View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

S··I,III.'I.I ••• IIII' •••• I •••• II •• IIIIIII ••• ' •• III •••• 11111 •• 11 •• 1 ••• 111.111111.1,1.1 ••• , ••• 1 ••• 1 •••• ' ••••••••••••••• 1111111111.111 •••• 1.11111'1 ••• 1.11 •• 11 ••• 1 •• 1 •• 1 •••• 1 •••••• 11 ••• 1 ••••••••••• '1.11 ••••••• 1 •• ,1.1 •••• 1.11"",'1",11111"11,"'1"'1.,.1 •• , . -

::

~

.11 •• ,1 •••••••• '1".1.111,1.11111.1 ••••• 11111.11 •••• 1.111.1"""""",.1"", •• ,11".1""""'1111111"" •• ,1111,.,.11111'1'1'.1"',"'1,11 •••• ,".11111.,1.,1.11 ••••• 1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1111.1 •• '1 •••• 1.11 •• 1111'1 •• 11 •• 1 ••• 1 ••• 111 •• 1 ........ 1.1 .... :

MONTHL Y BUSINESS REVIEW
OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
c.

C. WALSH,

CHAS. C. HALL-W. J. EVANS,

Chnlrmnn nnd Federnl Re.erve Agent

Assl.tnnt Federal Reserve Agents

II. . . . . . . . . . . ."'. . . ."'. . "'. . "'. . . . . . . . ~.~:::~~:.~. ~.~~~.~~:. ~.~ .~.:. . . . . "'. . . . . . . . "'. . . . '". . . . "'. "'. ."' '".. .i!

'111'"11'"111111111111111'111"'1'"11111111111111111111111111111111111"1111111111'"111111111 .. 111111111.11 ..... "1.11111111111 ... 1 ....... 11 ..... 1111.1111.1.111111111111111'1.1.1.1111111111111.111111111111111.1.111111.1 ••• 1111111111111.1.11111111111:

Volume 12, No.6

Dallas, Texas, August 1, 1927

Thi. copy relen.ed for publication in morning papers

July 30

DISTRICT SUMMARY
:1":::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

:

·~~:~;i;ti;:;~:;. . . . . . ·::::~;~~::. . . ·::::~;;:::. . . ;:~~. ~.:;.:: .

Bnnk debits to individunl accounts (nt 17 citie.) ..........................................................................................
Depnrtment store .nlcs ...................................................... _......................................................... _..........................
Reserve Bnnk lonns to member banks nt end of month ......................................................................._........ $ 6,220,666
Reserve Bnnk rntio nt end of month............................................................................
68.8 %

I ~fE:~rI~\;j.r~~~'l1~~l'~~0:~~::;: ::

rS

$

6,282,212
Dec.
64.4 % Dec.

: ~: ::: : :~~~~~::~~E=: : ,;:;;;:;n : ,;:;;;:;!l ~

umber ordet·s nt pine mills (per cent of normnl production) ..................................................................

67 %

86 % Dec.

1.0%
1.1 points

;!::::

:

!Hi !

18 points ::

-.!J .III.IIIIIII.I.I.I.IIIIIII'I.III •••••• II.III.III.I" ••••• 1,.,11111111111111 ••• 11'111111.11,,1 ••• 111'11111111,1,.11111111,'11111111 •• ,111.11111 ••• 111'11'1111111,.""1111111 •• 111111111'1".11,.11111111.1111.1111.11 ••••••• 1 •• 1111111 ••• 11111 •• 1.,1·,,···0

