The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
lI
ClfAS. C. HALL-W. J. EVANS,
As.istant Federal Reserve Aconte
(Compiled July 15, 1925)
J U 1Y 29
This copy released for publication in morning papers
Volume 10, No.6.
DISTRICT SUMMARY
~"'II"""IIII"IIII'I'IIII .. n l ' I I " ' ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I t I ' ' l l I l l l I r l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i 111111111111.11111111.111111111111111111111111111.11'"1111111111111.111111111111111111111111111111111111.1.111111111111.,111111111111111111111111'"111 ... IIIIIIIIIUIIIII(!]
~.!
'!!..~::'~!~"~ ::'~!. ~';;':..';"
J"~
M.,
-,
Inc. or Dec.
I~~:f~~{~~I~fJ~~'~~€~'~J";'~ ::~~~~;-;;: -; :":::::;;li% :': : : ili~ ~
§
:
Oil production (barrels) ................_....... _.................. _........................... ............................... ...............................
Lumber orders at pine mill. (per cent of normal production) .................................. _............. ..................
~ 14.m:~~g
840/0
$
l~::g~:m
~:~:
88 % Dec.
u
fi'~11
7~:g~ ~
4 points
811111111111111.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'111111111111111111111111'111111111111111111 •• 1.111111111111'1111111 1 11111111111111111111III UIII •• III .....
The cotton and feed situation continues to overshadow
all other factors in business and agriculture in the Eleventh
Federal Reserve District. Following closely upon the report
of exceedingly short wheat and oat crops comes the estimate
of the shortest corn crop in thirty years. The low yields of
these crops means that the farmers of this district will be
forced to make heavy purchases of feed with which to make
next year's crops. In fact, the feed problem has already
r~ached such serious proportions in the south-central counbes of Texas that feed is being shipped ill and emergency
freight rates have been requested on shipments of feed into
the drouth stricken area. The only hope for a feed crop depends upon the proper maturity of the grain sorghums. In
West and northwest Texas fair to good conditions prevail
and many farmers elsewhere are holding themselves in readil:ss to plant as soon as sufficient moisture to germinate
t e seed is obtained. The lack of subsoil moisture and the
dont~n?ed deficiency in rainfall accounts for the steadily
echmng condition of the cotton crop. In the drouth
stri?ken area of south central Texas-the heavy cotton producmg counties-this year's cotton production will be only
slllall perentage of the 1924 yield. While conditions range
rOlll fair to good in the other sections of the district, there
a~e localities in every section where the crop is at a standshll due to the lack of moisture. A factor of no little imPortance is that while the crop in Texas is backward it is
a~anced well beyond normal in a substantial portion of the
er cotton producing area, which may mean that whereas
e:c~s generally leads in the marketing of cotton, thereby
galnmg the advantage of early season prices, this year the
state will probably trail the other states and will lose the
Usual marketing advantage.
f
T
~
'1!]
Despite the unfavorable agricultural development, trade
was well sustained during the past month. Department store
sales reflected a seasonal decline from the previous month,
but were slightly greater than in the corresponding month
last year_ Distribution at wholesale, while reflecting the
normal seasonal recession from last month, was in excess
of a year ago in four reporting lines. Nevertheless orders
are being restricted to goods to cover immediate requirements and merchants are operating very cautiously. Collections are slow in many sections of the district.
There has been a moderate expansion in the demand for
credit accommodations. Federal Reserve Bank loans to
member banks rose $3,100,000 between June 1st and July
15th, as compared to an increase of $2,700,000 during the
corresponding period of 1924.. There was a net decline of
approximately $16,000,000 in the deposits of member banks
during the past month, but on June 24i1:h they were $86,000,000 greater than a year ago.
The district's commercial failure rate showed a marked
improvement during June. Both the number of defaults and
the volume of indebtedness involved were the smallest of
any month of the current year, and were smaller than during the corresponding month of 1924•.
Reflecting the usual seasonal slowing down, the June
volume of new building, as measured by the valuation of
permits issued at principal cities, showed a marked decline
from the previous month. However, June operations were
31 per cent greater than in June last year, and the volume
of building during the first half of 1925 was 9 per cent in
excess of that during the same period of 1924. The production, shipments, and new orders for lumber at Eleventh District mills reflected a furthel: decline. during the month.
CROP CONDITIONS
The continued deficiency in rainfall over practically larger area, accounts for the poor progress of crops during
dV~~y. part of the Eleventh District, ranging from a small the past month and is causing growing anxiety among farme lClency in a few counties to a marked deficiency over Ii ers as to the outcome of this year's crops. Subsoil mois-
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
2
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
ture is lacking in all but a few sections which have had
rains in a sufficient quantity. In parts of New Mexico and
in many of the south-central counties of Texas, the soil contains no available moisture. Added to the deficiency in
rainfall has been the hot winds which have almost totally
destroyed crops in some sections.
The condition of the district's cotton crop showed a
marked decline during the past month. On July 16th the
Texas crop was estimated at 56 per cent of normal, which
represents a decline of 14 points since May 25th. Conditions appear to be fair to good in southeastern Oklahoma,
North Louisiana, and in the north, north-east, north-west,
west, west-center, and Rio Grande Valley sections of Texas.
However, in every section there are localities where the crop
is at a standstill due to the lack of moisture. On account of
the absence of subsoil moisture, rains at frequent intervals
will be needed to keep the cotton growing. The crop is in
all stages of development ranging from plants just up to
those with open bolls. The fields are generally clean and
well cultivated. With the large area on which the cotton
did not come up eliminated, the Texas cotton acreage was
estimated on June 25th by the Department of Agriculture
to be 3 per cent in excess of the large 1924 acreage.
The harvesting of small grains in Texas was completed
under generally ideal conditions, and threshing has made
good progress. The per acre yield of wheat is reported to
be very light this year, being less than half of the average
yield of 18 bushels per acre harvested in 1924. The quality
of the grain is the lowest reported in years, being only 81
per cent. It is estimated that the spring oats averaged 13
bushels per acre, and the fall sown oats 11 bushels. Last
year the per acre yield averaged 34 bushels.
Due to the untoward weather conditions the acreage
planted to corn in Texas this year was estimated at 3,956,000
acres, or a reduction of 14 per cent from the 1924 acreage.
The extreme drouth and hot winds had reduced the condition of the crop to 40 per cent of normal on July 1st. On
the basis of the estimated yield of only 10 bushels per acre,
the indicated production totals 39,560,000 bushels, which is
the smallest production in Texas since 1896. Conditions remain fair to good in localities in north, northeast, east, and
southeast Texas, but the crop is very poor elsewhere. In the
south-central counties the crop was almost a complete failure, there being many localities where the corn was not even
harvested for fodder.
The acreage planted to grain sorp;hums in Texas has been
increased 19 per cent over the 1924 acreage, due to the
heavy abandonment of small grains and the poor stands of
corn. The July 1st condition fip;ure of 81 per cent of normal
indicates a total yield of 49,680,000 bushels as compared to
a production of 4.5,375,000 bushels last year.
The July 1st condition of the Texas rice crop was placed
at 90 per cent of normal, which forecasts a yield for the
state of 5,651,000 bushels as compared to 5,600,000 bushels last year. There has been an increase in acreage in practically every section. Some of the early rice is heading and
in general has come up to a good stand and is starting well.
Special Investigation
of Crop Conditions in
Drouth Area 0/ Texas.
