The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Minutes for
To:
Members of the Board
From:
Office of the Secretary
January 21, 1966
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
minutes in the record of policy actions required to
be 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
the Secretary's Office. Otherwise, please initial
below. If you were present at the meeting, your
initials will indicate approval of the minutes. If
You were not present, your initials will indicate
only that you have seen the minutes
Chm. Martin
Gov. Robertson
Gov. Balderston
Gov. Shepardson
Gov. Mitchell
Gov. Daane
Gov. Maisel
„-
‘
1(ti
At.ot
Minutes of a meeting of the available members of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on Friday, January 21, 1966.
The meeting was held in the Board Room at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT:
Mr. Balderston, Vice Chairman
Mr. Shepardson
Mr. Maisel
Sherman, Secretary
Kenyon, Assistant Secretary
Holland, Adviser to the Board
Molony, Assistant to the Board
Solomon, Director, Division of Examinations
Goodman, Assistant Director, Division of
Examinations
Miss Eaton, General Assistant, Office of the
Secretary
Mr. Morgan, Staff Assistant, Board Members'
Offices
Mr. Furth, Consultant
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Messrs. Brill, Koch, Partee, Axilrod, Bernard,
Ettin, and Keir of the Division of Research
and Statistics
Messrs. Sammons, Hersey, Baker, Gekker, and
Gemmill of the Division of International
Finance
Money market review.
Mr. Axilrod commented on developments in
the Government securities market, after which Mr. Gemmill reported on
Euro-dollar rates, foreign exchange market developments, and related
ma tters.
Tables had been distributed affording perspective on the
111°neY and capital markets and on bank reserve utilization.
A chart
sh°I
'
ling yields on U.S. Government securities throughout the maturity
range and a table on bid rates for Euro-dollar deposits also were
distributed.
295
1/21/66
-2Following a discussion of the reports, all members of the staff
W ithdrew except Messrs. Sherman, Kenyon, Holland, Molony, Solomon, and
Morgan, and Miss Eaton and the following entered the room:
Mr. Hackley, General Counsel
Mr. Leavitt, Assistant Director, Division of Examinations
Mr. Shay, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Heyde, Attorney, Legal Division
Messrs. Egertson and Maguire, Supervisory Review Examiners,
Division of Examinations
The following actions were taken subject to ratification at
the next meeting of the Board at which a quorum was present:
Discount rates.
The establishment without change by the Federal
Reserve Banks of New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco on January 20,
1966, of the rates on discounts and advances in their existing schedules
lAlas „U.212yELI unanimously, with the understanding that appropriate advice
'would be sent to those Banks.
Distributed items.
The following items, copies of which are
attached to
these minutes under the respective item numbers indicated,
Ilere a
roved unanimously:
Item No.
Letter to Farmers State Bank of Sullivan, Sullivan,
diana, approving the establishment of a branch at
2 North Section Street.
1
Letter to Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco, California,
?PProving an extension of time to establish a branch
in Sacramento.
2
Letter to Marshall and Ilsley Bank, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
3
r
'
l Proving an investment in bank premises.
296
•
1/21/66
-3-
'Report on competitive factors.
A report to the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation on the competitive factors involved in the proPosed merger of First San Francisco Bank, San Francisco, California,
with The Mount Diablo First National Bank, Pleasant Hill, California,
was 22.2122f.L1 unanimously for transmittal to the Corporation.
The con-
clusion read as follows:
There is little, if any, competition existing between
First San Francisco Bank, San Francisco, and The Mount Diablo
First National Bank, Pleasant Hill. The competitive effects
of the merger would not be adverse.
Applications of County Trust Company (Items 4, 5, and 6).
There had been distributed drafts of an order and statement reflecting
the Board's approval on January 13, 1966, of the applications of The
C°untY Trust Company, White Plains, New York, to merge with The Goshen
National Bank, Goshen, New York, and Intercounty Trust Company, Monticello,
New York.
A dissenting statement of Governor Robertson also had been
di
stributed.
After a discussion during which several changes in the majority
statement was agreed upon, the issuance of the documents was authorized.
C°Pies of the order and statement, as issued, are attached as Items 4
'
24A-1-
A copy of the dissenting statement of Governor Robertson is
attached as Item No. 6.
