The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Progress Report on the Mobile Consnmer lose Survey Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Jone 1967 G- 755 47 '48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ’55 ’60 '65 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis INQUIRY INTO CONSUMER INSTALMENT LENDING A Progress Report on the Mobile Consumer Loan Survey Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta June 1967 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Consumer Credit Quality - A Search for an Answer, Monthly Review, November 1966 .................................................................................. 2 The Mobile Story of Consumer Instalment Lending, Monthly Review, April 1967........................................................................................... 6 Table I. Borrower and Loan Characteristics for Loans Made............................. 9 Table II. Borrower and Loan Characteristics for Loans Repaid .................... 10 Table III. Borrower and Loan Characteristics for Loans Written Off . . 11 Table IV. Number of Borrowers by Occupation for Loans Made......................... 12 < v Table V. Number of Borrowers by Occupation for Loans Repaid........................ 12 Table Vi. Number of Borrowers by Occupation for Loans Written Off. . • 13 Table VII. Number of Auto Loans Made................................................ ............................ 14 Table VIII. Number of Auto Loans Repaid........................................................................ 17 Table IX. Number of Auto Loans Written Off ............................................................... 20 Table X. Number of Nonauto Loans Made............................................................................. 23 Table XI. Number of Nonauto Loans Repaid................................................................... 26 Table XII. Number of Nonauto Loans Written Off..................................................... 29 Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 32 F25557 INTRODUCTION A major development in the American postwar economy has been the rapid growth of consumer credit. Consumers’ willingness to borrow more, coupled with a broadening in the ability and willingness of lend ers to make such credit available, is evidenced by the 18-fold increase in total outstandings since 1945. This gain, which exceeds the advance in personal income, raises important questions concerning the quality of the nation's consumer credit. For example, has the increased use of consumer credit come primarily from marginal borrowers who have been coaxed into debt, thereby leading to a greater possibility of defaults? Or have attitudes toward consumer indebtedness and the ability of con sumers to repay paralleled the rapid advances in consumer credit? Realizing that existing aggregate measures fail to identify these and other changes in credit conditions, the Federal Reserve System be gan a study in 1962 to measure more accurately consumer credit quality. Since this study is based primarily upon the premise that loan quality ultimately depends upon the individual borrower, comprehensive borrow er and loan data are essential. A questionnaire to obtdin these data from the instalment loan departments of 28 commercial banks was designed and tested in a preliminary nationwide survey. The second phase of the study is to develop similar data for borrowers in different metropoli tan areas. With these data, it may then be possible to identify changes in credit conditions in different areas, as well as to develop a nation al index of credit quality. The articles in this booklet present some preliminary results from the survey of Mobile, Alabama, the first metropolitan area to be studied. Summary tabulations of the data collected from Mobile banks are also included. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Consumer Credit Quality— A Search for an Answer The postwar growth in the level of outstanding consumer credit has been spectacular. Aided by a stimulative monetary credit policy, most sectors of the economy have shared in the growth. Consumers added to their present consumption at the expense of future income; merchants and retailers increased their sales; lenders received interest income from extending credit; and other segments felt the impact through the growth in aggregate demand. This continuing uptrend in the use of consumer credit is reflected in a current level of outstanding debt in excess of $90 billion. Not only has the level of debt grown, but the ratio of consumer credit to disposable personal income has advanced, indicating that consumer credit has become increasingly more pervasive. Has this growth in private indebtedness been so rapid as to warrant grave concern and worry? Whether or not the current level of out standing debt has become excessive depends upon the prospects of its repayment. If the growth in debt has been offset by an increase in the ability and desire to repay, there may be little need for worry. However, many persons fear that more and more marginal borrowers have been coaxed into borrowing, leading to the greater possibility of defaults. This idea is often given as an indication of the deterioration of credit “quality.” While it is difficult, if not impossible, to define credit quality exactly, at least two meanings are commonly associated with its current usage. One focuses on the likelihood of an individual loan, or a portfolio of loans, being repaid. Another meaning, which uses aggregate figures, cen ters around the likely effect of a change in the overall performance of the economy on the number of loan foreclosures and repossessions. A sharp increase in foreclosures and repossessions would be direct evidence of a deterioration in credit quality, of course. Attempts to gauge such an occurrence in advance of its actual happening have led to the wide spread use of aggregate measures to assess the strain of private debt on the economy. One measure, the ratio of instalment repayments to dis posable personal income, has increased, along with the growth in the level of outstanding credit. Today, about 14.5 cents out of each dollar of the consumer’s take-home pay is committed to repaying instalment debt, compared with 10 cents a decade ago and only 4 cents immediately following World War II. Measuring credit quality by aggregate figures has serious limitations. Attitudes toward