The reports of the exceedingly
poor cC'ndition of crops obtaining in the drouth stricken area of
Texas were confirmed by an inspectiop tour made by a representative of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas through 31 south-central counties
where the drouth is most acute. In addition to these counties
there are a number of adjacent counties, not covered by
our survey, which are affected more or less severely by the
drouth. The investigation brought to light the fact that
the feed crops in every county visited were almost a complete failure. Most of these counties are already obtaining feed from outside sources, and unless sufficient rains
fall in time to enable the farmers to grow a feed crop between now and frost, the farmers will find it necessary to
draw on outside sources for the total feed supply with which
to make the 1926 crops. In many of the counties (especially in the south where the average frost date is late in the
year), farmers have made preparation to plant feed crops
as soon as sufficient precipitation is obtained to germinate
the seed. While there are some few localities where the
prospects for a cotton crop are fair, the cotton crop in
most of the area is very poor. There is a large acreage on
which there has not been sufficient rain to germinate the
seed and these fields are barren. In the fields where the
cotton did come up, the plants are badly stunted and are
blooming prematurely. The effect of the drouth on the
cotton crop may be more clearly visualized when it is realized that these 31 counties produced 1,130,000 bales last
year and that the maximum estimate of this year's production will not exceed 300,000 bales. In the valuation of this
report it should be borne in mind that heavy general rains
at an early date would greatly improve the situation. Such
rains would probably increase the estimated production of
cotton and would enable the farmers to grow feed crops
which would lessen the expense of growing next year's
crops. There is presented below a report by counties on the
condition of the cotton crop.
SPECIAL REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE COTTON CROP IN
THIRTY-ONE SOUTH-CENTRAL COUNTIES OF TEXAS
'S
til)
~r:l.!3
0
a
ro':~~
County:
General Comments
H-~
a·-Ii! Po
'-.~'E!
jQ~.-~
~"C f~
Atascosa
Aus tin
16,648
28,980
68
Bastrop
27655
88
Bell
73,229
86
Bm(nr
26,933
83
•
Brazos
19,805
71
Burleson
25,967
86
Caldwell
51,416
80
Colorado
22,571
68
Comal
Fayette
10.269
83,448
71
Gonzales
44,028
90
Grimes
21,395
81
Guadalupo
Hays
Hill
42,770
19,312
98,950
80
88
50
Houston
80,515
48
Karnes
48,603
83
Lavaca
85,956
•
Lee
10,968
76
Leon
20,865
77
Madison
11,604
71
Medina
7,549
88
Milam
60,102
98
•
Good stand, fairly well fruited.
Plants have quit blooming and cotton
opening prematurely.
Plant badly stu ted. Shedding leaveR,
dyinp: and blooming in top.
Some cotton not up. Plants average
size but blooming prematurely.
Most of cotton not up. Plant badly
stunted.
Much of cotton not uP. Early cotton
fair. Blooming in top.
Plant badly stunted, blooming in toP.
root rotting.
Most fields barren, plants too small
to bloom.
Cotton not up in bottoms. Otherwise
fair stand and fruitage.
Very little cotton up. Very poor.
Poor stand, plant small; blooming in
toP.
Much cotton not up. Good stand
where up. Plant small and blooming
in top.
Plant small. One or two bolls to
stalk. Cotton opening.
Very little cotton up.
Very little cotton up. Fields barren.
Plant small but fruiting fairly well in
part of county.
Plant fair size and well fruited, opening.
Much cotton not up. In sections bolls
are opening and plants dying.
Many fields barren. Plants small and
blooming in top.
Very little cotton up in bottoms.
Plant badly stunted and blooming in
toP.
Fairly good stand. Bolls opening prematurely.
Colton on upland well fruited; in bottoms opening prematurely and dying.
Very little cotton up, plants up are
about an inch high and blooming.
In parts of county plants blooming
prematurely and dying.
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
1
McLennan
104,815
72
Robertson
32,399
98
'!'ravis
45,028
80
Waller
11,386
Waahington
27,913
Williamson
Wilson
106,672
21,652
77
8S
80
f"lants badly stunted. Some cotton is
not up or has died.
Plants badly stun ted and opening prematurely. Cotton in bottom. not up.
Many fields barren.
Plants badly
stun ted and blooming in top.
F ields in bottom barren. Pla nts badly
st unted. One or two bolls to stalk
and opening prematurely.
Very little cotton up in bottoms, elsewhere plants fair s ize and fairly well
fruited.
Much cotton not up. P lants badly
stunted and bloominlr in top.
Much cotton not up. Plants badly
st unted and blooming in top. Some
dying.
' No es Umnle obtained.
LIVESTOCK
A further marked deterioration during the past month
in the condition of ranges in a large area of this district
was reflected in reports received at this bank. In southeastern New Mexico and in the central and southern sections
of Texas, there is little grass or weeds for grazing, stock
water supp ly is low, and livestock are in poor condition.
In southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico
ranges and livestock are in poor condition, but since the
recent heavy rains new feed is starting, livestock are improving and the water supply was replenished. Conditions
vary from fair to excellent in the north·west and westcenter Aections of Texas. In other sections of the district
conditions are irregular, being good in localities where sufficient rain has fallen and poor elsewhere.
The average condition of ranges in Texas was reported
as 71 per cent of normal on July 1st, or a decline of 4
points during the month. The average condition of cattle
remained constant at 75 per cent of normal. The condition
of sheep and sheep ranges gained two points during the
month.
0
3
'1"'11111111111 1 1111111"'111111111111111111111111111"1111111111111111111IIIIIIIII I I I II II IIIIIUIIIIIIIIII.,. IoI IIII ' 9
:
::
::
;;
FORT WORTH LIVESTOCK RECEIPTS
June
June
Loss or
May
1925
1924
Gain
1925
Cattle .................. 105.8 55
82,649
G 22,706
69,898
§ Culves .................. 22,522
21,612
G
910
15,248
;; Hogs .................... 25,439
20,590
G 4,849
21,546
: Sheep .................. 24,884
54,259
L 29,875
23,768
:
ro
::;;
=
Loss or
Gain
G 85 457
G 7:274
G 8,898
G 1,121
1111111111111.11111 , III 1 II 111 U 111111' 11 1 1111111111111111 11t.,III I,I I I IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII I IIIIIII'111111111111111111
;;
::
~
;;
;;
u0
(il IIIlIIlIlIlIlU"UllllllllflIIIIIII U llll llll llllllllllllllll l llllitlIIIUII .. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII .. UI .. IIIIIIIII. IIIII II ......
::
'f
COMPARATIVE TOP LIVESTOCK PRICES
~
I
~
i~r:~ ~~:~j
June
1925
§
June
1924
May
1925;;
':il! 'j!l ·:111
i
81111111 1111111111111111111" 11 11 "11"'111111 1111 11111111111 1 1111 111I 11.I IIIUUUIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUI III ' [!1
Cotton
Movements
The June receipts of cotton at the ports of
Houston and Galveston were small, but exports were well in line with those of the
previous month and greatly exceeded those during the same
month of 1924,.
rnllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1111111111111111111.1111111111111.11.111.I'111!l
: OOT'I'ON MOVEMENTS THROUGH THE PORT OF GALVESTON :
§
~~
: Net receipts.................
S EXP'k t• .......................
.;, Stoc s, June 80th........
June
1925
14,751
104,866
................
l!J 111111111111111111111111111111 1111 111 11 11 11 11' 11 111' I"
June
Aug. 1s t to June 30th
1924
This
Last
Season
Season
28,135
8,619,088
2,822,409
65,888
8,650,~j6
2,811 ,94~
................
