only Government financed low-cost housing project units as reported by U. S. Department of Labor.

Table 2.—Number and estimated cost of new family dwelling units provided in all cities of
10,000 population or over, in July 1937, by Federal Home Loan Bank Districts and by
States
[Sources: Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Complied from residential building permits reported to U. S. Department of Labor]
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
All 1- and 2-family dwellings

All residential dwellings
Federal Home Loan Bank
Districts and States

Number of family
dwelling units
July
1937

UNITED STATES
No. 1—Boston
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
No. 2—New York
New Jersey
No. 3—Pittsburgh
Delaware
Pennsylvania
No. 4—Winston-Salem
Alabama
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia

September 1937

July
1936

Estimated cost
July
1937

July
1936

Number of family
dwelling units
July
1937

July
1936

Estimated cost
July
1937

July
1936

10, 353 $40, 519. 3 $42, 306. 0

$82, 210.1

9,759

852

1,740

3, 909. 5

8, 801. 7

665

676

3, 358.1

3, 227. 0

158
27
521
34
98
14

144
49
1,404
40
97
6

794.7
88.6
2, 449.1
130.6
405.2
41.3

730.9
120.5
7, 485. 5
110.8
333.7
20.3

154
27
344
34
98
8

144
49
344
40
93
6

784.2
88.6
1, 917.1
130.6
405.2
32.4

730.9
120.5
1, 919. 3
110.8
325.2
20.3

1,679

6,131

9, 691. 8

24, 282. 5

1,067

1,425

5, 617. 8

6, 221.1

201
1,478

376
5,755

1, 278.1
8, 413. 7

1, 880. 9
22, 401. 6

192
875

302
1,123

1, 243.1
4, 374. 7

1, 682. 9
4, 538. 2

11, 752

20, 282 $48, 795. 5

67F

660~

3, 375. 2

2, 988. 7

60T

604~

3, 219. 5

2, 876. 7

8
526
136

14
552
94

36.4
2, 914. 6
424.2

66.4
2, 591. 2
331.1

8
502
91

14
522
68

36.4
2, 868. 9
314.2

66.4
2, 529. 2
281.1

1,526

2,010

5, 111. 2

7, 072. 7

1,239

1,380

4, 411.1

4, 985. 9

120
322
352
210
119
224
64
115

90
410
596
158
113
278
211
154

296.3
1, 319. 8
1, 227. 3
481.7
504.4
614.5
184.0
483.2

195.0
1, 775. 7
2, 037. 9
480.3
434.8
716.4
849.1
583.5

120
146
298
196
115
193
60
111

90
201
344
150
110
266
82
137

296.3
839.8
1, 095. 7
475.5
501.1
552.2
174.0
476.5

195.0
1, 351. 2
1, 074. 3
470.3
428.8
689.4
243.3
533.6

421

All 1- and 2-family dwellings

All residential dwellings

Federal Home Loan Bank
Districts and States

Number of family
dwelling units
July
1937

Estimated cost

July
1936

July
1937

July
1936

Number of family
dwelling units
July
1937

July
1936

Estimated cost

July
1937

July
1936

No. 5—Cincinnati

988

2,399

$4,466. 6

$9, 486. 0

746

622

$3, 342. 6

$2, 912. 2

Kentucky
Ohio
Tennessee

124
736
128

622
1,334
443

359.2
3, 701. 7
405.7

3,103. 4
4, 487. 4
1, 895. 2

116
502
128

110
383
129

349.7
2, 587. 2
405.7

493.6
2, 111. 3
307.3

No. 6—Indianapolis

870

832

3, 805. 3

4, 033. 7

827

3, 664. 5

4, 021. 9

234
636

169
663

889.5
2, 915. 8

631.8
3, 401. 9

230
597

169
658

877.0
2, 787. 5

631.8
3, 390.1

552

1,395

2, 774. 3

7, 494. 4

539

629

2, 727. 2

3, 407. 0

Illinois
Wisconsin

308
244

1,100
295

1, 672. 2
1,102.1

6,153. 9
1, 340. 5

304
235

334
295

1, 651. 8
1, 075. 4

2, 066. 5
1, 340. 5

No. 8—Des Moines

573

623

2, 061. 9

2, 237. 2

528

590

1, 967. 4

2,184. 5

Minnesota
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota

146
157
225
21
24

139
197
215
29
43

492.6
633.4
838.7
65.5
31.7

517.0
760.8
792.7
72.6
94.1

146
157
185
16
24

139
174
205
29
43

492.6
633.4
757.2
52.5
31.7

517.0
717.9
782.9
72.6
94.1

No. 9—Little Rock

1,062

1,320

2, 851. 5

3, 654. 2

995

1,045

2, 716. 4

2, 662. 7

49
109
100
34
770

27
152
78
64
999

105.2
353.0
146.9
94.5
2,151. 9

65.0
509.3
154.9
139.5
2, 785. 5

42
109
79
34
731

27
148
78
50
742

100.1
353.0
115.3
94.5
2, 053. 5

65.0
499.3
154.9
120.5
1, 823. 0

478

789

1, 517. 2

3,179. 7

403

431

1, 310. 3

1, 464. 7

109
108
82
179

91
99
67
532

393.8
325.7
273.5
524.2

403.4
302.7
232.7
2, 240. 9

69
96
68
170

91
99
67
174

272.8
309.2
247.0
481.3

403.4
302.7
232.7
525.9

485

420

1, 414. 9

1, 367. 5

471

380

1, 393. 8

1, 291. 3

14
62
94
82
218
15

34
68
79
55
167
17

54.8
155.1
335.1
270.2
543.6
56.1

94.9
128.8
314.3
165.0
583.5
81.0

14
54
94
76
218
15

21
48
75
55
164
17

54.8
145.1
335.1
259.1
543.6
56.1

60.9
105.8
302.3
165.0
576.3
81.0

2,017

1,963

7, 816.1

7, 611. 8

1,678

1,744

6, 790. 6

7, 051. 0

27
1,981
9

31
1,925
7

123.0
7, 654. 5
38.6

109.6
7,463. 8
38.4

27
1,642
9

25
1,712
7

123.0
6, 629.0
38.6

105.3
6, 907. 3
38.4

Indiana
Michigan
No. 7—Chicago

Arkansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
Texas
No. 10—Topeka
Colorado
Nebraska
Oklahoma
No. 11—Portland
Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
No. 12—Los Angeles
Arizona
California
Nevada

422

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

RATE OF RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING IN ALL CITIES

OF 10.000

OR MORE POPULATION

Represents the estimated number of family dwelling units provided per 100.000 population.
[Source

DISTRICT

Federal Home Loan Bank Board

Compiled from Building Permits reported to US Department of Labor]

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK DISTRICTS
DISTRICT 2-NEW YORK
DISTRICT 3-PITTSBURGH

1-BOSTON

OtSTRICT 4-WINSTON SALEM

fl937

52s:

-tR

J—j i —

r~''

S1I I i i I »8 1

K! i

s 3 3 3 Si 8 S S

DISTRICT 6 -INDIANAPOLIS

DISTRICT 5-CINCINNATI

DISTRICT 7-CHICAGO

DISTRICT 8-DES MOINES

fl937

n w*jff

fit RJ
*-l93l-35

Ave

^-1931-35 AV&

l-J-TLMLj--1_^2_
^^t^J

£-1931-35 AV6

)

*•
•
O

fl937

ffl936

fczbz

F~"

i-1931-35

"!_.,

£ l S c l 3 3 3 S 8 S
DISTRICT 12-LOS ANGELES

AVG

'~"l""l--..

DISTRICT 9 - L I T T L E ROCK

DISTRICT ll-PORTLANO
DISTRICT IQ-TOPEKA

I937-) f — I

'_—'

p—r j^-/»jff

f 1931-35 AV&
|r«-.

y-/ft3

"~1~.

,s/93l-3S AVG.

% I 1 1 I %i 1 I § 1
UNITED STATES

j ;

1930

September 1937

*
1931

423

Table

3.—Cost

of building

the same

standard
months

house
1

in representative

cities

specific

NOTE.—These figures are subject to correction
[Source: Federal Home Loan Bank Board]

Cubic-foot cost
Federal Home Loan Bank Districts, States, and cities

No. 3—Pittsburgh:
Delaware:
Wilmington..
Pennsylvania:
Harrisburg. .
Philadelphia.
Pittsburgh...
West Virginia:
Charleston...
Wheeling
No. 5—Cincinnati:
Kentucky:
Lexington.
Louisville..
Ohio:
Cincinnati.
Cleveland.
Columbus.
Tennessee:
Memphis..
Nashville..
No. 9—Little Rock:
Arkansas:
Little Rock..
Louisiana:
New Orleans.
Shreveport. .
Mississippi:
Jackson
New Mexico:
Albuquerque.
Texas:
Dallas
Houston
San Antonio.
No. 12—Los Angeles:
Arizona:
Phoenix
California:
Los Angeles...
San Diego
San Francisco.
Nevada:
Reno