borrowing have changed. The proportion of the popu lation making purchases on credit has grown. In addition, an average increase of 6 percent per year in per capita income over the past 20 years has caused a shift in consumer spending patterns. Today’s con sumer, differing in many respects from his counterpart of 20 years ago, buys a larger proportion of items with credit. Growth in the ratio of repayments to personal income may not signal a lowering of quality, but merely an increase in the proportion of credit-type purchases. In the final analysis, the quality of credit is determined by the bor rower’s repayment of an obligation in accordance with the original con- MONTHLY REVIEW • NOVEMBER 1966 2 tract. Perhaps the rise in consumer credit has been ac companied by an increase in the creditworthiness of bor rowers. If so, the quality of credit measured in the aggre gate may not be the same as that derived from adding the qualities of individual loans. The most realistic approach to solving the dilemma of credit quality is based on the disaggregation of data. This method employs either a detailed analysis of individual loans, which are then added together for a measure of the quality of total outstanding credit, or an analysis based on average values or the distribution of certain characteris tics for entire portfolios of loans. The ability of presentday computers to handle large amounts of detailed infor mation makes both of these approaches feasible. But what specific characteristics of borrowers are most important in judging loan quality? A great deal can be learned from the individual lender whose portfolio quality depends largely upon his judgment of those borrowers who will most likely repay. In practice, he knows that some risks must be taken in order to compete for loan business. But after deciding the level of risk, he must then deter mine on what basis loans will be accepted or rejected. Bankers have generally scored each loan application by a number of borrower characteristics. But even the most experienced banker is not sure of the individual merits of these characteristics. To test the reliability of these “rules of thumb,” and also, to take a closer look at the quality of consumer credit, the Federal Reserve System is con ducting a special study. The objective is to determine if the loan portfolio outstanding at any particular time is stronger or weaker than that which existed at some earlier date. Once the measurement technique is developed, the System hopes to be able to measure changes in the quality of loan portfolios from year to year. To accomplish this task, a questionnaire was designed to get borrower and loan characteristics for individual consumer loans at banks. This questionnaire was first de veloped and tested in 24 banks across the United States to work out problems in design and data processing and to provide data for preliminary analysis. Following the pilot phase of the study, consumer loans in an entire metropoli tan area are being sampled. With these data, changes in quality that take place in that area can be identified. It will also be possible to compare various areas for regional differences in credit quality and to develop a national index, or measure of consumer credit conditions. Mobile, Alabama, was the first metropolitan area selected for this study. However, banks in Cleveland, Ohio, have since started supplying data to the Federal Reserve System, and other banks will soon be participating in the study. Personnel in the Consumer Loan Department of each Mobile bank participating in the survey are completing four types of questionnaires. One obtains data on indi vidual borrower and loan characteristics for about onetenth of all new loans made during each working day. A similar questionnaire samples loans as they are repaid. In https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis formation is acquired for loans when the borrower de faulted. Questionnaires are also completed for part of. the rejected loans. As the questionnaires are received at this Bank for analysis, the information is transferred to punched cards and fed into our computer. A large quantity of data is processed, showing the average and percentage break downs for a number of different classifications of bor rower and loan characteristics. Thus far, over 5,000 individual questionnaires have been received from Mobile banks. For purposes of this report, all personal loans, repair and modernization, and other consumer goods loans have been grouped into a single category—nonautomobile loans. However, the same information is also available for automobile loans. Mobile, Alabama One of the reasons Mobile was selected as the first area to be studied is that its population of 412,000 contains a good cross section of American consumers. Engaging in industry, shipping, farming, and tourism, Mobile has been similar to the nation in the growth of retail trade and consumer indebtedness. The large increase in Mobile’s credit is the result of a rapid growth in personal income and spending on more credit-type purchases. Personal in comes have increased approximately 7 percent per year. Similarly, per capita incomes, probably a better indicator of the economic well-being of Mobile residents, have moved steadily upward. Meanwhile, retail spending has advanced at about the same rate. Although some important differences exist between Mobile and the U.S., the composition of Mobile’s com mercial bank consumer credit resembles that of the nation. Automobile loans, the largest single component of in stalment credit outstanding, account for about one-half of the total in both Mobile and the nation. Since mid-1962, Consumer Instalment Debt Held by Commercial Banks Mobile, Alabama June 1962—July 1966 Millions of Dollars Millions of Dollars 3 these loans have contributed only about one-third of the growth in Mobile’s consumer debt, while accounting for two-thirds of the nation’s. However, personal loans have advanced more rapidly in Mobile than in the nation. The growth rates in other consumer goods and repair and mod ernization loans have been about the same in Mobile and the U.S. Since mid-1962, instalment debt at Mobile banks has grown by nearly 40 percent, or about 10 percent an nually. During the same period, the national figure was about 18 percent per year, on average. The 1,683 nonautomobile loans in our study revealed that the typical borrower from the commercial banks in