77,3~6
8d,424
I
11 1 1111111"11111 t 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
~
~~
;;
;;
:
[!)
GIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I II I .II I .I"IIIIII I.I I I II I IIII1 1. 11 11 1. , I., I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII' " t!)
::
I
;;
GALVESTON STOCK STATEMENT
For Great Brituin .......................... _..................... JUfge2i,:'oo
For France .................................................. ...........
6,{J00
Ir:::~:!:(:·:i~:~~ ::-::-::::
JUfge2::~0
200
•
I
:
:~!!! ·:;!!~.I
[!] 1111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111'1.11111111111111111'111111111111111111111111111.11 1111111111' (!J
The June receipts of livestock at Fort
Worth showed a substantial increase over
th e previous mont I1 an d with the exception
of sheep were larger than a year ago. Receipts of ca ttle
MovementS
and Prices
;~:r.calves
~""III"'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'"II"'''IIIIIIIItIlIlIIlIlIl'"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIf''1I1I1I 11111""111111111111+
~
~
HOUSTON COTTON MOVEMENTS
Aug. 1st to June 80th OJ
June
June
This
:
1925
1924
Season
;;
:
~
! !:~!i~:~~~=.: ::=:::::: :tm
~Hi~
tm:m
S~=;n ~
H~tm
I
were the largest of any month of the current
k f J
h
I
k
It Stooks ...-....................... • ......... -... ................
87,681
47,257 ::
!
@
Durlng t e irst t,vo wee S 0 une t e calt e InaI' el was
characterized by slow trading and prices \vere revised down- I!l
ward, Then prices turned upward and during the week ~
SEASON'S RECE~~1~E~XJi.~%Ss :-~T:TOCKS AT ALL
§
ending June 27th more active trading was experienced, and
~
Tili. ";ca.o n
....,,"' ~_"._..
§
substantial
price advances were noted. However, unusually .~. Export.
Receipts since Aug. 1sL..........................
9,824,784
6,721,951
___~
h
: Great Britain ..........................
2 516 816
1,649,483
eavy receipts during the last two days of June and the;;
France .......................................
'885:526
707,812;;
early days of July precipitated one of the most severe price §
r~;!~~nhtin~.... ::::::::::::::::::~::::::::
8'~~~:m
2'm:m
§
de?lines of the year in the cattle division. Following a top:;;
Mexico ........................................
19,916
9,294:
'fota l foreign ports..................
7,840,866
5,451,575;;
356,952
276,254
~
Pnce 0 f $11 .9 0 at the cI ose 0 f May, the I109 market wor ked ;; Sleeks at all U. S . ports, June 80th....
Up to $13.60 then dropped back to $13.25 on tIle close.
P~ckers continue to draw heavily on other markets for sup- cp ......"'" '"'''' "'" """""'''''SP'OT'' COTTO';';" 'PR'i cES "... """ """" "... """""""~
Pl~es as receipts are insufficient to meet the demand. Sheep
~
(MiddlinR' bllBis )
;;
ne
Phlces worked to lower levels in June. Early in the month §
Hi:: , 192~ow
J~~2~5, §
~ e best wethers brought $8.00, then dropped to $7.00, but S New Yo!'k ........................................
24.80
28.35
24.65 ~
ater regained 50 cents of the loss. Lambs usuall y sold § ~~oll.O~·.I.c.~.~~ ... ::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::~:::
~g~
~::~~
~U~ §
around $13.00 to' $13.50, but a few sales topped the mar- ~ H ouston ............................................
24.76
28.80
24.55 ~
ket a t $13 .75.
• Gnlvcslon .........................................
25.05
28.55
24.65r!j
·
h f
1111 II IIIIUU fI II 111111 III II II II 11111 1111111 1111 11 11 1111 II II filii 1111 1111 1111 III II 111111 1111 II III II If II III II II II II ...
11111111 II III II II II 11111111111 1111111111 11111111111111 II 1111111 II II III II II III II II 111111 I II III II 1111111 1111111111111111113
[!JlllltlllllllllllllllllllltIIlIlIlIlIIIlIlIlIIIlIlIlIlIlIlIlU.11I1I1111I1111111I111IIIIIIIIII.III.II •• IIIIIIIIIIIIII'I @
[!JIII"" II1I U 111111111'11111' 11111111.11111111 t 1111111111111111 U II" I'I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIU' ".11111"11111111111111
~111111111'1111111111111111'111"'lt"1111111111111111 1111111111111111111111.1.111111,11111111111111'111111'.,111111111111111111111111.111.111'.1.'1.111.111111111111111111111111.111'.111,,11111111.1111111111111"'111I' •• I, . ,IIIIII . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.II' I ::!)
:
COTTON CONSUMED AND ON HAND
I
gOtltto""
=
;
Sit,
0
.~."mf i _mm_____mm _ _ l: !.,~,O"~~i.~::~~:~~~i;: l: !., , ~Jiio:~ 1;~~:~ J~J.~: I
n on h and at end of mont h :
In consuming estubli. hments..................................... .................. ...................
) in public storage and compresses.............................. ................... ..................
!b)
::
597,862
536,519
49 0, ~8~
749, 0
................
................
................
................
1,128,818
759,945
::
949,647 ;;
882,197 ;;
1"'1111.1'.,11111 •• 1, •• '.11, ••• ,1111.1 •• 11'1'1111'111111111111111'1111'11111111111"1111111"'1111111111111111 •• ,1'111" "1'11111.,1111111111111111111111111.11111.,1, •• '11111.1111, ••• 11 •• "1.,'11,.1.1 •• •• • 11111 •• '.'.111111.,IIIII.'IIIIIIII.II.I'Il!l
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
4
COTTONSEED PRODUCTS
The volume of cottonseed products shipped by 68 report·
ing cottonseed mills in this district reflected a further de·
cline during the past month. The average price received
by these mills for cake and meal, and linters showed an in·
crease over the previous month, but there was a slight de·
cline on crude oil and hulls. Crude oil sold for an average
price of $ .0902 per pound in June as against $ .0915
in May.
81111111111111111111111111111111111.11111111111111111 .. 11 ... 111 ... 1111111 •••• ,.".UItII .... IIIIIIII.,ltll ••• U" .....
••~ COTTONSEED PRODUCT~:!itJ:g AND AVERAGE PRICE
,@
.~
June
l!lIIUIUUIIIIIUIt .. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.II •• ltlIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.11 .. 1.1111111111111111111111111111111"8
~.
STATISTICS ON CO'IYl'ONSEED AND COTTONSEED PRODUCTS
Texas
United States
Aug. 1st to June 80th
Aug. 1st to June 30th
La.t
This
Last
This
Season
Season
Season
Season
Cottonseed received
at mills (tons) ...~ ...•
1,661,000
1,318,744
4,590,000 8,309,175
Cottonseed crushed
(tons) ........................
1,656,000
1,310,466
8,285.462
4,576,000
Cottonseed on band
(tons) ........................
10,000
16,409
29,000
29,053
Crude oil prcduced
(pounds) .................. 456,600,000 369,264,737 1,390,850,000 972,459,080
Cake and meal produced (tons)..............
781,000
609,250
2,112,000
1,507,027
Hulls produced (tons)
4.56,000
381,816
1,821,000
932,930
Linters produced
(500·lb. bales)..........
291,000
256,294
856,000
664,714
Stocks on hand June
I
30th ............................
Crude Oil \Pounds)....
Cake and meal (tons)
5. Hulls (tons).................
• Linters (500·lb. bales)
3,212,000
18,000
16,000
4,000
2,826,701
18,488
24,726
21,853
18,664,000
66,000
71,000
86,000
:.