All members of the staff except Messrs. Sherman, Kenyon, and
rgan
then withdrew from the meeting.
297
1/21/66
-4Director appointment.
It had been ascertained that certain
Persons suggested for appointment as Class C director of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis for the remainder of the three-year term
ending December 31, 1968, would not be available.
Accordingly, con-
sideration was given to Robert F. Leach of Oppenheimer, Hodgson, Brown,
Wolff & Leach, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Mr. Leach's name had previously
been mentioned, and he was highly recoiiiiitended, but some question had
been raised in terms of the general principle involved in the appointment as Class C directors of persons engaged in the practice of law.
At this
meeting Governor Balderston stated that he had reviewed the
situation with Chairman Martin, and that the latter would be agreeable
to the appointment of Mr. Leach.
After discussion it was agreed to ascertain through the ChairMa n
of the Minneapolis Reserve Bank whether Mr. Leach would accept
the appointment if tendered, with the understanding that if it were
found that he would accept, the appointment would be made and Mr. Leach
I-s° would be appointed Deputy Chairman of the Bank for the remainder
Of the year 1966.
Secretary's Note: It having been ascertained
that Mr. Leach would accept the appointment
if tendered, a wire was sent to him later
today advising of his appointment as Class
C director, and as Deputy Chairman of the
Minneapolis Bank for the remainder of the
calendar year 1966.
The meeting then adjourned.
298
1/21/66
-5Secretary's Notes: Pursuant to the understanding at the Board meeting on January 7,
1966, a letter was sent today to the Presidents of all Federal Reserve Banks regarding
the handling of requests for information
relating to the dates on which specific
Federal Reserve notes are issued by the
Federal Reserve Agents to the respective
Reserve Banks. A copy of the letter is
attached as Item No. 7.
Governor Shepardson today approved on
behalf of the Board the following items:
Letter to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (attached Item No. 8)
aPProving the appointment of Ronald L. Zile and William C. Conrad as
assistant examiners.
Memoranda recommending the following actions relating to the Board's
staff:
w.
Leo Michaels as Programmer, Division of Research and Statistics,
with basic annual salary at the rate of $5,702, effective the date of
e ntrance upon duty.
Carol Westley as Programmer (Trainee), Division of Research and
Statistics, with basic annual salary at the rate of $5,181, effective
January 24, 1966.
Cecilia Ann Lawson as Clerk-Typist, Division of Personnel Administr aia -10n, with basic annual salary at the rate of $4,569, effective the
-ale of entrance upon duty.
William D. Ward as General Mechanic-Operating Engineer, Division
Administrative Services, with basic annual salary at the rate of
'200, effective the date of entrance upon duty.
299
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 1
1/21/66
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
AOORC8111 OFFICIAL CORREISPONOCHCC
TO THC SWARD
January 21, 1966
Board of Directors,
. Farmers State Bank of Sullivan,
Sullivan, Indiana,
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System approves the establishment by Farmers State Bank
of Sullivan, Sullivan, Indiana, of a branch at 102 North
Section Street, Sullivan, Indiana, provided the branch is
established within six months 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.)
3O()
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No. 2
1/21/66
WASHINGTON, CI. C. 20551
At:MRCSS OrIFICIAL CORRESPONOCNICIC
TO THE •OARO
January 21, 1966
Board of Directors,
Wells Fargo Bank,
San Francisco, California.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System extends to January 23, 1967, the time
within which Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco,
California, may establish a branch in the vicinity
of the intersection of Jackson Road and Folsom
Boulevard, Sacramento, California.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Karl E. Bakke
Karl E. Bakke,
Assistant Secretary.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 3
1/21/66
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
January 21, 1966
Board of Directors,
Marshall and Ilsley Bank,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System approves under the provisions of Section 24A of
the Federal Reserve Act an investment in bank premises
of $14 million by Marshall and Ilsley Bank, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, for the purpose of constructing a new main
office building and a complimentary parking structure.
It is understood that of this amount, $13 million is to
be obtained by an affiliate of the bank through a mortgage
on the new bank building with such funds to be obtained
from sources other than the bank.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Karl E. Bakke
Karl E. Bakke,
Assistant Secretary.
302
Item No. 4
1/21/66
UNITED STATES OF
LnEraa
BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C.
