Full text of Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) : April 1967
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business
april 1967
fEDERA lL RESERVE
BANK 0F DALLAS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
contents
a~~~.~~~
3
in the southwest ......... .. ........ . .... . .. .
interbank deposits ................. . ....... .
8
district highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
L
changing agl-iculture
In ti,e southwest
U
•
Agriculture, a major sector of the U.S. econ~my, continues to undergo a dynamic transi-
tion. The rates at which the fruits of research
an~ technology are applied to farming have
q~Lckened since 1959. The availability and
dIssemination of information and the overall
improvement in communication have hastened
t~e acceptance and adaptation of modern technLques of production. Managerial requirements
and production methods on an efficient comm.ercial farm today are more nearly in keeping
WIth the operations of a complex commercial
Or industrial enterprise. The Census of Agric.ulture, taken every 5 years, provides informatton from which detailed comparisons and
assessments can be made regarding the extent
?f the changes that are occurring in this basic
Lndustry.
of time. The southwestern states of Arizona,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
have experienced gains in farm output similar
to those of the Nation. Higher levels of production have been attained through the use of
irrigation, fertilizers, hybrid seeds, improved
breeding stock, and mechanization and through
better management of resources. Greater efficiency on farms has resulted in structural
changes.
PERSONS SUPPLI ED PER FARM WORKER*
UNITED STATES
An efficient agriculture is a prime requisite
t? the sound development of the total economy
SInce agriculture is a source of food and indUstrial raw materials and is a supplier of
wor~ers for nonfarm jobs. An expanding domestic economy and the growing international
markets for American foods and fibers are
requiring an ever-increasing volume of quality
rroducts. These demands are being met by
eWer but more efficient farms . Improved managerial ab'li ty and the increased use of capital
I
I
1aVe
t
made it possible for American agriculture
o produce for markets not visualized a few
Years ago.
The productivity of American farms has
been m .
In 19 OVlllg upward at an accelerating rate.
f
66, each farm worker produced enough
arm
14 prod uc ts to supply 39 people, or about
. persons more than in 1959' this increase
IS large th .
'
r an 10 any previous comparable span
·Includes persons In othor countries supplied bY U.S. Barleultural exporte.
p-Prellmlnary.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Allrleulture.
Higher output of agricultural products in
the Southwest between 1959 and 1964 was
achieved with only a fractional increase in the
total acreage of land in farms and ranches. New
Mexico reported the largest gain in land in
farms and ranches - 3 percent; and fractional
increases were recorded for Arizona, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. The acreage in farms in
Texas actually declined slightly. Although there
was little change in the total land area devoted
business review/ april 1967
3
to agriculture, there were shifts among the
uses of the land. The adjustments in land usage were broadly similar in each of the southwestern states.
The acreage of two land-use classifications
- cropland not harvested and not pastured
and land in improved pasture - increased in
all five southwestern states. The other major
land-use categories showed declines in all the
states except Louisiana, where there was an
increase in land in house lots, roads, wasteland,
etc. The gains in cropland not harvested and
not pastured are related to the various Government programs which have relied upon diverting crop acreages in order to reduce production. The increases in improved pasture reflect
a continuation of the efforts of livestock growers to boost the carrying capacity of pastures
as more emphasis is placed upon livestock
production.
Although there was a slight increase in total
land use, the number of farms in the five southwestern states declined 10 percent between
1959 and 1964 to 376,985. The largest decrease in farm numbers occurred in Louisiana,
and the smallest in Oklahoma. As a consequence of the reduction in farm numbers, the
average size of farms in the southwestern states
in 1964, at 733 acres, was 75 acres larger than
in 1959. Among the states, the average farm
size varied greatly, as indicated in the following table.
state
Arizona . ....... . .... . ...
Louisiana . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .
New ~erico .......... .. .
Oklahoma .. ..... . . .. .. . .
Texas ..... .. ...... .. .. .
acres
6,262
167
3,354
407
691
Data on the number of southwestern farms
in various size groups show that farms having
under 220 acres decreased but those having
more than 259 acres increased. The largest
absolute decline was accounted for by farms
4
DISTRIBUTION OF FARMS, BY SIZE
Under 100
100 To 179
180 To 219
220 To 259
260 To 449
500 To 999
2,000 And Over
o
16
8
24
32
PERCENT OF ALL FARMS
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of tha Canlul.
with less than 50 acres, while the number of
farms with 1,000 to 2,000 acres registered the
greatest gain.
Despite the enlargement of individual farming operations, management and a major part
of the labor continue to be provided by the
farm family. Farm operators have increased
acreages in farms in order to take advantage
of economies of scale, offset environmental conditions, and adjust for Government programs.
Furthermore, the number of enterprises per
farm has generally been reduced, as operators
have moved toward a greater degree of specialization in production. Advancements in production techniques and the ability of management to direct the use of more resources have
permitted the enlargement of farm size. Although farms are getting larger, acreage alone
does not constitute a measurement of output.
A small farm, in terms of acreage, that is
irrigated or is in a higher-rainfall area may
have gross sales several times those of a farm
of the same type that is much larger but is
located in a dryland area.
. The Census of Agriculture classifies farms
Into two major categories, commercial and
noncommercial. The basis for the division is
the value of products sold and the number of
days worked off the farm. Between 1959 and
19 64, there was a 10-percent reduction in the
number of noncommercial farms in the south~estern states, a slightly larger decline than
In the case of commercial farms. Most of the
decrease in the number of noncommercial
farms is attributed to a decline of 20,000 in
part-time farms. The number of southwestern
farms having sales of less than $2,500 and
b'
elUg operated by persons over 65 years of
age, which may be classed as part-retirement
farms, increased slightly, but two of the five
~at~s .reported decreases for this type of farm .
oUlslana experienced the greatest, and Texas
the smallest, percentage reduction in noncommercial farms.
Commercial farms are divided into six
classes according to the value of products sold,
as shown in the accompanying table. Between
1959 and 1964, the growth in farms with sales
of $40,000 or more was 9 percent for the five
states but varied widely among the individual
states. The sharpest percentage increase, as
well as the largest absolute gain, in the number
of such farms occurred in Louisiana, followed
closely by Oklahoma.