•
~
:
~
:
~
::
::
::
12,84.7,497::
84,958 ::
58,565 ::
95,925 ::
8"I'"IIIIII'llIlIllltclllllllllllllllllll'llllllll'''1I1I1I1I11I1I1I11I111I1I11I .. 11.111111111111111111, ... 1&1111111 ••
1:.1
TEXTILE MILLING
There was a decline in the production of reporting cotton
mills during June as compared to the previous month, but
a large increase as compared to June last year. These mills
produced 851,984. pounds of cloth in June as against 926,·
038 pounds in May and 474.,577 pounds in June, 1924. Some
of the mills are operating on a part time schedule. Unfilled
orders on hand at the close of June were greater than at the
close of Mayor at the close of June a year ago.
The market on cotton goods is still on an unstable basis,
due to the fluctuations in the raw cotton market. The de·
mand for goods continues light.
G . I I I I . " ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I •• ,.,IIIIIIIIIIIIIII.III.,IIII"1,11""111,.,11.,11111"',1"11111111",,,,11,.,111"II.,IIIII"G]
!::.
;:~':'~'"'~~;1:'082 ~~:,."
'OEXnLE M'LUNG
Number bales cotton consumed ......
Number spindles active....................
66,772
Number pounds cloth produced......
851,984
§
8., ..
66,77 .
474.57\
66,772
926,088
I:.
~
11 .. ,1111111111111.111111111111111111111.,111111111, .. 11.,11111111, •• IItUIIIII.IIUIIIIIIIII •• ,.'UI.U'Ulilfll.l!.t
WHOLESALE TRADE
Although the usual midsummer dullness was evident duro
ing June, trade in the wholesale channels of distribution
was well sustained. The June sales of hardware, dry goods,
and farm implements were less than in May, but sales in all
reporting lines except dry goods were above those of
June a year ago. However, it must be remembered that
trade in June last year reflected more than the usual
seasonal slackening. The present period may be character·
ized as one of hesitancy. While the demand is holding up
well for this season of the year in those sections where the
prospects for a cotton crop are good, it is extremely light
in the drouth area, and the interior merchants throughout
the district are operating very cautiously and are limiting
orders to their day.to·day needs. Everyone is now waiting
to see what changes will take place during the next six
weeks in the agricultural situation.
While most of the dealers are optimistic over the out·
look for business during the next six months, yet there are
some dealers who have expressed the opinion that dish·i·
bution during the last half of 1925 will show a decrease
as compared to the corresponding period of 1924.
Collections have shown no improvement. In some sec·
tions they are reported to be from fair to good, but over the
major portion of the district they are very slow. Reports
indicate that an increasing number of accounts are becoming
hard to collect and that many retail merchants are asking
for an extension of time on their accounts.
Reflecting the midsummer quietitude, the June distribu·
tion of dry goods at wholesale reflected a further decline of
8.7 per cent as compared to May, and was 6.7 per cent
under the corresponding month of 1924. The dry goods
trade generally throughout the district is dull at this time
as buying represents largely fill in orders. The outlook for
fall business is spotted, being fair to good in some sections,
but poor in others. Prices remain steady.
The June sales of reporting grocery firms were practical.
ly the same as during the two prevIOUS months and during
the corresponding month last year. Buying continues good
in those sections where the prospects for a cotton crop are
favorable, but quiet in other sections. Prices are reported to
be generally steady.
Although the June sales of hardware showed a further
decline of 2.9 per cent from the previous month, they were
9.2 per cent greater than those during June a year ago. The
demand for hardware is reported to be generally light
throughout the district, but in some cities it is being fairly
well sustained. Prices on staple items were reported to be
lower but were steady on other items.
Following the active demand in May, the distribution of
farm implements declined' 30.0 per cent during June but
was 10.0 per cent greater than during the corresponding
month of 1924. The sales of reporting . firms during the
first six months of 1925 averaged 13.3 per cent less than
during the same period of last year. The demand for im·
plements continues light and the outlook in this line of
trade is dependent largely upon the progress of crops duro
ing the next sixty days. In tRose sections most seriously
affected by the drouth buying will undoubtedly be light
but in those sections where crop prospects are good the
outlook for future business is encouraging.
The demand for drugs was well sustained during June
when the sales of reporting firms reflected an increase of
1.0 per cent over the previous month and a gain of 5.0 per
cent as compared to the same month last year. However,
some dealers report that trade is quiet in both the cities
and the rural sections. Retailers continue to buy only for
their immediate requirements. The outlook is good in
those sections where the prospects for a cotton crop are
promising but in other sections it is reported to be very
discouraging.
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
8.
11 111111.,1, ... 111111 ................ 11 .... 1111 ...... 111111 .. 111 .......... 111 11 111111111 .. 1111111111111111111'1111111
::
CONDITION OF WHOLESALE TRADE DURING JUNE, 1925
:
:
I
Groceries
Dry goods::::~::::::::::::::::
Farm implements ........
Drugs .............. _............
Hardware ....................
Net Sales
Net Sales
Jan. 1 to data
June, 1925
,ompared with compared with
snme period
June
May
last year
1924
1925
+ .8 + .8
+ 2.5
- 6.7 - 8.7
-10.0
+10.0 -80.0
-18.3
+ 5.0 + 1.0
+ 2.8
+ 9.2 - 2.9
+ 1.8
(!]
::
Perce ntage of Increase or Decrease in
Stocks
June, 1925
compared with
June
May
1924
1925
+ 6.9 - 6. 6
- 18.8 + 8. 1
None - 4. 2
6
+ 1.2
-12.7 - 8. o
-
5
responding month last year. Sales during the first half
of 1925 were 6.5 per cent in excess of those during the
same period of 1924. The hot weather and widely adver·
tised "clearance sales" have stimulated buying. Sales of
silks and velvets, men's furnishings, and misses' ready.to.
wear were among the departments to show the largest in·
creases.
RETAIL TRADE
Stocks on hand at the close of June were 6.7 per cent less
than at the close of May, and were practically the same as
those carried a year ago. The ratio of sales to stocks during
the first half of 1925 was 125 per cent, as compared to
115.9 per cent during the corresponding period of 1924.
The June volume of deparment store trade reflected a sea·
sonal decline of 12.3 per cent as compared to the previous
month, but was 2.4 per cent greater than during the cor·
The ratio of June collections to accounts outstanding on
June 1st was 4.1.8 per cent as compared to 40.3 per cent for
May, and 38.5 per cent for June, 1924.
8111111 ... 1111111111.11111.111111 .. 1111111111111 .. 111111111 ..... 1111111111111 ................ IIII .. IIIIIIIIIU .... IIII.I!)
,-;-1· 111, .... 11111111111111 .. 111 .... 11 .... 11 .... 111111111111 .... 111111 .. 111 .........
1IIIIIIIIIB.ii'SliNES.S.I'OF:..DE'~AIIR~M·ENIT'IST·ORESIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111,1111,.,1111111.1111111.1.11111.1111111111111'11,111111111111111 (iJ
compared with June, 1924..........................................................
compared with May, 1925...........................................................
date compared with same period last year.........................
Dallas
+ 4.6
- 13.8
+ 8.0
Ft. Worlh
+18.6
+ 1.7
+ 7.1 1
I
Houston
+ 4.8
- 8.0
+ 5.9
compared with June, 1924..........................................................
compared with May, 1926...........................................................
date compared with same period last year ..........._............