The marked improvement in crop conditions and the
upward trend of prices for agricultural commodities have
generated a spirit of optimism and have created a brighter
outlook for business and industry in this distIlict. The gen~ral rains greatly benefited growing crops and present
Indications are that yields will be satisfactory. The
district's corn crop which is now nearing maturity will be
the largest in several years and other feed crops are in good
condition. While the yield of small grain is considerably
less than a year ago, the trend of prices during the harvesting period this year has been upward, whereas, a year
ago there was a sharp reaction and the higher prices being
received this year will to some extent offset the lower yield.
The cotton plant has made rapid growth and many sections
report that the plant is fruiting well, yet in some localities
reports are to the effect that plant growth has taken place
at the expense of fruitage. In a few sections root rot is again
~ausing considerable damage. Another disquieting factor
18 the presence of the boll weevil in increasing numbers in
~ large a~ea of the c?tton territory which acts as a pot~~tial
an~er to the growmg crop. Should weather condJtlOns
Conttnue favorable to the propagation of the weevil considerable damage may result.
A betterment has likewise occurred in the district's range
and livestock conditions. While there are few localities
Which are still suffering from the lack of moisture, there is
ililllple pasturage and stock water in the maj or portion of
e range territory and livestock are fattening. The de~~n~ for all classes of stocker cattle continues strong with
? ermgs few and prices firm. The market prices for cattle
1n June reached the highest level of the current year.
b Shasonal recession in the distribution of merchandise in
Jot wholesale and retail channels was in evidence during
une. Department store sales reflected a decline of 15 per
belt as compared to the previous month and fell 8 per cent
e ow those of June a year ago. Wholesale distribution was

a

likewise less than in either the previous month or the same
month last year. In considering the declines from a year
ago, however, it should be borne in mind that in June, 1926,
there was an unusually strong demand for merchandise.
Lower distribution this year is in part accounted for by the
fact that retailers and consumers generally are limiting purchases to actual requirements and are showing a strong disposition to await further crop developments before making
large commitments. Yet, there is a firm undertone of con·
fidence and both wholesalers and retailers are optimistic
regarding fall trade.
The financial situation has shown only minor changes.
Deposits remained relatively steady and the demand for
credit continued light. Federal Reserve Bank loans to memo
ber banks on July 15, which amounted to $6,952,020, were
only $669,808 greater than on May 31, and were $8,468A20
less than on July 15, 1926. The combined deposits of member banks reflected a slight decline of $4.,790,000 between
May 25 and June 22, and on the latter date were $32,339,000
greater than on the corresponding date last year. The member banks of this district are carrying a large cash and secondary reserve which place them in position to take care of
every legitimate need of their customers.
There was a moderate increase in both the number of insolvencies and in the amount of indebtedness involved as
compared to the previous month and to the same month last
year, yet the current business mortality rate shows a considerable improvement over that obtaining during the opening months of the year.
The volume of building as measured by the valuation of
permits issued at principal cities reflected a further decline
of 13 per cent as compared to the previous month and was
33 per cent less than in the same month last year, Production, shipments and new orders for lumber reflected a
sharp decline from the previous month and were materially
less than in the same month last year.

This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)

