The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Minutes for December 15, 1965
*
•
From:
Members of the Board
Office of the Secretary
Attached is a copy of the minutes of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on
the above date.
It is not proposed to include a statement
with respect to any of the entries in this set of
Tolnutes in the record of policy actions required to
De maintained pursuant to section 10 of the Federal
Reserve Act.
Should you have any question with regard to
the minutes, it will be appreciated if you will advise
it3he Secretary's Office. Otherwise, please initial
,e1". If you were present at the meeting, your
tnitials will indicate approval of the minutes. If
You were not present, your initials will indicate
"
137 that you have seen the minutes.
Chm. Martin
Gov. Robertson
Gov. Balderston
Gov. Shepardson
Gov. Mitchell
Gov. Daane
.
Gov. Maisel
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
/
1
41(
Minutes of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
on Wednesday, December 15, 1965.
The Board met in the Board Room at
9:30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Martin, Chairman
Balderston, Vice Chairman 1/
Robertson
Shepardson
Mitchell
Maisel
Mr. Sherman, Secretary
Mr. Kenyon, Assistant Secretary
Mr. Young, Senior Adviser to the Board and
Director, Division of International Finance
Mr. Holland, Adviser to the Board
Mr. Solomon, Adviser to the Board
Mr. Molony, Assistant to the Board
Mr. Fauver, Assistant to the Board
Mr. Hackley, General Counsel
Mr. Brill, Director, Division of Research and
Statistics
Mr. Farrell, Director, Division of Bank Operations
Mr. Solomon, Director, Division of Examinations
Mr. Kakalec, Controller
Mr. Hexter, Associate General Counsel
Mr. O'Connell, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Shay, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Hooff, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Koch, Deputy Director, Division of Research
and Statistics
Mr. Partee, Associate Director, Division of
Research and Statistics
Mr. Sammons, Associate Director, Division of
International Finance
Mr. Leavitt, Assistant Director, Division of
Examinations
Mr. Thompson, Assistant Director, Division of
Examinations
Mr. Spencer, Staff Assistant, Office of the
Secretary
ithdrew at point indicated in minutes.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/6
5
-2Miss Hart and Messrs. Forrestal, Heyde, Sanders,
and Smith of the Legal Division
Mr. Dahl, Chief, Special Studies and Operations
Section, Division of International Finance
Messrs. Egertson, Goodfellow, Maguire, McClintock,
Poundstone, and Sanford of the Division of
Examinations
Mr. Waller, Supervisory Accountant, Office of the
Controller
Circulated or distributed items.
The following items, copies
f which are
attached to these minutes under the respective item numbers ,
indicated, were approved unanimously:
Item No.
Lletter to
St. Joseph Valley Bank, Elkhart,
bIti,dlana, approving the establishment of a
anch at 351 West Market Street, Nappanee.
11;etter to
Western Bancorporation International
tan ;,New York, New York, granting permission
(3\‘') amend its Articles of Association and
Purchase shares of Philippine Commercial
Industrial Bank, Manila, Philippines.
'
Ire ttet to
Robert M. Raymond, La Jolla, California,
rding the Board's statement issued in connec11J4 with its
order approving the application of
vil
j,n
,
Bank, Los Angeles, California, to merge
Republic National Bank of San Diego, San
Reesg°, California.
(With a copy to the Federal
erve Bank of
San Francisco.)
tette
re
t to the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
afding
the question whether a holding company
its1
;
ate may declare a stock dividend based upon
sidi-quitY in
undistributed net income of subto 13arY banks.
(With the substance of the letter
e sent to
all Reserve Banks.)
tette
an
t to the
Bureau of the Budget requesting
useetension of time through June 30, 1966, to
tt
Particular questionnaire in connection
tice the
quarterly survey of bank lending prackese:' letter
to the Presidents of all Federal
ve Banks
regarding
the survey.
e
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
2
3
4
5-6
12/15/65
-3Item No.
Letter to Chairman Patman of the House Banking
la3rid Currency Committee regarding (1) the legal
v!aie for the Board's section 32 interpretation
„Tith respect to First National City Bank of
"
1/ York's proposed "commingled investment account"
related questions, and (2) a proposal by The
Ch
Manhattan Bank (National Association), New
N°rk, New York, to acquire the stock of Liberty
yatxonal Bank and Trust Company of Buffalo, New
se'rk, in light of Board's responsibilities under
eetion 7 of the Clayton Act.
Lette
-r to Senator Long of Missouri regarding a
b'quest that the Board consider an amendment to
'`egulation Q, Payment of Interest on Deposits.
7
8
In connection with Item No. 8, Mr. Molony was authorized to
jab,
-rm a representative of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who had inquired
413°Ilt the matter, that the Board had responded to Senator Long's request
Narding an amendment to Regulation Q.
Application of Fidelity Bank.
There had been distributed a
tnellictrandum from the Division of Examinations dated December 10, 1965,
44d
Supporting papers with respect to the application of Fidelity Bank,
hve ,
ri37 Hills, California, to merge with South Bay Bank, Manhattan Beach,
41ifornia. The Division's recommendation was favorable.
At the Board's request, Mr. Egertson reviewed the facts of the
, the
competitive factor reports received from the other Federal
batik
suPervisory agencies and the Department of Justice, and the reasons
4ncler,
IYIng the favorable recommendation of the Division of Examinations.
During the discussion that followed, members of the Board noted
tha.-
V idelity had been rated as a "problem bank" at the time of the
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
1963 examination.
-4This rating had been removed in 1964.
However,
144en the bank was examined in June 1965, its condition was found to
have
deteriorated and a "problem bank" rating again was assigned.
PidelitY was heavily loaned, and its liquidity position was tight.
It was also noted that the bank concentrated in lending to real estate
developers, brokers, and investors.
The members of the Board then presented their tentative views.
Governor Robertson observed that two small banks were seeking
to merge and one of them--Fidelity--was a problem bank.
When the last
examination of Fidelity was conducted, its asset condition apparently
had tr_.
uc improved but instead had deteriorated. Furthermore, Fidelity's
caPital was
low, in addition to which the bank's operations were not
broacpy
1 based. Neither, in his opinion, was the other bank involved
the merger
adequately capitalized.
A proposed issue of capital
4°tes by Fidelity early in 1966 would result in a capital position of
aPPr'oximately 81 per cent of the requirement under the Board's formula.
/Mile
that might be adequate for a bank in good condition, he did not
eel it would be adequate in this case. Consequently, he would suggest
that a
d ecision be postponed.
If this suggestion should be accepted,
the,
rederal Reserve Bank of San Francisco would be requested to inform
Pidel.
ltY that the Board was inclined to disapprove the proposed merger
titue
ss Fidelity wished to withdraw the application and steps then were
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-5-
taken to put the bank in such condition as to warrant approval.
If
that were
done, the application could be resubmitted.
Governor Shepardson stated that he, too, had been bothered by
the
apparent condition of Fidelity Bank.
The Reserve Bank seemed to
lee]. that
the management of the bank had the capacity to improve the
inStitution,
but the bank's overall record did not look good.
he 1/,
While
not sure of the best procedure to follow, he thought Governor
Robertson's suggestion had merit.
Governor Mitchell commented that he felt much the same as
Governors Shepardson and Robertson.
Fidelity Bank appeared to be
heavilY committed in a relatively hazardous lending field.
00-IY had an overexposure in its loan portfolio.
It seem-
As to the proposed
Illerger, it was difficult to take two weak banks and make a strong one.
Befnre the proposed merger was approved, Fidelity should make a better
showing than it had thus far.
Governor Maisel said that he was somewhat in agreement with
the iews expressed. However, he noted that the bank had acquired in
late 1964 the
This
portfolio, carried as a nonledger asset, was valued at over $3-1/2
fl
A1
the
mortgage servicing portfolio of McMillan Mortgage Company.
but was not assigned a value in estimating capital adequacy.
the bank had recently added as a director a man of stature in
8
.
41/Ings and loan industry, who apparently must have considered
the b
,
1
an- a sound institution.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
For these and other reasons, including
-4 J3,1
12/15/65
-6-
certain steps toward improvement cited by the Reserve Bank in the past
few months, it seemed well to be careful about reaching conclusions
c°11-cerning the bank's present condition based on a reading of reports
cf ex
aminations in the past.
Mr. Solomon commented that Governor Maisel had made a valid
Point
It was important, he added, to bear in mind that although
.1'idelitY's operations were quite specialized, this was not necessarily
a IR
e akness.
There was reason to believe that the real estate lending
bust_
'less had been run quite competently.
The State Superintendent
Of Ranks, for example, had indicated that he felt Fidelity was soundly
Recently the bank had cut back on its loans and increased its
mallaged.
liquiditY; and if Fidelity added to its capital as proposed, the bank
Should
be in a fairly satisfactory condition.
Mr. Leavitt, responding to a question about Fidelity's "problem"
rati
,
"g,
pointed out that it was hard for examiners to appraise a spe-
cial.
lzed institution of this kind. The loans were difficult to evaluate.
Vhil
e real estate loans usually involved a certain risk, Fidelity
portedly had an executive officer capable of servicing such loans
4""rking out problems without incurring too much loss.
Of
that
On the basis
most recent information supplied by the Reserve Bank, it appeared
pideli y
t
may well have worked its way out of the problem bank
category.
There probably was not too much potential loss in the loans
cla„ .
sIfied as substandard, and earnings prospects appeared more favorable.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-7-
Mr. Solomon emphasized that the bank had been responsive to the
special supervisory interest shown in its case.
had
The fact that the bank
improved its position in the past few months under the impact of an
adver se
examination report indicated that it was paying attention to
the criticisms it had received.
He felt the evaluation of the bank's
assets should be viewed in the light that, while a large volume of
1°ans had been classified substandard, this did not necessarily mean
that such loans involved a significant loss.
After further discussion, Governor Robertson said it seemed to
hirn th
at when there was a merger proposal before the Board and the
aPPlic antbank's condition was suspect, the bank should be thoroughly
"almined,
Therefore, he felt that before the Board made a decision on
this application, an examiner should ascertain whether the bank was in
4
tion to expand its operations through merger. An examination of
this kin _
d should employ the best staff resources available. The Board
Should be
certain that it took appropriate action where the record of
the aPPlicant bank raised questions.
Governor Shepardson inquired about the element of timing involved,
acid
Mr. Leavitt responded that the applicant bank would like to consummate
the
in
by the end of the year.
Reportedly, Fidelity had a retirement
Program that
could only be reopened at year end.
Governor Robertson then commented that, at the least, a top
exami
ner from the Reserve Bank could be sent to Fidelity to meet with
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-8-
the directors and officers and attempt to satisfy himself that the bank
as a
reasonably sound institution.
Other members of the Board expressed
the view that this procedural suggestion was appropriate.
Accordingly,
it 1,7
as .212.r.Le_ts! that this procedure would be followed and that the Board
would
then give further consideration to the application.
lIpplications of United Virginia Bankshares and Williamsbur
''.1.2122i.1.11211E_2=12/-
Pursuant to the decision at the meeting on
Oct°her 13, 1965, there had been distributed drafts of orders and a
statement reflecting approval of (1) an application by United Virginia
84I1kshares Incorporated, Richmond, Virginia, to acquire shares of
lamsburg
State Bank, Williamsburg, Virginia, a proposed new bank,
and (2) an
application of Williamsburg State Bank to merge with
ru n
1 c)rk
sula Bank and Trust Company, Williamsburg, Virginia, and James-
B4
am, James City County (Williamsburg), Virginia.
A copy of
Govel.
"lor Robertson's dissenting statement relating to the proposals
als° had been distributed.
There being no objection to certain editorial changes suggested
by mr.
O'Connell, the issuance of the orders and statement was authorized.
°pies
of the orders and statement, as issued, are attached as Items 9-11,
44(1 a copy of Governor Robertson's dissenting statement is attached as
It
N
'3. 2. Attached as Item No. 13 is a copy of the letter sent to
the 0
tganization Committee of Williamsburg State Bank approving the
'11P1ication made on behalf of that bank for membership in the Federal
el've System.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-4
12/15/65
-9-
Governor Balderston then withdrew from the meeting to attend
a
.
mteting of the interagency Coordinating Committee on Bank Regulation.