+ 6.6
- lG.1
+11.0
+ 275 1;
+ 6:2 /
+13 .3
+ 7.6
+ 8.01
+ 9.2
- 1.3
- 26.1
+ 8.S
~une, 1925, compared with June, 1924..........................................................
+ 1.0
- 8.8
16.6
17.5
_ G.5
- 14.2
15.7
18.5
_ 6.6
- 10.1
21.2
22.1
+
8.2
- 6.6
20.9:
19.0
m:~
l~t~
4.6
m:i
9.2
m:~
85.9
87.0
40.4
65.0
'fotal sale8June, 1925,
June, 1925,
Jan. 1st to
Credit salesJune, 1926,
June, 1926,
Stoc~~ 1st to
Perce~~:ge1~~58:1:'~r~ee;~~~ ~t!~ks1~~5... • ................................................., ....
i une, 1924 ........................................................................................... •...............
Perce~~g/~~58'~·i;,;;··t;;·~;;;~;;·g~-·,;t;;~k~=·--···· ··· ............................ .................•
i~~~~~~ i i~ ~~~: :~;
•
m
•
mL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .::::::::::::..
RRatio of outstanding oruers to 180t year's purchases.... .................................
alio of June collections to accounts receivable, due and outstanding
June 1, 1925........................................................................ .................................
6.7
A ll
Others
'fotal District ::
+ 4.2
+ 2.4
-19.9
- 12.3
+ 5.2
+ 6.5
6.8
+ 6.1
-14.4
+ 9.9
-
.5
6.7
19.0
19.8
m:~
6.9
•
41.8 ;;
1111 ....... 111.1111 ................. 11 .... 11 .. 11 .. 111111 ............................. """" •• 111111111.1.11111111111'11 , ' 1111111111111111111.1.11111111111.11111111111111111111111111.11111111111111111111111111'1.11"1111111111111111111IIlflllllllllt::.
FINANCIAL
Acceptance
Contrary to the usual trend at this season of the year,
c~~rges to depositors' accounts at banks in fifteen principal
CItIes in the district reflected an increase during June
amounting to 3.1 per cent over the previous month. The
June volume was 18.7 per cent larger than that during the
same month of 1924.
The volume of acceptances executed by ac·
cepting banks of this district and which
were outstanding at the close of June
showed a further slight decline during the month. Accept.
ances outstanding on June 30th totaled $507,402.01 as com·
pared to $568,536.69 on May 31st.
Market
(!]1111 .. 11I11 .. IIIIIU ....... IIII .. IIIII.IIIIIIU .. I .. 'I1I1II1 .. I1II1.IIIIIIIIU .. I1 .... 111111111111 ... 1.111111111111111/8
§
CHARGES TO DEPOSITORS' ACCOUNTS
~
::••
;
8'o.~. ~:§.
u
~
6:~ ~
E
~:~ ~
::
6.2
8.6
8.1
§
::
::
4~
~
~:~
::
.8
:§
0.5
6.1
8.1
§
~
m
8.1 ::
Condition of
Following a decline during the three previ.
Member Banks ous months, the loans of memher banks in
in Selected
Cities
selected cities reflected a substantial in·
crease in June. While there was a de·
crease of $324.,000 in loans secured by gov·
ernment securities, this decrease was more than offset by an
increase of $3,905,000 against corporate securities and an
increase of $905,000 in all other loans (largely commer·
cial) . The demand deposits of Lhese banks showed a
further decline of $7,442,000, but time deposits rose $1,·
811,000. Their investments in government securities de·
clined $2,678,000 during the month.
l .. II ... IIIIIIII .. III1III1IUIlIlIIIIlIlIlIlIt ... I.III ..... IIIII.III1.III1I ....... IIIIUIIIIII .... IIIIIIUIIIIII.I.I··W
:. II " , "
"If 1111"11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111II 11111 II ,,, IU,, 1111111111111 1111111111111111 "'"11111111111111111111111111111111111111 II 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.18
I: ~~;~·:~.'IT~'o~:.r_~~::O:::::~::~~"~'::~F:~:B'RBA;=J~ SE~::.:;::::;;ms ':':.~;.:::~
;.'
::
::
All other stocks. bonds and securities owned.... .......... ....................... ..... . ..... ..... ..................
Loans 8ecured by U. S. Government obligalions ........................... _...........................................
5. Loans secured by stocks and bonds other than U. S. Government obligations...............
g~ 1~:;: ~i~e':!t~;o~f:~~~~~~~::::·:::::::::::::::: : :: ::: : : : :::: : : : ::: :: ::: : : : : : : :: :: :::::::~:: : : : : : : : : : :: : : ::: : : :: :
::
::
10.
1.
61'''''1
Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank.................................................................. ... ....... ..... .,. ...
Bills payable and rediscounts with Federal Reserve Bank.......................... ... .. ......... . ... ..
Ratio of loans. to net demand dep08its .... _............................ _.... .......... •.. .. . .............. .. ...... ....
-Lonns include only items 4 and 6.
1~,~49.ggg
, 46,
78,897,000
m'~i~,~gg
~~:~~~:ggg
1,049,000
84 %
19,402,000
8,059,000
69 ,059,000
~~~:m:ggg
22,281 ,000
8,048,000
94 0/0
':":.:;.:::i:
I
19,658,000~_
a,Z69.000
69992000::
~~~:m:ggg
~
~~:m:m ~
1241 000
'
'82%
1111 ........ 1111111 .. 1111 ..... 1111111111 ....... 111111 .... 111111111111111111111 .. 111111111111111111. IIIIIIIIIIIII~ 111111"11'111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'111111111.11I.111 .... II .. II ... I.IlItIlIl .. UIlI.UIlIlII .. IIIIII.I ....
§
::
::
[!J
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
6
Reports as of June 30th from 102 banks in
this district which operate a savings de·
partment reflect a gain of 3.1 per cent in
savings deposits over those of May 31st, and a gain of 11.1
Savings
Deposits
S ......
IIU ......................... III .. II ............. UIlIl .... III ... III •• ,111111 ..... 111111111 •• ,11111111 ..... .. 1111'1111 •••11 111 .. 11111111111 .. 11111111111 .. 1."111111111,,111 .. 1.11111111111111111111111111111 .. ,,.111111111111.111,11 .. 1I111111111111r;J
::
E
per cent over those of June 30th last year. There were
231,858 savings depositors on June 30th as compared to
236,358 on May 31st, and 209,380 on June 30, 1924,.
SA VINGS DEPOSITS
June 80, 1926
June 80, 1924
Number o!
Reportinll Number o! ~mount of Number of Amount of
Savings
Savings
Savings
Savings
Bania:
Depositors Deposits Depositors Deposits
4,761
4,680
2.260,663
2,411,17-6
4·
Beaumont .................................................... .. ................ 88,784 13,287,298
46,266 16,187,687
7
Dallas .......... .................................................... . ...............
16,907
6,947,277
7,076,140
16,619
8
EI Pa.o ... _ ................................................... ................. 11,490
12,902
6.189,416
4,668,476
8
Fort Worth ................................................... .. ..................
8,629,167
11,790
18,490
7,867.620
8
Galveston ............... .......... ............................ .. .. ............. ......
42,809
1247,049
23,822,892
20,769,213
Houston ................................................... ...... .. .................
16,118 10,886,098
18,906 11,727,603
SSan Antonio ................ .................................. ................
28,813 10,996,727
24,912 10,889,867
6
Shreveport ...... ....... .................... ~ ................ .. ...............
4,642,248
6,794
8,144.122
7,888
6
Waco ................................ .................... ........... ................