Total building cost

Aug.
1937

Aug.
1936

Aug.
1937

May
1937

$0. 241

$0. 219

$5, 784

$5, 737

.258
.248
.283

.225
.205
.226

6,186
5,948
6,781

6,186
5,944
6,730

5,668
5,483
6,179

5,408
5,010
5,920

5,405
4,929
5,433

5,439
4,870
5,405

.265
.279

.232

6,350
6,704

5,857

5,696
5,846

5,696
5,763

5,564

5,477

.238
.253

.218
.222

5,721
6,066

5,887
6,111

5,223
5,456

5,237
5,338

5,120
5,326

.280
.291
.283

.247
.257
.244

6,711
6,981
6,782

6,321
6,756
6,352

849
320
052

5,748
6,213
5,778

5,932
6,165
5,850

5,827
6,147
5,529

.240
.229

.212
.212

5,752
5,504

5,704
5,421

5,462
5,267

5,092
5,094

5,080
5,096

5,120
5,089

.217

5,208

5,285

5,195

5,136

5,202

5,215

.251

.214

6,027

5,911
5,961

5,601
5,468

5,395

5,124

5,075

.255

.224

6,112

5,849

5,607

5,412

5,365

5,333

.281

.241

6,744

6,358

5,948

5,827

5,779

5,625

.256
.253
.262

.235
.242
.231

6,147
6,073
6,284

6,143
6,391
6,284

5,968
5,935
5,884

5,641
5,809
5,538

5,641
5,809
5,532

5,618
5,933
5,532

6,742

5,885

5,843

6,032

6,112

.251

Feb.
1937

Nov.
1936

Aug.
1936

May
1936

$5, 406 $5, 258 $5, 259 $5, 290

.250
.258
.269

.221
.223
.256

6,001
6,181
6,452

6,015
6,141
6,407

5,800
6,137
6,319

5,489
5,581
6,222

5,301
5,361
6,151

5,239
5,381
6,017

.278

.263

6,677

6,641

6,360

6,354

6,313

6,324

1
The house on which costs are reported is a detached 6-room home of 24,000 cubic feet volume. Living room, dining room, kitchen, and lavatory
on first floor; 3 bedrooms and bath on second floor. Exterior is wide-board siding with brick and stucco as features of design. Best quality materials
and workmanship are used -throughout.
The house is not completed ready for occupancy. I t includes all fundamental structural elements, an attached 1-car garage, an unfinished cellar,
an unfinished attic, a fireplace, essential heating, plumbing, and electric wiring equipment, and complete insulation. It does not include wall-paper
nor other wall nor ceiling finish on interior plastered surfaces, lighting fixtures, refrigerators, water heaters, ranges, screens, weather stripping, nor
window shades.
Reported costs include, in addition to material and labor costs, compensation insurance, an allowance for contractor's overhead and transportation of materials, plus 10 percent for builder's profit.
Reported costs do not include the cost of land nor of surveying the land, the cost of planting the lot, nor of providing walks and driveways; they
do not include architect's fee, cost of building permit, financing charges, nor sales costs.
In figuring costs, current prices on the same building materials list are obtained every 3 months from the same dealers, and current wage rates
are obtained from the same reputable contractors and operative builders.

424

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Table 4.—Estimated

volume

of new loans by all savings and loan associations,
according to purpose

classified

[Thousands of dollars]

Mortgage loans on homes
Loans for all Total loans, all
purposes
other purposes

Month
Home purchase

Construction

1936
January
February. . . ,
March
April
May
June
July
1937
January.
February
March
April
May
June
July

$188, 637
9,298
9,680
11, 920
15, 296
16, 736
17, 396
17, 975

$155, 463
7,089
7,027
9,725
11, 251

12, 811
13, 853
14, 857

14,
16,
22,
27,
29,
29,
25,

12,170
13, 275
17, 938
22, 512
21, 210
22, 225
20, 584

Table 5.—Estimated volume

859
648
323
849
243
325
244

Refinancing

$152,
10,
10,
12,
15,
12,
13,
12,

Reconditioning
$50, 618
2,691
3,229
3,677
4,703
5,207
4,334
4,601

10, 641

11, 611
15, 768
16, 398
15, 547
16, 403
15,104

$80, 838
5,995
5,686
8,474
6,413
7,668
8,357
7,414

2,585
2,727
3,959
5,070
4,934
5,176
4,599

067
265
845
842
728
961
462
008

5,018
5,601
6,582
7,548
7,147
7,381
6,526

$627, 623
35, 338
36, 467
46, 638
53, 391
55, 383
57, 402
56, 855
45, 273
49, 862
66, 570
79, 377
78, 081
80, 510
72, 057

of new loans by all savings and loan associations,
according to type of association

classified

[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]

Volume of loans

Total

1936
January
February
March
April
May
June
July

Federal

$627,
35,
36,
46,
53,
55,
57,
56,

623
338
467
638
391
383
402
855

$228, 896
11, 764
12,105
15, 310
17, 740
18, 965
21, 247
21, 491

45,
49,
66,
79,
78,
80,
72,

273
862
570
377
081
510
057

Percent of total

State members
$275,
16,
15,
19,
25,
25,
26,
24,

972
436
206
776
497
113
033
874

19,
22,
28,
34,
35,
36,
32,

311
068
401
644
785
520
662

Nonmembers
$122, 755
7,138
9,156
11, 552
10,154
11, 305
10,122
10, 490

Federal

State
members

Nonmembers

36
33
33
33
33
34
37
38

44
47
42
42
48
45
45
44

20
20
25
25
19
21
18
18

39
39
42
42
40
40
41

43
44
43
44
46
45
45

18
17
15
14
14
15
14

1937
January
February
March
April
May
June
July

September 1937

17, 762
19, 580
28,147
33, 301
31, 488
32,121
29, 213

8,200
8,214
10, 022
11, 432
10, 808
11, 869
10,182

425

Table 6.—Estimated volume of new lending activity of savings and loan
classified by District and type of association

associations,

[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]

New loans
July 1937
United States: Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember

June 1937

$72, 057
29, 213
32, 662
10,182

$80, 510
32,121
36, 520
11, 869

District 1:

Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember

8,273
2,510
3,963
1,800

District 2:

Totstl
Federal
State member
Nonmember

6,005
2,014
1,600
2,391

8,999
2,396
4,123
2,480
6,310
2,426
1,683
2,201

District 3:

Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember

3,764
1,253
1,479
1,032

4,253
1,284
1,573
1,396

District 4: Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember

10, 093
4,264
4,359
1,470

Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember
District 7: Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember

9,393
3,886
4,408
1,099
11, 475
5,356
5,779
340
3,762
1,684
1,852
226
7,780
2,471
4,535
774

District 8:

Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember
District 9: Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember

4,911
2,325
1,592
994
4,003
1,568
2,268
167

District 10 : Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember

3,830
1,665
1,103
1,062

District 11 : Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember

3,253
1,701
1,331
221
5,608
2,780
2,752
76

District 5: Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember
District 6:

District 12 Total
Federal
State member
Nonmember
1

Percent increase, July
1937 over
June 1937
-10
-9
-11
-14
-8
+ 5
-4
-27
-5
-17
-5
+9
-11
-2
-6
-26

New loans,
July 1936

$56,
21,
24,
10,

855
490
874
495

6,119
712
3,299
2,108
4,868
1,870
1,611
1,387

Percent increase, July
1937 over
July 1936
+27
+ 36
+ 31
—3
+ 35
+ 253
+ 20
— 15
+ 23
+ 8
—1
+ 72

2,388
762
1,023
603

+ 58
+ 64
+45
+ 71

-7
-9
+ 1
-25
-13
-.6
-19
+4
-7
-10
-1
-18
-9
-19
-8
+29
!-0
-1
+ 6
-6
-11
-1
-11
-51

8,759
3,011
4,235
1,513
7,918
3,906
3,606
406
3,404
1,199
1,705
500
5,337
1,785
2,851
701
3,929
1,798
1,305
826
3,379
1,069
1,573
737

+ 7
+ 29
+4
—27
+45
+ 37
+ 60
-16
+ 11
+40
+ 9
-55
+46
+ 38
+ 59
+ 10
+ 25
+ 29
+ 22
+20
+ 18
+47
+44
—77

-20
-18
-26
-18

3,722
1,402
858
1,462

+3
+ 19
+ 29
— 27

3,972
2,071
1,561
340

-18
-18
-15
-35

6,842
3,084
3,688
70

-18
-10
-25
+9

2,642
1,770
834
38
4,390
2,206
1,976
208

+23
—4
+ 60
+482
+28
+26
+ 39
-63

13,194
5,714
7,153
327
4,025
1,881
1,867
277
8,592
3,039
4,951
602
4,927
2,359
1,506
1,062
4,486
1,582
2,561
343
4,817
2,021
1,495
1,301

Less than 0.5 percent.

426

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Table 7.—Monthly

lending activity and total assets as reported
associations in July 1937

by 2,582 savings and

loan

[Source: Monthly reports from savings and loan associations to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board]
[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
Loans made in July according to purpose
associations

Federal Home Loan
Bank Districts and
States

Mortgage loans on 1- to 4-family nonfarm homes
Construction

Home purchase 1

Refinancing and
reconditioning 2

Sub- Reportmiting
ting
loans
reports made Num- Amount Num- Amount Number
ber
ber

Loans for
all other
purposes

Total loans,
all purposes

Amount
Refi- Reconnancing ditioning

Total
assets
July 31,
1937*

Num- Amount Num- Amount
ber
ber

2,582
State member....