Short-term promissory notes (Item No. 14).
With a memorandum
from the Legal Division dated December 6, 1965, there had been distributed
a draft of letter to Chairman Patman of the House Banking and
Currency Committee in reply to his letter of November 24 regarding the
issuance of short-term promissory notes by national banks.
Chairman Patman's letter pointed out that under a 1965 ruling
by th
e Comptroller of the Currency national banks could issue short-term
PtQmissory notes without regard to the limitations on indebtedness
e°4tained in section 5202 of the Revised Statutes. Another ruling of
the
Co
mptroller, published in 1964, was to the effect that issuance
°f Promissory
notes of any maturity by national banks did not give
tise to deposits in such banks and that provisions of the Federal
Ilsserve Act relating to reserve requirements and limitations on
41terest
rates were not applicable.
Chairman Patman expressed the
vie
1^7 that
short-term promissory notes must either represent indebted488 subject to the borrowing limitations or deposits subject to
441icable legal requirements.
He requested that the Banking and
CIII'l'encY Committee be advised of the Board's opinion regarding the
st4tus of such notes.
The proposed reply would indicate that the Board was of the
i 0
4* 4 that such promissory note transactions gave rise either to
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
411,t,‘-;
12/15/65
-10-
1tld ebtedness
of a bank that would be subject to R.S. 5202 or to deposits
tha t would be subject to reserve requirements and legal limitations on
interest rates.
The letter would also state that the Board was giving
ensive consideration to the promissory note problem and that it
"
Pected to reach a decision on this matter in the near future.
Governor Robertson emphasized his feeling that the Board should
aet
Promptly
to issue a proposed amendment under which short-term promis-
sorY Rotes issued by member banks would be classified as deposits.
Con-
sequentlY, he would be inclined to take a different approach in the
lett -r
e to Chairman Patman and indicate that the Board contemplated publishing such an amendment in the Federal Register for comment.
Chairman Martin indicated that he felt that the proposed amendshould first be discussed with the Comptroller of the Currency as
a matter of
c
appropriate interagency coordination.
He noted that Governor
rston was even now attending a meeting of the Coordinating Committee
B_
'Ink Regulation, through which an effort was being made to resolve
rilatte
rs of mutual interest in the area of bank supervision.
Governor Shepardson said he was inclined to agree in principle
ith G
overnor Robertson that it was preferable to take action on a
_
In
before there was great pressure to do so.
However, he also
l'eed with Chairman Martin's view that it was important to coordinate
''ith other
appropriate agencies to a reasonable extent.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- 41(
12/15/65
-11-
At the conclusion of further discussion, the letter to Chairman
l'atman was approved, along lines suggested by Governor Robertson toward
the end of the discussion, to indicate that the Board was attempting to
work out in
a satisfactory manner, in coordination with other appropriate
Government agencies, a solution to the matter on which Chairman Patman
had requested
the Board's opinion.
A copy of the letter, in the form
sent, is
attached as Item No. 14.
Director appointments.
It was agreed to ascertain through the
Chairmen of
the appropriate Federal Reserve Banks whether the following
Persons would
accept appointment, if tendered, as Federal Reserve Bank
brarrs,
'.11 directors for the terms indicated, with the understanding that
if
it were found that they would accept, the appointments would be made:
William G. Hupfeldt, President, Schluderberg-Kurdle
Company, Baltimore, Maryland, as a director of the
Baltimore
Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond for the unexpired portion of the term ending
D
ecember 31, 1966.
Castle W. Jordan, President, Ryder Systems, Inc.,
Miami,
Florida, as a director of the Jacksonville
1Branch of
the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta for
the
three-year term beginning January 1, 1966.
!rank G. Smith, Jr., Vice President, Mississippi
Power and Light Company, Jackson, Mississippi, as
.! d irector
of the New Orleans Branch of the Federal
1,(eserve
Bank of Atlanta for the three-year term
beginning January 1, 1966.
Secretary's Note: It having been ascertained
that Messrs. Jordan and Smith would accept,
appointment telegrams were sent to them on
December 20, 1965.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-12-
John W. Sheldon, President of Chas. A. Stevens & Co., Chicago,
Illinois,
and a Class C director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,
144s,:222.2iaLtst Deputy Chairman of the Bank for 1966.
By this point in the meeting, the various representatives of
the Legal and Examinations Divisions who had been present for the consideration of particular legal or bank supervisory items had withdrawn
from
the room.
Messrs. Johnson, Director, Division of Personnel Admin-
istrat.
ion, Kelleher, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
and.
Q
chwartz, Director, Division of Data Processing, entered the room
at
this point.
.1..pard budget for 1966 (Items 15 and 16).
There had been dis-
tribLtced to the Board with a covering memorandum from the Controller
dated December 6, 1965, a proposed Board budget for the calendar year
1966 in the total amount of $9,811,000.
$941,000
al":3nt
The proposed budget was
(10.6 per cent) higher than the 1965 budget, and it was
$877,000 (9.8 per cent) more than estimated expenses of $8,934,000
felt 1965.
The proposed budget reflected an increase of $367,200 in personal
v lees
and $553,500 in nonpersonal services.
The increase in personal
8ervices
reflected factors such as the full-year effect of the general
P4Y
irlereaSe
for Board employees, the additional cost of new positions
4" Pc)sitions vacant part or all of 1965, and the estimated cost of
1
413111/a Prospective salary adjustments. The increase in nonpersonal
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-13-
services reflected, among other things, provision for architectural
expenses related to the planning of an annex building across "C"
Street, the cost of certain alterations to the cafeteria facilities,
and e stimated
costs relating to the rental of a new computer.
The
inc
reases in the personal and nonpersonal accounts were partially
°ffset by an estimated decrease in expenditures for economic and
Other
surveys.
Mr. Kakalec pointed out that 75 per cent of the proposed
bud
get of slightly less than $10 million represented the cost of
salaries and employee benefits.
A major increase in the budget for
salaries was attributable to expansion of staff, with 22 positions
established thus far in 1965 and 22 more proposed in 1966.
tuning
After
major areas of increase in nonpersonal services accounts,
he noted that in the area of economic and other surveys the December 6
rtiernor
andum indicated a net decrease.
However, it also showed that
estimated expenditures in 1966 would exceed $300,000, of which nearly
60 Per cent
($175,000) represented the cost of banking markets surveys.
Following Mr. Kakalec's summary, Governor Shepardson commented
that as the
Board would recall, early this fall he had sent a memorandum
to
each
division head requesting information as to economies realized
thro
Ugh
elimination of nonessential activities and through improvement
in
tIlanPower utilization.
Each division also had been requested to
Pr°vide a
listing of activities that might be discontinued if it should
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4.
12/15/65
.
P 414
-14-
be determined that a 5 per cent reduction in the budget was required.
Later
he had sent to the Board members a memorandum outlining certain
savings that had been achieved or were being achieved by the respective
divisions.
Governor Shepardson also said, in this connection, that he
had d iscussed with Mr. Young the work involved in the preparation by
the Division of International Finance of papers relating to the economic
position of foreign countries.
in co
Such papers were prepared principally
nnection with the renewal of reciprocal foreign currency (swap)
attangements.
He and Mr. Young had discussed moving to abbreviated
P4Pers, and if the Board members had any comments or reactions as to
Ilhether this would be desirable, either he or Mr. Young would be glad
to l'eceive them.
There had been reports from the divisions, he added,
Of "me relatively minor savings in several areas, along with suggestions
for certain procedural changes that might result in savings.
Some of
the latter involved matters, such as the style of Board minutes,
that
the Board might want to discuss at greater length later.
Governor Shepardson concluded his comments by pointing out
that it
seemed generally agreed that most of the possibilities for
ant savings depended upon whether or not the Board wished to
Various program activities. In other words, there seemed to
b
e -ittle
prospect of making substantial budget reductions without
10 1?4
- ag at the basic programs. In this regard, he observed that to
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-15-
a large extent the major costs were directly or indirectly concerned
with or
related to research programs or to construction and equipment
Prngrams.
Accordingly, Governor Shepardson suggested that Mr. Brill
review the broad outlines of the program conducted by the Division of
Research and Statistics, looking toward expressions by the Board as
to whether
significant reductions might be made in any of the areas
Qf
4ctivity.
Mr. Brill indicated that the current program of the Division
fneused nn the following categories of activity:
(1) basic research
underlYing certain economic and financial relationships; (2) improvement of statistics; (3) major studies requested by the Board; and (4)
enninlunication of staff analysis to the Board and the Federal Open
14arker Cormittee.
Mr. Brill went on to discuss in some detail the
tegories of the Division's work that he had outlined.
Following Mr. Brill's comments, Governor Mitchell commended
the
'search program in its broad outlines.
However, he thought the
staff e xperienced some difficulty in distinguishing between information
Of
''nneral interest and information vital for policy formulation at
any
given time.
in
There was some tendency to issue material repetitively
Particular format and according to a prescribed schedule, thus
4114cing the possibilities for creative effort.
He urged, among other
ththgs, s
ubstitution of tabulations for excessive verbalization in
tePorts.
He then spoke of the $175,000 budgeted for banking markets
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-16surveys.
While he favored the idea of such surveys in principle, he
cautioned against a degree of repetition that might yield diminishing
returns.
Governor Maisel observed that he, too, had been concerned about
the
w orkthat was involved in certain programs in relation to their
alue from the standpoint of decision making.
He suggested analysis
°f the cost
of various research projects in terms of their relationship
to „
P0 icy
decisions, with a view to allocating funds and manpower to
the
ost vital
areas in appropriate proportions.
There followed a general discussion of certain types of memod istributed to the Board on a continuing basis that might be
submitted in su
8 Made
Placed
ary form or on a less frequent schedule.
Reference
to the complication sometimes involved due to the reliance
on the Board's staff by the Federal Reserve Banks and by Govern-
Trterit dePartments and agencies for various kinds of information.
The
taff indicated that
the problem of meeting diverse needs was under
cont.
lluing study.
Chairman Martin then observed that the best possible research
effort
directed toward the decision-making process should be conducted.
him, this
was the essence of the matter.
d the
fi
The Board could, of course,
financial resources for doing a quantity of work, but neither
ancial
nor human resources should be wasted. The main emphasis of
the
s
Board,
research program should be on quality, and he felt the
Progtam had
been moving in that direction.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-17-
Governor Shepardson summarized by saying that the program
described by Mr. Brill appeared to be regarded as generally appropriate,
with indication
that it should be pushed forward.
At the same time,
c,.ontinued attention should be given to locating areas where routine work
c°uld be
curtailed, thus releasing manpower for more productive efforts.
Turning to the subject of the proposed annex building across
"G" st
,
et, Governor Shepardson said that the work on plans for that
building had
been slowed temporarily because of certain changes in the
Pers°uhel of the architectural firm.
He hoped, however, that within
a short time a different, and more desirable, proposal would be forthCOmin
g.
reaA
`-'37 to
Meanwhile, the firm of Raymond Loewy/William Snaith, Inc., was
present the second phase of its study of space utilization in
the Present building, but it appeared that implementation of that firm t s
P°Posals,
even if they were accepted, would have to be deferred pending
the
ava ilability of
space in the annex building.
On the matter of
cafeteria facilities, Government Services, Inc., had been consulted.
Ihr°4gh that organization a study of possible alterations to the
eet.6ria (not including the dining room area) was being made, particularly
with a view to operating two serving lines. He suggested that
the Board
authorize entering into a contract with a consultant for
Platls for
the proposed remodeling, which was expected to involve a
()at. of aPproximately $105,000.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
12/15/65
-18-
Governor Mitchell noted that no final decision had yet been
'made as to
the functions that would be performed at the proposed
relocation site at Culpeper, Virginia.
There was also the question
1 what might be done in the area of allocating responsibility for
bank supervision at the Federal level, along with the possibility of
dele6 tion
of certain functions by the Board to the Reserve Banks.
These factors left the question of future space requirements unresolved.