87,619 16,568, 292
89,162 17,472,836
64'
All others ...................................... ............. .... ..............
-
~
~
-
---
I
::
May 31, 1926
Inc. or Number ollAmount of Inc. 0
Dec.
Dec.
Savings
Savings
Depos itors Deposits
- 6.7
2,807,886 - 2. 6
4.766
+21.8
46,124 16,688,647 + 4.-2
- 16.9
16,407
6,798 .22 . + 2.6
+13.6
12,848
4,966,682 =1= 4. 7
+17.1
8. 6
18,649
8,886.421
+14.7
46.906 28,896,870 + 1. 8
+12.9
28,788 11,168,467 + 6. 1
24,629 10,111,276 + 2.8
+ 6.6
+44.4
7,898
4,899,862 + 8. 2
+1 2.2
89, 499 1 16,982.872
8.2
E
I
+
281,868 106,168,446
209, 880 1 96,678,161 +11.1 1
286,868 102.986,686 + 8.
102
Total _..................................................... .. ...............
-Only 8 banks in Beaumont, 11 banks in Houston. 6 banks in San Antonio, and 61 banks in all others reported the number <>f savings
depos; tors.
[!J ... 111 .. 11111 ....... 1111 ......... 111 ........... 1111 .. 1111 ... 11 ....... 1111.'111111111111 ... 111111 ... 1111, •• 1111 .. 111111111111 .... 11 ... 1111.11 .. 11111 .. 111111 .. "1111111111111111111111111'"111111111111111111111111111111111111111''''1111 •• III.IIIIIIIII.I!)
m"""""''''''''''''''''''''' ,," """ """" ""''' '''''''''''''' '''''''''''''' """";" ,," '"'''~:,i~;''~;::i~i::::~:''=:~:''''''''':~~~:''::~~~:::~:'''''''''=:~""'''''1:·:
Ra te charged customers on prime commercial paper such
as is now eligible for r edi.count under the Federal
Reserve
Act: 30·60·90 days....................................................
(a) running
(b) running 4·6 month. ................... ~..................... ..............
Ra te charged on loan. to other banks, secured by bills
receivable ... _...................................................................................
Rate on ordinary commercial loans running 80·60·90 days
secured by Liberty Bond. and certificates of inde bted·
ness (not including lonn. to enable purchase o-f bonds)
Rate on loans secured by prime stock exchange or other
current collateral
(a) demand ................................... ~ ...................................... .
(b) time ............. ... ................................................................... .
Rate on commodity paper secured by warehouse receipts, etc. ........................................... ~......... .. .. ............... ... .... ....
Rate on cattle loans........................................................................
ID ..... n".IIIf .. ' ..
&I........ ., . . . ~ . . . . . , ................... ' ...
5·6
6·G
8
8
472·6
4¥.! ·6
6·6
5-6
6·8
6·8
6.7
6.7
6·6
6·8
5·6
4¥.1-S
6
6-6
6·6
8
8-8
6·6
6·8
6
6·6
6·7
8
8
6·8
6·8
6·6
6·6
6·8
6-8
6·7
6·7
8
8·10
6·8
6·8
5·6
7·8
6·8
7·8
6-8
6·8
7·8
U'".. I"" ........ ., ... ,u·'.ull'II.· ....',I'II •• ' ..... ~ ,'U','" ..
Deposits of
There was a further seasonal decline of
Member Banks $17,025,000 in the demand deposits of
member banks between May 27th and June
24th, but an increase of $1,212,000 in time deposits. The
total deposits of these banks on June 24,th were $86,101,000
greater than on June 25, 1924,.
I!l: ~: i
" ... " ...
"".""""".""~:~~~:~~"~;.:::~~~":~.;'~~""."""""."""""".' G
% nks in Citje. Banks in CiUes
Member
with a popula· with a popula.
Banks
tion of less
tion of over
Total
'T otal
th'ln 16,000
16,000
Demand Time Demand Time Demand Time
25, 1924............... [j12.666 157,168 ~44.728 46,829 267 ,842 110,824
28. 1924 ............... 602,763 167,714 287,982 47,006 264.781 110.708
27. 19~4.............. . 610,092 160,201 242,996 46,387 267,097 113,814
24, 19~4.......... .. ... 662,288 160,260 276,886 46,029 286.897 114, 281
2U, 19 ~ 4.. .... ........ . 609,694 169,889 303 ,481 44,988 306.113 114,906
26. HI "·!.. ............. 641,603 168,722 316,786 48,967 826.817 114,756
24, 192L~_ ......... 670.487 168.107 1 822,861 41.676 848,126 118,481
28. 19~6 ................ 660,847 160,684 320,086 44,219 840,811 116,866
26. 1926 ................ 680,428 166,895 321,660 45,884 868,778 121,061
25, 1926 ................ 662.862 163,780 804.459 46,132 868,408 118.648::
22, 19 26................ 636,676 166,681' 292,885 47.968 848,191 117.668 §
27, 1926 ... _........... 606,626 , 166,006 277,145 48,771 828.481 117,236;;
24, 1925 .............. 688,601 1 167,218 1 267,148 47,978 821,468 119,240::
All
~ June
;; July
;; Aug.
§ Sept.
;; Oct.
:: Nov.
:: Dec.
:: Jan.
i Feb.
:: Mch.
:: Apr.
:: May
E June
I!lll ..... ' "111t'''III .... It IIIIIII'U III .. U .. IUII .. I"" .. I.1 II , .... II III II II "1"""1" 11 .. 11.1111 II 1 .. 11.11.1 .. 1.1 I
(!)
The past month witnessed a further broadening in the demand for Federal Reserve
Bank credit. Total loans to member banks
amounted to $6,681,118.29 on June 30th, or
an increase of $1,4,60,724,.43 during the month. On July
15th these loans had increased to $8,305,24,7.74. At the
end of June there were 208 banks owing the Federal Re·
serve Bank as compared to 157 banks at the close of May.
Operations of
the Federal
Reserve Bank.
~: .
;
U'U"IIII.lIl,UI"""IIIIIIIIIIIII.JI"IIIII,'II.,1t1IIIIIIflltll.II.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUII.'.,IIItIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIf!J
On June 30, 1924, there were 317 banks owing the Federal Reserve Bank $15,44,5,810.51.
. Due to the substantial increase in both rediscounts and
holdings of bankers' acceptances, the total volume of
bills held by this bank increased from $13,939,419.62 011
May 31st to $19,075,650.22 on June 30th, distributed as
follows:
Member banks' collateral notes (sccured by U. S. Government
obligations) ........... ....... ...................................................................... $ 086,800.00
Rediscount. nnd all other loans to member banks........................ 6,064,818.29
Open market purchases (Bankers' acccp te nces) .............................. 12,894,581.98
Total bill. h eld ................... ~ ............................................................. $19.076,660.22
Federal Reserve notes in actual circulation declined from
$40,861,585 on May 31st to $38,511,855 on June 30th. The
reserve deposits of member banks which stood at $56,688,·
613.39 on June 30th, reflected a further decline of $1,598,210.95 during the month.