•
la the natter of the Applications of'
THE COUNTY TRUST COMPANY
()r approval of mergers with
The Goshen National Bank and
In
tercounty Trust Company
ORDER APPROVING MERGERS OF BANKS
There have come before the Board of Governors, pursuant to the
411k Merger Act of 1960 (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)), applications by The
County Trust Company, White Plains, New York, a Ctate member bank of
he Federal Reserve System, for the Board's prior approval of the
rae
roers into that bank of The Goshen National Bank, Goshen, New York,
end Intercounty Trust Company, Monticello, New York, under the charter
and
title of The County Trust Company.
As an incident to the mergers,
he sole office of The Goshen National Bank and the three offices of
ititeraounty Trust Company would become branches of the resulting bank.
11°tice of the proposed mergers, in form approved by the Board, has been
Published pursuant to said Act,
303
-2the light of
Upon consideration of all relevant material in
the factors set forth in said Act, including reports furnished by the
Insurance Corporation,
Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit
and the Attorney General on the competitive factors involved in the
Proposed mergers,
in the
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set forth
be and hereby
Board's Statement of this date, that said applications
are approved, provided that said mergers shall not be consummated
or
(a) within seven calendar days after the date of this Order
(b) later than three months after said date.
January, 1966.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 21st day of
By order of the Board of Governors.
Voting for this action: Chairman Martin, and
Governors Balderston, Shepardson, Mitchell,
Doane, and Maisel.
Voting against this action:
Governor Robertson.
(signed)
Merritt Cherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
(sEAL)
304
Item No. 5
1/21/66
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
APPLICATIONS OF THE COUNTY TRUST COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF MERGERS WITH THE GOS HEN NATIONAL BANK
AND INTERCOUNTY TRUST COMPANY
STATEMENT
The County Trust Company, White Plains, New York
("County Trust"), with total deposits of $731 million, has applied,
Pursuant to the Bank Merger Act of 1960 (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)), for
the Board's prior approval of the mergers of that bank with The
Goshen National Bank, Goshen, New York ("Goshen Bank"), with total
dePosits of $5 million, and Intercounty Trust Company, Monticello,
1/
The
million.
$23
of
deposits
,orm
''
total
k"Intercounty"), with
b44ks 'would merge under the charter and title of County Trust, which
is e
member of the Federal Reserve System.
As an incident to the
Illergers, the one office of Goshen Bank and the three offices of
14tercounty would become offices of County Trust, increasing the
414nbar of its offices to 57.
As required by law, the Board has considered, as to each of
the
banks involved, (1) its financial history and condition, (2) the
clequacy of its capital structure, (3) its future earnings prospects,
Deposit figures are as of June 30, 1965.
3(6
-2-
(4) the general character of its management, (5) whether its corporate
Powers are consistent with the purposes of 12 U.S.C., Ch. 16 (the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act), (6) the convenience and needs of the
community to be served, and (7) the effect of the transaction on
competition (including any tendency toward monopoly).
The Board may
not approve the transaction unless, after considering all of these
factors, it finds the transaction to be in the public interest.
Separate applications were received from County Trust with
respect
to the mergers herein considered, and the Board has determined
that unnecessary repetition of facts and conclusions may be avoided
through the use of a combined Statement.
Accordingly, the Board's
findings, conclusions, and reasoning in respect to each application
are contained in this Statement.
Banking factors. - The Board has examined the banking factors
in regard to the three banks and finds that, while the banking factors
(1° not lend support for approval of the applications, neither are they
inconsistent with such approval.
Convenience and needs of the communities. - County Trust
°Perates 49 offices in Westchester County, wherein White Plains is
43cated.
Numerous offices of other banks are also located in Westchester
Cc)untY, and the convenience and needs of that County would not be affected
bY consummation of the proposed mergers.
Goshen Bank is located in the village of Goshen, the seat
Of
R
-2/ lies within the central
orange County. The bank's service area
=
-Yrom which a bank derives 75 per cent or more of its deposits
--'717;"individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
'
306
-3-
portion of the County and contains an estimated 18,700 persons.
Orange
C"ntY has experienced substantial growth since 1950, and the prospects
for future growth are favorable.