Except for Louisiana, each of the southwestern states experienced declines in the numbers of farms with sales between $10,000 and
$39,999; and all the states showed decreases
for farms with sales volumes of $2,500 to
$9,999. In contrast, there was a 29-percent
increase in the southwestern states in the number of commercial farms with sales volumes of
under $2,500, but the extent of the gain ranged
widely among the various states. The gain in
Texas was 45 percent, compared with 1 percent in Louisiana.
The rapid growth in both the acreage and
the value of products sold per farm has been
accompanied by greater mechanization. Few
crops are grown that do not lend themselves
to some degree of mechanical harvesting, and
most of the major cash crops can be grown almost completely without the use of hand labor.
FARMS IN THE FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES, BY ECONOMIC CLASS
--
Number
Class of fa rm
1964
Commercia l farms
Class I (Sales of $4
...
.
).
..
CI
0,000 or more
......
sS
CI:
11 (Sa les of $20,000 to $39,999) . .. .
CIa ss II I (Sales of $10,000 to $19,999) . ..
CI ss IV (Sales of $5,000 to $9,999)
sS
CI:
V (Sa les of $2,500 to $4,999) ..
Oth Ss VI (Sales of $50 to $2,499)
.. .
er farms
Part·ti
.
.
..
. .. . . . .
da me (Operator working off farm 100
Part ~: .or more, sa les of $50 to $2,499) .
a~d tlrement (Operator 65 years old
Abnor,.;:ver, sal~s of $50 to $2,499) ..
insn a~. (PubliC and private
All f ' u lanaI farms, etc.)
. . ...
arms . . .
-......::....
. . . ... . . ,
As a percentage of:
All farms
Commercial f a rms
1964
1959
1964
1959
..
1959
220,61 0
18,446
24,132
35 ,871
42,837
47,773
51,551
244,026
16,853
26,099
42,739
54,802
63,492
40,041
58.5
4.9
6.4
9.5
11.3
12.7
13.7
58.3
4.0
6.2
10.2
13.1
15.2
9.6
156,375
174,677
41.5
41.7
103,057
122,899
27.3
29.3
53,015
51,389
14.1
12.3
303
389
.1
.1
376,985
418,703
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.4
10.9
16.3
19.4
21.7
23.3
100.0
6.9
10.7
17.5
22.5
26.0
16.4
Fa~:~'th
In general, all farms with a total value of products so ld amounting to $2,500 or more are classified as commercial.
not Work' sales of $50 to $2,499 are c lassified as commercial if the farm operator was under 65 years of age and (1) he did
fami ly f off the farm 100 or more days during the year and (2) the income received by th e op erator and members of his
SOUR~~ nonfarm sources was less than the value of al l farm products sold .
. U.S. Bu reau of the Census.
business review/april 1967
5
The farm operator is encouraged to substitute
capital (equipment) for labor in order to reduce costs and remove some of the weather
risks involved in getting a crop from the field.
The handling of livestock also is highly mechanized, and, with the aid of modern equipment, one worker can now perform the tasks
of several people. Therefore, both the numbers
and the sizes of tractors, combines, haying
equipment, corn pickers, and similar machines
have been increased.
The basic Source of power for most farm
equipment is usually the farm tractor; and continuing the trend that has been under way since
data on farm tractors became available, the
number of tractor units increased in all five
states between 1959 and 1964. Although the
total number of tractors in the southwestern
states rose 5 percent, the gain does not fully
reflect the increase in horsepower used, since
most of the units now are more powerful than
those a few years ago.
Increases in farm sizes and the usage of
modern technology have been accompanied by
further changes in the tenure of farm operators.
As the number of farmers has declined, reductions have also occurred in the numbers of
farms operated by full owners and tenants. The
number of tenant-operated farms in the Southwest declined the largest amount - 26 percent - between 1959 and 1964. The 8-percent
decrease in farms operated by full owners is
attributed to the sale of farms, retirements,
and the rental of farms by other operators to
expand their units. On the other hand, the
number of farms operated by part owners was
virtually unchanged in the southwestern states.
High land values and rising operating costs have
encouraged many owners of smaller farms to
rent additional land, rather than buy acreage.
Despite the decline in the number of full
owners, the proportion of all farms operated
by full owners in the southwestern states in
1964 was slightly larger than 5 years earlier.
DISTRIBUTION OF SOUTHWESTERN FARM OPERATORS, BY TENURE
1964
1959
100%
1964
FULL OWNERS
SOURCE: U.S. Bu,oau of tho Con.us.
6
1959
1964
PART OWNERS
1959
1964
1959
1964 1959
Part Owners showed a larger percentage increase than did full owner-operators, while the
p~oportion of farms operated by tenants declIned moderately.
I Farm operators are still climbing the tenure
adder toward farm ownership · and as the size
o~ farm units expands, there 'are more farms
t at require full-time operators. However, the
percentage of all farmers reported as working
~ their farms 100 days or more is increasing.
h odern equipment and production techniques
f ave advanced to a level which permits some
armers to work their farms in less time than
preViously. Thus, some operators are not em.
ployed full time on their present units. The
expansion of their farms to a size that would
require a full-time operator may be considered
affless desirable alternative than employment
o the farm. Furthermore, the labor requirements for some farm enterprises are such that
other members of the farm family may perform
most of the work.
The expanding nonfarm economy has made
. b
~o s aVailable on a full-time, part-time, or
edasonal basis; and this fact has facilitated the
re U.cf Lon 10 excess farm labor as agricultural
.
.
etIiClencY lUcreases and has provided supple~lental income to those remaining in agriculural pUrsuits. The percentage of southwestern
f armers wh
.
tUniti . 0 availed themselves of these oppor. es lUcreased 7 percent from 1959 to 1964.
A. nzona w h
in
as t e only southwestern state reportg a relative decline in the number of farmers
working 0 ff the farm, and Texas showed the
la
rgest increase.
opContrary to popular opinion, the age of farm
·
·
.
erators is no t lUcreasmg at a rapId rate. The
average age of farmers in the Southwest increased only 1 year between 1959 and 1964.
The variation in ages of farm operators among
the five states is narrow, with the average ages
ranging from 50 in Arizona to 53 in Texas.
With the exception of Oklahoma, there were
decreases in the number of farmers 65 years
of age and over.