FAILURES
The trend of commercial failures in this district con·
tinued downward during the past month. Defa1;l1ts in June
totaled 44, the smallest number reported in any month
since September, 1924" and compares with 56 failures in
May, and 50 insolvencies in June, 1924. The liabilities of
firms defaulting in June were the smallest of any month
during the current year, amounting to $536,229 as compared to $1,956,651 in May, and $765,071 in June a year
ago. During the first half of 1925 there were 375 insol·
vencies with liabilities amounting to $6,951,566 as against
363 defaults with a combined indebtedness of $5,769,172
during the corresponding period of 1924,
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
f
.L
PETROLEUM
The daily average production of crude oil in the Elev·
enth Federal Reserve District during June amounted to
4,99,403 barrels as against 503,519 barrels in May, a decrease of 4,116 barrels. Drilling activity showed a decided
slowing down in June as compared to May. There were
528 wells completed in June, of which 335 were successful
and netted a flush production of 87,832 barrels of oil, as
contrasted with 776 completions during May including 527
wells which produced 163,14,1 barrels of new production.
The Central-West Texas and miscellaneous fields showed
substantial gains in production during June, but these gains
did not offset the large decreases in the Corsicana-Powell
7
and Wortham fields. North Texas fields made an increase
in production, but production in the Gulf Coast fields was
practically stationary. The Big Lake field continues to increase its production as it is developed. There were 1,834,·
800 barrels of oil produced in Louisiana during June, as
compared to 1,847,446 barrels in May, but the daily average production increased 1,565 barrels.
Crude Oil
Prices
There were no changes in the posted pri ces
of crude oils in this district during the
period June 12th to July 8th. However,
premiums are still being paid in the North Texas markets
for conveniently located crude.
8111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,.111111111111111111111I1"IIIIIIIIIIII •• IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIII. " .,lllllllIllftlll1.1.".11111111,11111111111111111111.11111111111.,1111111111111111111"11111111111111111111111111111111"0
:
OTL PROJ)UCTION
June
Total
Daily Average
2.989,800
97.977
2.199.170
73.306
8.516.850
117.211
2,909.890
96.980
1.588,070
62.769
E
::
::
§
::
•
§
Field
North Texas ......................................................................
Centra l-West Texas ..........................................................
E ast.Central T exns .........................................................
T-exas Coastal ...............................................................•...
Miscellaneous fields ..........................................................
§
Total. Texas ................................................................
1Nor~o~~.ui::::a ~;:~~.;~~:: : :: : : : : : ::: : ::: : :: : :: : :: : :: :: :
. ..
13.147.280
438,243
1;::::::::
4::::::
:
May
1nC rClllil! or Decrtaae
E
Total
Daily Avera)l"e
Total
Daily Avg.
:
3.076.585
99, 248 Dec.
187.285 Dec.
1,266::
2.079,455
67.079 Inc.
119.715 Inc.
6.227 §
4.045,785
130,609 Dec.
529.435 Dec.
18.298::
8.005.956
96.967 Dec.
96.566 Inc.
18 •
1.553.895
60.126 Inc.
29.176 Inc.
2.648:
18.761,626
448.924 Dec.
1~::::::::
~:::
614.346 Dec.
5.681
::~.
§
I
. . . . . .. . . . . . . ,:.
5::::::
6::'.:::
:::::
\.':.11""1111'111111111111"""111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'11111111111111111IIIIIIIIIII'I,I I IUIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111,.,,1111111111,.1.11111111 1111111111111111111'l lll ltltl [!]
oo.......
::::~ .......................................... ::~!;: :~¥.~ ~;~~''';:\~;~i~~'ID
Nort h Texas .....................................
Central.West
Texas .......................
East Central Thxas........................
'fexas COllstal .................................
Eas t Texas ......................................
Miscellaneous fields .......................
'rexas wildcats ...............................
'fotals Thxns
North Lo~isiana .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::'
68
87
87
3"
12
47
45
85
64
1
12
8
18
2
23
2
39
-m18i()----r;a
40
26""
15
_ ____ __ _ _ _
628
335
198
: May totals. District........................
776
527
249
~ .Gas wells. ..Includes 4 glls weJ1s.
§ June totals. District........................
I
E
23.946
2.265
84,871
:..
7.960
985
~
82.091
5,741
87,882
168,141
i. . . . .:~=
m:
.: :
~;;;~~ ~;~ ;;~~;;
:::;:~~ ;::~;.::
Corsicana light ......................................................................... $2 . 00
$I 76
.
~s icaCa hWV)' ........................................................................ 1.00
1.00
M ,!S oas
........................................................ ................... 1.76
1. 75
eXI8 ........................................................................................... 2.00
1.75
Currie .......................................................................................... 2.00
2.00
North Texas (42 gravity and abOve) ................ ........ ·...... ·J~I!·~~ July 12.
LOUISIANA
1925
Caddo (38 gravity and above) ................................................ $2.05
BuIJ Bayou (88 gravity and above) .................................... 1.86
:: Homer (35 gravity and above) .............................................. 1.80
• Haynesville (33 gmvity and above) ...................................... 1.70
: ' De Soto Crude.............................................................................. 1.90
Eo::.
§
:
~
'-=JIIII,I"'I"I'I' •••• I'I.",.IIIIIIIIIIIIII""II'I.III11 1 1111,1.1.1111111111111 11'111"'1111111 I1II111II111I111111 '11110
:.
~
1924
$1.60
1.65
1.60::
1.50
1.60 ::
::::
0·
0
[!Jlllllilit 1111,111111111111111111.,111111111'1111111111111111 1 1 II 1 1I1I 1 I111I 1 1I11I111I1111 1 1I1I1 1 1111111'111 1 111 ' 1 1 11 1I 1 0
(Oil statis tics compiled by T he Oil Weekly. Houston, Texas)
CEMENT
The production of Portland cement at Texas mills was cent greater than May shipments, and were 10.7 per cent
practically the same in June as in the previous month, and greater than shipments made during the corresponding
the same month of 1924. There were 389,000 barrels of month last year. Stocks held at the close of June were 21.3
cement produced in June, as compared to 392,000 barrels per cent less than stocks on hand at the close of May, and
during May, and 390,000 barrels in June last year. Ship- were 31.9 per cent less than June 30, 1924. stocks.
ments of cement from the mills during June were 3.5 per
I
I
~11"lIlllllIlIllllltlIIIIIIIIIIIIII'"II'IIIIIIIII'IIItIIIIII'111 1111111.,1111111111111'1111111,111111111111,.111.11111 1 1111.1 U IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIII1III II II1I1I1I1I1I1I1III1I1I11I1111111111111111t11Iltlllllll1lll.IIIII.I' I i!l
PRODU
•
~h!"luction of Texas Mills.........................
:
tacks at cnd of t he mont h at Texas Mil
:
:
:
§ S lpmonts from Texas Mills....................
tEJIIUll ..... UIlIIlIlIlItIIlIl •• IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.I.II ..... 11I1IIIIII .. UIIIIII"I""IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.II II IIIIIIIII"IIIIIIIIII,,II .. II.IIII .. II""""IIII .. IIIIIIII.III.IUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ..
LUMBER
. The usual summer lull in activities was evident at the
PIne mills of Texas and North Louisiana during June. Shiptnents of l.umber from the mills declined to 4 per cent below
the June production, as compared to only 2 per cent below
production in May. Production reached a further low
level, being 10 per cent below normal as against 8 pel'
~ent. below normal during the previous month. Orders
ecel."ed during June were for 84 per cent of normal productIon for the month, a decline from May when orders
Were booked for 88 per cent of normal production. Stocks
on hand at the close of June were 12 per cent below normal
stocks at that time, while at the end of May stocks were 21
per cent below normal.
".11.,0
Orders on the books of the 48 reporting mills O!l June
30th called for 52,758,807 feet of lumber, as compared to
orders for 52,684,569 feet held by 51 reporting mills on
May 31st.