A related
question was whether the Board desired to stay in the present
building.
Although the Board probably would not want to discard it,
some extensive renovations would soon be necessary.
All of these
hings suggested that further consideration should be given to
111.°13eble future space requirements incident to determination of the
need f
-or an annex building.
Governor Shepardson said that he thought Governor Mitchell
had
raised valid points.
However, he also thought that they were
being taken
into account. The first part of the Loewy/Snaith study
had in
dicated that all present personnel could be accommodated in
the existing building, but it developed that this would involve a
de
grep
- of crowding that probably would not be acceptable. On restudy,
the L
°e14Y/Snaith firm had tried to make a more realistic appraisal in
light
of pertinent factors, including possible expansion of certain
activ. .
Ities and the effect upon space needs. The firm now felt, and
the b
'°ard's staff agreed, that a desirable layout would permit taking
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
I1
12/15/65
-19-
care of
only a portion of the divisions of the staff in the present
building.
The impact that might result from delegation of certain
functions to
the Reserve Banks was difficult to measure in terms of
Space requirements.
As an example, the impact on the examinations
function of delegations of authority or a restructuring of bank
suPervisory responsibility would obviously have a collateral effect
On other
areas of the Board's work, but in terms of space requirements
the
result might not be too significant. As to the Culpeper installatioa
) account had been taken of present plans for activities at that
location, and space was not being provided for those functions in an
allnex
building.
In sum, the space being visualized for the annex
building was not believed to be excessive, even allowing for the
Pessible divestment of certain functions, in the light of reasonable
e)q)ectations of future growth.
Governor Maisel said that he had some preference for trying
to
e°ntain operations in a single building. He did not feel that he
knew
enough about the problem to reach a conclusion at this juncture.
Ilove
ver, he gathered that the Board, by approving the proposed budget,
Ives
oot
committing itself either to the construction of an annex
building or
remodeling of the present structure, and that further
Q'otisideration could be given to the matter following the Loewy/Snaith
14'esentation.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-20-
Governor Shepardson replied that authorization to remodel the
Present cafeteria facilities was the only commitment by the Board that
was being
suggested at this stage.
At the conclusion of further discussion, the proposed budget
fc'r 1966 was
approved unanimously.
It was understood that this action
included authorization for remodeling the present cafeteria facilities
at a
cost estimated at approximately $105,000, as provided in the 1966
budge,
L.
Tables su tarizing the approved budget are attached to these
minutes
as Items 15 and 16.
Secretary's Note: Under today's date a
letter was sent to Clifton M. Truesdale,
Springfield, Virginia, confirming arrangements for the retention of his services
in developing a plan for the cafeteria
expansion and modernization.
All members of the staff then withdrew from the meeting and the
Ils3ard Went into executive session.
The Secretary was informed later by Governor Shepardson that
during the
executive session the following actions were taken by the
ilnard ef
fective January 1, 1966:
object_ 1. Travel. The Board expressed its concurrence with the
ulettior,
--3-Ve of the President, as stated in the Bureau of the Budget
um of August 23, 1965, regarding reduction of travel cost
to th
folim- essential minimum. In this connection, it approved the
-wing directives:
ci (a) Air transportation. In general, less than first.„ass accommodations will be used except in situations where
-,Itirst class is clearly justified as determined by guidelines
c(ip_ be worked out by the Controller and the Board member in
narge of internal affairs.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
12/15/55
-21-
(b) Hotel room reimbursement. In cases where a Board
employee is accompanied by his wife, reimbursement for hotel
room shall be on the basis of single occupancy cost. In
cases where the double occupancy rate is the same as the
single rate, this fact shall be attested by attachment of a
copy of the hotel rate schedule or other satisfactory evidence.
, (c) Gifts to hostesses at private parties and unusually
large gratuities are not to be considered reimbursable expenses.
2. Luncheons and Dinners for Official Visitors. The
4
ard r
lun
eaffirmed its approval of the present program of official
tbecueons and dinners as beneficial and desirable. It also approved
following specific directives in connection therewith:
(a) Cost of official group luncheons to Board employees
shall be $1.00 per person, with the difference between that
amount and the normal charge for such luncheon to be charged
to the budget item for official dinners, etc.
(b) Small luncheons tendered by Board members or senior
officials of the Board staff to distinguished visitors shall
normally be held in the Board building. Justifiable exceptions
all be cleared with the Board member in charge of internal
affairs.
b .(c) Due to lack of evening dinner facilities in the Board
:
111ding, small dinners tendered distinguished visitors by
':121Pr priate individuals may be scheduled outside the Board
0
:1.111ding and reimbursement authorized, subject to clearance
ith the Board member in charge of internal affairs.
the to 3. Due to the pendency of the Board's building program,
staff ard directed that extensive refurbishing or refurnishing of
advan °Iflces be deferred until the building program is further
sary-ced. This does not preclude first-class maintenance or necesrePlacement of existing furniture.
set f, 4. The Board approved purchase of a suitable television
the Board library and such sets for Board members' offices
Liclividual members may desire.
The meeting then adjourned.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4.1
12/15/65
-22Secretary's Notes: On December 13, 1965,
Governor Shepardson approved on behalf of
the Board the following items:
pr
Telegram to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of San
,
eancisco (copy attached as Item No. 17) authorizing the Assistant
deral
Reserve Agent to produce certain currency records in connec°4 with a tax proceeding.
4
mend.Memorandum from the Division of Administrative Services recomlng acceptance of the resignation of Hubert L. Steward, Messenger
that Division, effective at the close of business December 15, 1965.
On December 14, 1965, Governor Shepardson
approved on behalf of the Board memoranda
recommending the following actions relating
to the Board's staff:
I-'a-tLY...Increases
effective December 191 1965
$5
J°Yee A. Matile, Stenographer, Legal Division, from $4,641 to
'81 Per annum, with a change in title to Secretary.
Stat.Margaret I. Ratcliffe, Clerk-Typist, Division of Research and
lstics, from $4,149 to $4,289 per annum.
from jc)Yee J. Wood, Stenographer, Division of Research and Statistics,
-u $4,641 to
$4,797 per annum.
P atricia L. Gannon, Secretary, Division of Examinations, from
854 to
$7,046 per annum.
$4,647il1icent R. Hudnall, Stenographer, Division of Examinations, from
to $4,797 per annum.
1)arre11 Pepper, Chart Machine Operator, Division of Data Processing,
$5,181 to $5,352 per annum.
141arY Ann Rose, Clerk-Typist, Division of Data Processing, from
t° $4,289 per annum.
On December 14, 1965, Governor Shepardson
noted on behalf of the Board a memorandum
advising that Sampson H. Bass, Assistant
Controller, had filed application for
retirement, effective December 31, 1965.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/15/65
-23Governor Shepardson today approved on
behalf of the Board the following items:
Letter to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (copy attached as
Item No.
18) approving the appointment of William E. Ruddy and John P.
“
.lnklein as
examiners.
ti
Memorandum from Mr. Young, Senior Adviser to the Board and
reret°r, Division of International Finance, dated December 15, 1965,
toeommending that Robert Solomon, Adviser to the Board, be designated
to serve on a task force being established by the Bureau of the Budget
review the so-called "gold budget."
bee Memorandum from Mr. Sherman, Secretary of the Board, dated
in
!
Tiber 10, 1965, requesting approval of specified overexpenditures
accounts of the 1965 budget of the Office of the Secretary.
t
Memoranda recommending the following actions relating to the
°ard's staff:
"La-Lil&jacreases
effective December
1965
to $58ern1ce Bell, Stenographer, Division of Examinations, from $4,641
'181 per annum, with a change in title to Secretary.
fro
San Chapman, Personnel Clerk, Division of Personnel Administration,
m $4,289 to
$4,641 per annum.
Sel„
.---21-1
.2creases effective January 2, 1966
om lalcile R. MacLean, Librarian, Division of Research and Statistics,
98,749 to $9,003 per annum.
fr
DOrOthy S. Projector, Economist, Division of Research and Statistics,
°m $15,696
to $16,204 per annum.
$9,26;
1 °Yal Shipp, Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, from
t° $9,573 per annum.
A
from Li4-La
L. Cochran, Stenographer, Division of Personnel Administration,
$4,641 to $4,797 per annum.
tioo,Robe
f rt Sampson, Personnel Assistant, Division of Personnel AdministrarOm $8,961 to $9,267 per annum.
Ger„A
E. Phillips, Messenger, Division of Administrative Services,
$3,507 to $3,626 per annum.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- 419'
12/15/65
-24-
ireases, effective January 2, 1966
Irving Gedanken, Statistician, Division of Data Processing, from
696 to $16,204 per annum.
_ Kate G. Mogerman, Draftsman, Division of Data Processing, from
b41 f`-'3' 6
y4,797 per annum.
Bonnie Brooke, from the position of Statistical Assistant in the
"of Research and Statistics to the position of Digital Computer
pro sl
a"graalmer in the Division of Data Processing, with no change in basic
'
4431 salary at the rate of $5,181, effective December 19, 1965.
Of ?e
t a 3. Chavis, from the position of Stenographer in the Division
biwr.sonnel Administration to the position of Stenographer in the
1-On of Administrative Services, with no change in basic annual
sal.
"
arY at the rate of $4,797, effective December 19, 1965.
efOalmann Schaefer, Statistician, Division of Data Processing,
tive at the close of business December 24, 1965.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- 41
Item No. I
12/15/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20118I
AOONVIS OfflOIAL. OORPMSPONOENCIt
TO THE SOARO
December 15, 1965
Board of Directors,
St. Joseph Valley Bank,
Blkhart, Indiana.
G
entlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
?proves the establishment by St. Joseph Valley Bank, Elkhart, .
21diana, of a branch at 351 West Market Street, Nappanee, Indiana,
Provided the branch is established within one year from the date
of this letter.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Karl E. Bakke
Karl E. Bakke,
Assistant Secretary.
(The letter to the Reserve Bank stated that the
Board also had approved a six-month extension
Of the period allowed to establish the branch;
and that if an extension should be requested,
the procedure prescribed in the Board's letter
of November 9, 1962 (S-1846), should be followed.)
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Item No. 2
12/15/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL. CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
December 15, 1965.
Vestern Bancorporation
International Bank,
61
Broadway,
New York,
New York. 10015
Centlemen:
Reference is made to your letter dated November 1, 1965, enclosiArtic g a COpy of a resolution adopted by the shareholders amending the
stoo, es of Association of your Corporation to increase the capital
40 to $7,500,000, consisting of 750,000 shares of the par value of
ea
The Board of Governors approves the amendment to Article
Cove 441 °f Your Articles of Association. Please advise the Board of
tnors when the capital increase has been effected.
As requested in your letter of October 27, 1965, addressed
to the
. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Board of Governors grants
cons
chaR-nt for Western Bancorporation International Bank ("WBIB"), to pur1 snd hold approximately 136,340 shares, par value Pesos 100 each,
Of 4
iliPPine Commercial and Industrial Bank ("PCIB"), Manila,
:
PPinea, at a cost of approximately $3,846,150, provided such
shat
as are acquired by December 31, 1967. In this connection, the
goarexcess
Of is alSO approves the purchase and holding of such shares in
Per cent of WBIB's capital and surplus.
ties
Of
-,
Section 211.9(b) of Regulation K, which relates to "Liabilione borrower," provides, in part:
1:Except as the Board may otherwise specify, the total liauilities to a Corporation of any person shall at no time
"eeed 50 per cent of the Corporation's capital and surplus,
°r 10 per cent thereof if it is engaged in banking. In this
:
)
1 1ragraph 'liabilities' includes: any obligations for money
oorrowed and shares of stock; . . •
,1113Ject ff -0 continuing observation and review, the Board suspends,
urther notice, the provisions of the above-quoted portion of
Seeti'
the
(2
1 11- 9(b) to the extent that the investment by vall in
,
13teck°r
percentage
the
exceed
to
"liabilities"
:
;
4 P0IB would cause
414itn
stated therein.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
AL RESERVE SYSTEM
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDER
- 4E1‘,4
- r-
Weet
ern Bancorporation
International Bank
-2-
understanding that
The foregoing consent is given with the
the
loans
and rvestment now being approved, combined with other foreign
will
Bank,
ornia
Calif
d
nvestments of your Corporation and Unite
'
rtot
the
d
excee
to
s
tment
gulAcause the total_ of such loans and inves
effx,elines established under the voluntary foreign credit restraint
ion is being given to the
mTrt now in effect and that due considerat
orities contained therein.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Karl E. Bakke
Karl E. Bakke,
Assistant Secretary.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Item No. 3
12/15/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
December 15, 1965.