Mobile was 41 years old, had lived in the area slightly over ten years, and had been with his firm for about the same time. His household income averaged a little over $6,500. Not all of the borrowers were indebted before they made their new loans, but those that were, owed $96 per month, on average. Their new debt to the bank aver aged $596, to be repaid in 15 months at the rate of $39 a month. The characteristics of the borrowers that defaulted were significantly different from those of all borrowers. On average, they were younger, had lived in the area a shorter time, had been on the job fewer years, and received some what lower incomes. The amounts of their new loans were higher, as well as their monthly payments. This general picture is useful in evaluating the differ ences between borrowers who defaulted and those who repaid their indebtedness, but some significant changes may be hidden in the averages. For example, while the average borrower that defaulted was one year younger than those who repaid their loans, borrowers between 20 and 30 years old had the highest default ratio. Similarly, nearly 70 percent of all borrowers that defaulted had lived in Mobile for five years or less, even though these short-term residents accounted for only 50 percent of the loans. Borrowers who worked for the same firm for five years or less also had a considerably worse repayment record than those who had been employed longer. These yardsticks of the quality of individual loans ap pear to measure the maturity and attitude of the borrower, as well as the stability of his income and whether he will still be in the area when the final payments come due. It is not clear, however, how these variables are interrelated or what is the relative importance of each in determining the quality of loans. The variables are obviously good proxy measures for the borrower’s maturity and attitude toward repayment. Nevertheless, income and indebtedness of the borrower are significant in that they measure the borrower’s ability to repay. The table shows that average incomes for bor rowers that defaulted were much less than for other borrowers. As expected, a more detailed review of writtenoff loans revealed that borrowers with low incomes (less than $2,000) had relatively poor repayment records. However, further analyses showed that borrowers with https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Characteristics of Nonauto Consumer Loans at Mobile, Alabama, Area Banks1 July 1965—June 1966 Borrower and Loan Characteristics Average Values Defaults 40.0 Age of Borrower 7.2 Years Residing in Area 8.6 Years with Firm Household Income (Yearly) $6,212 Monthly Preloan Debt (Indebted Borrowers Only3) $77 $685 Amount of Loan Number of Monthly 14.3 Payments Amount of Monthly $54 Payments Loans Repaid Difference1 41.0 10.4 10.5 $6,511 - 1.0 - 3.2 - 1.9 -$299 $96 $596 - $19 + $89 15.2 - 0.9 $39 + $15 ’Data based on simple averages. -’Difference between defaults and loans repaid. 3Includes reported monthly payments for auto, rent, mortgage, and other debts before bank, loan was made. household incomes of $10,000 or more also had rela tively poor repayment records. Sixty-nine percent of all borrowers with high household incomes had more than one source of income, primarily a working spouse. Con versely, borrowers with household incomes of less than $10,000 had two or more sources of income in only 15 percent of the cases. Combining the two average level in comes may add to the family’s ability and desire to incur debt, but the additional income may not always be fully available for retiring debt. Thus, the income variable alone is perhaps not sufficient information on which to base credit quality. While the borrower’s household income measures his potential repayment ability, monthly instalment indebted ness both before and after the loan measure his approxi mate net ability to retire his debts. Borrowers not in debted before negotiating loans had better repayment records. Meanwhile, borrowers with preloan indebtedness of $60 to $100 had the highest default ratio. This level of indebtedness did not seem too great, but adding a new debt apparently overburdened many borrowers. These characteristics are normally used by bankers considering loan applications. Perhaps equally important in assessing the possibility that a loan will be repaid are the characteristics of the loan itself. Is the repayment period so long that future events place the loan in jeopardy? Is the loan too large or too small in relation to the borrower’s income or previous debt? Answers to these and other questions may give further insight into the quality of loans. The table shows that the average borrower who de faulted borrowed more money and tried to repay it with less, but larger, monthly payments. One might conclude that borrowers with larger, short-term loans have the worst repayment record. This is partly true in that relatively 4 more loans defaulted when they totaled $1,500 or more and were to be repaid with 12 monthly payments of $90 or more. Loan contracts placing greater pressures on bor rowers’ present incomes appear to reduce loan quality. However, borrowers with small loans requiring a few small monthly payments also had relatively poor repay ment records. Many had very low incomes and were faced with the problem of becoming overburdened. Measuring Future Credit Quality The comparisons of borrower characteristics suggest that they are significant measures of the repayment potential of prospective borrowers. However, bank data may be utilized to measure many other aspects of credit quality. For example, a consideration of the importance of age, relative to income, may be desirable. What exactly do age, years residence, or other variables measure? Ap parently, the ultimate quality of a bank’s or a nation’s loan portfolio depends, in part, upon the borrower’s at titude toward indebtedness and repayment. Do these https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis variables provide proxy measures of attitudes or should other characteristics be reviewed? Is it possible to quantify a borrower’s attitude toward indebtedness? Just as attitude is important in evaluating credit quality, so is the borrower’s ability to repay. Bankers have a gen eral idea of the repayment capacity of their borrowers, but are they always fully aware of their current outstand ing indebtedness? Should they evaluate net, rather than gross, income of