2,189 4,666 $15,293.2 6,435 $16,635.9 7,382 $10,550.5 $3,059.5 2,922 $4,295.1 21,405 $49,834.2 $2,554,599.0

1,202
960
420

1,095 2,895
820 1,491
274 280

9,727.0 3,243
4,854.0 2,680
712.2 512

8,334.1 3,871 5,559.0 1,598.5 1,349 2,125.3 11,358 27,343.9 952,684.0
7,144.0 2,978 4,555.0 1,205.6 1,224 1,760.3 8,373 19,518.9 1,273,719.9
409.5 1,674 2,971.4 328,195.1
1,157.8 533
436.5 255.4 349

142

Maine
Massachusetts. . .
New Hampshire..
Rhode I s l a n d . . . .
No. 2—New York

132

292

1,182.4

551

1,809.8

623

1,015.7

263.9

222

379.3 1,688

4,651.1

269,252.3

25
20
81
9
4
3

23
17
78
9
3
2

53
22
163
20
28
6

225.7
35.7
771.0
36.5
103.9
9.6

44
38
360
29
72
8

144.8
74.4
1,249.6
78.3
243.1
19.6

59
49
429
38
42
6

160.0
57.6
693.9
38.3
63.4
2.5

12.9
9.4
200.2
23.8
15.1
2.5

9
6
160
17
22
8

5.8
165
7.2
115
261.8 1,112
104
50.1
164
38.9
28
15.5

549.2
184.3
3,176.5
227.0
464.4
49.7

17,161.6
11,884.1
203,994.0
7,798.6
25,874.5
2,539.5

275

172

351

1,448.2

380

1,301.3

292

611.9

162.8

134

272.7 1,157

3,796.9

347,964.2

30.0
132.8

30
104

44.0
143
228.7 1,014

367.6
3,429.3

108,514.7
239,449.5

140
135

58
114

17
334

40.2
1,408.0

69
311

225.9
1,075.4

27
265

27.5
584.4

212

143

154

385.4

310

763.8

215

303.9

94.3

89.5

747

1,636.9

91,901.5

Pennsylvania....
West Virginia....

5
184
23

5
118
20

5
84
65

5.5
218.1
161.8

10
257
43

40.6
603.4
119.8

2
145
68

0.0
218.1
85.8

3.5
61.2
29.6

4
41
23

3.4
66.8
19.3

21
527
199

53.0
1,167.6
416.3

4,666.9
75,529.6
11,705.0

No. 4—Winston-Salem

272

244

736

2,539.1

526

1,347.7

995

2,016.7

352.9

297

488.4 2,554

6,744.8

220,567.1

70.1

28.6

22.2

20.3

15.4

102

156.6

3,990.9

North Carolina...
South Carolina...
Virginia

11
47
42
53
41
37
28

11
41
37
45
40
34
24

61
149
120
42
143
121
62

499.7
714.8
256.5
252.7
338.2
231.0
176.1

47
75
46
162
96
29
53

256.6
211.3
84.7
411.2
171.9
67.1
116.3

355 1,276.2
115.6
95
92.2
94
121.3
61
171.1
187
117.1
99
101.0
73

45.2
54.8
56.5
23.5
101.0
31.8
19.8

42
50
32
38
65
20
35

92.3
125.5
29.6
72.7
83.7
33.8
35.4

505
369
292
303
491
269
223

2,170.0
1,222.0
519.5
881.4
865.9
480.8
448.6

91,763.1
25,056.0
12,696.7
32,985.4
24,102.5
10,707.2
19,265.3

No. 5—Cincinnati....

372

• 323

617

2,063.4 1,522

4,263.7 1,224 1,652.0

476.2

599

799.0 3,962

9,254.3

503,556.3

57
279
36

44
246
33

78
411
128

250.5 221
1,520.9 1,266
35
292.0

576.1
3,623.6
64.0

245.6
206
927 1,279.1
127.3
91

81.9
369.1
25.2

103
445
51

109.1
608
587.2 3,049
102.7
305

1,263.2
7,379.9
611.2

48,532.1
438,597.3
16,426.9

No. 3—Pittsburgh

District of CoFlorida

Ohio

193

181

307

844.0

639

1,073.1

763

507.5

364.6

277

287.3 1,986

3,076.5

205,188.1

Indiana

142
51

137
44

195
112

440.1
403.9

519
120

800.2
272.9

612
151

343.4
164.1

290.1
74.5

195
82

183.0 1,521
104.3
465

2,056.8
1,019.7

127,785.3
77,402.8

No. 7—Chicago

263

227

295

929.5

597

1,677.7

759

1,202.0

354.8

212

452.3 1,863

4,616.3

205,839.6

1,181.5
496.2

576
183

924.3
277.7
766.2

271.2
83.6

176
36

407.6 1,327
44.7
536

3,262.2
1,354.1

146,880.3
58,959.3

206.5

163

154.6 1,332

2,863.3

105,297.1

100.3
313.3
321.5
18.1
13.0

31.1
48.8
87.6
29.2
9.8

23
53
57
23
7

263
500
426
95
48

433.9
1,199.9
968.5
180.8
80.2

18,470.6
31,122.1
45,064.0
7,985.3
2,655.1

No. 6—Indianapolis. .

186
77

159
68

135
160

477.6
451.9

440
157

No. 8—Des Moines...

178

162

244

760.8

283

975.2

542

North Dakota. . .
South Dakota

44
44
69
13
8

42
38
63
12
7

51
91
70
16
16

146.3
300.6
223.8
51.9
38.2

77
167
110
20
9

141.9
451.0
302.5
65.2
14.6

112
189
189
36
16

14.3
86.2
33.1
16.4
4.6

1
Loans for home purchase include all those involving both a change of mortgagor and a new investment by the reporting institution on a property
already built, whether new or old.
2
Because many refinancing loans also involve reconditioning it has been found necessary to combine the number of such loans, though amounts
are shown separately.
Amounts shown under refinancing include solely new money invested by each reporting institution and exclude that part of all recast loans
involving no additional investment by the reporting institution.
3
Assets are reported principally as of July 31, 1937.

September 1937

427

Table 7.—Monthly lending activity and total assets as reported by 2,582 savings and
associations in July
1937—Continued

loan

[Amounts are shown in thousands of dollars]
Loans made in July according to purpose
Number of
associations

Federal Home Loan
Bank Districts and
States

Mortgage loans on 1- to 4-family nonfarm homes
Construction

Loans for
all other
purposes

Refinancing and
reconditioning

Home purchase

Sub- Reporting
mitloans
ting
reports? made Num- Amount Num- Amount Number
ber
ber

Total loans,
all purposes

Amount
ReconRefinancing ditioning

Total
assets
July 31,
1937

Num- Amount Num- Amount
ber
ber

$494.4 $288.1

$405.3 1,813 $3,530.5 $159,001.3

262

235

487 $1,284.6

469 $1,058.1

533

39
72
24
14
113

36
69
21
10
99

50
130
22
19
266

112.4
427.9
46.4
53.6
644.3

58
215
14
6
176

96.0
591.3
20.4
12.9
337.5

123
137
52
20
201

117.5
153.0
34.2
7.4
182.3

19.7
138.7
29.4
9.1
91.2

39
95
14
9
167

36.0
154.6
14.5
9.1
191.1

270
577
102
54
810

381.6
1,465.5
144.9
92.1
1,446.4

9,587.3
83,784.7
4,519.3
3,523.0
57,587.0

No. 10—Topeka

174

151

266

895.7

454

863.5

412

381.8

201.9

282

370.0 1,414

2,712.9

144,706.1

Kansas

31
62
35
46

27
56
26
42

41
60
62
103

143.4
156.3
193.3
402.7

53
144
84
173

108.6
241.5
176.0
337.4

65
106
125
116

74.2
79.9
89.9
137.8

32.0
44.6
76.5
48.8

8
84
80
110

17.9
105.5
83.2
163.4

167
394
351
502

376.1
627.8
618.9
1,090.1

18,416.6
41,063.4
38,633.6
46,592.5

No. 11—Portland

114

104

349

938.9

276

505.6

418

461.4

176.3

172

266.3 1,215

2,348.5

85,949.5

Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Utah

9
14
25
8
47
10
1

8
12
21
7
46
9
1

34
59
83
57
105
9
2

71.3
160.0
236.3
198.3
240.4
20.5
12.1

26
31
56
17
134
12
0

41.6
74.5
92.5
48.8
223.5
24.7
0.0

42
52
81
37
190
13
3

22.8
40.7
102.7
78.1
197.0
15.3
4.8

26.3
49.3
27.5
1.5
56.4
8.1
7.2

8
21
10
24
107
2
0

5.3
32.8
17.7
54.3
153.5
2.7
0.0

110
163
230
135
536
36
5

167.3
357.3
476.7
381.0
870.8
71.3
24.1

5,797.3
10,599.2
22.489.0
11,112.1
33,914.1
1,964.9
72.9

125

115

568

2,021.2

328

996.4

606 1,137.0

117.2

172

330.4 1,674

4,602.2

215,375.9

3
120
0
2

3
111
0
1

16
550
0
2

47.0
1,959.7
0.0
14.5

2
324

11.3
973.5
0.0
11.6

14.8
6
596 1,111.7
0.0
0
10.5
4

0.0
115.7
0.0
1.5

2
168
0
2

2.4
26
325.0 1,638
0.0
0
3.0
10

75.5
4,485.6
0.0
41.1

1,706.7
211,944.1
0.0
1,725.1

No. 9—Little R o c k . . .