T
'7.s
Robert M. Raymond,
i;,,Dunemere Drive,
"lls, California.
92037
Dear Mr. Raymond.
r"
November 24, 1965,
.tardin This is in reply to your letter of
order
g the Board's statement issued in connection with its
calif aPProving the application of Union Bank, Los Angeles,
SatIT, rnia, to merge with Republic National Bank of San Diego,
'ago, California.
When a bank submits an application presenting factors
rea
reac6 soning in support of its request, and when the Board
-8 a decision on the basis of its evaluation of those and
othe,
reas- a
lable data, it may be that the official statement of
.,Ionodini:hfvaicjlethe action will prove embarrassing to some persons.
Board endeavors to guard against statements that
this needlessly have such an effect, it is difficult to see how
,always be avoided, particularly in view of the requireIllentscan
toOz the bank merger legislation. The Board has an obligeatm afi: make
available to the public the reasons for its approval,
r
eviewing this case in detail it is the Board's judgtrient hat the
that
statement reflected the facts before it.
The Board regrets any misunderstandings that may have
:Qm its statement, including any implications that you
%ay tevf
as derogatory to you personally, even if not so intended.
arisen
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm. McC. Martin,
Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Item No. 4
12/15/65
SOARED OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE SOAR°
December 15, 1965
11r. L
pet, eland M. Ross, Vice President,
eb.etal Reserve Bank of Chicago,
"1-cago, Illinois. 60690
1)eat. Mr.
Ross:
transmitting
This refers to your letter of November 15, 1965,
may
affiliate
"equest for information as to whether a holding company
deo
to 4are a stock dividend based upon its equity in undistributed net inrile of
subsidiary banks.
As you know, before a holding company affiliate obtains a
the itb Permit from the Board, it is required by section 5144(e)(4) of
ofacevised Statutes to agree that it will declare dividends only out
law
is totual net earnings. The apparent purpose for this provision of
Howearnings.
net
eller Prevent a distribution of assets above actual
1.4.4 Paragraph (7) of the application for a voting permit (Form P-1),
;
I e-r the holding company affiliate agrees to this provision of law,
N
distribution
81Y excepts "stock dividends" as there would be no
of
assets.
7199), the
In a letter dated November 15, 1939 (S-192; FRLS
11')ard
to t_ stated that actual net earnings generally should not be construed
tot7lude earnings of subsidiary banks which have not been distributed
ttlaI holding company affiliate. Since stock dividends do not result
listribution of assets, it is the Board's conclusion that a holding
totpa:
proportionate inter1?
1 affiliate may pay a stock dividend from its
est 1.,
its 8'. the undistributed income, or surplus from increase of equity, of
income or surplus
ii,idiaries, provided (a) that such undistributed
affiliate in
company
4 1ded in the capital accounts of the holding
44 :
statements,
financial
4O,01 (Z'llal reports to the Board and in published
with
accordance
tell4") that any such dividend is accounted for in
of
contravention
in
314fte
accepted accounting principles and is not
4a:cl•
TY
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
4-1
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No. 5
12/15/65
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
,
December 17, 1965.
Mr. Edward T. Crowder, Clearance Officer,
Office of Statistical Standards,
Bureau of the Budget,
Wa
shington, D. C.
20503
Dear Mr.
Crowder:
In September 1964, the Budget Bureau approved on an
exy,
--rerimental basis a questionnaire to be used in connection with
:quarterly
survey of bank lending practices to be conducted for
E_Period of about
one year with approval expiring in December 1965.
44tension of the survey in its present form, through June 30, 1966,
4-8
requested.
A System Committee has just completed a preliminary review
of 8
urveY
results
over the past five quarters. Comments were obtained
,rorn „
„ the academic community, from about one-fourth of the respondent
bank
c0 , and from users of the information within the System. The
thnsensus was that the survey should be continued. It was found that
ane costs of the survey are small and it provides policy makers with
Natindependent measure of changes in credit availability at the
theien T e largest banks. The survey would be particularly useful to
ch SYstem during a period when monetary policy was undergoing rapid
ange, particularly if this involved a change in direction.
could , While the Committee feels that the usefulness of the survey
be increased by changes in the reporting form and in coverage,
forwill not be able to complete its work on these proposed changes
Qv., several months. Pending receipt of its final recommendations,
fo7 Board has approved continuation of the survey in its present
414 through
the middle of next year,
As indicated in the supporting statement submitted with
our r
tea_ equest of August 24, 1964, the reporting is not burdensome on
co vc)ndents--the 81 large banks in major cities throughout the
lintrY that regularly report quarterly figures on interest rates
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD OF aDVERNORB OFTHC
Ed ard T. C
er
FEDERAL
RESERVE !SYSTEM
-2-
oh business loans. Completing the lending practices questionnaire
requires only about 15 minutes of a senior bank officer's time.
The cost to the Federal Reserve of compiling and summarizing the
data is nominal.
The survey is presently conducted as of the 15th of March,
!el September, and December and coincides with the quarterly
erest rate survey. Plans are underway, however, to shift the
,4111ing of the latter survey to the first 15 days of February, May,
4hgust, and November. When this occurs, the timing of the lending
Practices survey will be changed accordingly.
Enclosed are three copies of Form 83.
et n ion
to this request will be appreciated.
Your prompt
Very truly yours,
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
°sures.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4.1
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No. 6
12/15/65
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
AODRESS
°maim. CORRICOPONDIENCIE
TO THE BOARD
December 16, 1965.
Dear. Sir:
Committee
In the summer of 1964, the System Research Advisory
and the Presidents' Conference recommended and the Board authorized
4 quarterly survey of changes in bank lending practices to be conon an experimental basis for a period of about one year.
the survey was designed to complement the quarterly interest rate
survey and give the System a better knowledge of the extent of
Changes in nonrate terms of bank lending about which little information is available from other sources.
ary review
A System Committee has just completed a prelimin
those users
of
and
e
Committe
of survey results. The consensus of the
the
that
is
d
solicite
of the information from whom comments were
the
that
feels
e
Committe
survey should be continued. While the
survey can be improved by some changes in the reporting form and
in coverage, it will not be able to complete its work on the proposed
recommendschanges for several months. Pending receipt of its final
its
in
survey
the
of
tion
the Board has approved continua
year.
next
Present form through the middle of
conducted as
The next lending practices survey will be
Budget Bureau
naire,
question
present
°f December 15, 1965, using the
The Budget
!PProval for which expires at the end of this year.
through the
form
this
of
use
the
e
authoriz
Bureau has been asked to
the
middle of next year. Plans are underway to shift the timing of
,
February
of
2Uarter1y interest rate survey to the first 15 days
of the
timing
the
occurs,
this
When
vlaYs August, and November.
,
tending practices survey will be changed accordingly.
Very truly you
Merritt Sherma
Secretary.'
10 THE
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org PRESIDENTS
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
OF ALL FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS.
- 41( ,
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 7
12/15/65
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
December 15, 1965
The
Honorable Wright Patman, Chairman,
°mIllittee on Banking and Currency,
/4a
(3/Ihse of Representatives,
-8"ington, D. C. 20515
ii
tlear Mr. Chairman:
October 26 and
This is in response to your letters of
(1) a legal
11ev_ernber 24, 1965, asking that you be furnished with
:
interpretation of the Board as
to hum with respect to a recent
Act of 1933 to a
pro --e applicability of section 32 of the Banking
York to establish a
4c0t8al by the First National City Bank of New
proposal by
1,47ingled investment account", (2) an analysis of a
acquire the stock
Manhattan Bank, National Association, to
1,91ase
York, in the light
,bertY Bank and Trust Company of Buffalo, New
Of til
section 7 of the Clayton
AtIti"e Board's responsibilities under
legality under
uat Act, and (3) a consideration of the
sec
bank of the controlling
stnern 32 of the acquisition by a national
engaged in activities of the
kirLd' °f a securities business primarily
described in that section.
a memorandum
In accordance with your request, I enclose
Prepa_
the legal
to
respect
cons.'ad in the Board's Legal Division with
in
1933
of
Act
Banking
con lderations under section 32 of the
commingled
proposed
Bank's
itr.sction with First National City
misunderstand
stment account. However, it appears that there is a
Board's
to the time sequence involved in publication of the
Bank had
asOretation on this matter. While First National City
the
lioa!d the Board for an interpretation on this point last March,
letter
expi.-cl did not respond until July 22, 1965, when it wrote a
this interpretation
esaing its views. When a general interest in
bej
of the interpretation were
ree:Te apparent, and requests for copies
usual practice, authorized formal
Ptibl ed, the Board, following the
September 29, 1965.
'
cation of the interpretation under date of
That
is
"suppressed"
question were not
el/id the Board's views on the concerning the matter prior to that date.
ent from the news stories
of section 21 to the
Concerning the possible applicability
Atop°
the Board for many years has
Sal by First National City Bank,
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The
Honorable Wright Patman
-2-
f°11°Wed
t&Vity--e policy of not expressing views as to whether a certain
tbi.Q --Y would violate a criminal statute, and it continues to believe
i .P01icy a sound
one. The Board is not a criminal court, and the
mp1
_:
lca tions of expressing the view that certain action would be
cri
utlnal might be very serious indeed. This does not mean, however, that
thet
eviszl °ard refrains from issuing warnings in appropriate cases, as is
inst:nt from its interpretation in this matter. Indeed, in the present
Firstnce, the Board suggested in its letter of July 22, 1965, that
sect. National City Bank consult the Department of Justice on ,whether
proprn 21 of the Banking Act of 1933 would apply to the bank s
14as ':sal to
establish and operate a commingled investment account, and
Informed subsequently that the bank had done so.
With respect to Chase Manhattan Bank's proposal to acquire
!
ck of Liberty National Bank of Buffalo, Chase has requested the
to be to determine that consummation of that proposal would not cause it
contjc7T! engaged "as a business in holding the stock of, or managing or
compa-"lng banks", and would therefore not cause Chase to be a "holding
the BnY affiliate" under section 2(c) of the Banking Act of 1933, or, if
ard should determine otherwise, that the Board grant Chase a
\io:
411d T; Permit entitling it to vote the stock of Liberty National Bank
propo ust Company
that would be held by Chase upon consummation of the
bY th:ed transaction. These requests are now under active consideration
E°ard, and we will be glad to advise you of the Board's decisions
respecte
thereto.
the st
t7 cons
1,11:
1 11
tion of Chase's proposed acquisition of the
of7
National Bank and Trust Company would violate section
th
ft14. . laYton Act could, of course, be determined only on the basis
cornpet Lnve
stigation that would assemble all data relevant to the
&nstit ft,ive effect of the transaction. As you know, the Board may
(Icilliss7-e proceedings under the Clayton Act with respect to the
that tilsti°fl of stock of a bank only if the Board has reason to believe
prolitsile
-cquiring corporation "is violating or has violated the
atitbor
;-ns of section 7 of that Act" (15 U.S.C. 21). The Board's
?d
,tate lit,Y in this respect is in contrast to that of the several Unite
41e As
strict Attoreys, who
are authorized, under the direction of
,
t s,
htt
r
,
to
e
(
11
, -eY General, to institute proceedings under the Clayton Act
;sup
rre went and
restrain" violations (15 U.S.C. 25)1 You may be
;oar('
h
the
owever, that, to the extent that it may become necessary, of
.&ts re"ill carefully consider the proposed transaction in the light
sp°ns ibilities under the Clayton Act.
tSit
fOck of
4ction 1 You also ask for the Board's views "on the legality under
()f a se -j2 of the acquisition by a national bank of the controlling stock
curities business engaged in dealing in, underwriting, purchasing
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Honorable
Wright Patman
-3-
11
1
112(1 selling
securities" in a fashion not permitted by the provisions of
se_U.S.C. section 24, that is to say, broadly speaking, engaged in the
curities business as principal, rather than as agent on behalf of
Others.