The County lies immediately west of
the Hudson River, north of the New York metropolitan area, and the rate
Of
growth of Orange County is expected to surpass that of the metropolitan
area.
The rapid expansion of Orange County has given rise to a
corresponding need for the expansion of banking credit.
Goshen Bank's
has not permitted it to keep pace with this expansion, nor does
the hank offer a number of banking services that would help meet the needs
"d promote the convenience of the public and the communities in the area.
The
bank has a legal lending limit of $46,000.
Most of its real estate
"
1 Ils are for moderate amounts on existing structures, and it makes no
or VA mortgage loans.
Intercounty has its principal banking office in Monticello,
the
seat of Sullivan County, a branch at Wurtsboro, in Sullivan County,
and
4
branch at Port Jervis, in Orange County.
Sullivan County,
ir4ilediately west of Orange County and in the Catskill Mountains, is
ily a resort area, but its year-round activities are rapidly
itlereasing in importance.
Intensive competition in the resort industry
equires the
constant improvement and expansion of facilities, causing
a -"ronic condition of credit tightness that has been aggravated by
4ttempt5 to diversify the economy of the County.
307
-4-
Intercounty, with a lending limit of $157,000, has not been
able to satisfy the numerous demands made upon it for credit.
The bank
has followed a policy of making loans only to applicants who already
414intain accounts with it and has declined, in recent years, a large
umber of
credit-worthy applications.
Intercounty, like Goshen Bank,
'
44kes no FHA or VA loans, but this is not unusual in either Sullivan or
011111ge Counties.
ateS
Indications are that the deficit of credit in these
is likely to continue in coming years.
The entry of County Trust into Sullivan and Orange Counties
4111d alleviate the credit deficit in those Counties and provide
dents of both Counties with a wider range of banking services.
e County Trust could enter either Sullivan or Orange Counties
th
ugh de novo branching, the "home office protection" feature of the
1114,1
"
)r4 Banking Law would preclude the bank from establishing offices in
the
more desirable locations.
Competition. - The service areas now served by County Trust,
Coshe
n Bank, and Intercounty are separate and distinct. There is no
41hificant direct competition between the three banks that would be
elitninated by effectuation of the proposed mergers.
County Trust does
1114:e a number of FHA and VA mortgage loans in Orange County, but the
-ater portion
of such loans, for which Goshen Bank does not compete,
Cottle
3
from areas outside the bank's service area.
County Trust's entry
itIto
-41livan and Orange Counties should, in fact, strengthen competition
308
-5-
for such loans with respect to the few banks in these Counties that
Presently do VA and FHA mortgage lending.
Competition should also be
increased in several other product lines in which Goshen Bank and
Intercounty do not presently provide services.
The Board has considered carefully the effect of the proposed
tergers on the smaller banks now in Sullivan and Orange Counties.
County
Trust is a forceful competitor, and its rates are lower for many types
Of loans and higher for savings deposits than many of the banks now in
the two Counties. However, this should not have a significantly adverse
effect of the financial positions of the much smaller locally-based banks.
A6 previously indicated, there exists a substantial and increasing demand
in both Counties for banking services.
While County Trust would aid in
satisfying this demand, the demand is such that the smaller banks now
located in the two Counties should encounter little difficulty in achieving
oontinued growth and vitality.
County Trust is the largest bank headquartered in New York's
Third Banking District.
The Board is satisfied, however, that effectuation
°f the proposed mergers would have only a slight impact on the banking
st
ructure of the Third Banking District.
At present, County Trust holds
about 29 per cent of the total deposits held by all banks within the
bistrict, and consummation of the proposed mergers would not increase
this percentage significantly.
In addition, more than 84 per cent of
C°untY Trust's deposits are derived from Westchester County, and in no
-6-
309
other county within the Third Banking District does County Trust hold
tore than 20 per cent of the deposits originating from within
that County.
Summary and conclusion. -
There is a need in both Sullivan
and Orange Counties for an increased supply of credit and other banking
s"vioes, which Goshen Bank, Intercounty, and the other locally-based
banks have not been able to supply.
The entry of County Trust into
these Counties should help meet the need for additional credit, while
the smaller banks now located in the two Counties should continue to have
sullioient demand for their services to enable them to compete successfully.
Little, if any, competition between County Trust, Goshen Bank,
a"' Intercounty would be eliminated by consummation of the mergers.