Texas

Oklahoma

Alaska
No. 12—Los Angeles..
Arizona
Nevada

Table 8.—Index of wholesale price of building

324

materials

in the United

States

[1926=100]
[Source: U. S. Department of Labor]

All
building Brick and Cement
tile
materials
July 1936
1937
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Change July 1937 from:
June 1937
July 1936

428

Lumber

Paint and
paint
materials

Plumbing Structural
and heating
steel

Other

86.7

89.2

95.5

83.7

80.4

76.5

97.1

90.2

91.3
93.3
95.9
96.7
97.2
96.9
96.7

89.7
91.0
91.8
94.9
95.0
95.0
95.4

95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5

93.0
99.0
102.1
10&.0
103.0
102.2
101.3

83.7
83.4
83.9
82.9
83.7
83.6
83.9

77.1
77.4
77.6
78.7
78.7
78.7
78.7

104.7
104.7
112.9
114.9
114.9
114.9
114.9

93.9
95.0
98.9
99.9
101.3
101.1
101.0

+0.4%
+4.4%

+2.9%

-0.2%
+ 11.5%

+ 0.4%
+7.0%

0.0%
0.0%

- 0 . 9%|
+ 21.0%

o.o%|

o.o%| - 0 . 1 %
+ 18.3% + 12.0%

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Table 9.—Institutions insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance

Corporation

Cumulative number at specified dates

Number
of shareholders

Assets

Share and
creditor liabilities

Dec. 31, Dec. 31, Dec. 31, June 30, July 31,
1935
1934
1937
1937
1936

July 31,
1937

July 31, 1937

725, 916
649, 818
132, 620

$580, 037, 692
702, 510, 386
165, 683, 281

$505, 782, 281
642, 677, 862
155, 310, 527

Total

1,781 1, 508, 354 1, 448, 231, 359

1, 303, 770, 670

4
108
339

136
406
572

382
560
634

488
625
643

451

State-chartered associations
Converted F. S. and L. A . .
New F. S. and L. A

1,114

1,576

1,756

507
631
643

1
Beginning Dec. 31,1936,figureson number of associations insured include only those associations which have remitted
premiums. Earlier figures include all associations approved by the Board for insurance.
Number of shareholders, assets, and share and creditor liabilities of insured associations are as of latest obtainable
date and will be brought up to date after June 30 and December 31 each year.

Table 10.—Monthly

operations of 306 identical insured State-chartered
associations reporting during June and July 1937
June

Share liability at end of month:
Private share accounts (number)

savings and

July

loan

Change
June to
July

451, 031

452,109

Percent
+ 0.2

$311, 708, 200
24, 377,100

$312, 944, 700
24, 913, 900

+ 0.4
+2.2

336, 085, 300

337, 858, 600

+0.5

Private share investments during month
Repurchases during month

5, 010, 900
3, 755, 400

10, 590, 300
10,102, 500

+ 111.3
+ 169.0

Mortgage loans made during month:
a. New construction
b. Purchase of homes
c. Refinancing
d. Reconditioning
e. Other purposes

2, 729, 300
3, 397, 400
1, 667,100
505, 500
1, 000, 700

2, 084, 800
2, 925, 500
1, 459, 200
525, 900
734, 400

— 23.6
-13.9
-12.4
+4.0
-26.6

9, 300, 000
287, 897, 700

7, 729, 800
290, 327, 600

— 16.9
+ 0.8

19, 404,100
2,123, 200

18, 903,100
2, 039, 400

-2.6
-3.9

21, 527, 300

20, 942, 500

-2.7

427, 267, 900

427, 968, 300

+0.2

Paid on private subscriptions
H. 0. L. C. subscriptions
Total

Total
Mortgage loans outstanding end of month
Borrowed money as of end of month:
From Federal Home Loan Banks
From other sources
Total
Total assets, end of month

September

i937

429

Table 11.—Monthly

operations of 1,181 identical Federal savings
reporting during June and July 1937

and loan

June

associations

July

Change
June to
July

736, 394

748, 422

Percent
+ 1.6

$562, 057, 500
188, 637, 500

$572, 410, 300
192, 860, 700

+ 1.8
+ 2.2

750, 695, 000

765, 271, 000

+ 1.9

Private share investments during month
Repurchases during month

11, 991, 200
4, 385,100

23, 551, 900
15, 058, 200

+ 96.4
+ 243.4

Mortgage loans made during month:
a. New construction
b. Purchase of homes
c. Refinancing
d. Reconditioning
e. Other purposes

10, 272, 000
9, 690,100
6, 203, 000
1, 828, 700
2, 022, 000

9, 664, 600
8, 239, 200
5, 523, 700
1, 587, 000
1, 964, 300

-5.9
— 15.0
-10.9
— 13.2
— 2.8

30, 015, 800
703, 996, 300

26, 978, 800
722, 442, 200

-10.1
+2.6

72, 013, 200
1, 802, 900

74, 573, 800
2,131, 900

+ 3.5
+ 18.2

73, 816,100

76, 705, 700

+ 3.9

934,156, 300

939, 751, 900

+0.6

Share liability at end of month:
Private share accounts (number)
Paid on private subscriptions
Treasury and H. 0 . L. C. subscriptions
Total

Total
Mortgage loans outstanding end of month
Borrowed money as of end of month:
From Federal Home Loan Banks
From other sources
Totai
Total assets, end of month

Table 12. — Federal
Home
advances
to member
by
Districts
Federal Home Loan
Bank

Loan
Bank
institutions

Advances
made during
July 1937

430

10, 221, 429. 84

Federal

[Thousands of dollars]

Advances
made during
June 1937

$509, 000. 00 $1,351,900.00
No. 1—Boston
1, 216, 250. 00
793, 700. 00
No. 2—New York
720, 900. 00
No. 3—Pittsburgh
713, 275. 00
2, 097, 855. 00
No. 4—Winston-Salem . . 2, 379, 335. 48
973, 000. 00
850, 600. 00
No. 5—Cincinnati
1, 488, 085. 28
517, 425. 00
No. 6—Indianapolis
2, 015, 306. 47
No. 7—Chicago
723, 906. 86
1, 379, 900. 00
1, 040, 887. 50
No. 8—Des Moines
864, 875. 00
532,100. 00
No. 9—Little Rock . .
490, 400. 00
867, 850. 00
No. 10—Topeka
959, 200. 00
1, 257, 000. 00
No. 11—Portland
711, 600. 00
3, 535, 813. 75
No. 12—Los Angeles
Total

Table 13.—Lending operations of the
Home Loan Banks

17, 768, 735. 50

Month

Loans ad- Repayvanced
ments
monthly monthly

Balance
outstanding at end
of month

December 1935
June 1936
December 1936

$8, 414
11, 560
13, 473

$2, 708
3,895
5,333

$102, 795
118, 587
145, 401

1937
January
February
March
April
May
June
July

6,570
4,260
8,591
9,640
12,170
17, 769
10, 221

8,225
6,800
7,077
6,214
4,825
4,203
7,707

143, 745
141, 205
142, 719
146,146
153, 491
167, 057
169, 571

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Table 14.—H. O. L. C. subscriptions

to shares of savings and loan
and subscriptions 1

Uninsured State-chartered members of
the F\ H. L. B.
System

Insured State-chartered associations

associations—Requests

Federal savings and
loan associations

Total

Number
Number
Number
Number
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amount
(cumu- (cumulative) (cumu- (cumulative) (cumu- (cumulative) (cumu- (cumulative)
lative)
lative)
lative)
lative)
Requests:
Dec. 31, 1935
Dec. 31, 1936
Jan. 30, 1937
Feb. 28, 1937
Mar. 31,1937
Apr. 30, 1937
May 31, 1937
June 30, 1937
July 31, 1937
Subscriptions:
Dec. 31, 1935
Dec. 31, 1936
Jan. 30, 1937
Feb. 28, 1937
Mar. 31, 1937
Apr. 30, 1937
May 31, 1937
June 30, 1937
July 31, 1937
1

27
89
97
99
109
114
121
125
125

$1,131, 700
3, 845, 710
4,105, 910
3, 762, 910
4, 230, 710
4, 515, 710
5,105, 710
5, 400, 710
5, 655, 210

33
279
297
317
356
393
437
473
515

$2, 480, 000
21, 016, 900
21, 921, 900
23, 341, 900
25, 622, 800
27, 568, 800
30, 881, 500
32, 873, 600
35, 410,100

553
2,617
2,746
2,874
3,061
3,281
3,466
3,669
3,838

$21,139, 000
108, 591, 900
113, 794, 300
120, 320, 300
130, 816, 500
142, 234, 000
150, 309, 000
159, 298, 600
166, 884,100

613
2,985
3,140
3,290
3,526
3,788
4,024
4,267
4,478

$24, 750, 700
133, 454, 510
139, 822,110
147, 425,110
160, 670, 010
174, 318, 510
186, 296, 210
197, 572, 910
207, 949, 410

2
45
46
50
55
57
61
63
52

100,000
1, 688, 000
1, 738, 000
1, 553, 200
1, 828, 200
2, 031, 000
2, 206, 000
2, 381, 000
1, 934, 000

24
262
280
300
322
363
399
440
465

1, 980, 000
19, 455, 900
20, 741, 900
21, 746, 900
23,159, 400
25, 468, 800
27, 919, 300
30, 283, 600
31,176, 600

474
2,538
2,663
2,771
2,928
3,132
3,331
3,509
3,647

17, 766, 500
104,477, 400
109,493, 700
115,156, 200
122, 545, 700
133,132, 700
142, 651, 900
150, 368, 400
155, 917, 000

500
2,845
2,989
3,121
3,305
3,552
3,791
4,012
4,164

19, 846, 500
125, 621, 300
131, 973, 600
138,456, 300
147, 533, 300
160, 632, 500
172, 777, 200
183, 033, 000
189, 027, 600

Refers to number of separate investments, not to number of associations in which investments are made.