Education is very important to the successful
operation of any complex enterprise of today.
In recognition of the importance of schooling,
the 1964 Census of Agriculture reports, for the
first time, the level of education attained by
farm operators. A working knowledge of production techniques, credit arrangements, and
market developments is needed if management
is to be effective. In 1964, over 70 percent of
the farmers in the southwestern states had
completed 8 years or more of formal education, and one-third of the farmers had completed high school or 1 to 4 years of college.
The structural changes in southwestern agriculture have made family farms more productive and, in most instances, have increased the
level of living for farm families. The transition
of the family farm from a way of life to an
efficient business enterprise has been accomplished rather smoothly. Further adjustments
likely will occur, but the family farm is expected to continue as the basic unit in the
agricultural economy. The improvements made
in highways, mechanization, electrical power,
and modes of transportation have enabled farm
families to enjoy many of the advantages of
both rural and urban life. The larger farm income is divided among fewer farmers; consequently, money incomes are increasing.
J. C. GRADY, JR.
~------------------------------------------------------------,
new
par
banl~
The La Pryor State Bank, La Pryor, Texas, an insured nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the San Antonio Branch of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on March 17, 1967. The officers are:
C. P. Spangler, Jr., President, and Mary Allen, Cashier.
business review/april 1967
7
interbank deposits
When a bank establishes a demand deposit
at another bank, the former holds an asset
which appears on its balance sheet as "demand
balances with banks in the United States,"
while the latter holds a liability, "demand deposits of commercial banks in the United
States."l These deposits between banks, or interbank deposits, play an important role in American banking.
In the Eleventh Federal Reserve District,
interbank deposits are particularly important.
For example, on December 31, 1966, member
banks in the Eleventh District held $1.7 billion
of demand deposits of banks in the United
States, or an amount «omprising 16.9 percent
of their total demand deposits. In addition, as
of the same date, member banks in the District
maintained demand deposits at domestic commercial banks of $1.3 billion, a figure which
was equal to 13.5 percent of the District's total
demand deposits.
The magnitude of these interbank deposits
clearly indicates the importance of one of the
oldest institutional arrangements in commercial banking, the correspondent relationship
between banks. This relationShip evolved out
of a number of historical characteristics of the
American banking system - the restrictions
on branch banking within many states, the
prohibition against establishing branch banks
1 Demand balances with banks in the United States
are usually referred to as "due from banks" while
demand deposits of commercial banks in th~ United
States are called "due to banks." For all banks in
the Nation as a group, the amount due from banks
should equal the amou~t due 10 banks; but because
of a number of techmcal factors, these two items
do not balance. For anyone Federal Reserve district
"due from banks" will not equal "due to banks" be:
cause of these technical factors and, also, because of
the existence of interbank deposits between districts.
8
across state lines, and the lack of a central
bank until after 1913.
As a result of the limitations on branching,
both intrastate and interstate, the American
banking system is typified by a large number
of relatively small banks. In order to assure
adequate service to their depositors and borrowers and, also, to increase the efficiency of
their operations, these smaller banks have relied upon the development of a working relationship with larger city banks. Furthermor~,
because of the absence of a central bank unttl
after 1913 and because of the fact that only
about one-half of all commercial banks are
members of the Federal Reserve System today,
many banks have relied upon the larger bankS
as a "kind of" central bank.
A correspondent relationship exists between
two banks when one bank deposits funds in the
other bank and, in turn, receives a number of
services. The depositing bank is known as the
country correspondent, while the depositorY
bank is known as the city correspondent. The
designations "city" and "country" bear no relationship, however, to the Federal Reserve
classification of banks as "reserve city" or
"country" banks.
In return for the demand deposit by the
country correspondent, upon which, of course,
no interest is paid, the city correspondent provides a number of services to the depositing
bank. One of the most important of these is
check clearing. While this service is of greatest
importance to nonmember banks, it is also irllportant to smaller member banks since manY
of the small member banks often clear checks
with their correspondents as an alternative ~r
supplement to clearing the checks through theIr
Federal Reserve bank.
Other services which the city correspondent
?rovides are advice on the management of the
InVestment portfolio of the country corresponde~t, participation in loans of a magnitude
whIch is beyond the legal limit of the smaller
banks, buying and selling of Federal funds on
behalf of the country correspondent, and data
~rocessing. In addition, within relatively narrow
itmits, correspondent balances provide a source
of liquidity to the depositing bank. In return
;o~ these services, the city correspondent obams a source of funds (and, therefore, of inCome), one which represents a significant part,
often 20 to 30 percent or more, of the demand
deposits of the large bank.
INTBERBANK DEPOSITS RELATED TO MEMBER
ANK DEMAND DEPOSITS, BY FEDERAL
RESERVE DISTRICT, JUNE 30, 1966
unit banking or limited branch banking is the
dominant form of banking structure. This tendency is to be expected since it is the existence
of small unit banks which creates the need for
correspondent relationships and, hence, interbank deposits. As a proportion of total demand
deposits, commercial bank demand deposits on
June 30, 1966, ranged from a high of 15.0
percent in the Eighth District (St. Louis) to
a low of 3.1 percent in the Twelfth District
(San Francisco). The Eleventh District, with
14.3 percent of total demand deposits in the
form of commercial bank deposits, ranked
second among the 12 Federal Reserve districts.
The five Federal Reserve districts with the
largest percentages - St. Louis, Dallas, Kansas
City, Minneapolis, and Atlanta - are districts
in which unit banking or limited branch banking is the dominant form of banking structure.
DISTRICT
PERCENT OF TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS
. . COMMERCIAL BANK
DEMAND DEPOSITS
SOURCE: Board of Gov.rnora, Fodoral
DEMAND BALANCES
ITH DOMESTIC BANKS
R8 so~vo Syatom.
a The amount of correspondent balances, on
ab~elative Or ~n absolute basis, varies considert Y from dIstrict to district. These deposits
d~nd. to bUlk quite large in Federal Reserve
stncts, such as the Eleventh District, in which
When one looks at interbank deposits from
the point of view of the depositing bank rather
than the depository bank, it is clear that a
similar ranking exists. In this case, though, the
Eleventh Federal Reserve District, with 11 .8
percent, ranked highest in terms of demand
balances with banks in the United States as
a percentage of total demand deposits in
the District. The Second District (New York)
ranked lowest with 1.8 percent. This showing
is expected because New York City, as the
Nation's leading financial center, is the ultimate
focal point of the deposits of banks and, as
such, has a relatively small need for maintaining deposits at other banks. Here again, the
five Federal Reserve districts with the largest
amount of demand balances with banks as a
percentage of total demand deposits are those
districts which are characterized by unit or
limited branch banking-Dallas, Atlanta, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Minneapolis.