the borrower? How does the number of dependents affect a borrower’s repayment potential? So far, this study has raised many questions, but it has clarified enough issues to guarantee that, as these and other data are studied, many more questions will become answerable for the first time. As information is collected during periods of changes in the rate of economic growth, it will become more possible to adequately measure and quantify changes in credit quality in local areas. Then, the quality of the national consumer loan portfolio can be better measured by totaling the regional changes. Robert E. Sweeney and Joe W. McLeary 5 r The Mobile Story of Consumer Instalment Lending k J “Let us all be happy and live within our means, even if we have to borrow the money to do it,” was Artemus Ward’s philosophy, and it might just as well be ours today. Buying a home, for ex ample, almost always requires the purchaser to go into debt. In recent years, more and more con sumers have borrowed to purchase automobiles and household appliances, make house repairs, take vacations, and for many other personal ex penses. Consequently, the volume of consumer in stalment indebtedness has expanded sharply. Perhaps more significant, however, is that over the last 20 years American consumers have in creased their indebtedness at a faster rate than their disposable income. Does this mean that more and more submarginal borrowers have been coaxed into the market by a lowering of lending standards? Has the quality of the na tion’s outstanding consumer loans deteriorated? Alternatively, could this rising volume of per sonal debt merely indicate that today’s borrowers are more creditworthy? Aggregate information such as the volume and level of personal debt and the ratio of consumer debt to disposable income does not reveal basic changes in attitudes and trends in consumer borrowing. Hence, the first step in answering questions concerning the quality of credit is to find out more about individual borrowers. For example, what age groups are most likely to use instalment credit, and for what purposes? Do persons with above-average incomes also borrow for instalment purchases? And what about the distribution of borrowers by occupation? In order to answer such questions and to throw additional light on the characteristics of indi vidual borrowers, we have made a special study of instalment customers at Mobile, Alabama, banks. In connection with a longer-run project specific information relajpd to individual bor rower characteristics has been collected from these banks. Mobile Borrowers Almost everyone that lives in Mobile and is old enough to work is a prospective candidate for a bank loan. Not everyone wants a loan nor does everyone who applies for a loan get it. Even if the bank has an ample availability of funds, the loan is granted on the basis of its probability of repayment. We can get some idea of the import ance assigned to such characteristics as age, in come, occupation, etc., by looking at the collective consumer lending experience of Mobile banks since mid-1965. If a bank’s instalment loan cus tomers can be identified from the distribution of certain characteristics of the population, then significant shifts over time in the profile of an area’s economy would have important conse quences for the demand for consumer credit. A comparison of Mobile borrowers and residents should reveal what segments of the population banks serve. Our study of the characteristics of bank bor rowers and Mobile residents revealed that about MONTHLY REVIEW https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis • APRIL 1967 6 The ages of customers receiving consumer loans at Mobile banks closely parallel those of all residents in the area, Percent 10 0 30 20 . . . but while banks serve customers in all income brackets, proportionately more loans go to persons with incomes over $6,000, Percent 10 0 20 30 40 50 FAMILY INCOME jM' ' ‘ ■ $1,999 or Less - /■ $2,000 - 5,999 $6,000 - 9,999 $10,000 - 14,999 r $15,000 and Over . . . which probably explains the heavier concentration of borrowers in the professional-managerial group. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 0 10 Percent 20 30 40 half of the age 18 or over population is under 40, with nearly one-fourth of the total concentrated in the 30-39 age bracket. At the banks nearly one-fourth of the borrowers are also from 30-39 and slightly over half of the customers are less than 40. In general, these banks seemed to prefer lending to borrowers in the productive work years from 20 to 60. Loans to persons under 20 and over 60 are proportionally less than the number of residents in these age groupings. In 1960, nine out of ten families in Mobile had annual household incomes of $10,000 or less. Similarly, over 85 percent of the borrowers at Mobile banks also had household incomes of less than $10,000 annually. But while close to onehalf of all families had incomes between $2,000 and $6,000, only about two-fifths of the borrowers were in this range. Conversely, nearly 38 percent of the borrowers and 24 percent of the residents had incomes ranging between $6,000 to $10,000 annually. About 15 percent of Mobile’s families had incomes of $2,000 or less, but borrowers re porting incomes this low held only 3.5 percent of the total number of consumer loans at banks.1 Family income is one of the important gauges banks use in evaluating loans, and the chances of receiving a loan, other things constant, improves with the borrower’s income. And, of course, in come depends largely upon one’s occupation. Approximately one-third of Mobile’s workers are craftsmen, foremen, service workers, and laborers. Next in importance in terms of numbers employed are clerical and sales people, followed closely by the professional and managerial group. Close to one-fifth of the population is retired, not in the labor force, or unemployed. Mobile banks granted most loans to the professionalmanagerial group who received nearly twice as many loans as would be expected if the banks allocated their loans. on the basis of area job distribution alone. Others actively employed re ceived about their proportionate share of loans, while those not commonly considered in the labor market received only a small share. Characteristics Vary With Loan Type Some differences in borrower and loan charac teristics were noted between those borrowing to lrThese comparisons may be distorted somewhat since the data on Mobile’s income distribution are based on 1960 information, while the loan figures are for 1965-66. Any changes that have occurred over this period, however, would probably have resulted in a shift toward a heavier concentration in the upper income groups, which would not materially affect the results presented. 