Section 32 provides in relevant part that
"No officer, director, or employee of any corporation
or unincorporated association, no partner or employee of any
Partnership, and no individual, primarily engaged in the issue,
flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution, at
Wholesale or retail, or through syndicate participation, of
stocks, bonds, or other similar securities, shall serve the
same time [sic] as an officer, director, or employee of any
member bank.
IliethBoard has always attempted to interpret this section in accordance
kiedo the mandate of the Supreme Court in the Board of Governors of the
or ral Reserve S stem v. Agnew case, that the statute is a "preventive
difroPhylactic measure" (339 U.S. 441, 449 (1947)). However, it is
or iicult to
develop any theory, from the language of the section itself,
Of lI the light of its legislative history, under which the ownership
, without more, would bring the section's prohibition into
a
,
StockPl
Section 32 is directed at certain specific individual inter1?4r
a,
elationships, as "officer", "director", "employee', or "partner ,
nov_ L b
usiness activities of an "individual". Ownership of stock is
"ere
mentioned.
\/eu1dHowever, it seems probable that the situation you have in mind
1933, °me within the purview of another section of the Banking Act of
cion 20 (12 U.S.C. § 377), which forbids any member bank to be
act:i
4
4 :Tr
in any manner described in section 2(b) hereof" with any
sectiities business engaged in activities of the kinds described in that
olltler°n. Among the types of affiliation covered in section 2(b) is the
shareshiP or control, by a member bank, of a majority of the voting
for tisl °f a corporation or of more than 50 per cent of the shares voted
e election of the corporation's directors.
In addition, of course, paragraph Seventh of 12 U.S.C.
seetio
forbidn 24 (section 5136 of the Revised Statutes) would seem clearly to
sta te acquisition of such shares by a member bank. That paragraph
that "Except as hereinafter provided or otherwise permitted by
lata
°thing herein contained shall authorize the 'purchase by the
s5,3c;
°f atr-j,ati°n [national bank] for its own account of any shares of stock
.c°r
not aware of any other provision of
Which Poration." The Board is
would override this prohibition.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4111,
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 8
12/15/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE
or THE
CHAIRMAN
December 15, 1965
The Ho
norable Edward V. Long,
United States
Senate,
Washington,
D. C. 20510
1)sar
Senator Long:
acco This will acknowledge your letter of December 10, 1965,
mPanying memorandum, in which you requested the Board of
Cove
supPInors to consider issuing an amendment to the December 6, 1965,
rate ement to Regulation Q, to provide that in those States where the
srat_°f interest payable by banking institutions on time deposits of
Re'
moneys is set by statute at the maximum rate prescribed by
„
gulati
„ta u r °n
the maximum rate of interest payable on such funds
V.n
y the same as set forth in the Supplement to Regulation Q
prior to the issuance of said Supplement. The memorandum
to „PanYing your letter suggests adding the following new paragraph (c)
e Regulation
Q Supplement:
q,
‘c) Where, by the provisions of any state statute,
the rate
of intrest
payable by banking institutions on
time
deposits of state moneys shall be the maximum rate
bt interest which by federal law or regulation a member
ank of the Federal Reserve System may from time to time
Pay on
time deposits, the maximum rate set forth in
Paragraph (a) above shall not apply to such time deposits
':
I state moneys and the maximum rate of interest payable
2T member
banks of the Federal Reserve System on such time
of state moneys shall be the same as that which
w
.as
Was
applicable to such deposits immediately prior to the
issuance of this Supplement. This amendment shall be
et
roactive to December 6, 1965."
The Board is of the opinion that it does not possess legal
author.
also
to amend Regulation Q in the manner suggested. The Board
by doubtsanb
be proper for it to amend the Regulation
this Y meanswhether it would
that might be legally available in grder to deal with
situation.
4tes
The authority of the Board to prescribe maximum interest
1.111 deposits is derived from the thirteenth paragraph of secOf the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371b), which provides
he Board
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The
Honorable Edward V. Long
-2-
• . shall prescribe different rates for such payment
time and savings deposits having different maturities,
subject to different conditions respecting withdrawal
repayment, or subject to different conditions by
reason of different locations, or according to the varying discount rates of member banks in the several Federal
Reserve districts."
•
Ott
or
or
As this provision of the Act indicates, the Board is required
t° fix different
ferent rates of interest on time and savings deposits accordoni!_ ca° one or more of the criteria enumerated in the statute. The
th:lment that you
suggest would fix a different rate of interest on
one . sis of the nature of the depositor, a criterion which is not
voul°1-L the four
specified in the statute. Consequently, the Board
tion. have no legal authority to effect such a change in the Regula-
Under the provision of law above quoted, the Board may
1:lescrib
•
of „
e different
rates based on "different conditions by reason
loaxui4fferent locations". If the Board were to prescribe a different
necerm rate of interest on this basis, however, the new rate would
soieisarilY be applicable to all time deposits, and could not apply
o4 a Y to deposits
of State funds. It is considered unlikely that
bankmendmeht of this kind would afford satisfactory relief to member
Missouri since corporate and individual time deposits might
be witlillcirta
from Missouri banks and redeposited elsewhere.
The Board is also of the view that even if the amendment
Pr.°Pesed •
cient t. In Your letter were legally permissible and would be suffiRev,_ "
3 satisfy the requirements of section 30.260(3) of the Missouri
amerr
Statutes, it would be inappropriate for the Board to issue an
ferinment to an administrative regulation for the purpose of interg with a provision of State
law.
be ed
For these reasons, the Board has concluded that it would not
in
orsable for it to make any change in the Supplement to Regulation Q
er to deal
with this matter.
this
We appreciate receiving the expression of your views regarding
We
ma
all a-ter, and I wish to assure you that the Board took into account
aspects
of the problem before reaching its decision.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41.11
Item No. 9
12/15/65
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C.
•
sib
In the
oft
Matter of the Application of
VIRGINIA BANKSHARES INCORPORATED,
-41.10ND, VIRGINIA,
for a„
s n -rFroval of the acquisition of voting
--ur
hes -r wrilliamsburg State Bank,
_amsourg, Virginia.
aft
ORDER APPROVING APPLICATION UNDER
BANK HOLDING COM'ANY ACT
There has come before the Board of Governors, pursuant to
Sect.
"3(a)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.
1842(a)(2)) and section 222./:(a)(2) of Federal Reserve Regulation Y
0.2
CPR 222
.4(a)(2)), an application by United Virginia Bankshares
Incorporated, Richmond, Virginia, a registered bank holding company,
()I. the 13°a d t s prior approval of the acquisition by Applicant of at
4nst 90
per cent of the voting shares of Williamsburg State Bank,
1.141ar'1sburg,
44i4sula
the col,
Virginia, a proposed new bank into which would be merged
Bank and Trust Company and James-York Bank, both of Williamsburg,
In accordance with section 3(h) of the Act, the Board notified
allissi°ner of Banking for the Commonwealth of Virginia of receipt
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-2Of the
application and requested his views and recommendation thereon.
The c
°Inmissioner expressed no objection to approval of the application.
Notice of receipt of the application was published in the
ederal Register on July 2, 1965 (30 Federal Register 8500), providing
4110Pportunity for interested persons to submit comments and views with
tesPect to the proposed acquisition.
The time for filing such comments
44d views has expired, and all those received have been considered by
the Board.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the Board's
Statement
of this date, that said application be and hereby is approved,
Provz
.tded that the acquisition so approved shall not be consummated
(a) /4.4.,_
l'flin seven calendar days after the date of this Order or (b) later
q144
three
months after said date, and that the Williamsburg Bank shall
be ope
1741CLI--,
ned for business not later than 4444. months after said date.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 15th day of December, 1965.
BY order of the Board of Governors.
Voting for this action: Chairman Martin, and
Governors Balderston, Shepardson, Mitchell, and Daane.
Voting against this action:
Present but not voting:
Governor Robertson.
Governor Maisel.
(Signed)
Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
(StAt)
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1[1 ,
Item No. 10
12/15/65
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Alb
-
---
----
Matter of the Application of
WILLIAMSBURG STATE BANK
for
aPProval of merger with
-allitisula Bank
and Trust Company
JailleS-York Bank.
-
ORDER APPROVING MERGER OF BANKS
There has come before the Board of Governors, pursuant to the
tatik
St4t
e
ger Act of 1960 (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)), an application by Williamsburg
Bank 1,14
'-4-11iamsburg, Virginia, a proposed new bank, for the Board's
41113r"al of the merger of that bank and Peninsula Bank and Trust
cvtlpatiy,
Williamsburg, Virginia, a State member bank of the Federal Reserve
S8tetl) and j
-ames-York Bank, James City County (post office address
lllsburg), Virginia, under the charter and title of the Peninsula Bank
T'at Company.
Ntitisul
As an incident to the merger, the two offices of
N4lbeco::11k and Trust Company and the sole office of James-York Bank
ter
the offices of the resulting bank.
Notice of the proposed
in f°rm approved by the Board, has been published pursuant to
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-2-
Upon consideration of all relevant material in the light of
the
,actors set forth in said Act, including reports furnished by the
elrliPtrolier of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
arld the
Attorney General on the competitive factors involved in the
Pl'01)°sed merger,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for reasons included in the Board's
Staterae
nL accompanying its Order of this date concerning the acquisition
Of will
iamsburg State Bank by United Virginia Bankshares Incorporated,
4chrr na
43--, Virginia, that said application be and hereby is approved,
Pro id
ed that
said merger shall not be consummated (a) within seven
Q lendat
days after the date of this Order or (b) later than three months
after
said date.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 15th dry of December, 1965.
BY order of the Board of Governors.
Voting for this action: Chairman Martin, and
Governors Balderston, Shepardson, Mitchell,
Daanes and Maisel.
Voting against this action:
ISEM.7)
Governor Robertson.
(S1g.:2.:6) Me/.Itt
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 11
12/15/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
APPLICATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF WILLIAMSBURG STATE BANK
BY UNITED VIRGINIA BANKSHARES INCORPORATED AND FOR THE
MERGER OF WILLIAMSBURG STATE BANK WITH PENINSULA
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND JAMES-YORK BANK
STATEMENT
United Virginia Bankshares Incorporated, Richmond, Virginia
ND'P'lcsnt"),
1.
a registered bank holding company, has filed with the
13°ard,Pursuant to section 3(a)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act
°f 1956 ("the Holding Company Act"), an application for approval of
the acquisition of at least 90 per cent of the voting shares of
1441-ialliabur'g State Bank, Williamsburg, Virginia ("Williamsburg Bank"),
P"PC/Sed
Will.
lamsb
new bank.
Applicant also has applied for the admission of
g Bank to membership in the Federal Reserve System, and
helses to merge into Williamsburg Bank the Peninsula Bank and Trust
PanY ("
Peninsula Bank")
ginia,1/
3
qz
U.S
get
and James-York Bank, both of Williamsburg,
Incident to the merger proposal, Williamsburg Bank has
pursuant to the Bank Merger Act of 1960 ("the Merger Act")
.‘-. 1828(c)), for the Board's prior approval of the proposed
under the charter and title of Peninsula Bank.
Applicant
t "1(18 t° operate the existing main office and one branch of Peninsula
44k aild main office of James-York Bank, respectively, as the main
ott
kicA
and branches of the resulting merged institution.
j
but has a
taTfl5b"es-York Bank is located in James City County
considered
is
bank
the
Herein
-"g
uei
Post
office address.