An analysis of the relationship between the
size of bank and the amount of interbank deposits for all member banks in the Eleventh
Federal Reserve District demonstrates tllat, as
business review/april 1967
9
INTERBANK DEPOSITS RELATED TO MEMBER
BANK DEMAND DEPOSITS, BY BANK SIZE,
DECEMBER 31, 1966
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
DEMAND
DEPOSIT GROUP
(Millions of Dollars)
., ..
PERCENT OF TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS
DEMAND BALANCES
WITH DOMESTIC BANKS
bank size increases, (1) the relative amount of
commercial bank deposits rises and (2) the
amount of demand balances with domestic
banks as a percentage of total demand deposits
falls. These relationships are expected since it
is the larger city banks which serve as depositories for correspondent balances, while it is
the smaller country banks which are the depositing banks.
As of December 31, 1966, for example,
Eleventh District member banks with total
demand deposits of less than $10 million had,
on the average, only about 2 percent of their
demand deposits in the form of deposits of
other commercial banks. However, banks with
$100 million or more in demand deposits obtained, on the average, over 20 percent of these
funds from other commercial banks. Finally,
the largest banks in the District, those with de-
10
mand deposit balances of $500 m illi ~n Of
more, obtained almost 30 percent of their demand deposits from commercial banks.
From the point of view of the depositi~g
banks it is evident that the smaller banks 111
the District maintain balances with other banks
which equal a substantial portion of their total
demand deposits. For example, banks in the
District with less than $2 million in total demand deposits on December 31, 1966, maiOtained demand balances with banks in the
United States that were equal to slightly more
than 20 percent of their total demand deposits.
On the other hand, the larger banks in the
District maintained a quantity of demand balances with banks which represented a much
smaller proportion of their total demand deposits, about 10 percent in the case of ba~ks
with $150 million or more in demand deposits .
While there are many banks in the Eleventh
District with commercial bank demand balances the fact that such deposits are most
impo;tant for the large banks indicates that
these large banks hold a substantial share of the
total amount of commercial bank demand balances in the District. The concentration of bani
demand deposits among the largest banks in
the District is as follows.
percent of
number
total bank
of
demand deposits
banks
5 largest .. .. .....
10 largest ..... . . .
15 largest . .. . ... .
20 largest . .... . . .
50.7
65.3
71.6
74.9
As indicated above, the five largest banks in
the District, measured in terms of total demand
deposits on December 31, 1966, held roughlY
one-half of all commercial bank demand deposits. The 20 largest banks held about threefourths of the total.
As a result of the historical development of
the American banking system with its large
numbers of relatively small commercial banks,
correspondent relationships among banks~nd, hence, interbank deposits - perform an
~portant role in the financial system . In the
leventh Federal Reserve District interbank
~eposits are particularly importan;, primarily
ecause of the unit banking structure in most
of the District. In fact, the Eleventh District
ranks second and first, respectively, in comme rClal bank demand deposits as a percentage
.
of total demand deposits and in demand bal-
ances with domestic banks as a percentage of
total demand deposits.
The distribution of interbank deposits is
directly· related to bank size in the case of demand balances of commercial banks, with the
five largest banks in the District holding about
50 percent of the total. The distribution, however, is inversely related to bank size in the
case of demand balances with banks.
DON ALD
R.
FRASER
distl-ict highlights
1Total nonagricultural wage and salary emP oYment in the five southwestern states in Feb~ary, at 5,558,100, was virtually unchanged
~m the previous month. There is usually a
SIght . .
gam In total employment in the Southwest
b
etween January and February. Manufacturing
~mPI?yment rose fractionally, with strength evioent In ordnance and transportation equipment.
n the other hand, nonmanufacturing employnlent h
i
s Owed almost no change. Employment
t~~ansPortation and public utilities, along with
men~' . eased. However, government employlllcreased 1 percent and gains also were
POSted·· and finance employment.
'
m serVIce
l
Nonagncultural employment in the five
.
states· F b
ab
In e ruary was more than 6 percent
emo~e the year-earlier figure. Manufacturing
oyment posted a notable gain of 7 percent.
e the nonmanufacturing categories registered
Y ar-to-yea .
.
did
r mcreases except mllllllg, whIch
in no.t change. Construction employment,
partIcular, exhibited strength and was 11
Percent h
Ell1 I a ead. of the comparable 1966 figure.
p °Yment m services showed an increase
A.lt
of 8 percent, and for government the rise was
almost 8 percent.
The Texas industrial production index, seasonally adjusted, decreased more than 2 percent in February to 150.7 percent of the
1957-59 base. Total durable goods manufacturing eased 2 percent. Rather large declines were
exhibited by furniture and fixtures, electrical
machinery, and stone, clay, and glass products;
on the other hand, output of transportation
equipment rose during the month. Nondurable
goods manufacturing showed no change. Paper
and allied products and the printing, publishing, and allied industries registered relatively
strong increases, as contrasted to declines in
apparel and allied products and in leather and
leather products. Decreases were posted by a
few other nondurable goods manufactures.
Within the mining sector, there was a production gain in metal, stone, and earth minerals
but a decline in crude petroleum mining.
Industrial production in the State in February was 7 percent above a year earlier, which
business review/ april 1967
11
is similar to the year-to-year gain for recent
months. Total durable goods manufacturing
rose 11 percent, with transportation equipment,
machinery except electrical, and furniture and
fixtures advancing the most rapidly. The nondurable goods sector, although increasing less,
rose more than 5 percent. Output of textile
mill products and printing, publishing, and
allied industries expanded significantly, but
production of many other nondurable manufactures advanced also.