7 purchase automobiles and those obtaining funds for other purposes. Individuals negotiating loans to purchase automobiles tended to be younger, with about one-third in the 20-29 age bracket. Over 55 percent of all auto loans were granted to those under 40. The largest proportion of auto loans were made to borrowers who had lived in the community and worked at the same firm less than five years. Because the population has become increasingly mobile in general, perhaps age and future job prospects or previous recommendations are used more often in judging loan applicants than years of residence or employment. Mobile residents that financed auto purchases recorded average loans of $1,750, with monthly payments of nearly $70 extending over a twoyear period. The amount of auto loans was fairly evenly distributed among all size categories, about 50 percent below $1,500 and 50 percent above that amount. Nearly three-fourths of all borrowers had monthly payments ranging be tween $30 and $89. Only one-fifth of the loans were for less than one year; the remaining loans were divided equally between 13-24 and 25-36 months each. Only a fraction of one percent of the loans exceeded 36 months. Mobile banks appear to be following the char acteristic trend of most banks to make more new car loans than used ones. Borrowers, however, have held their monthly payments below $90 by extending the repayment period. Consumer loans for other purposes averaged over $1,000 less per loan than auto loans. Threefifths of these loans were less than $500, and 80 percent were for $1,000 or less. Similarly, three out of five loans were to be repaid in 12 months or less. Monthly payments for about one-half of the “nonauto” loans averaged less than $30. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The average “nonauto” borrower was slightly older, had worked for his present employer longer, but had fairly low household income. This group was comprised of relatively fewer young persons and more borrowers 60 years old and over. They seemed to be longer-term residents and em ployees. One-half had annual household incomes of less than $6,000. Hence, the “nonauto” borrower, although in a lower income bracket than the auto borrower, appears to be more mature and perhaps a better credit risk, as measured by job tenure and years residing in the area. Furthermore, his charac teristics seem to match more closely those of all Mobile residents. Banks Meet Needs Based on the tentative conclusions of the Mobile study, banks’ instalment lending activity appears to be serving most segments of the population. However, it is doubtful if an economic profile of the area itself could be used to accurately de scribe the structure of a bank’s instalment loan market. While the characteristics of Mobile’s population and banks’ instalment loan borrowers are similar, certain income, occupation, age groups, and variation among borrowers limit the scope of comparison. Individuals who borrow from banks may not be typical of instalment borrowers at all lending institutions. Nevertheless, banks are the most im portant instalment lenders, accounting for more than two-fifths of the nation’s outstanding con sumer credit. Consequently, the characteristics of those consumers who use bank instalment credit provide a clue to lending in an important part of the market. Robert E. Sweeney and Joe W. McLeary 8 TABLE I BORROWER AND LOAN CHARACTERISTICS FOR LOANS MADE BETWEEN JULY 1965 AND DECEMBER 1966 Borrower and Loan Characteristics ________ Loan Purpose Auto Nonauto •-Average Values------ Age of Borrower 38.1 40.2 Years Residing in Area 11.9 11.9 8.7 9.6 Total Household Income (Yearly) $7,378 $6,790 Amount of Loan $1,747 $ Years with Firm Number of Monthly Payments 691 15.7 24.7 Amount of Monthly Payments $ 68 $ 40 Monthly Preloan Debt (Indebted Borrowers Only)!./ $ 99 $ 102 Number of Loans in Sample 1/ 715 2,946 Includes reported monthly payments for auto, rent, mortgage, and other debts before bank loan was made. The average amount is the average monthly payments for indebted borrowers only. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 9 TABLE II BORROWER AND LOAN CHARACTERISTICS FOR LOANS REPAID BETWEEN JULY 1965 AND DECEMBER 1966 Borrower and Loan Characteristics ______Loan Purpose Auto Nonauto ■Average Values-------- Age of Borrower 37.3 41.0 Years Residing in Area 12.5 11.7 8.7 10.5 Total Household Income (Yearly) $7,132 $6,574 Amount of Loan $1,579 $ Years with Firm 15.2 22.9 Number of Monthly Payments 595 Amount of Monthly Payments $ 65 $ 38 Monthly Preloan Debt (Indebted Borrowers Only)—' $ 86 $ 96 Number of Loans in Sample 1/ 382 2,402 Includes reported monthly payments for auto, rent, mortgage, and other debts before bank loan was made. The average amount Is the average monthly payments for indebted borrowers only. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 10 TABLE III BORROWER AND LOAN CHARACTERISTICS FOR LOANS WRITTEN-OFF BETWEEN JULY 1965 AND I)EC EMBER 1966 Loan Purpose Borrower and Loan Characteristics Nonauto Auto •Average values Age of Borrower 35.6 38.5 Years Residing in Area 14.4 9.2 7.5 8.0 Total Household Income (Yearly) $5,245 $6 ,157 Amount of Loan $1,199 $ Years with Firm 14.4 21.4 Number of Monthly Payments 709 Amount of Monthly Payments $ 48 $ 54 Monthly Preloan Debt (Indebted Borrowers Only)!./ $ 79 $ 73 Number of Loans in Sample 18 92 1/ Includes reported monthly payments for auto, rent, mortgage and other debts before the bank loan was made. The average amount is the aver age monthly payments for indebted borrowers only. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11 TABLE IV NUMBER OF BORROWERS BY OCCUPATION FOR LOANS MADE BETWEEN JULY 1965 AND DECEMBER 1966V Auto Loans Occupational Group Professionals, Managers, etc. White Collar Workers, Clerical, and Sales Blue Collar Workers Unemployed, Retired, Disabled Unknown Total Borrowers Nonauto Loans 125 518 70 274 133 465 10 95 177 740 515 2,092 1/ See footnote at bottom of Table VI. TABLE V NUMBER OF BORROWERS BY OCCUPATION FOR LOANS REPAID BETWEEN JULY 1965 AND DECEMBER 1966V Occupational Group Auto Loans Nonauto Loans Professionals, Managers, etc. 70 415 White Collar Workers, Clerical and Sales 35 221 Blue Collar Workers 55 428 8 67 106 613 274 1,744 Unemployed, Retired, Disabled Unknown Total 1/ See footnote at bottom of Table VI. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12 TABLE VI NUMBER OF BORROWERS BY OCCUPATION FOR LOANS WRITTEN OFF BETWEEN JULY 1965 AND DECEMBER 19661/ Occupational Group Auto Loans Nonauto Loans Professionals, Managers, etc. 2 16 --- 10 7 24 Unemployed, Retired, Disabled --- 3 Unknown 5 29 14 82 White Collar workers, Clerical and Sales Blue Collar Workers Total 1/ Professionals, Managers, etc.;also includes farmers, farm managers, and military officers. Blue Collar Workers include craftsmen, foremen, operatives, service workers, and laborers. NOTE: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Totals for Tables IV, V, and VI are based on information through third quarter 1966 only. 13 TABLE VII NUMBER OF AUTO LOANS MADE July 1965 - December 1966 Annual Household Income Age of Borrower $1,999 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total $2,0005,999 $6,0009,999 4 69 24 31 21 9 17 175 3 2 1 5 2 13 53 56 50 40 2 16 217 $10,00014,999 11 22 26 11 2 2 74 $15,000or more Not Reported Total 3 34 30 31 13 9 97 217 7 174 136 147 88 27 136 715 4 4 7 2 2 19 Amount of Loan Age of Borrower $199 or less 1 0-19 20-29 4 2 30-39 1 40-49 50-59 60 and over 1 Not Reported 5 Total 14 $200499 $500999 $10001499 1 18 5 18 13 5 18 78 4 31 27 17 14 9 24 126 23 26 31 11 4 16 111 $15001999 $20002499 $25002999 1 26 15 19 ’ 11 2 11 85 23 22 19 9 2 10 85 28 21 18 16 4 23 110 $3000 or more Total 7 174 136 147 88 27 136 715 21 18 24 14 29 106 Amount of Monthly Payment Age of Borrower $14 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 1 2 5 $15-29 2 13 5 12 9 4 12 57 $30-59 4 66 57 58 31 15 54 285 $60-89 $90-119 1 68 50 53 36 6 33 247 19 19 15 9 1 23 86 $120-149 $150 or more 3 3 6 2 3 2 3 1 6 20 6 15 Total 7 174 136 147 88 27 136 715 14 TABLE VII continued - 2 - Monthly Preloan Debt Age of Borrower 0 $1-49 0-19 13 20-29 4 30-39 8 40-49 6 50-59 60 and over 3 Not Reported 8 42 Total $100-149 $50-99 10 8 9 3 5 2 37 $150-199 32 30 25 15 10 15 16 6 4 6 7 2 7 109 6 53 3 22 $200-249 $250 or more 2 2 1 1 1 Not Reported 7 102 70 78 55 18 106 436 1 1 3 4 9 7 Total 7 174 136 147 88 27 136 715 Amount of Loan $199 Income or less ($) 1 0- 1,999 4 2,000- 3,999 1 4,000- 5,999 2 6,000- 7,999 1 8,000- 9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over Not Reported 5 Total 14 $200499 4 8 21 13 1 5 2 24 78 $500999 4 19 20 22 12 10 39 126 $10001499 1 11 19 22 11 17 2 28 111 $15001999 $20002499 1 3 20 26 14 7 1 38 110 $25002999 $3000 or more 1 6 11 19 13 8 4 23 85 4 11 23 11 16 8 33 106 1 4 13 13 14 11 2 27 85 Total 13 59 116 140 77 74 19 217 715 Amount of Monthly Payment $14 or Income less ($) 0- 1,999 1 2,000- 3,999 1 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 1 8,000- 9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over Not Reported 2 Total 5 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $15-29 4 7 14 9 1 2 2 18 57 $30-59 $60-89 5 35 48 56 29 24 3 85 285 3 13 42 50 38 33 6 62 247 $90-119 2 10 20 7 14 4 29 86 $120-149 1 1 3 1 2 12 20 $150 or more Total 13 59 116 140 77 74 19 217 715 1 1 2 2 9 15 15 TABLE VII continued - 3 - Monthly Preloan Debt Income 0 —CST" 1 0- 1,999 7 2,000- 3,999 8 4,000- 5,999 5 6,000- 7,999 3 8,000- 9,999 4 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over 14 Not Reported 42 Total https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $1-49 3 4 13 7 2 1 7 37 $50-99 1 6 .19 29 22 18 2 12 109 $100-149 2 9 14 10 12 1 5 53 $150-199 $200249 $250 or more 1 7 6 5 3 1 22 2 4 7 1 2 1 2 1 2 9 Not Reported 8 39 66 74 33 28 12 176 436 16 Total 13 59 116 140 77 74 19 217 715 TABLE VIII NUMBER OF AUTO LOANS REPAID July 1965 - December 1966 Annual Household Income $1,999 or less Age of Borrower $2,0005,999 2 1 2 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total $6,0009,999 3 29 14 17 8 5 6 82 1 6 $10,00014,999 20 33 19 12 1 7 92 Not Reported $15,000 or more 2 9 7 2 4 2 26 Total 2 23 29 17 6 3 85 165 2 4 2 1 2 11 7 75 89 64 30 14 103 382 Amount of Loan Age of Borrower $199 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total 1 3 4 2 10 $200499 2 16 12 9 1 3 7 50 $500999 1 14 14 11 9 3 22 74 $10001499 2 14 16 8 9 3 22 74 $15001999 $20002499 2 7 12 11 5 1 19 57 $2500 2999 8 9 6 $3000 or more 7 75 89 64 30 14 103 382 8 7 8 5 1 1 8 30 2 12 37 Total 15 10 3 1 13 50 Amount of Monthly Payment Age of Borrower $14 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $15-29 2 1 10 10 9 1 2 3 34 $30-59 5 28 38 16 16 7 43 153 $60-89 1 29 22 23 7 5 32 119 $90-119 8 16 13 4 1 20 62 $120-149 $150 or more 2 2 1 1 4 8 1 1 4 Total 7 75 89 64 30 14 103 382 17 TABLE VIII continued - 2 - Monthly Preloan Debt Age of Borrower 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total 0 $1-49 4 11 2 5 3 1 8 34 $50-99 9 6 3 3 1 7 29 $100-149 6 6 5 2 12 22 12 6 1 7 60 1 2 2 2 1 20 $250 or more $200-249 $150-199 Not Reported 2 4 1 1 1 1 9 7 1 3 7 34 47 35 14 10 79 75 89 64 30 14 103 382 222 Amount of Loan $199 or less Income ($) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 5 4,000- 5,999 3 1 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over 1 Not Reported Total 10 $200499 $500999 $10001499 $15001999 3 6 10 7 5 1 1 17 50 2 6 9 18 5 3 1 30 74 6 8 8 8 8 2 34 74 4 3 13 3 5 2 27 57 $20002499 $2500- $300 2999 or more Total 6 1 8 3 5 3 1 17 37 37 45 2 7 6 3 2 1 9 30 2 5 2 7 3 30 50 63 29 26 11 165 382 Amount of Monthly Payment Income ($) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 0,000-14,999 .5,000 and over Not Reported Total $14 or less https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 2 $15-29 2 6 10 5 4 1 6 34 $30-59 3 17 15 32 12 9 3 62 153 $60-89 10 15 20 8 8 1 57 119 $90-119 1 2 4 5 5 6 6 33 62 $120-149 $150 or more Total 6 37 45 63 29 26 11 165 382 1 1 6 8 Total 2 1 1 4 18 TABLE VIII continued - 3 - Monthly Preloan Debt Income ($) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 0,000-14,999 .5,000 and over Not Reported Total 0 $1-49 1 10 8 1 2 1 1 4 7 5 2 2 11 34 8 29 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $50-99 8 11 17 4 7 4 9 60 $100-149 $150-199 $200-249 $250 or more 1 2 10 3 1 1 3 1 1 4 20 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 1 9 1 Not Reported Total 4 14 15 26 13 13 6 131 222 6 37 45 63 29 26 11 165 382 19 TABLE IX NUMBER OF AUTO LOANS WRITTEN OFF July 1965 - December 1966 Annual Household Income Age of Borrower $2,0005,999 $1,999 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total $6,0009,999 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 $10,GOO14, 999 $15,000 or more Not Reported Total 1 2 5 1 2 1 7 2 4 3 3 1 10 2 18 $3000 or more Total Amount of Loan Age of Borrower $199 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total 2 $200499 $500999 1 4 $20002499 $15001999 $10001499 2 1 2 1 2 7 Lo 4 oJ 3 2 18 2 1 1 3 $25002999 1 2 4 2 2 Amount of Monthly Payment Age of Borrower $14 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $15-29 $30-59 $90-119 $120-149 $150 or more Total 7 2 4 5 2 2 3 2 $60-89 1 1 1 11 2 11 3 2 3 18 1 20 TABLE IX continued - 2 Monthly Preloan Debt Age of Borrower 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total $1-49 0 1 $100-149 $50-99 $150-199 $200-249 $250 or more Not Reported 1 1 5 2 3 2 7 2 4 3 1 2 14 2 18 1 1 1 1 Amount $199 Income or less ($) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over Not Reported 2 Total 2 $200499 $500999 $10001499 : Loan $15001999 $20002499 $25002999 $3000 or more Total 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 10 18 1 1 2 1 3 3 4 Total 2 2 1 2 3 Amount of Monthly Payment $14 or less Income ($) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over 2 Not Reported 2 Total https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $15-29 1 $30-59 $60-89 $90-119 $120-149 $150 or more 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 11 Total 10 18 2 3 21 TABLE IX continued - 3 Monthly Preloan Debt Income <$) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 0,000-14,999 5,000 and over Not Reported Total 0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $1-49 $50-99 $100-149 $150-199 $200-249 $250 or more Not Reported 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 9 14 10 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total 22 TABLE X NUMBER OF NONAUTO LOANS MADE July 1965 - December 1966 Annual Household Income Age of Borrower $1,999 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total $2,0005,999 $6,0009,999 19 262 143 149 96 73 69 811 2 144 214 179 90 30 58 717 3 7 8 17 11 19 7 72 $10,GOO14,999 $15,000 or more Total 3 84 96 113 84 54 601 1,035 2 13 13 8 7 7 50 33 74 66 42 11 35 261 Not Reported 27 532 548 537 331 194 777 2,946 Amount of Loan Age of Borrower $199 or less 0-19 4 122 20-29 30-39 85 82 40-49 50-59 59 60 and over 60 Not Reported 136 Total 548 $200499 $500999 $10001499 2 107 147 119 76 34 174 659 20 246 212 220 129 80 309 1,216 1 22 41 48 22 10 71 215 $2,500- $3000 2,999 or more $20002499 $15001,999 12 21 27 13 4 27 104 6 12 18 11 27 532 548 537 331 194 777 2,946 9 19 19 14 5 20 86 8 11 4 7 1 11 42 29 76 Total Amount of Monthly Payment Age of Borrower $14 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total 5 73 59 47 41 43 121 389 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $1529 18 244 202 186 105 81 239 1 ,075 $3059 4 158 204 217 129 52 275 1039 $6089 34 48 52 32 10 67 243 $90119 17 27 20 9 7 44 124 $120149 4 1 4 6 6 21 $150 or more 2 7 11 9 1 25 55 Total 27 532 548 537 331 194 777 2,946 23 TABLE X continued - 2 - Monthly Preloan Debt Age of Borrower 0 $1-49 $50-99 9 49 30 27 28 15 25 183 4 97 118 102 47 23 28 419 0-19 1 20-29 25 30-39 27 40-49 36 50-59 28 60 and over 26 Not Reported 67 Total 210 $100-149 $150-199 $200-249 1 34 23 31 9 4 13 115 57 72 36 18 6 17 206 $250 or more 9 10 14 7 3 3 5 42 10 10 6 1 5 41 Not Reported Total 12 251 254 288 192 116 617 1,730 27 532 548 537 331 194 777 2,946 Amount of Loan $200$199 Income or less 499 ($) 0- 1,999 34 27 100 158 2,000- 3,999 232 4,000- 5,999 117 211 6,000- 7,999 66 24 95 8,000- 9,999 21 79 10,000-14,999 10 15,000 and over 4 Not Reported 182 404 Total 548 1,216 $500999 $15001999 $10001499 6 43 90 125 74 77 11 233 659 $20002499 1 4 12 16 12 18 3 38 104 2 4 23 24 20 27 8 107 215 1 2 8 12 5 14 3 31 76 $25002999 1 2 3 7 6 8 2 13 42 $3000 or more Total 72 315 496 470 247 261 50 1,035 2,946 2 11 9 11 17 9 27 86 Amount of Monthly Payment $14 or less Income ($) 0- 1,999 24 60 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 73 6,000- 7,999 57 20 8,000- 9,999 10,000-14,999 17 15, 000 and over 2 Not Reported 136 Total 389 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $15-29 $30-59 $60-89 32 160 227 167 78 53 10 348 1,075 13 83 148 180 107 121 14 373 1,039 2 11 28 43 20 36 10 93 243 $90-119 $120-149 $150 or more Total 72 315 496 470 247 261 50 1,035 2,946 1 12 17 15 19 9 51 124 1 2 3 2 7 1 5 21 6 3 5 8 4 29 55 24 TABLE X continued 3 - Monthly Preloan Debt Income 0 ($) 9 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 27 4,000- 5,999 28 6,000- 7,999 33 12 8,000- 9,999 15 10,000-14,999 2 15,000 and over Not Reported 84 Total 210 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $1-49 6 34 53 29 15 9 2 35 183 $50-99 2 56 109 103 54 49 6 40 419 $100-149 2 17 44 54 32 36 4 17 206 $150-199 3 19 34 22 24 3 10 115 $200- $250 249 or more 2 3 5 12 14 3 2 41 2 8 7 19 4 2 42 Not Reported 53 176 238 204 93 95 26 845 1,730 25 Total 72 315 496 470 247 261 50 1,035 2,946 TABLE XI NUMBER OF NONAUTO LOANS REPAID July 1965 - December 1966 Annual Household Income Age of Borrower $1,999 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total $2,000 5,999 $6,0009,999 1 104 184 149 88 28 53 607 8 188 134 112 97 70 70 679 5 4 8 12 22 7 58 $15,000 or more $10,00014,999 14 51 48 34 5 15 167 Not Reported Total 12 381 467 433 309 164 636 2,402 3 70 89 104 67 37 488 858 5 12 11 2 3 33 Amount of Loan Age of Borrower $199 or less 0-19 6 20-29 79 30-39 92 78 40-49 50-59 54 60 and over 57 Not Reported 125 Total 491 $200499 $500999 5 195 186 164 125 61 253 989 1 79 99 119 86 30 153 567 $10001499 $15001999 $20002499 $25002999 4 14 16 6 2 16 58 6 13 6 8 4 21 58 1 9 3 1 1 6 21 17 45 39 21 7 46 175 $3000 or more Total 12 381 467 433 309 164 636 2,402 9 8 8 2 16 43 Amount of Monthly Payment Age of Borrower 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total $14 or less 51 69 58 49 39 91 357 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $15-29 6 165 166 148 112 71 225 893 $30-59 6 135 163 168 100 43 208 823 $60-89 24 45 43 29 9 52 202 $90-119 6 18 11 10 1 36 82 $120-149 4 3 2 5 14 $150 or more Total 12 381 467 433 309 164 636 2,402 2 2 7 1 19 31 26 TABLE XI continued - 2 - Monthly Preloan Debt Age of Borrower 0 $1-49 $50-99 2 31 38 30 30 18 26 175 2 79 111 82 40 12 36 362 0-19 1 36 20-29 30-39 24 40-49 40 50-59 46 60 and