Table 15.—Properties acquired by H. O. L. C.
through foreclosure and voluntary deed l
Number

Period
Prior to 1935
1935: Jan. 1 through June
July 1 through Dec.
1936: Jan. 1 through June
July 1 through Dec.
1937: January
February
March
April
May
June
July

30
31
30
31

Grand total to July 31, 1937..
1

9
114
983
4,449
15, 646
3,059
3,290
4,143
3,887
4,472
4,608
4,476
49,136

Does not include 21,790 properties bought in by
H. O. L. C. at foreclosures sale but awaiting expiration
of the redemption period before title in absolute fee can
be obtained.
In addition to the 49,136 completed cases, 283 properties were sold at foreclosure sale to parties other than the
H. O. L. C. and 6,270 cases have been withdrawn due to
payment of delinquencies by borrowers after foreclosure
proceedings were authorized.

September 1937

Table 16.—Reconditioning
Division—Sunt'
mary of all reconditioning
operations of
H. O. L. C. through Aug. 15, 1937 x
June 1,
1934
through
July 15,
1937

July 16,
1937
through
Aug. 15,
1937

Cumulative
through
Aug. 15,
1937

Cases received 2 . . .
813, 622
826,115
12, 493
Contracts awarded
Number
457, 234
466, 940
9, 706!
Amount
$86, 802, 453 $1, 806, 962 $88, 609, 415
Jobs completed:
456, 605
Number
447, 672
8, 933|
Amount
$83, 569, 373 $1, 706, 038 $85, 275,411
1
All figures are subject to adjustment. Figures do not
include 52,269 reconditioning jobs, amounting to approximately $6,800,000, completed by the Corporation prior to
the organization of the Reconditioning Division on June
1, 1934.
2
Includes all property management, advance, insurance,
and loan cases referred to the Reconditioning Division
which were not withdrawn prior to preliminary inspection
or cost estimate.

431

Home Ownership and Income
(Continued from p. 412)

proportion of 2-family dwellings among the lower
income groups than among the more well-to-do.
In comparing the various small and mediumsize cities, it was noticed that those cities where
homes tended to be more expensive had a lower
proportion of home ownership. Although we
can compare here only two groups, it may be
significant that the northern group, where the
monthly rental value of the average owned home
is $19.51, showed considerably more inclination
toward home ownership than the southern group,
where that value was somewhat higher: $22.47. It
may be pertinent to recall that in the metropolis and
the larger cities, where a higher proportion of family income is required to pay for either a rented or
an owned home, home ownership is not as prevalent
as in communities where it is relatively cheaper.
Data on home ownership, rents, and income
collected by the Study of Consumer Purchases
show how the housing and home-financing problems are complicated by regional, racial, and
occupational differences, and affected by general
economic conditions. No general survey can
replace for the home-financing institution a
thorough knowledge of local conditions and of the
groups with which it must deal.
There are several tentative conclusions, however, which we may draw from the preliminary
sample data compiled by this Study. Unless we
are willing to reshuffle and rearrange all our
neighborhoods, and pay the costs involved in
community services and taxation, as we did during the recent period of sudden change caused by
quick city growth and the development of rapid
transportation, homes must be built specifically
for average families.
In what price range must homes be built if
families in the middle income group are to be converted from renting to home ownership? The
middle income family in the metropolis pays rent
of about $25, in the large city, about $20, in the
small city, about $15, and in the small town,
about $12. If homes can be bought at comparable monthly costs, many of our families in the
middle income groups who now rent may be
induced to buy their homes. The uniform desire
of a family to live in a better home when owning
432

than when renting may encourage them to save
the necessary down payment in addition to carrying comparable monthly charges.
Home ownership is most prevalent where the
homes for purchase are least expensive. This is
the challenge to the home-financing business that
is given by the basic facts of home ownership and
income. But these facts also show that families
of every type show a strong tendency to home
ownership whenever their incomes justify it.
And their significance to the home-financing institution is therefore an encouragement as well as a
challenge.

Master Specifications
T H E experience of the Reconditioning Division
of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation is
unique in the construction history of this country. It has been called upon to spend $83,000,000
in repairing and modernizing 447,000 homes. In
consequence, it has dealt with thousands of contractors in all parts of the country, and has
collected a vast body of information concerning
the workings of the industry.
One factor which has been a retarding force in
construction operations is the lack of standards
for both materials and labor. Early in its history
the Corporation was forced to set up master specifications to guide those doing work for it. Because
of the continued changes and improvements in
materials, appliances, and processes, and because
of the variations in its own practices, the specification list of the Corporation has been revised
and printed in the form of a convenient sized
booklet: the Master Specifications.
The necessity for adapting the Specifications to
all the varying conditions met with in reconditioning H. O. L. C. properties obviated highly specialized definitions which would be applicable to only
a limited class of work. Instead, the Master
Specifications gives general rules which should
form a basis for judgment.
This booklet is a step toward the eventual
standardization of practices and coordination of
the construction industry. It is applicable to general use and to the construction program under the
supervision of the Federal Home Building Service
Plan. At present, however, it is available only to
contractors dealing directly with the Corporation.
Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Resolutions of the Board

N JULY 26 the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board amended Section 35 of the Rules and
Regulations for Federal Savings and Loan Associations. This amendment, which will be effective
30 days from the date of enactment, reads as
follows:

"All Federal associations having charters hi the form of
Exhibit K annexed hereto shall issue certificates of membership evidencing the ownership of savings share accounts,
investment share accounts and borrower's memberships
in the respective forms set forth in Exhibit M, annexed
hereto, and made a part hereof, which certificates are
prescribed for use by each such Federal association and
shall not be revised or modified unless and until the Board
prescribes different forms for use by all Federal associations
having Exhibit K charters. All certificates issued shall be
numbered consecutively by type or otherwise. Each
owner of an investment share account shall be issued either
an investment share account book containing a certificate
in the front thereof and evidencing the participation value
of such investment share account or a separate certificate
not contained in an investment share account book. Each
owner of a savings share account shall be issued a savings
share account book containing a certificate in the front
thereof and evidencing the participation value of such
savings share account. Each borrower shall receive a loan
account book in the front of which shall be a certificate.
Other legal, accounting and descriptive material may be
used in connection with the prescribed forms of certificates,
but the form or use of such material is not prescribed."
Be it further resolved, That Exhibit M of the Rules and
Regulations for Federal Savings and Loan Associations is
amended to read as follows:
"EXHIBIT M
PRESCRIBED FORMS OF CERTIFICATES
EVIDENCING MEMBERSHIP
1. Form of certificate evidencing ownership of a Savings
Share Account which is required to be printed in the front
of a Savings Share Account Book (Form K2):
'This certifies that
is a
member of
Federal Savings
and Loan Association
:
and holds a Savings Share Account of said association,
subject to its charter and bylaws and to the laws of the
United States of America.'
2. Form of certificate evidencing ownership of an Investment Share Account prescribed for use when printed in the
front of an Investment Share Account Book (Form K2B):
'This certifies that
is a
member of
Federal Savings
and Loan Association

September 1937

and holds an Investment Share Account of said association,
subject to its charter and bylaws and to the laws of the
United States of America.'
3. Form of certificate evidencing ownership of an Investment Share Account prescribed for use when printed as a
separate certificate not contained in a share account book
(Form K3):
'This certifies that
is a
member of
Federal Savings
and Loan Association
and holds a
Dollar
Investment Share Account of said association, subject to
its charter and bylaws and to the laws of the United States
of America.'
4. Form of Borrower's Membership Certificate required
to be printed in the front of a loan account book (Form
K12):
'This certifies that
is a
member of
Federal Savings
and Loan Association
and holds a loan from said association, subject to its
charter and bylaws and to the laws of the United States
of America.'
The following legal, accounting and descriptive material
may be used in connection with the foregoing forms of
certificates:
(a) 'Certificate No
', provided, however, any
other method of identifying the number of certificate
issued may be used.
(b) Any words which clearly indicate the type of certificate issued may be used as a title, e. g., 'Savings Share
Account', 'Certificate for Savings Share Account', 'Borrower's Membership Certificate' or 'Certificate for Borrower's Membership'. The title used, however, shall not
conflict with the provisions of the certificate itself. There
is no requirement that a title be used.
(c) A witness clause substantially in the following form
shall be used on each certificate unless the execution of the
certificate is attested by the secretary or an assistant
secretary with the seal of the association:
'Witness the authorized signature(s) of officer or employee
this
day of
, 19...'
In any event, each certificate shall bear the date of issuance.
(d) Each certificate shall be manually signed in the
name of the association by an officer or an employee
designated by the board of directors as required by Section
8 of the bylaws, but may be signed in the name of the
association by two or more officers or employees as determined by the board of directors pursuant to Section 7 of the
bylaws, e. g.,
4
Federal Savings and
Loan Association
Authorized Signature'