Neither
Mould consummation have
a substantial impact on the banking structure of
the Third Banking District.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the proposed mergers would
be j
n the public interest.
Wary 21,
1966.
310
Item No. 6
1/21/66
DISSENTING STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR ROBERTSON
I cannot agree with the majority's finding that the banking
needs of Sullivan and Orange Counties are presently not being met.
Nor
can I agree that the entry of County Trust into prime locations within
these Counties will not adversely affect the smaller banks now located
there.
County,
Seventeen banks operate 34 banking offices in Orange
and nine banks operate 12 banking offices within the service area of
1/
°ashen Bank. These 17 banks range in size from $2 million of IPCdeposits to almost $100 million.
In Sullivan County there are 17 offices
of eight
IPC
banks, with the same approximate range in size.1 Total
dePasits in Orange County are $187 million, and total IPC deposits in
Sullivan County are $80 million.
I am not convinced from the record
that such an array of banks, with correspondents available to acquire
Participations in larger loans, is unable to supply the needs of small
and medium-size borrowers in both Counties.
outside
Of course, it is possible to find borrowers anywhere
large to be
the large financial centers of the nation with credit needs too
sa tisfied by local banks.
Such borrowers are not seriously inconven-
ienced by arranging to have their credit requirements met by banks in the
large financial centers.
Large borrowers in Sullivan and Orange Counties
ITTc-if individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
Sullivan and Orange
Several of the banks operating banking offices within
_a unties are headquartered outside the Counties. Marine Midland of
autheastern New York, Poughkeepsie, operates offices in both Counties
:
County.
"is presently the largest bank operating in either
311
-2are within 100
miles of the giant New York City banks and within 75
miles of County Trust's head office.
County Trust operates a branch
°ffice at Haverstraw, only 27.5 miles from Goshen Bank and 44 miles from
Intercounty's head office.
The majority states that the resort industry in Sullivan County,
Ilith its considerable credit needs for expansion and improvement of
facilities, cannot be satisfied from the supply of credit now available
ia the
County. But the owners of these resorts are not necessarily local
Persons or firms.
Many resort facilities today are parts of large chains
that obtain financing for long-term construction projects from key banks
in the financial
centers of the nation. The record does not indicate
Ilhether this is the case in Sullivan County, and for this reason, it should
tic)t be assumed that the resort facilities in the County need more credit
than the local banks can now provide.
We should,therefore,weigh these proposals with regard to the
"°venience and needs of the small and medium-sized bank customers
.
The
t141jr)ritY places great stress on the expected population and economic growth
the two Counties,
but it must be remembered that the local banks may be
elzPected
to grow as the population and economy grow.
The elimination of local banks and the substitution therefor of
1314Lnches of larger, distantly-located institutions
may seem to provide
al:e4ter availability of credit to the community in times when ample funds
41.e a
vailable, such as during the past few years.
But in a period of tight
111°t1eY, bank funds must of necessity be rationed. Then the large institution
rit4y have
less interest in meeting the needs of smaller borrowers and greater
In
terest in the more profitable large customers who are better credit
111's and are able to maintain large compensatory balances.
312
-3But even assuming that the convenience and needs of Sullivan and
Orange Counties are not being met by the banks already serving those Counties,
it llould be a great mistake, in my opinion, to allow County Trust to move
into four prime locations within the two Counties.
County Trust is one
nf the largest banks in the State of New York outside New York City and
Long Island.
It has three times the combined assets of all commercial
banks in Orange County and is ten times the size of the largest bank now
headquartered within the County.
County
The comparative figures for Sullivan
are even more disproportionate.
County Trust will undoubtedly attract many of the larger bank
customers now dealing at least partially with the banks located in the
to
Counties, and with the competitive advantages inherent in County
1Nst's great size, the smaller banks may not show the growth necessary
to ke _ p
e pace with the development of their communities. I would not be
84rPrised if, with the passage of time, the entry of County Trust into
Sullivan and Orange Counties should prove disastrous to several of the
841aller banks now operating there, or at very least, stimulate further
rtie gera within the Counties, leading to a greater concentration of
ban,,
41ng resources and the elimination of locally owned and operated
inst
itutions fully cognizant of local credit needs.
Either result,
i4 my opinion, would be injurious to the public interest.
If a larger bank is needed in Sullivan or Orange Counties, I
11°414 prefer to see a merger between smaller banks, the resulting bank
of
'hitch would not stifle or dominate its competitors. Or, County Trust
4414 enter both Counties through de novo branching, thereby providing
313
-4the same services it now proposes without obtaining the competitive
3/
advantage of prime 1ocations.—
Some idea of the value that County Trust places on the locations
it will obtain through consummation of the proposed mergers can be gained
ftOm an examination of the premium County Trust intends to pay in these
ttansactions.
In the Goshen Bank transaction, County Trust intends to
Change stock having a total market value of $916,000 for Goshen Bank
8t°o1. having a total book value of $475,000 - a premium amounting to
ePpr
oximately
9 per cent of Goshen Bank's total deposits.
In the
14teroounty transaction, County Trust will exchange stock having a total
111Qrket value of $1,321,000 in excess of the estimated total market value
°f the Intercounty stock it will receive, a premium amounting to 6.66 per
cerit of Intercounty's total deposits.
Such premiums are far greater than smaller banks in Sullivan and
Oran
ge Counties could afford to pay. Hence, County Trust has discouraged
IllerCer negotiations between Intercounty or Goshen Bank and other banks in
thei
r localities. These substantial premiums also give some indication of
the
nature of County Trust as a competitor.
It has been stressed in the
4"rd8 in these proposals that County Trust is not a "predatory"
e41Petitor, merely a "strong and aggressive" one.
I have difficulty
Ilith this characterization. It would appear to me that a bank willing
to
so substantial a premium as County Trust is willing to pay for
cltit°1 of two banks with desirable locations would also be willing
1101
0Pe major communities in Sullivan and Orange Counties are granted
Qat :,
e1u4 °ffice protection" by New York law and are not open to the
lishment of de novo branches.
314
-5-
to use its great size and resources to do whatever is necessary to
ns.
attract an increasing share of business for those locatio
Whether
know, but
this would be "predatory" or merely "aggressive" I do not
1 an convinced that the effect on the small, local banks would be
harmful.
needs of
In sum, I am not convinced that the banking
Sullivan and Orange Counties are presently going unmet.
But if
Counties, I can
additional banking resources are needed in those
would provide
(341Y conclude that approval of the present proposals
such banking resources at an extremely high cost - the stifling of
competition within both Counties.
I would disapprove the applications.
January 21, 1966.
315
Item No. 7
1/21/66
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
S-1981
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
January 21, 1966.
Dear Sir:
Information relating to the dates on which specific
Federal Reserve notes are issued by the Federal Reserve Agents
to the respective Federal Reserve Banks comes within the description of "unpublished information of the Board" contained in
section 261.2(a) of the Board's Rules of Organization, thus
requiring Board authorization for its disclosure.
Requests for disclosure of such information have arisen
with a sufficient degree of frequency to warrant facilitating
replies to future requests in normal circumstances. Accordingly,
the Board has authorized disclosure on its behalf by any Federal
Reserve Bank to which a request for information as to dates of issue
of Federal Reserve notes is addressed, subject to the understanding
that in each case a determination will be made by the Reserve Bank
receiving such request that the person to whom disclosure would
be made is entitled to the information sought and that the circumstances underlying the request for disclosure warrant the action.
In any case where the Federal Reserve Bank involved
request
etermines that the circumstances attending the disclosure
should
request
the
41.se any significant question as to compliance,
of
advice
Also,
ue transmitted to the Board for consideration.
be
should
ion
authorizat
anY disclosure action under the Board's
n
and
files.
informatio
transmitted to the Board for its
d
Very truly yours,
Merritt Sherm
Secretary.
TO TTT
nE PRESIDENTS OF ALL FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
316
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
.....
;001cov••
Item No. 8
1/21/66
CIF THE
tr.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
To THE BOARD
January 24, 1966
Mr. Leland M. Ross, Vice President,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois. 60690
Dear Mr. Ross:
In accordance with the request contained
in your letter of January 17, 1966, the Board approves
the appointments of Ronald L. Zile and William C. Conrad
as assistant examiners for the Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago. Please advise the effective dates of the
appointments.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
@FedFRASER