Department store sales in the Eleventh District for the 4 weeks ended March 25 were 11
percent above the corresponding period a year
ago. The sales strength during March partly
reflected buying for the earlier Easter this year.
Cumulative sales through March 25, 1967,
were 5 percent more than in the comparable
1966 period.
Totaling 15,709 in February, registrations
of new passenger automobiles in Dallas, Fort
Worth, Houston, and San Antonio eased 1
percent below January. However, activity in the
individual markets during the month varied
considerably, ranging from a 16-percent decrease in San Antonio to a 7-percent increase
in Houston. Cumulative registrations in the
four Texas markets for the first 2 months of
the year were 7 percent under those for the
same period of 1966.
Although there was some precIpitation in
late March, a shortage of soil moisture continues over much of the Eleventh District.
Small grains are critically in need of rain, and
planting of spring crops in many areas will be
delayed until moisture is received. Planting of
cotton, corn, and grain sorghums in the early
areas is under way and is slightly ahead of last
year's schedule. Rice seeding is active, following beneficial rains over much of the producing area. Livestock remain in fair to good
condition, with supplemental feeding continu-
12
ing. Grazing has been limited in most areas, as
cold weather and the lack of rain have retarded
plant growth.
Farmers in the five southwestern states plan
to seed about 26 million acres to spring-planted
crops this year, or 3 percent more than ill
1966, according to a March 1 survey by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The increase
is attributed to larger acreages of sorghums,
soybeans, and sugar beets. Among other crops,
there is a wide variation in planned acreage,
ranging from no change for rice to a 64-percen l
decline for flax.
Negotiable time certificates of deposit issued
in denominations of $100,000 or more have
shown unusual strength at the weekly reporting
commercial banks in the Eleventh District thuS
far this year. Between February 15 and March
15, 1967, these large CD's registered a gain of
$12 million, in contrast to declines averaging
$24 million during the comparable periods ill
1964-66. Usually, the volume of large CD'S
outstanding declines in the weeks immediatelY
preceding the March 15 corporate tax and
dividend payments, as corporations draw down
their bank time deposits in order to make theSe
payments. In 1967, however, the rapid declineS
in money rates - especially rates on Treasury
bills - relative to CD rates have made this instrument extremely attractive to short-term investors. Consequently, the "normal" seasonal
pattern has been obscured thus far in 1967.
The pattern of strength established for CD'S
in the District also holds for the Nation as a
whole. The volume of CD's outstanding at the
large New York banks decreased only $80 rnillion in the week ended March 15, which is
substantially less than the declines for corliesponding periods in earlier years. SimilarlY,
large CD's at all weekly reporting commercial
banks, in contrast to the pattern of previoUS
years, rose $417 million in the 4-week period
ended March 15.
SliATISTICAL StlP.P.I!EMENT
to the
BUSINESS REVIEW
April 1967
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS
CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS
RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federa) Reserve District
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Ave rag es of daily figures. In thousands of dollars)
;:::;
(In thousands of dollars)
Item
Mar. 29,
1967
Feb. 22,
1967
Mar. 30
1966'
ASSETS
Net loan s and di scounts .... . ....... ........ .. .
Valuation reserves . ... . ... .. . ..... .. ...... . . .
Gross loans and discounts . .... . ....... . ...... .
5,212,355
97,103
5,309,458
5,009,943
98,543
5, 108,486
4,966,287
88,605
5,054,892
Commercial and industrial loans ... ... .. ..... .
Agricultural loans ' .. ... . .................. .
loans to brokers and dealers for
purcha si ng or carrying :
U.S . Government securities . ... .... . .. .. .. .
Other securities . ..................... . . .
Oth er loan s for purcha sing or carrying :
U.S . Government securities . .............. .
2,493,903
91,097
2,503,716
89,681
2,319,632
61,996
56,502
32,173
16,002
34,693
250
52,407
1,091
302,265
1,296
311,259
2,763
316,051
17 1,389
266,405
463,848
362,842
3,610
515,029
146,229
253,423
462,783
217,849
3,494
511'242}
159,020
275,059
454,407
136,640
9,0 12
Oth er securities . ... .... . .... ... ..... .. . .
loans to nonbank financial institutions:
Sales flnonce, p ers onal flnance, factors,
and other bu si ness credit companies .... .. .
Other .....••.•.•••.•••••..•••••.•..• ..
Real estate loans.•. ............ . . . ........
loans to dome stic commercial banks . . .. ...... .
Loons to foreign banks . ..•..... .. .•.. ... ...
Consumer in stalment /oans. . • . ...............
Lo?ns:o foreign governments, offlcial
In st itutions, etc ..•. .......................
Other loans 2 •• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Total investments . ...................••......
o
556,819
2,223,849
1,070,888
40,896
15,182
129,284
629,999
255,527
95tm}
Balances with banks in the United States•.... .. ..
Balances with banks in foreign countries .• ••.. . ..
Other assets • •. . . .. .••.....•.•......••....•.
118,649
66,625
732,238
634,752
76,355
443, 199
4,845
329,984
118,872
73,532
816,776
673,136
72,935
494,546
4,1 10
325,920
741,888
530,698
69,298
456,038
3,763
326,772
TOTAL ASSETS.... . ....................
9,717,348
9,621,215
644,965
595,975
48,990
638,960
6,005
343
5,662
593,053
547,880
45,173
5811,564
4,489
8,643
-4,154
661,073
507,600
153,473
626,052
35,021
2,987
32,034
673,042
510,800
162,242
631,019
42,023
1,955
40,068
623,602
477,408
146,194
589,234
34,368
9,041
25,327
1,277,158
1,078,800
198,358
1,252,646
24,5 12
4,683
19,829
1,318,007
1,106,775
211 ,232
1,269,979
48,028
2,298
45,730
1,216,655
1,025,288
191,367
1,177,798
38,857
17,684
21, 173
With Federal Reserve Bank ....
Currency and coin .. . ... .. ...
Requi.red
1'0\01'\'0\ • • ••••• ••••••
Excess reserves . ..............
Borrowings ... . ... .... .. ......
Free reserves . .. ..............
--
Mar. 2, 1966
COUNTRY 8ANKS
Total rese rves held ..... . ......
With Federal Reserve Bank ... .
Currency and coin ... ........
Re quired reserves . •...........