433

The title of the officer or officers designated to sign certificates may or may not appear under his or her signature
or their signatures. The name of the association must
appear above the manual signature or signatures."
Be it further resolved, That, it being deemed that this is a
major amendment affecting matters of general principle or
policy, and not of an emergency character, pursuant to
the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 54 of the Rules
and Regulations for Federal Savings and Loan Associations,
such amendment shall be effective 30 days from July 26,
1937. Federal associations to whom a charter in the form
of Exhibit K have heretofore been issued prior to the date
of this resolution are authorized, however, to continue to
*ssue certificates of membership as prescribed by the Board
in Exhibit M of the Rules and Regulations for Federal
Savings and Loan Associations in the present form prior
to the taking effect of the foregoing amendment of Section
35 of such rules and regulations until the supply of such
certificates on hand on the date of this resolution have
been exhausted.

The Federal Home Loan Bank Board amended
subsection (b) of Section 39 of the Rules and
Regulations for Federal Savings and Loan Associations by adding the following paragraph. This
amendment will be effective 30 days from August 3, 1937.
"When the members of a Federal association at a legal
meeting have authorized loans to be made, from time to
time, in an amount exceeding 50 percent of the value of
the security of that type of other improved property which
is home or combination home and business property for
more than four families, but for not more than twelve
families (hereinafter termed 'small apartment houses') the
association may make any such loan, after approval by
the Board of such lending practice for such association.
Prior to making such loans, application in a form satisfactory to the Board shall be made for approval of such
lending practice. Such application shall set forth the
area or areas in which the applicant desires to make such
higher percentage loans on small apartment houses and
evidence of ability to make and service such loans. If and
when the Board has given such approval, such higher percentage loans on small apartment houses in the specified
areas may be made in amounts not in excess of 60 percent
of the value of such small apartment houses. Loans made
pursuant to such approval of such lending practice are
included in the 15 percent limitation in Section 5 (c) of
Home Owners* Loan Act of 1933."

On August 12, 1937, the Board passed a resolution providing for membership and signature cards
for Federal savings and loan associations operating in jurisdictions which permit or require a
husband and wife to hold property as tennants by
the entireties. The resolution is, in part, as
follows:
434

Be it resolved, That the two legal forms listed below, as
certified by the Secretary by the following exhibit numbers, found in Minute Exhibit File No. 262, are hereby
approved for use by all Federal savings and loan associations operating under Charter K in jurisdictions which
permit or require a husband and wife to hold property as
tenants by the entireties, with a requirement that the
wording of such forms (but without limitation as to the
method of printing) be used unless and until substitute or
alternative forms have been approved by the Board for
use by particular Federal savings and loan associations:
Exhibit 35, being Application for Membership and Signature Card, Membership of Husband and Wife as Tenants by the Entireties (With Right of Survivorship)
of a Share Account. (Form K l (c)),
Exhibit 37, being Application for Membership and Signature Card, Membership (tenants by the entireties) of
borrower. (Form K1B (a)).

The Board of Trustees of the Federal Savings
and Loan Insurance Corporation, on August 20,
1937, amended the Rules and Regulations for
Insurance of Accounts by the addition of a new
section immediately following Section 9. The
effective date of this amendment will be 30 days
from September 1, 1937. The new section, which
will be known as Section 9-A, is as follows:
"Sec. 9-A. Limitation upon Borrowing.—No insured
institution shall borrow in excess of the aggregate amount
authorized by the law under which such insured institution
operates. No insured institution shall borrow an aggregate
amount exceeding one-half the amount paid in and credited
on withdrawable or repurchasable shares, share accounts,
certificates of deposit and investment certificates; nor
within such an amount, an amount aggregating more than
one-fifth thereof, in loans with a maturity of one year or
less, from sources other than a Federal home loan bank.
No action of an insured institution in obtaining funds
through borrowing, in accordance with the provisions of
this section, shall be deemed a violation hereof, because of
a subsequent reduction in the amounts paid in and credited
on withdrawable or repurchasable shares, share accounts,
certificates of deposit and investment certificates."

On August 23 the Board of Trustees of the
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
adopted a resolution amending Section 3 of the
Rules and Regulations for Insurance of Accounts
by the addition of a sentence at the end thereof.
This amendment, which is of an emergency
character and will be effective immediately, is as
follows:
"No insured institution shall occupy office quarters
which are also occupied by some other financial institution
or mortgage company which is not insured either by the
Corporation or by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, without prior written approval of the Corporation."

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Directory of Member, Federal, and Insured Institutions
Added during July-August

LOUISIANA:

L—INSTITUTIONS ADMITTED TO MEMBERSHIP
IN THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK SYSTEM
BETWEEN JULY 19, 1937, AND AUGUST 14, 1937 l
(Listed b y Federal H o m e Loan Bank Districts, States, and cities.)

N e w Orleans:
M o h a w k Homestead Association, 207 Decatur Street (withdrawn Apr. 26, 1937; transfer of assets t o Oak Homestead
Association, N e w Orleans, Louisiana).
Washington Homestead Association, 307 C a m p Street (sale
of assets and transfer of stock t o General Building & Loan
Association, N e w Orleans, Louisiana).
OHIO:

Cincinnati:
Woodburn Avenue Loan & Building Company, 3308 M o n t gomery R o a d (transfer of Bank stock t o H e w i t t Avenue
Loan & Building Association, Cincinnati, Ohio).

DISTRICT NO. 1
MASSACHUSETTS :

Peabody:
Peabody Cooperative Bank, T h o m a s Block.

PENNSYLVANIA :

DISTRICT NO. 3
PENNSYLVANIA :

Corry:
Corry Building & Loan Association, 10 South Center Street.
Philadelphia:
Northern Liberties Building & Loan Association of Philadelphia, 1639 N o r t h Broad Street.

Scranton:
Lackawanna Building, Savings & Loan Association, 148
A d a m s Avenue.
Philadelphia:
Franklin Building & Loan Association N o . 6 of the City of
Philadelphia, Pa., 510 W e s t Girard Avenue (removal from
membership on account of failure t o appear at hearing).

DISTRICT NO. 4
ALABAMA:

II.—FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS CHARTERED BETWEEN JULY 19, 1937,
AND AUGUST 14, 1937

Birmingham:
Liberty National Life Insurance Company.
FLORIDA:

Jacksonville:
Gulf Life Insurance Company, Greenleaf Building.
NORTH CAROLINA:

DISTRICT NO. 3

Canton :
Canton Building & Loan Association.
Greensboro:
Pilot Life Insurance Company.

PENNSYLVANIA :

Kane:
K a n e Federal Savings & Loan Association, Odd Fellows
Building (converted from Kane Building & Loan Association).

DISTRICT NO. 5
OHIO:

Logan:
Logan H o m e & Savings Association.

DISTRICT NO. 5

TENNESSEE:

KENTUCKY:

Chattanooga:
Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company, 725 Broad
Street.
Nashville:
Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, 159
Fourth Avenue, North.
DISTRICT NO. 8
IOWA:

M o u n t Pleasant:
Insurance Plan Savings & Loan Association, 130 North Main
Street.
MISSOURI:

Excelsior Springs:
Excelsior Springs Savings & Loan Association, 101
* ior Spj
Broadway.
Palmyra:
ayra
Palmyra Savings & Building Association.

East

D I S T R I C T N O . 10
KANSAS:

Erie:
Erie Building & Loan Association.

Ashland:
Ashland Federal Savings & Loan Association, 323 Fifteenth
Street (converted from Ashland Loan & Building Association).
H o m e Federal Savings & Loan Association of Ashland, 3 3 2 - 3 5
Fifteenth Street (converted from H o m e & Savings Building
Association).
Catlettsburg:
H o m e Federal Savings & Loan Association of Catlettsburg
(converted from Catlettsburg Building, Loan & Savings
Association).
DISTRICT NO. 8
IOWA:

Sheldon:
Sheldon Federal Savings & Loan Association.
D I S T R I C T N O . 10

D I S T R I C T N O . 11
WASHINGTON:

Camas:
Clarke County Savings & Loan Association.

WITHDRAWALS FROM THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
SYSTEM BETWEEN JULY 19, 1937, AND AUGUST 14, 1937
ILLINOIS:

Atlanta:
Atlanta Building & Loan Association (voluntary).
KANSAS:

Olathe:
Johnson
Street
Wichita:
Security
Street

NEBRASKA:

Lincoln:
Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Association, 117 South
Twelfth Street (converted from Lincoln Savings & Loan
Association).
OKLAHOMA:

Ardmore:
Peoples Federal Savings & Loan Association of Ardmore, 226
W e s t M a i n Street (converted from People's Building &
Loan Association on June 10, 1937).