4 I
Located in Williamsburg.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
l
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-2-
Views and recommendation of State supervisory authority. - As
requirpA by
section 3(b) of the Holding Company Act, the Board notified
the vi
rginia Commissioner of Banking of receipt of the application under
rile A
-- and
"c
requested his views and recommendation thereon. The Commissioner
offer
ed"objection to approval of the application. Subsequently, the
Cheirm
-art of the State Corporation Commission submitted a letter on behalf
th
eC°111mission recommending that the application be approved.
tatutory factors.- Section 3(c) of the Holding Company Act
quires
(1) the
the Board to take into consideration the following five factors:
f.
lnancial history and condition of the holding company and the
barlks
concerned, (2)
their prospects, (3) the character of their managethe
t, (4)
convenience, needs, and welfare of the communities and the
area
Concerned, and (5) whether or not the effect of the proposed acquisition
14°41d be
to expand
the size or extent of the bank holding company system
itIvolved
z
beYond limits consistent with adequate and sound banking, the
Aubli
riterest,
st, and the preservation of competition in the field of
*
Under the Merger Act, the Board is required to consider, as
ach of
the banks involved, (1) its financial history and condition,
(2).
the
cluequacy of its capital structure, (3) its future earnings
1)t
Pe t
'(4) the general character of its management, (5) whether its
t()r
P°1'ate
rowers are consistent with the purposes of 12 U.S.C., Ch. 16
(the
Fede
ral Deposit Insurance Act), (6) the convenience and needs of
to e
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- 42
-3-
the r.
"rnmunity to be served, and (7) the effect of the transaction on
e°r5Petition (including any tendency toward monopoly).
The Board may not
aPprovetheit
proposed merger unless, after considering all the factors,
ilActs the
transaction to be in the public interest.
To the extent that the statutory criteria embodied in the
IsPective statutes are substantially similar, the facts pertinent to both
the h°1d4ng company proposal and the merger proposal are discussed in common
Order to
avoid repetition.
Substance of the proposal. - The aforementioned proposed merger
Part
APplicant's over-all plan - will not be pursued unless Applicant's
4(1(1
on of the
Williamsburg Bank is approved,
In these circumstances,
altheugh consideration has been given to the facts in relation to the
statutory criteria
embodied in both acts, the Board's Statement herein
Qflect Principally its consideration of the application filed pursuant
:
`° tile Holding
Company Act. This application involves, in effect, the
1)1:QIIesed acquisition by Applicant of the two existing banks, the Peninsula
having depositsa/ of approximately $20 million, and the James-York
qk,
with d
eposits of $2.6 million.
k)t 1,Q11.
to
janles-York Bank was established as an affiliate, or "satellite",
Insula Bank in 1956 when, under State law, banks were not permitted
estab
lish de novo branches beyond the limits of their home office city.
Zi
dta P°sit
tiotcd
at December 31, 1964.
are as of this date.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unless otherwise indicated, all banking
42
#
111c tw0
institutions are presently affiliated by reason of ownership of
major: t.
of James-York Bank's voting shares by James City Investment
C(4,„
vnration, a holding company which is, in turn, owned by shareholders
1101di
'
ng
a majority of the shares of Peninsula Bank.
The president and
eclitive vice president of Peninsula Bank are, respectively, the presier
'
dent and vice president of James-York Bank, and three of James-York Bank's
seven d
irectors are directors of Peninsula Bank.
Because of the afore-
14Itintled existing affiliation, further evidence of which is contained
tqs
-ge
record before the Board, James-York Bank may be regarded, for certab,
PurPoses, as merely a third °face of Peninsula Bank, and it is so
treted in
various parts of this Statement, the two institutions being
scrnetim,,
—s referred to collectively as "the Banks".
Apw,
Financial history, condition, prospects, and management of
._,I.cant and
the Banks, and other applicable banking factors. - Applicant,
zi
4 e°mmenced operation as a bank holding company in January 1963, has
subsidiary banks which, at December 31, 1964, operated 47 offices and
ilqL(1
total
deposits in the aggregate amount of $499 million. Its brief
fitlatlei
history is satisfactory.
Similarly satisfactory are its
condition and prospects, due primarily to the satisfactory conviiti°11 arid
Prospects of its subsidiary banks.
Applicant's management,
lich is drawn largely from its subsidiary banks, is regarded as well
:
14411.tiQd and
experienced.
Peninsula Bank and James-York Bank were organized, respectively,
4917
and 1956.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Peninsula Bank and a newly organized national bank,
-5141Ach
the
42,
°Peued for business on December 8, 1965, are the only banks within
City
lirnits of Williamsburg, and they and James-York Bank are the
°IllY banks
3/
in the combined primary service area of the Banks.- The
fi
liancia4
history, condition, prospects, and management of the Banks are
considered satisfactory, However, Applicant foresees that, because of the
t'aPid po
pulation growth and increasing tourist trade occurring and anticiDated in
the Williamsburg area, the present aggregate capital of the mergtrig
banks will
be inadequate to support anticipated future deposit growth
Of
the re
suiting bank. Applicant therefore proposes to inject approximately
$600
)000 of
new capital into the resulting bank to meet foreseeable needs,
4nd
to
suPPly in the more distant future additional capital funds as reUnder Applicant's proposal, the Board finds the projected capital
structure of
wiiiiamsburg Bank to be adequate. While the Banks as now
°113tittited could, in the Board's opinion, successfully meet additional
:
c Pital needs, their future financial condition and prospects, as a merged
`11stittv.
'
i'a under Applicant's ownership, appear more favorable in the light
4LPPlicant's proposed capital program.
satis
The proposed management of Williamsburg Bank is found to be
f4ct°rY, since it will be composed of the Banks' present managements.
asp
0E1 the
basis of the foregoing, the Board concludes that those
ts of
APPlicant's proposal that relate to the banking factors
are
anks, -1-tom which Applicant indicates 84 per cent of the amount of
Cdepo ?ambined deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations
slts") originate.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-6discussed
au
'
( the
are consistent with the purposes of both the Holding Company Act
Merger Act, and weigh in favor of approval under both acts.
Convenience, needs, and welfare of the communities and area
e°4Ce
- Both offices of Peninsula Bank are within the limits of
amsburg
an independent city, and James-York's one office is in James
eitYeaunty, just outside Williamsburg.
The Banks' designated combined
hititatY service area, which is also the primary service area projected for
Ill'iliarasburg Bank, consists of the corporate limits of Williamsburg and
the.
sutt.(luriding suburban area in York and James City Counties within an
4111/r()Ximate five-mile radius of Williamsburg.
af the
area
is 16,000.
In the period 1950-1960, the population of Williamsburg and the
Odjuitli
4g
at
The estimated population
magisterial districts of York and James City Counties increased
a4
annual rate which was substantially greater than that of the State
et tile
Nation. Tourists, numbering more than 500,000 annually, are the
r4C)St
iMportant
(If the
factor in the economy.
Tourism has been a primary objective
more than $72 million expenditure for restoration and capital improvein
Williamsburg. The total employment at three area enterprises College of
141'aest
and Mary, Dow Chemical Company, and the State's
William
mental health institution - contributes significantly to the main-
4444te of
the local economy. Less substantial but similar contribution
illade by
fOur
military facilities located within 12 miles of Williamsburg.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42Pif
There is no evidence in the record, nor does Applicant contend,
that
basic banking needs in
the Williamsburg area are going unserved.
RcIlever, Applicant claims, on the basis of its experience, that where a
usefu
1 service is offered, it will be used even though the public had not
Previa
uslY been aware of a need therefor. Applicant asserts that the need
such
servce must be anticipated, made apparent, and thereafter served,
alA that, ,y
0 SO doing, a bank can help promote the social and economic
v/q.fare
Of
its service area,
Services that Applicant proposes to introduce
()1'44:1rovc
uPon in the 1.7illiamsburg area include a broad and convenient
source for
mortgage, floor plan, and college tuition loans, apartment and
71(kQl tinaheing, a revolving credit plan for individuals, and expanded
t ust services.
The record reflects that there exists a rather heavy local demand
f()r
Mo
go loans,
Of the services proffered by Applicant, the proposed
a istanee
t1.10 batiks with respect to mortgage credit appears most pertinent. The
torre
6 ther have a relatively high ratio of loans to deposits, and
Y
loaned in the mortgage category.
While Applicant's subsidiary
als° may at times be heavily loaned and unable to participate exten-
q\ily
irl as
sisting the Banks in handling mortgage credit demands, arrangebave been
completed for the sale by Applicant's banks of mortgage
1411's t0
tiq'arr
1-ve insurance companies and a savings and loan association.
Under
tigement, the subsidiary bank originating a loan will continue to
thQ loan on a fee basis, and will thus retain direct contact with
borr.
owers
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42(.
The Board concludes that considerations bearing on the convenience,
Ilcleds, and
welfare of the area concerned are consistent with approval of
the
'ransaction proposed, and offer some weight for approval.
f.
Effect of the proposed transactions on adequate and sound banking,
the
Public interest, and banking competition. - Applicant's holding company
sYstern, the
largest banking system in the State, would have 7.2 per cent
Of
the
ffices and 11.9 per cent of the deposits of all Virginia banks if
the p
ropoQ
-al- were consummated, representing increases from 6.8 per cent
arid 1 i.
Per Cent, respectively.
The four bank holding companies operating
Vitgirlia (one of which is not registered under the Holding Company Act)
control. 24.3
per cent of the offices and 27.0 per cent of the deposits
all barl s, representing increases of .4 per cent and .5 per cent, retively.
In the Board's judgment, such concentration is not so excessive,
e
ilIeither the
Applicant's system or in all holding companies, as to preclude
the
furt
her expansion here proposed. Significant in the assessment of the
Qff
et on the
banking market of existing concentration is the fact that, in
t(4
1
1112
1,4
Of total
deposits, the second, third, and fourth in size of the seven
St banki g
— are independent banks, and those three
m
Virginia-'
"systes"in
institutions together hold 25.8 per cent of the deposits of
b
4nks in the
State.
)IF bat
r
-peflected in this paragraph are as follows: Banking offices as
31, 1965, and deposits as of December 31, 1964, adjusted s.o
kllAisit
'
Ll mergers consummated and, for bank holding companies, all
31, 1965.
o
-tens either consummated or approved by the Board as of October
S/
bey%
ba
which is fourth in size is practically the same size in terms
Ilk hor-ts, as the fifth largest banking system, which is the second largest
dirv,
6 company in the State.
°Ct4
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
'I2
,
For purposes of determining the competitive effects of
APraieant,S
proposal, the Board has concluded that the Williamsburg area
Con
stitute _
the market area most directly affected by Applicant's pro'
Posai.
IQ this regard, the Board's attention was directed to the so-called
l'Ner
Peninsula Area, consisting of James City and York Counties and the
41dePendent cities of Williamsburg, Newport News, and Hampton, bounded
by
the
York River on the north, the Chesapeake Bay on the east, and the
j4les River On the
south.
However, in the Board's judgment, the Lower
Pooinsula Area
is not a relevant or realistic market area for purposes
of
the
present analysis for the reason that Williamsburg, viewed either
th
terms of
its political or natural boundaries, is isolated from other
krtions
of
the so-called Lower Peninsula Area, resulting in its being
4latively free
from the force of banking competition from and with that
area.
Inasmuch as the newly opened national bank is the only other
11444g in
stitution operating in the Banks' combined primary service
414$ COnsuitnt0n of Applicant's proposal would result in its control
°f
three of
four offices and substantially all of the deposits in the
Iltlitartisburg area. This result has significance with respect to its
4 ot
(41 co
mpetition both between Peninsula Bank and James-York Bank,
atkl b
etveen the
Banks and the new national bank. The long-established
lation
between the Banks, by virtue of comnon majority ownership
N.rimon e
xecutive managements, effectively negatives the existence
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-10Of
- 42
fly s
ignificant actual competition between them and makes unlikely
measurable future competition.
The latter conclusion appears all the
twre valid in view of the lack of any evidence in the record that the
e/cistin6 a
ffiliation is lnely to terminate.
With respect to the
13°ardts conclusion regarding the lack of present or likely future competition
between the Banks, the Board concurs in the view expressed by
the
State
Corporation Commission that the Banks are "virtually one
institution".
It may be reasonably concluded that the competitive situat1411 in the
Williamsburg area will not be changed measurably by consum-
N.tion of
A
pplicant's proposal.