Excess reserves . ... .. ... .. ....
Borrowings .. ........ . ... .. . . .
Free reserves • ........ . .......
All MEMBER BANKS
Total reserves held ... ... . .....
With Federal Reserve Bank ... .
Currency and coin ....... ....
Required reserves . •......... . .
Excess reserves ... ............
Borrowing s•. •.•••........ .. ..
Free reservos • . ..•............
107,555
608,979
355,322
6,667
967,756
616,085
571,200
44,885
6'26,594
-10,509
1,696
-12,205
RESERVE CITY BANKS
Totol reserves held . ...........
1,1 41, 130
49,425
19,849
150,548
622,403
262,953
4 weeks en ded
---
2,185,215
1,123,923
72,904
15,115
Item
4 weeks end ed
Feb. I, 1967
31,267,655
549,304
2,283,620
4 weeks ended
Mar. I, 1967
9,279,959
Total U.S. Government securities ..•. ..........
Treasury bills .. ............. .. ......... .
Treasury certiflcates of indebtedness ...... . .
Treasury note s and U.S. bonds maturing:
Within 1 year ....... . ............... .
1 year to 5 years . . ......... . •........
After 5 years ........................ .
Obligations of states and political subdivisions:
Tax warrants and short· term notes and bills . .
All other ••••••• ••• .•••• ..••• •••..••.•..
Other bonds, corporate stocks, and securities:
Participation certlflcates in Federal
agency loans 2 •• ••••• ••••••••••• •• ••••
All ather (Including corporate stocks) ••.. •• ••
Cash items in process of collection .. •.... . ......
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank ••.. ..... . . . .
Currency and coin ....... ................... .
o
CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DAllAS
(In thousands of dollars)
Item
1,044,085
Mar. 29,
1967
Total gold certiflcate reserves ••.•.. •....••••
Discounts for member bonks • ...............
Oth er discounts and advances . . •..•.....•.•
U.S. Government securiti es • ....... .........
Total earning assets .. ••. . • ......• . .....•..
Member bank reserve d eposits .. . •.• .••.....
Federal Reserve notes in actual circulation •....
457,070
2,805
580
1,770,171
1,773,556
1,033,685
1,245,813
439,800
10,638
o
1,869,356
1,879,994
1,110,316
1,237,228
CONDITION STATISTICS OF All MEMBER BANKS
LIABILITIES
Total deposits ........•. ...........•........
8,413,916
8,211,100
8,042,622
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
Total demand deposits ... .•......... , ..... .
5,019,631
3,375,898
312,885
131 ,836
1,100,492
4,866,147
3,278,234
299,083
137,456
1,076,101
4,759,622
3,211,649
319,237
95,312
1,032,229
(In millions of dollars)
3,256
21,537
73,727
3,394,285
2,935
21,642
50,696
3,344,953
2,374
19,750
79,07 1
3,283,000
1,115,808
1,593,689
652,474
10,808
19,976
1,106,670
1,553,255
658,910
8,789
15,799
1,325,459
' 1,373,652
564,328
3,344
13,377
800
730
800
730
1,300
1,540
Individuals, partnerships, and corporations ...•
States and political subdivisions . .......... .
U.S. Government . . .................. . .. .
Banks in the United States.... ............ .
Foreign :
Governments, offlcial Institutions, etc .• .....
Commercial banks .... ................ .
Certlfled and offlcers' checks, etc . . ........ .
Total time and savings deposits .... ......... .
Individuals, partnerships, and corporations:
Savings deposits . .. .... . .. ......... . . .
Oth er time d e posits .•.. ................
States and political subdivisions ..... ...... .
U.S. Government (Including postal savings) . . .
Banks in tho United States ..... ........... .
Foreign:
Governments, offlcial institutions, etc .... •..
Commercial banks . .•..................
Bills payable, rediscounts, and other
liabilities for borrowed money ... •. .........•
Other liabilities ••.....•.•...•. •. •..•..••..•.
27 1,314
173,859
378,644
178,083
256,169
167,619
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS ....................... .
858,259
853,388
9,717,348
9,621,215
9,279,959
Loans and discounts 1 • • ••••• ••• ••••••••••
U.S. Government obligations .••... .. ......
Other securities l . •••. .•. . . . . . . . . . '" .. ..
Reserve s with Federal Reserve Bank .•••.. ..
Cash in vault . ... ... ............... ... .
Balance s with banks In th e United States ....
Balances with banks in foreign countrieso . •..
Cash items in process of collection . • .......
Other assets o •••. ............ .. .. " . . ..
TOTAL ASSETse . ....................
8,692
2,300
2,293
1,110
217
1,1 27
6
923
503
8,429
2,453
1,992
823
207
1,04l
8,669
2,298
2,271
1,108
230
1,084
7
910
485
17,171
Demand deposits of banks ..... •... • .....
Other d emand d eposits .. .... . ... .... ....
Time deposits •.. .....••........... . '" .
1,334
7,552
6,183
15,069
389
242
1,471
15,044
322
229
1,467
--
~
1,330
7,674
6,040
Total deposits ..... .... ... . .... .... . .
777
412
~
17,062
--
Borrowings .... ........................
Other lIabllities e .......................
1
2
Jan. 25,
1967
LIABilITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Total capitol accounts e • ........... " ....
Because of format and coverage revisions as of Jul y 6, 1966, earl ie r data are not
fully comparable.
:! Certificates of participation in Federal agency loans include Commodity Credit
Corporation certificates of inte rest previously included in I I Agricultural loons" and
Export.' mport Bank participations previously included in "Other loans."
3 Amount includes depos its accumulated for payment of instalment loans; as a result
of a change in Fede ral Reserve regulations, effective June 9, 1966, such deposits are no
longer reRorted.
Feb. 22,
1967
ASSETS
813,549
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Item
TOT Al lIA81llTIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe.... . . ........ ... .....
1
17,171
-
1,196
7403
5:6 10
14,209
326
216
1,389
-
~
=----.n
17,062
Begmn .
• lng J une 15 , l ' Credit Corporation certificates of intoras t
.9?6, ,Commodity
~,xport.'mport. Bank partiCipations are included in " Oth er securities
Loan s and discounts ."
e-
Estimated.
to
,
rather th
d
011
BANK DEB ITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOS ITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts in thou sa nds, seas onally adiusted)
~==================================================================
DE81TS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change
-
1967
(Annual·rate
ba.I.)