County Savings & Loan Association, 111 E a s t Park
(voluntary).
Savings & Loan Association, 108 N o r t h Topeka
(withdrawn Mar. 3, 1937; voluntary).

1
During this period 4 Federal savings and loan associations were
admitted t o membership in t h e System.

September 1937

D I S T R I C T N O . 12
CALIFORNIA:

Albany:
Albany Federal Savings & Loan Association, 1055 Solano
A v e n u e (converted from Albany Guarantee Building &
Loan Association).

435

CANCELATIONS
OF FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION CHARTERS BETWEEN JULY 19, 1937, AND
AUGUST 14, 1937
ILLINOIS:

Chicago:
South Side Federal Savings & Loan Association of Chicago,
7754 South Racine Avenue (charter canceled on account of
failure t o complete organization).

DISTRICT NO. 5
OHIO:

Cleveland:
Tatra Savings & Loan Company, 2945 Woodhill Road.
Middletown:
American Building & Loan Association of Middletown, Ohio,
1016 Central Avenue.
DISTRICT NO. 6
INDIANA:

INDIANA:

Indianapolis:
Co-operative Federal Savings & Loan Association, 132 N o r t h
Delaware Street (charter canceled on account of merger
with U n i o n Federal Savings & Loan Association, Indianapolis, Indiana).
IOWA:

Jefferson:
Jefferson Federal Savings & Loan Association (charter canceled on account of merger w i t h Perry Federal Savings &
Loan Association, Perry, Iowa).
MINNESOTA:

Wadena:
W a d e n a Federal Savings & Loan Association (charter canceled
on account of voluntary dissolution).

Hammond:
American Savings & Loan Association of H a m m o n d , 4525
H o h m a n Avenue (formerly First Polish Building, Loan &
Savings Association of H a m m o n d ) .
MICHIGAN:

Holland:
Ottawa County Building & Loan Association of Holland,
Michigan, 187 River Avenue.
DISTRICT NO. 8
MISSOURI:

Clinton:
Henry County Building & Loan Association of Clinton, M i s souri, 122 E a s t Franklin Street.
DISTRICT NO. 9
LOUISIANA:

III.—INSTITUTIONS INSURED BY THE FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION BETWEEN JULY 19,1937, AND AUGUST 14,
1937 i
DISTRICT NO. 2
Eatontown:
E a t o n t o w n & Oceanport Building & Loan Association, Main
Street.
Guttenberg:
Guttenberg Building & Loan Association, 43 Bergenline
Avenue.
Tenafly:
Tenafly Building Loan Association, 8 Highwood Avenue.
Wyckoff:
Wyckoff Building & Loan Association, M a i n Street.
N E W YORK:

Brooklyn:
B a y Ridge Savings & Loan Association, 7520 Third Avenue.

PENNSYLVANIA:

MISSISSIPPI:

Natchez:
N a t c h e z Building & Loan Association, 314 Franklin Street.

Building

& Loan Association, 704 Oak

San Antonio:
Travis Building & Loan Association, 111 W e s t Travis Street.
D I S T R I C T N O . 10
KANSAS:

Wichita:
Citizens Building & Loan Association, 906 W e s t
Avenue.

Douglas

D I S T R I C T N O . 11
MONTANA:

Livingston:
Empire Building & Loan Association, 123 South M a i n Street.
UTAH:

Salt Lake City:
American Mutual Building & Loan Company, 211 Walker
Bank Building.

DISTRICT NO. 3

436

DeSirard

TEXAS:

N E W JERSEY:

Philadelphia:
Milestown
Avenue.

Monroe:
People's Homestead & Savings Association, 400
Street.

Lane

1
During this period 7 Federal savings and loan associations were
insured.

Federal Home Loan Bank Review

Index of Volume 3
Federal Home Loan Bank Review
For the convenience of readers in finding references the pagination of each issue of Volume 3 is
as follows:
Volume 3

Page

Volume 3

Page

No. 1—October
No. 2—November
No. 3—December
No. 4—January
No. 5—February
No. 6—March

1-34
35-68
69-106
107-144
145-182
183-218

No. 7—April
No. 8—May
No. 9—June
No. 10—July
No. 11—August
No. 12—September

219-248
249-282
283-320
321-358
359-400
401-438

A-B-C Book Opinions:
appraisals, mortgage loans, 398
bonds for officers, directors, and employees, 193
bonus plan, adoption of, by members, 222
borrowing power, extent of, 397
bylaws and charter, availability of, to members, 224
Charter E, disposition of, after amendment by Charter K, 196
charter and bylaws, availability of, to members, 224
contributions to political parties, 355.
directors, election and number of, in FSLA, 223
dividends, payment of: on inactive share accounts, 193; on share
accounts repurchased, 193
investments in "other securities", 193
loans: commissions on, to officers, directors, and employees, 355;
• limitation on, to officers, directors, and employees, 223; share
account, delivery of certificates pledged, 222
loans, mortgage: appraisals, 398; commissions for writing insurance
on, 195; FHA insured, penalty on prepayment of, 301; on improved
real estate, 397; limitation on, to officers, directors, and employees,
301; limitation to 15% of assets, 223; penalty on prepayment of
FHA insured, 301; prepayment of, 196
meetings, notice of, to members, 398
membership certificates, signing of, 355
office building, purchase of real estate for, 397
powers of FSLA: to contribute to political parties, 355; incidental
and implied, 397; t o invest in "other securities", 193; to operate
safe deposit vaults, 194; to organize a subsidiary, 194; to purchase
real estate, 194
real estate, purchase of, for office building, 397
repurchases, receipt for payments upon, 223
reserve accounts of FSLA, required transfers to, 195
reserves, designation of, by State-chartered institution as Federal
insurance reserve account, 397
safe deposit vaults, 194
share accounts: form of, 397; loans on, certificates pledged, 222;
payment of dividends on inactive, 193; payment of dividends on
repurchased, 193; rights preserved to owners of, 301
subsidiaries, power of FSLA to organize, 194
voting rights of members: cumulative voting, 222; by proxies, 197
Accounting Guide for FSLA, 290Advertisements: during Insured Homestead Week, 403; endorsing
FSLA, 210; Safety FSLA of Kansas City, 337; sample, 115; winter
construction, 117
Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, "Current
Developments in Housing", 258"Appraisal Methods and Policies": series of articles published monthly
Vol. 3, Nos. 2 through 11
Appraisal: capitalization method of, net and gross, 190; Central Appraisal Bureau, 373; comparative method of, 146-; cost-of-replace-

September 1937

ment-less-depreciation method of, 219-; eubic-foot method of, 260-;
effect of economic and social factors on, 76-; estimating depreciation
for, 297-; inplace unit price method of, 260-; neighborhood, importance of, in, 111-; public utilities, importance of, in, 112; qualifications of appraiser, 37; report form for (reproduction), 332; squarefoot method of, 260-; taxes and insurance, importance of, in, 113
Architects' Home Plan Service, Minneapolis, house plan of (reproduction), 326
Bemis, Alfred F., 97Budgets, sample for savings and loan associations, 5 Building and loan associations, potential and actual membership in the
FHLB System (table), 23
Building costs, indexes of: (monthly table of small-house building costs
in selected cities is published in each issue) calculating building
volume for, 10, (charts), 13, 14
Building cycle, relation of, to types of dwellings and size of city (tables
and charts), 152Building materials prices, wholesale: table has been published each
month since June 1937
Building society cooperation, 414Building volume, method of calculating, 10, (charts), 13, 14
Calculating building volume, method of, 10, (charts), 13, 14
Central Appraisal Bureau, 373, 401
Construction: (analysis of current residential construction and realestate conditions with tables is published in each issue) census of,
402; method of compiling statistics for monthly tables and charts,
92-; structures, faults in, 227-; winter, 116Construction loan procedure, 255Consumer Purchases, Study of: see "Home Ownership and Income"
Dallas, neighborhood maintenance in, 185Debentures: of FHLB, 249-; second issue of, by FHLB, 393
Deficiency judgments, 259Directory of member, Federal, and insured institutions added monthly
is published in each issue
England, building societies in, 414"Evolving House, The", by Alfred F. Bemis, review of, 97Extensible home, Federal Home Building Service Plan (reproduction),
366
Fairweather, G. O., (letter), 207
Federal Home Building Service Plan: approval of (resolution), 65;
brochure, 356; catalog of designs for, by Indianapolis FHLB, 225,
(reproduction), 226; extensible home (reproduction), 366; house plan
for North Central States (reproduction), 326; insignia, adoption of
official (resolution) (reproduction), 224; letter from Mr. Robert D.
Kohn, 413; New England home for (reproduction), 288; objectives,
development, and operation of, 121-; official adoption of, 321Federal Home Loan Banks: (summary of growth and lending operations
with tables is published in each issue; table of interest rates charged,