The recently opened national bank in Williamsburg may be
e)(1)
Led to increase banking competition in the area, measured either
as
offered by the
Banks as presently constituted, or under the proposed
°IltietshiP and
control of Applicant. While an accurate appraisal of the
Nkent4-competitive effect of consummation of Applicant's proposal on
the. ne4
national bank is difficult, the Board believes it unlikely that
e"Petitive impact of either the proposed merger or of Applicant's
Ilbsecluerit control of the merged institution will be significantly
:
44erent
or
1- greater than that which would be realized from the Banks'
sile atiolla as
presently constituted. With respect to this conclusion,
iA t r4" be mated that the Comptroller of the Currency, with knowledge of
-Pplicant's
4INer Of
proposed acquisition, expressed the view that the proposed
the Banks would not have a significant or substantial adverse
4et °II competition.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In conclusion, the Board assumes that the fact
01A
Al
1214a
-11Of
the
affiliation was known to the organizers of the national
cuucs
bank at
th
time they sought its charter, and that Applicant's present
Proposal r
egarding the Banks was brought to their attention.
Board no
by thos
The
that no objection to Applicant's proposal has been filed
or
ganizers.
Turning to the effect of this proposal on existing or potential
0r11Petition between
the Banks and Applicant's existing subsidiaries,
Citizens
and Marine Bank in Newport News, Applicant's subsidiary, operates
4 °E4ces in
Newport News, 4 offices in Hampton, the downtown sections
WhICh
atQ,
respectively, 30 and 37 miles from Williamsburg, and
1 °'ice in York County, which appears to be about midway between
:
illiamsburg and Hampton, though not on the principal connecting route.
Me 13
ties
separate Williamsburg and the nearest office of Citizens
411d Marine Bank.
811bsidiarics
44)
The next nearest office of any other of Applicant's
iS in the Richmond area, about 50 miles west of
:
. Since, on the basis of Applicant's analysis, less than
r cell
Pe
Of the amount of the Banks' IPC deposits and less than
Per
Cent Of the amount of their commercial, industrial, farm, and
loans
Were
derived from the service areas of those two nearest
and since a similar proportion of demand IPC deposits and
VQ4
Smallr percentage of loans of those subsidiaries, in relation
loans
and deposits of the Banks, were derived from the
1 1.
msburg
significant
, titig or service area, the Board concludes that no
ttIQ p 0_
Potential competition would be eliminated or foreclosed by
"sed
holding company acquisition.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
121.
The nearest bank to Williamsburg is The First National Bank,
located in
Yorktown, about eleven miles to the southeast.
This bank
°Aerates but one
office with deposits of about $5 million.
business, generally,
would appear to be local in nature.
Its
Further
tant
'in the southeastern section of the Lower Peninsula Area, are
qfices of ten
other banks, excluding Applicant's subsidiary.
The
Naitical and
geographical considerations earlier mentioned as separating
4illiamsburg from the latter area warrant, in the Board's view, the conelustIon that
no measurable effect on the banks in this area will follow
(311
suramation of Applicant's proposal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations and all the facts
Illthe
record, the Board concludes that consummation of the subject
hoposal would
not increase Applicant's size or extent beyond limits
consistent with
adequate and sound banking, the public interest, and
the
Preservation of competition in the field of banking.
On the basis of the relevant facts as contained in the record
ore
the Board, and in light of the factors set forth in the Holding
e%1Parr„
and
Merger Acts, it is the Board's judgment that the proposal is
the
ta
Public interest and that the applications regarding the merger of
Ilks as proposed and the acquisition by Applicant of the Williamsburg
Should
becettiber
therefore, be approved.
15,
1965.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4,21
Item No. 12
12/15/65
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR ROBERTSON
I am opposed both to the proposed merger of Peninsula Bank
alld
uSt Company
and the James-York Bank, and to the acquisition by
United
Virginia Bankshares Incorporated of control of the merged bank•
z ns .
'
4 4
t
itution for the reason that consummation of both proposals is
contrarY to the legislative directives embodied in the Bank Merger and
11`111k Holding
Company Acts.
As set forth in the Board's Statement,
l'etlinsula Bank
and the James-York Bank have been affiliated for some
time
through their majority control by common stockholders. Because of
this
affiliation, little or no existing competition between these banks
°tad be
eliminated by consummation of the proposed merger. However, in
the
course of
time and changing circumstances, the existing basis of
.filiation could terminate, resulting in the growth of healthy competitioti
between the banks, The possibility of this occurrence, with its
attQnding
advantages to the public, is precluded, regrettably, by the
to,
"d's a
pproval of the proposed merger.
In approving Bankshares' acquisition of the Williamsburg Bank
4etua1ity, the simultaneous acquisition of two existing banks - the
aria
found Williamsburg and the immediately adjoining areas to be the
't11.Eicant geographic area within which to appraise the competitive impact
the
Proposals. Hy view of the record in this matter makes abundantly
that a
co
far more relevant market area for analyzing the effect on
mpetition to follow consummation of the merger and holding company
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42
-21317011,,
eusals approved
by the Board is the entire Lower Peninsula Area,
which en
compasses, in addition to Williamsburg and York and James City
Counties, the cities of Hampton and Newport News. The Board's use of
the
greater Williamsburg area as the relevant market within which to
'
th impact of Applicant's proposals
eisting and foreseeable circumstances.
ignores the realities of
Williamsburg is experiencing
taPid PhYsical growth and a dynamic economic expansion.
Hampton and
1147Port T\T
-cws each lie but some 30 odd miles southeast of Williamsburg.
°11 of the
offices of Applicant's bank headquartered in Newport News is
but 13 miles
from Williamsburg. In an age of super highways and rapid
ttavel, the
cities of Hampton and Newport News are but minutes from
141liallisburg - minutes that will be lessened as the geographic limits of
iamsburg
continue to expand.
The foregoing compels me to conclude that the Board has erred
t O
of the
resPects. First, its action reflects a miscalculation
gotenti
al competition between the two Williamsburg banks to be acquired
th
total deposits of $23 million) and Applicant's Newport News subNiar
Citizens and Marine Bank (total deposits of $47 million). The
sizts
Of these institutions - their closest respective offices separated
but
13 miles
and the likelihood that the two areas concerned will
hezom
e increasingly geographically and economically integrated, make
'qr tc,
4t1pro -- me the potential for future competition that is precluded by
finding
c t APPlicant's bank holding company proposal. A second
Val '
the D
'
40ard in which I am unable to concur is that consummation of
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
'
-341/11-cant's proposed acquisition would not result in an undue concentration
ofbanking resources under Applicant's control.
Applicant, the State's
larest banking system, now controls nearly 25 per cent and 21 per cent,
respectivelY, of the banking offices and deposits of the 14 banks operating
th Lower
Peninsula Area.
Apart from the virtual monopoly that would
be
giveri
Applicant in the Williamsburg area upon its acquiring the
lliarnsburg Bank, in the whole Lower Peninsula Area, its control of both
f3ffices and
deposits would be increased to about 32 per cent.
Even were
tilete Presented banking factors considerations arguing for approval of
4Plicant's acquisition of Williamsburg Bank, Bankshares' resulting control
°1E1) nking offices and resources in the Lower Peninsula Area compels denial
()
ts aPPlication.
More so is denial compelled where, as here, the record
lY reflects that the banking needs of the Williamsburg area and, as
a8 I can
determine, those of the entire Lower Peninsula Area are being
414 4dequately
by the banks in those areas.
In mY opinion, the sole significant benefit possibly to flow
fr(44
"nsurmation of Applicant's acquisition of the Williamsburg Bank is
:
loa "isicti that Applicant asserts it would make for expanded mortgage
in the
APPlicatit'
Williamsburg area.
On analysis, I find that this phase of
proposal carries little weight toward approval.
Even assuming
Q ftlt4re ne_
eu for increased mortgage credit in the Williamsburg area, I
e441111141)1e
"conclude that the demand for such cannot be met either through
qruct
by
,ng of the Williamsburg banks' loan portfolios, aided, perhaps,
tho
- entry in
this field of the newly established national bank, or
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
421
thr
"ugh the
utilization by the Williamsburg banks of normal correspondent
bank
rel
ationships.
On the whole, I am unable to find that the relatively insignificant
benefits that may flow from Applicant's acquisition of the
1.
amsburg Bank are sufficient in any respect to outweigh substantially
4dverse competitive
consequences that are inherent in this proposal.
Con-
SQ
Y,I would deny both the merger and bank holding company applications.
Iletember 15
1965.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
19:
Item No. 13
12/15/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
ADDRESS
orripiAL
CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
December 15, 1965
Nahization Committee,
Williamsburg
State Bank,
ti
amsburg Virginia.
CeAtlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System approves
the e
VittiPPlication made on behalf of Williamsburg State Bank, Williamsburg,
if euX4, for stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, effective
1114.110 JIlen the bank opens for business under appropriate State
rization, subject to the numbered conditions hereinafter set forth:
(1) Such bank at all times shall conduct its business and
its
exercise its powers with due regard to the safety of
Board
the
of
permission
depositors, and, except with the
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, such bank
shall not cause or permit any change to be made in the
the
general character of its business or in the scope of
admission
of
time
the
at
it
corporate powers exercised by
to membership.
(2) The
be
net capital and surplus funds of such bank shall
its
of
condition
and
character
adequate in relation to the
corporate
other
and
liabilities
assets and to its deposit
Powers.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD
or
GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Wil
liamsburg State Bank
- 42i
-2-
(3) At the time of admission to membership, such bank
shall have paid-in and unimpaired capital stock of
not less than $150,000 in order to damply with Federal
statutes.
(4) That Peninsula Bank and Trust Company, Williamsburg,
Virginia, and James-York Bank, Williamsburg, Virginia,
shall have been merged into subject bank.
In connection with the foregoing tbnditions of Membership,
particular attention is called to the provision of the Board's
Regui
the .rThati°11 H, regarding membership of State banking institutions in
th ederal Reserve System, with special reference to Section 208.7
ere". A copy of the Regulation is enclosed.
If at any time a change in or amendment to the bank's charter
the bank should advise the Federal Reserve Bank, furnishing
wheth8 °f any docuMtnts involved, in order that it may be determined
the er such change affects in any way the bank's status as a member of
Pederai keserve System.
te Zed
collie es
Acceptance of the conditions of membership contained in this
letter
dire
ahould be evidenced by a resolution adopted by the board of
has 17:st°rs after the bank's Certificate of Authority to Commence Business
adviceen issued. A certified copy of such resolution, together with
e °f compliance with the provisions of conditions numbered 3 and 4,
01011,
4d be transmitted to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
The time within which admission to membership in the Federal
to 9ove SYstem in the manner described may be accomplished is limited
the t daYs from the date of this letter, unless the bank applies to
Nit "rd and obtains an extension of time. When the Board is advised
spproall of the requirements have been complied with and that the
the eriate amount of Federal Reserve Bank stock has been issued to
IDetithearlk, the Board will forward to the bank a formal certificate of
rehiP in the Federal Reserve System.
Ikeeer
Since the Williamsburg State Bank will be operating under
taernCurarter and title of Peninsula Bank and Trust Company, a State
bank, and, essentially under the same management, it is assumed
1
4.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOAR')
or
GOVERNORS
or
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
o
Wil
liamsburg State Bank
_3_
that You are acquainted with the officers of the Federal Reserve Bank
118.1,41 the services offered by the System. The Board of Governors
bttl_cerely hopes that you will continue to find membership in the System
'lleficial and your relations with the Reserve Bank pleasant.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Karl E. Bakke
Karl E. Bakke,
Assistant Secretary.
Iltl°8ure,
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 14
12/15/65
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE Or THE OHAMMAN
December 15, 1965
The Honorable Wright Patman, Chairman,
ecmmittee on Banking and Currency,
licuss of Representatives,
Wa
shington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr, Chairman:
This is in response to your letter of November 24 with
to
Tu _r'"
short...term promissory notes issued by national batiks.