over 36 Not Reported 66 Total 249 $100-149 $150-199 1 40 55 37 35 3 8 179 $200-249 16 26 24 9 2 5 82 $250 or more 4 9 13 5 1 1 33 Not Reported 6 175 199 197 137 90 490 1,294 5 10 7 2 4 28 Total 12 381 467 433 309 164 636 2 ,402 Amount of Loan $199 Income or less <$) 40 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 91 86 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 71 8,000- 9,999 29 10,000-14,999 15 15,000 and over Not Reported 159 Total 491 $200499 $500999 15 120 201 172 73 56 8 344 989 2 34 102 103 48 49 10 219 567 $10001499 $15001999 $20002499 1 6 20 45 16 21 6 60 175 2 3 11 8 10 2 22 58 4 2 3 13 9 5 22 58 $25002999 2 3 2 3 1 10 21 $3000 or more Total 58 258 421 415 192 167 33 858 2,402 1 5 7 3 4 1 22 43 Amount of Monthly Payment Income <$) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over Not Reported Total $14 or less 24 53 71 65 24 15 1 104 357 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $15-29 27 137 175 144 58 38 7 307 893 $30-59 7 57 146 145 76 75 11 306 823 $60-89 9 23 44 24 29 5 68 202 $90-119 1 5 10 10 9 3 44 82 $120-149 $150 or more 1 3 1 4 1 9 14 1 5 20 31 Total 58 258 421 415 192 167 33 858 2,402 27 TABLE XI continued 3 Monthly Preloan Debt Income 0 ($) 0- 1,999 11 2,000- 3,999 38 4,000- 5,999 37 6,000- 7,999 40 8,000- 9,999 15 16 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over 2 Not Reported 90 Total 249 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $1-49 $50-99 8 40 39 24 11 9 1 43 175 2 33 89 106 44 32 4 52 362 $100-149 6 42 61 28 29 4 9 179 $150-199 1 3 11 33 11 12 6 5 82 $200-249 2 8 9 8 4 2 33 $250 or more 2 2 7 9 3 5 28 Not Reported 36 138 199 141 67 52 9 652 1,294 28 Total 58 258 421 415 192 167 33 858 2,402 TABLE XII NUMBER OF NONAUTO LOANS WRITTEN OFF July 1965 - December 1966 Annual Household Income Age of Borrower $2,0005,999 $1,999 or less $6,0009,999 Not Reported $15,000 or more $10,00014,999 Total 1 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total 1 2 11 3 4 1 1 1 22 2 1 1 1 5 4 7 3 2 2 4 2 2 21 2 9 4 4 6 3 2 16 35 22 14 19 9 6 21 92 Amount of Loan Age of Borrower $199 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total 6 4 2 1 3 5 21 $200 499 $20002499 $15001999 $10001499 $500999 $25002999 $3000 or more Total 1 1 12 3 1 2 5 3 2 7 4 2 6 35 1 2 2 1 1 7 6 18 2 1 2 2 3 2 5 1 3 22 14 19 9 6 21 92 Amount of Monthly Payment Age of Borrower $14 or less 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 4 3 4 12 $15-29 1 15 3 5 5 2 7 38 $30-59 4 5 7 2 6 24 $60-89 2 2 2 1 2 9 $90-119 $120-149 $150 or more 1 1 3 2 4 1 1 Total 1 22 14 19 9 6 21 92 1 4 29 TABLE XII continued - 2 Monthly Preloan Debt Age of Borrower 0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over Not Reported Total 0 $1-49 $50-99 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 1 12 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 6 $100-149 $150-199 $200-249 $250 or more Not Reported Total 1 13 12 12 6 2 20 66 1 1 22 14 19 9 6 21 92 Amount of Loan $199 Income or less ($) 0- 1,999 3 2,000- 3,999 4 2 4,000- 5,999 2 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 3 .0,000-14,999 .5,000 and over Not Reported 7 21 Total $200499 2 6 8 3 $500999 3 2 5 1 2 13 35 8 18 $10001499 $15001999 $20002499 1 1 1 1 2 3 7 3 2 5 3 $2500- $3000 2999 or more 1 Total 5 10 12 16 5 9 1 2 3 35 92 Amount of Monthly Payment Income ($) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 .0,000-14,999 .5,000 and over Not Reported Total $14 or less https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 2 1 2 5 12 $15-29 2 7 8 2 1 2 16 38 $30-59 $60-89 $90-119 $120-149 $250 or more Total 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 1 5 10 12 16 5 9 7 24 3 9 1 4 2 4 35 92 1 1 3 8 1 1 30 TABLE XII continued - 3 Monthly Preloan Debt Income <$) 0- 1,999 2,000- 3,999 4,000- 5,999 6,000- 7,999 8,000- 9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000 and over Not Reported Total 0__ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $1-49 $50-99 3 12 $100-149 $150-199 $200-249 $250 or more Not Reported Total 2 7 6 11 2 7 5 10 12 16 5 9 31 66 35 92 31 STFIN-92 (9-65) NATIONAL BANK MOBILE, ALABAMA Branch____ _________________________ Dote. Month This questionnaire is: Old Loon p~| Year Write-Off □ Reject p~~[ DIRECTIONS If answer is available, please fill in the appropriate line or box. If answer is unknown, pleose place X in column. If question does not apply, please place 0 in column. For the question //t.s bank. balances, if account(s) exists but the amount is unavailable, please place in column. 1. 2. 3. ’4. O x Please ansa cr all i/nesliuns. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS Borrower is Male J' LOAN INFORMATION J Female [2 | Loan made: purpose__ Age in years_______________________ .or. Number of years residence. Here $. Regular monthly payments. .of $- Previous Address | No|2 Yes| Telephone in home Amount of the note ] Each Number Special large payments $. Pi eh-up Is borrower: | Single p~~[ Morried |1 Separated |3 Widowed |4 | with the proceeds of thi s loan j To this bonk $___ FINANCIAL SITUATION To others $___ Employer | ' | Himself |2 | Firm’sbusiness____________________________________ His title or job______________________________ _______ | Mo'D Yr.Q Other income from__________________________________ 'His bank balances Yes □ No Automobile New □ Used | Mo.| Checking | Yr.| | Savings Direct [* | $____________ Cash down payment $. Allowed on trade-in $- Principal balance financed $. Note was dated_____ Elsewhere $_______________ $------------------------ IF OLD LOAN BEING CLOSED OUT Monthly Payment Unpaid Balance Automobile $___________ Other, total $. j Dealer cost of car, etc. financed $_______________ $______________ OBLIGATIONS 19 Description Dealer |' With us Installment debts (Not being refinanced) Q Other property_____________ Loan made through Spouse's earnings $__________ Wk.|' j Mo.|2 | Yr.|3 | Amounts to $________________ Wk.| Co-maker Previous Co. This Co.' Wk. | Eliminated IF SECURED, is it by: Number of years with firm. His earnings $ Monthly Pmts. Amount Paid Off Number of dependents______________________ Work for: Final Old debts paid off Month and Year Does ledger show work by Collection Department Yes □ Amount refinanced $______________ Any amount charged off $______________ Basically weak loan Yes | No|2 J Monthly payment for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . or $. $. Mortgage Rent Account Number. 32 This form completed by. Nome 9KK n
@FedFRASER