(!)lIllIlIlIlIlllIlIl1ltIIIU'llIlllltllltllltllllllltllttlll1llt.llltlllllllllllllt.1111111111111111.11111111.11111,.1" ' 9
:.§
JUNE PINEl MI~L STATISTICS
Number of r eporting mills........................................
:.§
48
E Pl'oduction
........... ~....... ................................................. 84,717.996
88,149,197 feet
Shipments ....................................................................
feet
Orders ........................................ ................................... 84.136.336
UnfilJed orders, June 30th ........................................ 62,758.807
Normal production ................................................... 97.480.503
Stocks. June SOth ........................................................ 259.069 .619
Norma l stocks ........................................................... 2ll2.835.144
Shipments below production .................................... 3.431.201
Actunl production below normaL.......................... 9.381.306
Orders below nC'l'mal production ............................ 13.344,168
Stocks below normaL. ............................................... 33.765.525
feet
feet
f eet
f <r-t
f eet
feel = 4%
feet = 10%
feet=16 0/0
feet= 12%
t:) I IIIIIIIIIfIlIUI .... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIU.IIIU ... II .. II ............
E: :~ :
•
5
~
l!!
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
8
BUILDING
There were 2,712 permits for building construction,
valued at $7,384,697, issued at the twelve reporting centers
during June, as compared to 2,644 permits having a total
valuation of $5,631,223 issued in June, 1924, and 2,628 per-
m
mits valued at $8,709,658 for May, 1925. While these
figures show a decrease during June in the valuation of
construction activity of 15.2 per cent as compared to May
figures, there was an increase of 31.1 per cent over the (lorresponding month last year.
1II1III1 tl" 1111111"11111111'1' 111111II1II t 111111111111111111 11111111111" 1111 t 111111111111111111' 11111' filii 11111 11111 11111 I' ,.1' IIII~ 1111111 """11 .,1,.11111 ••••••• ,.111111 •• 1111111 •••• 111 •••• 1.1111111,1111.1.1111,· ... 1.,.11111111.,.1111.111 •• ' III!]
June 1925
I
:
§
:::
:
~
::
~
:
~
,,__
~:-
BWLDlNG PERMITS
E::
No.
Austin.......................................
Beaumont.............. .................
OaUas.... ...................................
EI Paso............ ........... .............
Fort Worth.. ............................
Galveston..................................
Houston....................................
Port Arthur.............................
San Antonio............................
Shreveport................................
Waco ........... ~........ . ..... ...... ......
Wichita Falls..........................
June 1924
Vti~t~a-
No.
49
105,195
159
110,144
47S 1,649,972
42
85,820 ·
286 1,249,186
270
191,S12
568 2,224,380
119
160,507
S02
661 ,195
233
309,986
64
m,'~~~
147
::
88
200
897
53
205
293
592
149
S18
274
~~
~r
64,707
148,506
1,882,666
155,929
506,770
158,404
1,462,248
116,781
361,730
486,752
+ 62
- 25
- 12
- 45
+146
+ 20
+ 52
+ 87
+ 82
- 36
12::
82'.11
5,681,223 + 31.
9.0::
_E_
0.5 :
98:
8:6 ~
7.4;
S.9 ~
0.7:
1.0 ~
8 . 9 :__
06
m',~i~ ++1~~
I
"TotaL.......................................
2,712
7,884,697 1
I
Vat\~~ ID~~
::
2,644
[!l. I.IIIIIII •••••• III •• IIIIII.IIIIIIIII.11111111111111111111111111111111111111.,111111111111111111111.1 •• 111.111.,.,1.1.1.1, /1 1"'11111.111'1111.1 •• 11""",1""" ••••••••• 1' •• 1 •••• , •••• 11.1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I.I.I •••• I.I.II.IIIIIII ••••• ,.1111!l
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BUSINESS
CONDITIONS
Iq!ls.)
(Compiled by the Federal Reserve Boord. os of July !l4,
Production in basic commodities and factory employment declined further in June, while railway freight .,hipments and the volume of wholesale trade increased. Wholesale prices, after declining for two months, advanced in
June.
PRODUCTION
Production in basic industries, as indicated by the Federal Reserve Board's index, declined about one per cent in
June to the lowest level since the autumn of 1924., but was
17 per cent above the low point of last summer. The output of pig iron, steel ingots, lumber, newsprint, and petroleum, and mill consumption of cotton declined in June,
while production of bituminous coal, sole leather, and wheat
flour increased. The number of automobiles manufactured
during June was slightly less than in May. Factory employment declined 1 per cent and factory payrolls over 2 per
cent between May 15th and June 15th, reflecting substantial
declines in the automobile, boot and shoe, textile, and iron
and steel industries. Building contracts awarded during
June were larger in value than during May and almost
equalled the peak figure for April, in square feet of floor
space the June awards were a little smaller than those for
May. Residential contracts in June were the smallest for
any month since February, but greatly exceeded those of a
year ago.
The Department of Agriculture estimate of the condition of all crops combined on July 1st showed some improvement from the month before. The corn crop forecast places it at approximately 550,000,000 bushels above
last year.
The July 15th cotton crop estimate was 13,588,000 bales
compared with a forecast of 14,,339,000 bales on June 25th.
TRADE
Freight car loadings were larger during June than during May, as is usual at that season, and also considerably
exceeded the figures for June, 1924, the low point of last
year. Sales at department stores during June were seasonally smaller than in May, but totaled 5 per cent more
than last year. It should be borne in mind, however, that
in June of this year there were four Sundays as compared
with five in the preceding month, as well as in June, 1924.
Mail order sales were 6 per cent larger than in May, and exceeded the amount of June, 1924. Sales of wholesale firms
were 5 per cent greater than in May, and larger than in any
June in the last five years. Department store stocks were
reduced further in June, but were slightly larger than a
year ago. Wholesale stocks of groceries, shoes, and hardware were smaller at the end of June than a month earlier,
but those of dry goods and drugs were larger. Compared
with a year ago stocks of groceries, and drugs were larger
in value, while stocks of dry goods shoes, and hardware
were smaller.
PRICES
Wholesale commodity prices advanced 1.4. per cent in
June according to the index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics following declines in April and May. The largest
increase for any commodity group was for the miscellaneous group, which includes crude rubber. Prices of farm
products, foods, fuel, and lighting also advanced, while
prices of building materials declined considerably. In the
first half of July quotations on flour, beef, hogs, wool,
copper, petroleum, hides, and rubber increased, while prices
of sugar, bituminous coal, and hardwood lumber declined.
BANK CREDIT
At member banks in leading cities the volume of loans
on securities continued to increase after the middle of June,
and during the first half of July was at a higher level than
at any previous time. Demand for bank credit for commer·
cial purposes was relatively inactive, and the volume of commercial loans at reporting member banks remained near the
low level for this year, although considerably above the
amount for the corresponding period of 1924.
.
At the reserve banks the seasonal demand for credit and
currency was reflected in increased borrowing by member
banks, which carried discounts at the beginning of July
to the highest level in more than a year, and notwithstanding the subsequent decline, the total on J ul y 22nd was still
at a relatively high level. Total earning assets on that date
showed little change as compared with the figures for four
weeks earlier.
Firmness in the money market at the close of the fiscal
year was followed by an easing of money after the first
week of July. In the latter part of the month' there was
again evidence of firmer money conditions. These changes
were reflected chiefly in the movement of rates for caIl
money, quoted rates on prime commercial paper, and on
bankers' acceptances remaining throughout the period at
3%" 4 per cent and 31,4 per cent.
@FedFRASER