'or occasion for your concern is the 1965 ruling of the Comptroller
litukt.he Currency that such notes issued by national banks are not
lJ_Jeet to the statutory limitation on the extent to which a
14 ional bank may "at any time be indebted, or in any way liable"
na:
section 5202; 12 U.S.C. 82. As you point out,
Other ruling of the Comptroller, published in 1964, is to the effect
at
issuance of "promissory notes of any maturity" by national banks
give rise to deposits in such banks and that provisions of
the
'ederal
Federal Reserve Act relating to reserve requirements and
ns on interest rates do not apply to such promissory note
,an
sactions.
For historical reasons and because of changes in banking
Practi
-ces, it has been difficult to develop acceptable criteria that
11/Z1d draw a definite and workable distinction, in all situations,
110:ean loans and borrowings on the one hand and deposits on the other.
does to you,
th:er, it seems clear to the Board of Governors, as it
or
category
one
within
fall
must
i:sory note transactions
t
o;
l s-ger
indebtedness
to
either
rise
give
necessarily
nl
that is, they
sujhe bank that is subject to R. S. 5202 or to deposits that are
uJect to reserve requirements and legal limitations on interest rates.
In his 1964 ruling, the Comptroller stated that "The proceeds
'Qm the sale of such notes do not constitute deposits. • . •" No
ft
rea
indicate that "Such
°n vas given for this view, but the ruling did
ruling
214ings are .. limited by 12 U.S.C. 82." In changing his
the
Review,
Banking
co the latter point in the September 1965 National
paTPtroller stated only that "unsubordinated promissory notes of cam»
ordinary course of banking
busltivelY short term . .. are issued in the
in making loans and
used
the neas as a means of obtaining funds to be
for Performance of other banking functions ... ." It is difficult
the Board to see how this statement can serve as a basis for the
1.04
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- 42'
e Honorable
Wright Patman
-2-
ls conclusion that the statutory limitations on national
Fl1,3ampnkttrsoller
indebtedness are inapplicable to these obligations of national
anks
the orAi When the practice of issuing unsecured promissory notes in
that „' narY course of business developed in 1964, the Board held
since such notes constitute borrowings, they are not subject,
re'jr present law and regulation, to the interest rate limitations or
=rve requirements prescribed for deposits by the Board." 1964 Fedthil Reserve Bulletin 1137, 12 C.F.R. 217.138. Developments since
to „tirse have given rise to the question whether it would be advisable
res;"end Federal Reserve Regulations D and Q. to provide that the
reauT" requirements and interest rate limitations prescribed in those
a2ns, and the statutory prohibition on the payment of interest
on d-at
are
deposits, would apply to promissory notes of the kinds that
cour,ssueA by
national banks and member State banks in the ordinary
se of their business.
4
The recent ruling by the Comptroller, to which you refer, has
Inade thi
s
toard
problem more complicated (as well as more pressing), but the
atisfil°Pes
s
that the supervisory agencies may be able to work out a
actory solution in the near future.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
WM. McC. Martin, Jr.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Item No. 15
12/15/65
1966 Budget
Schedule A
Summary by Divisions
Division
Offices of
Members of the Board
Office of the
Secretary
Legal
Division
Regular
S
pecieli
Printing F.R. Act
bieision of
Research and Statistica
• Regular
Special:
Academic Consultants
bivieion of
International Finance
Division of
Examinations
Division of Bank
Operations
Division of
Personnel Administration
141:10117.4:f Administrative Services
aPecial:
Furniture Replacement Program
Su
pplements - Banking and
Monetary
9vPlacesentStatistics
- Venetian Blinds
Special Mailing
Equipment
Repairs - Retaining
Walls. etc.
,Youth
Opportunity Program
Printing
2nd System Booklet
•
Office of
the Controller
Office of
Defense Planning
Division of Data
Processing
Regular
S
pecial:
Charting Machine and
Projection Equipment
Remote Computer
Facility
Advanced Calculator
140Plazzi
ttirement and Insurance
Total
Operating Budget .
Construction and
Alterations
Annex
Main Building
Building
Grand
Total
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Budget
191,
Sapiens's
(Estimated)
1988
Budget
Over (Under)
196$ Supenses
508.392
527.76s $ 562,731
34,366
385,319
380.888
413,497
32,809
.308.018
300.816
30;035
47.921
15,308
15,300
I,.
2.025.676
2,040,076
2.164,029
123,939
12,410
8,190
12,323
4,135
601.485
576,941
649.290
72.349
927,210
917.944
1.053,008
135,364
290,094
279,544
299.896
20,352
219,486
225,118
239,406
14.288
1,622,526
1,618.759
1,672.880
54.121
13,500
12,174
20,350
8,179
15,498
11.000
10.566
17.544
20,807
2.378
3.409
11,000
13.300
13,036
5,250
(7,157)
11,000
13.300
(7071)
2.871
111,551
108,323
/13,773
5.250
59,704
62.229
45.024
(17,204)
331,916
549,536
799.075
248,539
62.500
2.300
65.305
25,000
9,000
62,805
23,000
8,000
839,460
1,232,602
955,817
(276,785)
8,603,189
8,884,148
9,515,936
631,788
189,799
105,000
193,782
51,106
$9,810,729
876,676
20.000
257.680.
8.625 .
$8,869,494
•
(3,989)
.53,894
$8,934,053
- 4124)‘
Item No. 16
12/15/65
1966 ludget
Schedule
Summary of Account Classifications
—
—
---1966
ludget
1965
Budget
1
uount
..
----- Over (Clair)
1965
.8xpensas
1966
Expense*
ludget
Sadist (Estimated)
Positions Provided
:ulna of Expenses
Pg.
ICES
,
$44
OEtites
"Nembers
Let,C„ot the
of the Board
Secretary
bivi 'Avision
bi,;;41°11 of
pcsion 0 Research and Statistics
o International, rilVIOCII
iblvision 0 Examinations
Bank Operations
/ 'vision
4614.
Personnel Administration
-44fle:%%.° ,Administrative Services
ice 0; ne Controller
144100 of*tense Planning
Data Processing
total
Positions and Salaries
r
.
.
•
31
50
31 '
172
54
74
29
30
145
12
3
60
34
51
33
183
57
79
28
30
153
12
2
73
$ 472.492 $ 469,976 $ 522.211
406.252
376,373
381.134
335,965
289,364
290,798
1,558,331 1.591,067 1,730.429
586.840
$19,190
545,368
805,076
690.361
702.851
285.871
267.162
276.969
200,823
187,654
186.754
741.028
701,089
706,064
109,485
101,624
104.362
33.574
50,463
50.504
543,596
426,204
444,569
# 52.235
29,879
46,601
139,362
67,650
114,715
18,709
12.969
39.939
7.861
(16,889)
117,392
691
735
85,720.216 $5,670,727 $6,301,150
$630,423
•
$
mtributions
wefts
67.030 $
69.739
789.625
1,182,296
49.045
49.198
#
87,080
901.815%
$ 17.341
(280,481)
52,894
3.696
66,625.916 #6.971,960 $7,342,939
6370.979
,
treonal Services
1st „
‘uas
U4fts
stenographic recruit positions.
Opportunity 1414r4O; exclude* Cafeteria salaries.
YoUth
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Schedule!
•
PIS°
•
Clas
sification if Expenses
1965
,
HOR
PERSON4 S
ERV/CES
ttikvaling
Poatage andExpeneall
'
Expressage
IlloPhone and
Printing sod Telegraph
Binding
a
Sttionary and
furniture
supplies
h
atela and Equipment
11°°4 alluf
Subscriptions
Sego
Light and
141114frs and
Power
‘Ifairs and Alterations
(0uilding and Grounds)
1411uran
ce Maintenance
Furniture and hutment)
Over (Under)
1965 Expenses
1966
Widget
&vanes.
(istimeted)
Modest
,
$ 321.409
107,943
101,829
395.074
$ -326,473
102,204
113,030
375.818
$ 332.763
103,940
114,321
425.234
72.181
126,137
144.130
25,150
82,636
63,279
140,143
25.349
86,553
148,580
237.985
26,800
51.849
35.337
26,384
/,671
53,300
40.236
31,101
1,608
405,214
358,020
•
56,500
52.029
27.3721.839
— — — — --
$
26.310
1,736
1,291
49,416
3.917
85.301
97,842
1,451
1.651
4.899
4.717
(63)
totttrattual
Professional 8ervicee
iknaer
ie.044nraer Pinances Burls* S .
n"..L41411 Credit Surveys
harking
81.11
0repl
SurssY•
409.781
•••
14CULitY
Reviev ofClearance /nee
tigatious
1441,
EX4Mill4tiOUS
tocedures
CORIUltlat and
!Wilting
0 her Services
Books of
Board
.441ating,
Transcript 1 and Reporting Service
411
Othor
C4fetetia
...aktial (Nit)
"QCLA Statistical
kemberanip PeeBe aces
Official
11altion Dinners,
Recap :ions, etc.
l end
4%4 foi Regiattatio 1
Official
Cues ts
Ticker
kacel
gerviee
laneous
Si
Total
Total
Nonpersonal 8ervices
Personal
Total
Ur/ices.
Operating
Bud Bet
Illtinaction and
Alteratione
Total
-_
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
•
....Ma 01=0
.M.21.. .... •••••
270.000
50,000
13.000
32,000
13.260
13.000
11.246
2,500
2,775—
___.....................
ON= IMIN•
••••1•11.111.1.4....
M...
...OM
.1...
...
NED
MIMS, 4•Mil .1•1"
.
••••0 11
(260,000)
57.000
170,000
(11,000)
(1,420)
..
13.899)
.
2.125
25.000
63.000
175.000
45.000
18.450
13.000
37.995
2,500
3,075
285,000
6.000
5.000
56.000
19.870
13.000
16.894
2.500
950
.1.
(47,194)
01•••• 4.1M. •••• •••••,MIO 41.4
OMM MOM ••••• MIIMONID
WI
ONO
••••• ...NM •••• MOM..
.6•...
29,535
135.899
162.801
192.336
48.262
39.600
18.000
5.450
9.392
3.800
3,690
7.705
51,415
61.703
18.000
6.941
9.586
4.545
3,690
6.921
54.250
79.500
27.000
7.470
9.326
4.500
3.690
6.600
$1.977,273
$1.912.188
6.625,916
6..971.960
7,342.939 •
370,979
8,603,189
8,884,148
9.515,936
631„,88
266.305
49,905
294.793
244.888
$8.869.494
68.934,053
$9,810.729
.
$2.172,997
2.835
17.797
9.000
529
(260)
(45)
(321)
0 260,809
$ 876,676
...-........—,
a
A
TELEGRAM
LEASED WIRE SERVICE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No. 17
12/15/65
WASHINGTON
December 14, 1965.
Whitman - San
Francisco
6wan - San
Francisco
This
refers letter of December 8, 1965, from Mr. Cooper, Assistant
OenEtr.,
Counsel of your Bank, regarding summons served upon
Mr. Pa.
—cual, Assistant Federal Reserve Agent, to appear before
bt/nald H.
O'Hare, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service,
"nuection with tax proceeding against Antoine B. Rinieri to
duce
records relating to dates of issuance and recipient of
certai
designated
fifty (50) and one hundred (100) dollar currencies.
It ia
understood that information requested is in records of office
°f Pede
-1114 Reserve Agent and is desired to prove that bills in
cluest4
*.°t1 were in this country
at time when Mr. Rinieri claims they
'were
in
Switzerland. You are advised that pursuant to section 261.2(b)
°f its
Rules of
Organization, Board authorizes Mr. Pascual to appear
44d
,
Produce information
requested and testify in connection therewith.
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Sherman
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42"(
Item No. 18
12/15/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20551
ADDRESS OPINC4AL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
•
December 15, 1965
lir. Leland IC
Ross, Vice President,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois. 60690
bear /It. Ross:
In accordance with the requests contained in
Your letters
of December 8, 1965, the Board approves the
:tPointments of
William E. Ruddy and John P. Trinklein,
p'e'._,Prasent assistant examiners, as examiners for the
u ral Reserve Bank of Chicago, effective January 10,
1966.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Ca m chael,
Assistant Secretary.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER