The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Minutes for October 18, 1960
To:
Members of the Board
From: 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
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.
Chin. Martin
Gov. Szymczak
Gov. Mills
Gov. Robertson
Gov. Balderston
Gov. Shepardson
Gov. King
Minutes of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on
Tuesday,
October 18, 1960.
PRESENT:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
The Board met in the Board Room at 10:00 a.m.
Balderston, Vice Chairman
Szymczak
Mills
Robertson
Shepardson
Mr. Sherman, Secretary
Mr. Hackley, General Counsel
Mr. Farrell, Director, Division of Bank
Operations
Mr. Solomon, Director, Division of
Examinations
Mr. Hexter, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Hooff, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Rudy, Special Assistant, Legal Division
Mr. Conkling, Assistant Director, Division
of Bank Operations
Mr. Landry, Assistant to the Secretary
Mr. Leavitt, Supervisory Review Examiner,
Division of Examinations
Miss Hart, Assistant Counsel
Discount rates.
The establishment without change by the Federal
Ilesarve Bank of Minneapolis on October 15, 1960, and by the Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston on October 17, 1960, of the rates on discounts and advances
their existing schedules was approved unanimously, with the understanding
that appropriate advice would be sent to those Banks.
Items circulated or distributed to the Board.
The following items,
1441ch had been circulated or distributed to the Board and copies of which
ill*e attached to these minutes under the respective item numbers indicated,
alVroved unanimously:
Item No.
IVItter to American Bank and Trust Company, Suffolk,
approving an investment in bank premises.
1
3f319
10/18/60
-2Item No.
Letter to Bloomfield State Bank, Bloomfield, Indiana,
aPProving an investment in bank premises.
2
Letter to Franklin County Bank, Washington, Missouri,
aPProving an investment in bank premises.
3
Telegram to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
?Proving renewal of a stand-by credit arrangement
°I' gold loans to the Bank for International SettleMents.
Mr. Sammons, Associate Adviser, Division of International Finance,
14113 had joined the meeting just prior to consideration of Item No.
4, with-
following its approval.
Permission to maintain reduced reserves--Central State Bank,
0k1ahoma City, Oklahoma (Item No.
5). There had been circulated a memoran-
chllz dated October 10, 1960, from the Division of Bank Operations recommending
that Central State Bank, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, be permitted to maintain
the same reserves against deposits as are required to be maintained by banks
°Iltaide of centrsl reserve and reserve cities instead of the reserves that
lr°111d be required of reserve city banks, effective as of the date the bank
c"41111tted to membership under a national bank charter.
The same recommen-
datic)n had been made in a letter of October 3, 1960, from the Federal Reserve
tank
°f Kansas City. Attached to the memorandum was a proposed reply to the
Rese
I've Bank that would approve the subject bankts request. While the file
Vas
'n circulation, Governor Mills had attached a memorandum which indicated
that the
size and downtown location of the Central State Bank might not
a country bank classification for reserve requirement purposes.
3920
10/18/60
-3-
Governor Mills said that he had discussed this question with Mr.
Conkling and that on the basis of the additional information made available
clIllsing this discussion, he would now approve the application.
Unanimous approval was then given to a letter to Central State Bank,
(31(1.,1410Ma
'
City, Oklahoma, granting its request for permission to maintain
reduced reserves upon conversion to a national bank charter.
A copy of
this letter is attached as Item No. 5.
Mr. Leavitt withdrew from the meeting during discussion of the
fc4iegoing question.
Regulation Q savings accounts--"International Accounts".
Copies
had been distributed of a memorandum from Mr. Rudy of the Legal Division
clated October 13, 1960, with respect to a plan of Citizens Bank and Trust
e014°anY, Park Ridge, Illinois, characterized as "International Accounts,"
%Illich had been submitted to the Board for interpretation as to Whether the
1344 complied with the requirements of Regulation Q, Payment of Interest on
leilcIsits.
It was the view of the Legal Division, as expressed in the memo-
1.411, that the plan, as submitted, conformed to Regulation Q by virtue of
"
l'a.
the
exception in section 217.1(e) which reads:
"The presentation by any officer, agent or employee of
the bank of a pass book or a duplicate thereof retained by
the bank or by any of its officers, agents or employees is
1,.c)t a presentation of the pass book within the meaning of
part except where the pass book is held by the bank
as • . . security for a loan."
10/13/co
As described in the memorandum, the plan would be used to solicit
accounts by mail from persons in nonpar bank towns.
°f the plan were as follows:
The principal elements
An "International Account" is actually two
"Parate accounts, one being a regular interest-earning savings account,
the other, a credit account against which checks may be written, the
latter account to be in the same amount as the savings account less a
$1 reserve.
The savings account would be pledged to secure any loans
l ePresented by checks drawn against the credit account, with a charge of
'
t/.7entY cents for any check so drawn.
Should the next deposit to the
Ilecking account be made within seven days following encashment of a
heck, the new deposit would be used to bring the credit account back
to
previous balance
tt8
to pay off the amount of any outstanding
loarls) in order that the savings account would be kept in a condition
t° continue to earn Interest.
Any excess deposit over the amount of the
8even-daY loan would be deposited in the savings account.
cl
Should no
ait be made within seven days following encashment of a check, the
6114°114t
of the loan plus the twenty-cent charge per check would be with-
from the savings account and the same combined balance would again
xiat in the savings and credit accounts.
Attached to the memorandum was a draft letter to the Federal
--'e sank of Chicago that would state the Boardts view that the plan,
"8"Mitted, conformed to Regulation 0, but that it would violate the
term
8
Of Regulation Q if written receipts were to be issued in lieu of
k
10/18/6o
-5-
a Pass book. This conclusion was based on the following reasoning: The
Plan contemplates the retention by the bank of the customer's pass book,
80/Epanied by authority in the bank to make withdrawals for the purpose
rePsying loans.
Such an arrangement would comply with the provision
section 217.1(e) of Regulation Q, which permits withdrawals from
savings accounts upon presentation of the pass book through payment to
the person presenting the pass book and which, under an exception to a
eneral rule, permits any officer, agent, or employee of the bank to
1114ke the presentation where the pass book is held by the bank as security
a loan.
in
The substitution by the bank, however, of a written receipt
lieu of the customer's pass book would not be permissible as a means
°f imPlementing the plan since Regulation 0 provides that, when a deposit
18 evidenced by a written receipt or agreement in lieu of a pass book,
l'rithdrawals are permitted only through payment to the depositor himself
bIlt not to any other person whether or not acting for the depositor.
Mr. Rudy commented that the plan as described in the memorandum
had.
bepo
been the subject of a discussion with representatives of the Federal
it Insurance Corporation, a member of whose legal division had raised
t which was worthy of Board consideration, namely, that it was
a
tiece8sarY for a bank to reserve the right to require notice in writing
Of
811 intended withdrawal from a savings account of not less than 30
‘
4
1'13.
It had been pointed out that should such notice be required by
eiti
4e1is Bank and Trust Company at some future date it would be necessary
-6-
1°/18/60
der the provisions of section 217.5(e) of Regulation Q to charge a rate
Of interest upon "International Account" loans of not less than 2 per cent
Per annum in excess of the rate of interest on the savings account.
It
the view of the Legal Division, Mr. Rudy said, that the possibility
of difficulty between the bank and its customer arising out of this
eventuality was remote since ordinarily a bank did not invoke the 30cl6CY Privilege unless it was in financial straits and that it would not
eLPPear desirable to cover this point in correspondence with Citizens
8eirik and Trust Company.
He noted that although neither the representa-
tives of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation nor the Legal Division
had
Particularly liked the plan, technically considered there was no
valid objection to it under the terms of Regulation Q.
Mr. Hackley called attention to the fact that Regulation Q does
tl°t prevent retention by a lending bank of a customer's pass book and that
O
1°ng as the pass book was being held as security for a loan its presentation by
Officers of the bank to effectuate a withdrawal from the customer's
Ravine.,8
account was a good and valid presentation under the regulation.
"rit on
He
to say, in reply to a comment by Governor Mills, that auditors
citaliked the practice of banks holding customers' pass books because of the
1. of false entries therein by bank employees and that he doubted the
"
411
Yould be practicable.
In this connection he observed that there had
riot b
een an encouraging response to circulars advertising this plan sent
Olt
i
tit° nonpar areas by Citizens Bank and Trust Company.
3924
10/18/60
Governor Robertson stated that as he understood the proposed plan
It could
be used by a borrower from the bank who could then keep the
b°rroved funds on deposit in the savings account upon which he would draw
int,erest, having authorized the bank which held his pass book to transfer
trIpin the savings account to a checking account funds as needed.
Mr. Rudy replied that the plan in question was similar to checkaccounts that were enjoying a certain vogue at present.
He cited
the instance of First National Bank of Dallas Which permits a customer
t°1frite checks following establishment of a line of credit.
Under this
1341/1) he said, interest is paid only on the outstanding amount of a loan
144ich is
created as checks are written.
He noted that in the plan under
consideration by the Board in effect the customer was extended a seven%) interest-free loan as a means of stimulating savings accounts at
the bank.
Observing that under the proposed plan the lending bank would not
be
a-Lidly holding the customerls pass book as collateral for loans except
he loans
were actually being made and that for the rest of the time the
Ilass book would be held in anticipation of such loans, Governor Robertson
sieSted that no reply be made to Citizens Bank and Trust Company until
the staff had consulted with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
to a4
-8cover if there were any outstanding instructions to national bank
'
exarai
flars or rulings proscribing the holding of pass books by banks.
'
10/18/60
-8-
Following further discussion, it was agreed that the letter to the
Pederal Reserve Bank of Chicago advising it of the Boardts views as to
compliance with Regulation Q of a plan for "International Accounts" wild
be returned to the Board for further consideration following receipt of
sdvice from the Comptrollerts Office as to whether it had any outstanding
instructions or rulings for use of its examiners proscribing the holding
or Pass books by national banks.
Messrs. Farrell, Conkling, Hooff, and Rudy then withdrew from
the meeting.
Regulation T--"cash on delivery" transactions
(Item No. 6).
Attached to a memorandum dated October 12, 1960, from Miss Hart of the
te(“11 Division, copies of which had been distributed, was a letter of
'1111Y 21) 1960, from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston requesting a
Board ruling on each of two questions presented by Clayton Securities
C°rPoration, Boston, Massachusetts, in a letter to the Bank dated July
1960) and a draft reply thereto.
The questions, which related to
813ecisl cash accounts under section 220.4(c) of Regulation T, Credit by
Broke_ _ ,
re Dealers, and Members of National Securities Exchanges, were:
(1) Is it a
violation of Regulation T to receive prior payment from a
ter for securities not yet received? (2) When a customer buys a
11111tIbels °f
securities on the same day and payment is received after seven
b1461.,1
-ess days for such securities, is this a single violation of the
--"ation or a violation for each transaction?
10/18/60
9_
With respect to the first question presented, in the fact situation
described by Clayton, a customer in a single day purchased a number of
different securities with instructions to deliver against payment.
seven days but prior to
35 days, the creditor notified the customer that
it had assembled some, but not all, of the securities.
Bent
After
The customer promptly
Payment in full for all the purchased securities, instructing Clayton
to transfer into his name those which had been assembled, and to transfer
the others as received.
The draft reply to the Reserve Bank would answer
the first question in the negative and the second to the effect that there
'
lt°111d be a violation for each transaction.
In commenting on her memorandum, Miss Hart indicated that counsel
the National Association of Securities Dealers informed the staff or/411y
that vhile he agreed with the staff that, technically speaking, no violation
c't Regulation T took place under the facts described by Clayton Securities
- voration relative to both questions, the circumstances surrounding the
trA.
—48aotions concerned in the second question were such as to suggest that
the delaY in obtaining payment from the customer may have been due to a
.11811 to oblige him rather than to the "mechanics of the securities business
ktIci the bona fide usages of the trade." (1940 F.R. Bulletin 1172)
t°1
'thi
--03
It was
reason, Miss Hart said, that the draft reply to the Boston Reserve
eMPhasized the requirement of good faith in applying the exception
411cler section 220.4(c)(5) of Regulation T, which permits a broker or dealer
10/18/60
-10-
to_
picuy a 35-day instead of a 7-day limit for obtaining payment in a cash
account, due to difficulties arising from the mechanics of the trade which
lade it impossible to deliver within seven days.
Miss Hart noted a further
statement by counsel for the National Association of Securities Dealers that
the brokerage firm involved had repeatedly been cited for violation of the
NNaation and had just been fined $2,500 for violations revealed in a
l'acent examination conducted by the Association, which violations were
entirely separate from the possible violations presented to the Board.
She vent on to say, on an observation from Governor Mills, that with
l'ealDect to the first question presented the National Association and the
8ectirities and Exchange Commission through regulation attempted to prevent
clealere and brokers from getting possession of clients' money in advance
"delivering securities to them to prevent doubling up on the use of this
111°IleY•
On the other hand, she said, the evil towards which Regulation T
vas directed
was to prevent the customer from receiving an unwarranted
elcterlaion of credit by a dealer or broker since the customer receives
"
'alai privileges from a cash account in any event.
Mr. Solomon said that the language of Regulation T was phrased so
44 t° limit the extension of credit by a dealer or broker to a customer
e." that protection was afforded the customer by the financial strength
°lathe dealer or broker. He noted, in response to an observation by
0,z,ve
rAcIr Robertson, that although in the transactions covered in the
10/18/60
-11-
tirst question submitted by Clayton a bank had advanced funds to a broker
0n behalf of a customer prior to receipt by the customer of securities
rrom the broker, Regulation U, Loans by Banks for the Purpose of FurOr Carrying Registered Stocks, did not apply to the transactions
linder consideration since no stock collateral was involved.
In his view
a cash -on-delivery transaction as in the instant case required flexibility
so that if the securities being purchased could not be gathered together
14thin the usual seven-day permissible period, it seemed unnecessary to
'sqlaire the customer to make cash payment for them prior to their delivery
11(1 it was for this reason that a 35-day limitation was permitted under
secti°n 220.4(c)(5) of Regulation T.
He noted further that the regulation
cli°1110t say a customer was not permitted to make full payment for securities
betcre the 35-day period had elapsed.
A discussion of this point then ensued, during which Governor
4-1terston noted that the first of the two questions posed by Clayton
'unties Corporation, namely, whether or not it was a violation of
ation T to have received prior payment for securities not yet
receilied by it, was the more important.
He suggested a change in word-
Of the
reply to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston to make this
1)°1-1-It clear.
There
was
agreement with this suggestion.
The letter to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston containing two
e- t'retations under section 220.4(c)(5) of Regulation T relating to
111"
4.61 cash accounts
It1:44ched Item No.
6.
was
thereupon approved unanimously in the form of
10/18/60
-12-
The meeting then adjourned.
Secretary's Note: Governor Shepardson today
approved on behalf of the Board a letter to
the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
(attached Item No. 7) approving the appointment of John G. teonudakis as assistant
examiner.
;14
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 1
10/18/60
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
October 18, 1960
Board of Directors,
American Bank and Trust Company,
Suffolk, Virginia.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request submitted through
the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, the Board of
Governors approves, under the provisions of Section 24A
of the Federal Reserve Act, an investment in bank
Premises by American Bank and Trust Company, Suffolk,
Virginia, of )475,000 for the purpose of construction
of a new building on land presently owned by the bank.
The amount approved includes 3137,500 paid for those
lots purchased specifically for this purpose by the
bank on April 1, 1960.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
400,24
!%
OF THE
Item No. 2
10/18/60
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
4
ADDRESS
orriciAL
CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
l oti
\ktEta
404411 tO
October 18, 1960
Board of Directors,
Bloomfield State Bank,
Bloomfield, Indiana.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request submitted through the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System approves under the provisions
2f Section 24A of the Federal Reserve Act, an investment of
!
156,000 in bank premises by Bloomfield State Bank, Bloomfield,
44d1ana. The approved investment of $156,000 includes $30,500
1-13ed to acquire certain lots in early 1960 for purposes of exand 3125,500 representing estimated cost of the new
ullliding. It is understood that proceeds from the sale of
esent banking quarters are to be applied first to the elimina,on of book value of those quarters and, secondly, as a reduc'ion of book value of the new premises.
r
Very truly yours,
(signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
39,12
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
40010***
etiotO top 0000
OF THE
t,
Item No. 3
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
10/18/60
1*
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
ts
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
htOr:"
October 18, 1960
Board of Directors,
Franklin County Bank,
Whshington, Missouri.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request submitted through the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Board of Governors
Of the Federal Reserve System approves, under the provisions
of Section 24A of the Federal Reserve Act, the additional
investment in bank premises of $156,175 by Franklin County
Bank which was expended for the purpose of remodeling bank
premises.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
TELEGRAM
Item No. 14.
10/18/60
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
LEASED WIRE SERVICE
WASHINGTON
October 18,1960
Sword- New York
1°11.1
'Wire October 13. Board approves extension of the arrangement to
rilake loan or loans by your Bank to the Bank for International Settlements
thing
a period of one year, from November 1, 1960, through October 31,
1961, UP to a total amount outstanding at any one time of '4:525,000,0001
each
borrowing to mature in not more than seven days and total borrowings
(the mazimum loan facility) during any calendar month not to exceed the
equivalent of $25,0001000 for the total of seven days.
Po.„.
this facility, it is understood that you will make a commitment charge
at the rate of one-fourth of one per cent per annum on that part of the
Ina*inarn loan facility not used in any calendar month.
The arrangement
1°3111d conform to your usual terms and conditions:
(A)
-ach such lovn or loans to be made up to 98 per cent of the value of
bars to be set aside at the time of each drawing under pledge to you;
arid
(t)
ach such loan to bear interest from the date it is made until paid at
the
'
4-secunt rate of your Bank in effect on the date such loan is made.
t
8
understood that the usual participation will be offered to the other
F
eder
Reserve Banks.
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
SERNAN
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
04,4in40*4
OF THE
444
0 40fr
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No.
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
10/18/60
5
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
\At KIA,
October 18, 1960
Board of Directors,
Central State Bank,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Gentlemen:
PurslInnt to your request submitted through the Federal
!!serve Bank of Kansas City, the Board of Governors, acting under
'ue provisions of Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act, grants
Dermission to the Central State
Bank to maintain the same reserves
Itgainst deposits as are required to be maintained by banks located
1tside of central reserve and reserve cities, effective as of the
`te the bank is admitted to membership under a national bank
c
harter.
1
S
4
84- C/n
Your attention is called to the fact that such peris subject to revocation by the Board of Governors.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
f? r,. 7.1
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No.
6
10/18/60
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
02tober 1), 130
Mr* Dana D. Sawyer, Vice President,
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,
Boston 6, Massachusetts.
Dear Mr, Sawyer:
This refers to your letter of July 21, 1960, enclosing a
letter from Clayton Securities Corporation ("Clayton"), together
with your memorandum of a conversation with Mr. Clayton
0
The enclosures request two interpretations under section
22004(0 of Regulation Ty relating to special cash
accounts.
;fle first question arises under section
which
provides,
220.4(o)(5),
O
far as it is pertinent, that
"If the creditor, acting in good faith in accordance
With subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, purchases a
security for a customer ... with the understanding that
he is to deliver the security promptly to the customer,
and
the full cash payment to be made promptly by the customer is
to be made against such delivery, the creditor
may at his
option treat the transaction as one to which the period
applicable under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph is not
the 7 days therein specified but 35 days after the date of
such purchase or sale."
101, th
-e fact situation described by Clayton, a customer in
a single day
it;
rchased a number of different securities with instructions to deliver
hst payment. After seven days but prior to 35
days, the creditor
se'Lfied the customer that it had assembled some, but not
all, of the
p:Irities. The customer promptly sent payment in full for all the
th:hased securities, instructing Clayton to transfer into his name
cluase which had been assembled
, and to transfer the others as received.
re
asks whether it was a violation of the regulation "to have
eived prior payment for those securities not yet received
by us".
e
Regulation T is desined to prevent the excessive use of
eredit
of
for the purpose of purchasing or carrying securities. Although,
re
urse, it is not a violation of the regulation for a creditor to
c-Ive prior payment for securitien not yet delivered to the customer,
BOARD
OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Mr. Dana D. Sawyer
would not appear to be the question presented by the situation
described by Clayton. That question arises under sectio
n 220.4(c)(5)
relating to so-called "cash on delivery"
transactions which are not
Subject to the general rule of section 220.4(
c) requiring liquidation
Of a cash purchase transaction if full paymen
t is not made within
'
13.ven days after the purchase. It should be emphasized,
in the
,-,
LIlnguage of the interpretation published at 1940 Federa
Reserv
l
e
eulletin 1172,
that
r
". .. it is not the purpose of sectioi., b(c)(5) to allow
additional time to customers for naking pyment. The
'prompt delivery' described in si...ztion 4(c)(5) is delivery
which is to be made as soon as the broker or dealer can
reasonably make it in view of the mechanics of the securities business and the bona fide usages of the trade. .. ."
!R7 circumstances suggesting that a 'cash
on delivery" arrangement was
"r the purpose of allowing
the customer additional time for making
t:Yment, or that the delay in making the delivery and
receiving payment
b 8 not required by the
mechanics of the securities business and the
fide usages of the trade, would cast doubt on the applic
ability
tiLl the exception, and would indicate the necessity
of obtaining a
bugh explanation from the creditor. Such circumstances could
"de,
the usue among others, the fact that payment which was delayed beyond
maximum of seven days was not actually made against delivery.
The second question presented in the letter from Clayton is
'411ether there has been a single
violation of the regulation, or a
°14tion for each transaction, where a customer has purcha
sed several
curities in
a special cash account on the same day and has not made
r?rilent for any of the securities until
after seven days have elapsed.
;;e Board agrees with your view
that in such a case, there has been a
°lation of Regulation T as to each transaction.
Z
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No.
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
10/18/60
7
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
October 18, 19O
Mr. H. N. Mangels, President,
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,
San Francisco 20, California.
Dear Mr. Mangels:
In accordance with the request contained in your
letter of October 7, 1960, the Board approves the appointment of John G. Leonudakis as an assistant examiner for the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Please advise us of
the effective date of the appointment.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
@FedFRASER