Standard metropolitan
statistical area
~I~~I~~':' u~on • ... .•.. ..•... . .••••••.••..• . ..• . ••
.
~:~i~~I~:' : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
8 ea umont·Port Arthur • ••......••. .• • •.••..• • ••
C,ownsvill e- Ha rling en-San Benito . .••........ . ...
~~tr,",ii··• . · • ·• ·•· • •·•·• ·•
•·
Ha
veston_T
eXes
City ................. . ... ... •
~b~~~:':': ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mfdla~d·Phorr-Edinburg •• •. • • ..•• .•.••. ......••
fo~e~~~;id.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:
T~~Q~~~~{iex e s- Arkansa s) ... ............ .. . . .
TI
..... ..... .... .. ..... ..... ... ...
i~iit~: ~~il ;::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::
---
Totol_27 cen ters
.. .. . ... ..... ....... .... . ... . ......
2 months,
January
February
1967
4,301,076
2,111,6 16
6,021,432
627,456
1,925, 136
4,706,520
4,403,316
5,585,256
1,294,980
3,920,352
351,624
66,836,256
5,084,040
14,524,632
2,258,940
62,844,756
585,984
3,248,484
1,269,060
1,471,572
1,175,244
973,428
11 ,682,792
1,286,016
1,559,9 16
2,069,964
2,062,440
onroe ... . .. .......•. .. .... .. .........
NEW MEX Shreveport • •.....•....••...........•...•
TEX
ICO. Ro.well' • .•...•..••.•.•••.. • .•.• . ••..
AS. Abilene
Annual rate
of turnover
February 1967 from
February
1966
4
14
8
-5
2
12
-4
4
-7
-3
1
-2
-1
0
9
-4
-3
2
-2
- 11
-4
7
-5
5
-6
-6
-2
-----
11
7
17
-5
7
0
18
12
-6
6
6
10
7
7
10
9
6
- 12
7
-8
1
9
1
28
-4
3
0
-2
$214, 182,288
February
January
February
1967
1967
1966
26.7
27.8
27.4
19.0
20.5
34.5
23.6
25.1
21.2
21.8
12.3
40.1
24. 1
28.9
23.4
32.6
17.8
23.5
17.4
12.6
17.7
16.9
23.3
22.2
19.2
19.3
18.3
26.1
24.6
25.3
19.7
20.3
30.6
24.6
24.7
23.8
22.4
12.7
40.6
25.0
28.6
21.3
34.4
18.6
23.1
17.4
14.3
19.6
15.5
25.0
21.1
20.0
20.6
19.3
24.4
25.2
25. 1
19.0
19.5
34.2
19.9
23.9
23.5
21.1
11.1
37.5
24.0
27.1
23.4
29.7
19.0
24.6
16.6
14.1
17.1
16.0
23.3
19.0
19.4
19.7
17.8
$7,206,547
9
3
14
-3
6
0
9
10
-5
8
5
11
10
8
8
10
8
- 12
15
-2
1
5
4
25
1
6
-5
February 28,
1967
163,370
71,939
211,145
33,164
94,942
135,827
188, 136
22 1,785
60,854
183,396
28,662
1,686,884
2 13,778
503,691
93,319
1,949,893
32,864
141,399
72,768
119,616
67,399
55,976
512,586
57,589
83,076
108,186
114,303
1967 from
1966
30.0
30.6
28 .1
----
9
Dopo.its
'
COun ty b 0 f• Individual s, partnerships, and corporation s and of states an d rItlca I su bd'" ons.
po '
IVISl
NOTE
a ~".
.
1
::!
.-
Figu res for 1966 have been revised du e to the use of new se asona l ad lustm en t factors.
GRO SS DEMAN D AND TIME DEPOSITS Of MEMBER BA NKS
Eleventh Federa l Reserve Dis trict
BUI L NG PERM ITS
DI
(Average. of doily Rgure •. In million. of do llars)
~
TIME DEPOSITS
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
~
Tota l
1965. Feb
1966 '
rUary ..•
: February
Septemb~~:
OctObe r
N ovemb ~;.:
1967. December .•
. January
February' .
------.::"
Res erve
Country
city bank.
banks
8,582
8.827
8,797
8,847
8,9 14
9.098
9,352
8,902
4,006
4,027
4,080
4,064
4,061
4,202
4,226
4,020
4,576
4,800
4,717
4,783
4,853
4,896
5,126
4,882
Total
4,984
5,612
5,736
5,726
5,751
5,78 1
5,934
6,09 1
Reserve
city banks
2,438
2,675
2,634
2,595
2,581
2,575
2,645
2,721
VALUATION (Dollar amount. In thou.and.)
Country
bank.
2,546
2,937
3,102
3,1 31
3,170
3,206
3,289
3,370
Percent change
NUM8ER
Area
"'====
~dcrop
1966
Average
1965
1960-64
G rap e fr~i;: : ••.
.. . .... . ...
•.••. • '" . . •.•
2,750
1,800
2,600
3,050
1,784
2,578
~::::::::::::
2,600
5,400
1,300
3,800
1,392
2,414
TeXAS
grang es ..
SOURCE. Us
. . Dep artm ent of Agric ulture.
1967
1967
Feb.
1966
1967 from
1966
2,694
-28
-20
-7
72
232
133
492
2,979
1,249
4,576
2,223
87
28
98
-42
42
-34
112
262
706
233
100
600
3,357
875
1,088
174
3,170
55
248
128
150
112
149
2,053
67
337
123
2,5 17
1,035
12,296
1,861
144
2,879
14,14 1
3,407
8,696
494
28,350
380
1,431
1,001
539
313
48 1
14,758
293
519
640
4,028
2,459
17,445
2,452
398
5,275
28,623
10,094
13,9 13
1,094
45,437
976
2,639
1,614
1,034
943
1,0 10
20,897
459
1,051
1,049
67
-27
139
215
-43
20
-2
-49
67
-18
66
-36
18
64
9
-50
-9
140
77
-2
56
309
-25
33
102
-58
-4 1
-55
Wichita Fall •..
50
136
337
134
45
299
1,797
446
603
103
1,681
27
12 2
64
64
57
74
1,062
42
185
64
-60
274
4
10
60
- 18
-27
-41
-3
136
3
-22
140
-82
-74
-55
130
30
68
6
-55
-47
Totol-24 citie •••
8,207
15,679
$ 101,527
$ 172,383
43
-14
-16
Monroe- West
Monroe .. . ..
Sh reveport ... .
lubb ock •••.. .
Midland . .•..•
Ode ssa .••....
Orang es
2 months,
Jan.
955
Galveston .. •..
Houston .•....
laredo .. '" . .
Indicated
1967
2 mos.
5 11
Tucson •• • •....
Dalla •.••• . • • •
EI Pa .o •.•..••
Fort Worth . •.•
ARIZONA
from
Feb.
1967
2 mos.
AR IZONA
Amarillo ......
Austin ...•....
Beaumont •... .
Brow nsvil le ....
Corpus Christi ..
(In thou.and. of boxe.)
Fe b.
1967
$
1,124
$
LOUIS IANA
TEXAS
Abil e ne • •.• •••
CITRUS fR UIT PROD UCTI ON
Feb. 1967
Port Arthur ••.•
Son Angela .••
San Antonio • . .
Texarkana .. "
Waco . . ......
-32
214
-24
-5
90
- 87
-56
- 66
36
7
94
74
-22
3
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
(In millions of dollars)
(In thousands of barrels)
January-February
February
Ja nuary
1967
1966
1967
1966r
4 13
127
175
111
3,300
1,056
1,430
814
329
115
96
118
2,838
937
1,175
726
337
84
123
130
3,189
903
1,358
928
742
24 1
272
229
6,124
1,989
2,603
1,532
760
337
198
224
7,023
2,74 1
2566
1,716
Percent change from
December
1967
Area and type
=================================
February
January
February
-------------------February
January
-
Area
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' ••......•••••...
Residential building •......
Nonreside ntial building ....
Nonbuildlng construction ..•
UNITED STATES •••••• •...••
Residential building ... ...•
Nonresidential building ... •
Nonbuildlng construction ...
1967p
1966
1967
1966
3,545.4
3,051.3
568.5
1,384.8
131.2
99.4
867.4
321.5
172.6
5,177.8
8,723.2
3,573.1
3,083 .6
569.0
1,409.9
132 .1
100.0
872 .6
316.6
172.9
5,147.0
8,720.1
3,393.3
2,933.4
537.0
1,364.1
123.5
100.5
808.3
307.1
152.8
4,881.0
8,274.3
-0.8
-1.1
-.1
-1.8
-.7
-.6
-.6
1.5
-.2
.6
.0
4.5
4.0
5.9
1.5
6.2
Tex a s........... .... ...
Gulf Coast •..•.•..••..
West Texas ..... . .....
East Texas (p rop er) . ....
Panhandle •.••.. • •... .
Rest of State . .........
South ea stern New Mexico •.
Northern Louisiana .•..... .
OUTSIDE ELEVENTH DISTRICT
UNITED STATES ••.........•
Arizona, louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
r - Revised .
1
NOTE. -
1967p
ELEVENTH DISTRICT. •.••.• •
Deta i ls may not add to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE, F. W. Dodge Company.
p -
Prelim inary.
SOURCES, American Petroleum In st itute.
U.S. Bureau of Mines.
_1.1
7.3
4.7
13.0
6.1
5.4
-
Federal Reserve Bonk of Dallas.
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
Five Southwestern Stotes '
(Seasonally adiu sted indexes, 1957·59
= 100)
Percent change
Feb. 1967 from
Number of persons
February
January
February
Jon.
1967p
1967
1966r
1967
Feb.
1966
Construction ••..... ..•.
5,558,100
1,014,800
4,543,300
232,000
368,700
5,556,500
1,012,600
4,543,900
232,300
371,200
5,225,600
947,500
4,278,100
232,000
331,500
0.0
.2
.0
-.1
- .7
6.4
7. 1
6.2
.0
11. 2
Transportation and
public utilities •.......
Trade . .. .... ...... ·· .
Finance ..•............
Service •.... . . , .......
Gov ernm ent .... .......
425,200
1,277,900
272,900
819,400
1,147,200
428,100
1,287,600
272,000
815,500
1,137,200
408,000
1,219,100
262,700
757,400
1,067,400
-.7
-.8
.3
.5
.9
4.2
4.8
3.9
8.2
7.5
Type of employment
Total nonagricultural
wage and salary workers ..
Manufacturing .........•.
Nonmanufacturing ........
Mining ... .. .. . . .... · .
February
Area and typ e of index
January
Decem b er
1967p
1967
1966r
150.7
169.0
189.5
155.3
115.7
194.5
153.0
170.5
193.7
155.1
120.0
192.3
151.3
170.1
191.0
156.2
1 t6.7
188.3
140.8
156.7
170.5
147.5
109.8
182.7
155.9
157.9
162.6
15 2.0
122.2
176.5
158.0
160.2
165.8
153.1
123.6
176.0
159.0
161.3
167.6
153.5
123.0
176.4
152.4
154.7
160.7
147.3
117.7
168.7
TEXAS
Total industrial production .••...
Manufacturing ... . .... . ... .....
Durablo ..... ................
Nondurable ... . .. . ...........
Mining .••............. . ......
Utilities .......................
UNITED STATES
Total Industrial pro duction ... . . .
Manufacturing .................
Durablo •• .• . .•••.... ... • .. ..
Nondurable ..... . .. ... .......
Mining ....................•..
Utilities •........ •. .. . ...•... . .
Arizona, Loui siana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
p _ Preliminary.
r -
r-
SOURCES, Boord of Gove rno rs of the Federal Reserve System.
1
Revised.
P-
.
SOURCE: State emp loym en t ag enci es.
Federol Reserve Bonk of Dol/a s.
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
~ Dallal Head Offl co Te,rltory
nrrrn Hou l lon Branch Te"llory
il:l:;:;:;:] So n An tonIo Branch
~ Et
4
Pre liminary.
Revi sed .
POlO
Territory
Bra nCh Tertllory
@FedFRASER