437

consolidated statement of condition, and combined statement of
profit and loss are published semiannually, February and August)
actual and potential membership in (tables), 2 3 - ; advances, repayments, and balance outstanding, by months, during 1935 and 1936
(chart), 22; combined gross income, expenses, and net income, by
months, during 1935 and 1936 (chart), 22; combined statement of
condition, 174; combined statement of profit and loss, 160, 392;
consolidated statement of condition, 390; debentures, first issue of,
249-, second issue of, 393; dividends declared, 170, 396; exemption
of, from Social Security Tax (letter), 149-; interest rates of (table),
396; Little Rock Bank conferences, 330FHLB, Rules and Regulations, amendments to, advances to members,
216
Federal Home Loan Bank System, combined statement of condition
of all members, 341, 394
Federal savings and loan associations: (analysis of operations of reporting Federals with tables is published in each issue) Accounting Guide
for, 290-; advertising of, 117,186, 337; charter, favorable reaction to
new, 145, purpose of new, 114-, revisions of, 69-; exemption of, from
Social Security Tax (letter), 149-; growth, in number and assets of
(chart), 172, 359, of average new (chart), 360-, of average converted
(chart), 361-; number of, by States (chart), 173; progress of Missouri
Federal (letter), 225; Rules and Regulations, revisions of, 69FSLA, Rules and Regulations, amendments to: bonding of officers,
307; FHA insured loans, 398; form of certificates of membership,
215, 433-; forms and reports, 216; joint membership and signature
cards for husband and wife, 434; petition for charter, 307; purchase
and sale of mortgages, 307; real-estate loans, 434; surety bonds, 307
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation: (analysis of operations with tables is published in each issue; analysis of operations of
reporting insured State-chartered associations with tables has been
published each month since November 1936) admission fee, 287;
effect of (letter), 137; exemption of,from Social Security Tax (letter),
149-; reserves of, 30; three years of (charts), 283FSLIC, Rules and Regulations, amendments to: annual reports, 355;
bonding of officers, 307; FHA insured loans, 398; forms of certificates
and passbooks, 180, 355; limitation upon borrowings, 434; office
quarters, 434
Federal Savings and Loan System: (analysis of growth with tables is
published in each issue) progress of (charts and table), 359Fiscal year, uniformity of, 323—
Ford, James, review of "Slums and Housing" by, 4 3 Foreclosures: (index of foreclosures in 78 large urban counties is published in each issue) number of, in each of 78 large urban counties,
168
Helvering, Guy T., Commissioner Treasury Department (letter on
exemption from Social Security Tax), 149Home designs, catalog of 35, by Indianapolis FHLB, 225, (reproduction), 226
Home Owners' Loan Corporation: (monthly tables on properties acquired, investments in securities of thrift institutions, and operations
of the Reconditioning Division are published in each issue) dividends
received on share subscriptions, 278; exemption of, from Social Security
Tax (letter), 149* 'Home Ownership and Income": (series of articles with tables and
charts published monthly: Vol. 3, Nos. 8 through 12) in cities of
1,000 to 2,500 population, 410-; of 10,000 to 20,000 population, 363-;
of 30,000 to 60,000 population, 334-; of 300,000 population, 293; in
metropolis, 252Housing: current developments in, American Academy of Political and
Social^Science, Annals, 258-; life expectancy of, 118"Housing Officials' Yearbook", 327

438

Indianapolis, FHLB of, catalog of 35 house designs, 225, (reproduction), 226
Industrial production: index of industrial production is published in
each issue
Insurance: admission fee, 287-; effect of, on public confidence (letters),
30, 62, 137-; Insured Savings Week in New Orleans, 401-; of joint
and trust accounts, 187-; premiums and taxes, collection of, by
mortgagee, 1-; progress of (charts), 283Insurance companies, potential and actual membership in the FHLB
System (table), 24
Insured Savings Week in New Orleans, 4 0 1 Interest rates, determination of effective (table), 328Joint accounts, insurance of, by FSLIC, 187Life insurance companies, investments in mortgages by (tables and
charts), 368Little Rock, FHLB of, groups conferences, 330Loans, procedure for construction, 255Managing officer, duties of, 7-, 39-, 80Master Specifications, of the Reconditioning Division, 432
Mortgage loans: determination of effective interest rate on (table),
328-; investments of life insurance companies in (tables and charts),
368National Association of Housing Officials: 118-; Yearbook, 327
Neighborhood maintenance, example of (Dallas), 185New England home, plan of (reproduction), 288
New Orleans, Central Appraisal Bureau of, 373, 401-; Insured Savings
Week in, 401North Central States, house plan for (reproduction), 326
Peaslee, Horace W., house plan by, 366
Philadelphia Savings Fund Society, 329
Public housing, number of units provided: table has been published
each month since August 1937
Real-estate: boom, potential, 107-; cycle, 7 7 Real-estate conditions: see Construction
Reconditioning Division: (a monthly table of operations is published in
each issue) master specifications of, 432
Renovation, 73Rentals: (an index of rentals is published in each issue) by National Industrial Conference Board and U. S. Department of Labor (chart),
303
Report forms, standardization of, 323Residential construction: see Construction
Savings banks, potential and actual membership in the FHLB System
(table), 23
Savings and loan associations: (analysis of monthly lending activity
with tables is published in each issue; chart comparing construction
loans by, with building activity, monthly since July 1937; and table
giving loans made by all, monthly since June 1937) computing estimates from reports of, 305; duties of managing officer of, 7-, 39-, 80-;
sample budgets for, 5 - ; standard report for, 323-; uniform fiscal
year for, 323Small House Architectural Associates of Massachusetts, house plan of
(reproduction), 288
Schenectady, city plan of, 183"Slums and Housing", by James Ford, review of, 4 3 Social Security Tax, exemption from (letter from Commissioner), 149Structures, common faults in, 227—
Suburbs, future of, 258Taxes, collection of, by mortgagee, 1-; on homes, 404—
T. V. A., house of, in Norris, Tenn. (reproduction), 408Trust accounts, insurance of, by FSLIC, 187"Urban Housing", review of handbook of PWA Housing Division, 95
Volume, method of calculating building, 10, (charts), 13, 14

Federal Home Loan Bank Review
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1937

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK DISTRICTS

tow

- _
•

BOUNDARIES OF FEDERAL HOME LOAN SANK OISTRICTS
FEDERAL HOME LOAN SANK CITIES.

OFFICERS OF FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS
BOSTON

CHICAGO

B. J. ROTHWBLL, Chairman; E. H. WEEKS, Vice Chairman; W. H.
NEAYES, President; H. N. FAULKNER, Vice President; FREDERICK
WINANT, JR., Secretary-Treasurer; L. E. DONOVAN, Secretary.

H. G. ZANDER, Chairman; MORTON BODFISH, Vice Chairman; A. R.
GARDNER, President; JOHN BARDWICK, JR., Vice President; E. H.
BURGESS, Treasurer; CONSTANCE M. WRIGHT, Secretary.

NEW

YORK

GEORGE MACDONALD, Chairman; F. V. D . LLOYD, Vice Chairman;
G. L. B u s s , President; F. G. STICKBL, JR., Vice President-General
Counsel; ROBERT G. CLARKSON, Vice President-Secretary; DENTON
G. LYON, Treasurer.

DES

MOINES

C. B. BOBBINS, Chairman; E. J. RUSSELL, Vice Chairman; R. J.
RICHARDSON, President-Secretary; W. H. LOHMAN, Vice PresidentTreasurer; J. M. MARTIN, Assistant Secretary; A. E. MUELLER,
Assistant Treasurer.

PITTSBURGH

LITTLE ROCK

E. T. TRIGG, Chairman; C. S. TIPPETTS, Vice Chairman; R. H. RICHARDS, President; G. R. PARKER, Vice President; H. H. GARBER,
Secretary-Treasurer.

J. GILBERT LEIGH, Chairman; W. C. JONES, JR., Vice Chairman;
B. H. WOOTEN, President; H. D. WALLACE, Vice President; W. F.
TARVIN, Treasurer; J. C. CONWAY, Secretary.

WINSTON-SALEM

TOPEKA

G. W. WEST, Chairman; E. C. BALTZ, Vice Chairman; O. K. LAROQUE,
President-Secretary; G. E. WALSTON, Vice President-Treasurer;
Jos. W. HOLT, Assistant Secretary.

W. R. MCWILLIAMS, Chairman; G. E. MCEINNIS, Vice Chairman;
C. A. STERLING, President-Secretary; R. H. BURTON, Vice PresidentTreasurer.

CINCINNATI
H. S. KISSBLL, Chairman; W. D. SHULTZ, President; W. E. JULIUS,
Vice President; A. L. MADDOX, Treasurer; DWIGHT WEBB, JR.,
Secretary.
INDIANAPOLIS
F. S. CANNON, Chairman-Vice President; S. R. LIGHT, Vice Chairman;
FRED T. GREENE, President; B. F. BURTLBSS, Secretary-Treasurer.

PORTLAND
F. S. MCWILLIAMS, Chairman; B. H. HAZEN, Vice Chairman; C. H.
STEWART, President; IRVING BOGARDUS, Vice President-Treasurer;
Mrs. E. M. SOOYSMITH, Assistant Secretary.
Los

ANGELES

C. H. WADE, Chairman; D. G. DAVIS, Vice Chairman; M. M. HURFORD, President; C. E. BERRY, Vice President; F. C. NOON, Secretary-Treasurer.

Full text of Federal Home Loan Bank Review : September 1937, Vol. 3 No. 12

FRASER