2

MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW

CROP CONDITIONS
A marked improvement has occurred in the agricultural
situation in this district as a result of the general rainfall
during the past six weeks. Growing crops were materially
benefited and the former drouth area was able to complete
planting operations. Despite the rains, the farmers have
made good progress with the cultivation of crops and in
most sections the fields are generally clean.
The district is now assured of another large feed crop.
The rain came in time to save the corn crop and that crop
is now practically matured in the Southern half of Texas
and is rapidly maturing elsewhere. The indicated yield of
the corn crop in Texas on July 1, was estimated by the Department of Agriculture to be 106,186,000 bushel~ as compared to a production of 106,863,000 bushe~s d.unng 1926.
The yield in the Eleventh Federal Reserve Dlstnct (as compiled by the Federal Reserve Board from the Department of
Aariculture's reports) is placed at 164.,711,000 bushels as
a;ainst 121,782,000 bushels in 1926, or an increase of 35
per cent. Reports also indicate that the production of tame
hay this year in most sections of the district will exceed that
of a year ago and grain sorghums generally are in good
condition. It is practically certain, therefore, that this district will not only have a sufficient supply of feed with
which to mak~ 1928 crops but it will have a surplus to
place upon the market. The strategic position of this district's farmers will be realized when it is stated that the
Department of Agriculture's July ] st estimate of the 1927
corn producion in the United States indicates the smallest
yield in 26 years.
The harvesting of small grains has been completed and
threshing operations are well under way. Reports indicate
that the yield in many sections of the district is proving
more satisfactory than was indicated six weeks ago. The
Department of Agriculture reported that the indicated yield
of wheat in Texas was 17,829,000 bushels as compared to
an indicated yield of 15,842,000 on June 1, and a production
of 32,796,000 bushels in 1926. While the acreage sown to
wheat last fall was 25 per cent greater than in the previous
year, the abandonment was unusually heavy and on July 1,
it was indicated that the acreage harvested would exceed the
1926 acreage by only 2 per cent. The indicated yield of the
Texas oat crop on July 1, was 45,804.,000 bushels as compared to 83,666,000 bushels harvested in 1926.
There is appended below a table showing an estimate of
the probable production of five crops in 1927 and the actual
production in 1926, in the Eleventh Federal Reserve District. These figures were compi led by the Federal Reserve
Board from the July estimates, by states, made by the Department of Agriculture.
(!]
:
::
::

III1I11IIII111111 filii 111 1 1 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 1 f I f Iff 1 1111 f 11 1111111111 1 11111111111111 1 11 1 11' III I I r III1IIII

[!1

ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF FIVE CROPS IN THE
::
ELEVENTH DIS'l1RICT
::
Estimated Yield
Yield in
::
§
July 1. 1927
1926
::
§ Corn (bushel.) ... _...........................................164.711.000
121.782.000 ~
E Winter wheat (bushels) ................................ 18.107.000
84.596.000::

I !~~;1:~j~~;~T~~~?:~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 4tUtm

8tm~m

I

011111111'111111111111111111111111111111"1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIII[!J

The cotton crop, although in all stages of development
ranging from very small plants in West and in Northwest
Texas to a matured crop with picking in progress in the
Rio Grande Valley, is in generally good condition. While
the fields became grassy following the general rains in the
first half of June, the farmers during the early days of

July were able to again clean their fields so that at the
present time the fields generally are in a good state of cultivation in all sections except parts of South Central and
South Texas. The stands of the Texas crop on July 1, were
reported as 85 per cent of perfect as compared to' 88 per
cent on that date in 1926. In some sections there are numerous complaints to the effect that there has been a rapid
growth of plant at the expense of fruitage and that a good
tap root has not developed which in turn will make the plant
susceptible to damage from drouth should it occur later in
the season. In a number of the South Central counties reports indicate that root rot is developing. The weevils have
appeared in increasing numbers considerably earlier than
usual and, while no material damage has been reported as
yet, their presence in such large numbers is disquieting and
acts as a potential danger to the present crop. The Department of Agriculture in its July 1, report places the reduction
in cotton acreage in the states attached to this district as
follows: Texas 11 per cent, Louisiana 18 per cent, New
Mexico 15 per cent and Arizona 17 per cent.
The condition of the Texas rice crop on July 1, was estimated as 94. per cent of normal as compared to 84. per cent
on this same date last year. The indicated yield was placed
at 6,129,000 bushels as against the production of 6,14,2,000
bushels in 1926.
LIVESTOCK
Range and livestock conditions throughout the major
portion of the district's range territory reflected a marked
improvement during the past month. The general rains
broke the drouth in all'sections except in portions of Western Texas. In the latter section the ranges are very dryas
there have been but few scattered showers in several months.
In some instances it has been necessary to fed cows with
young calves due to the shortage of grass. While stock
has not suffered greatly to date the continuance 0.£ dry
weather will cause a considerable shrinkage in cattle and
prevent the normal growth of calves. In the Plains, West
Center and Southern sections of Texas, the rains effectively
broke the drouth and both ranges and stock are improving
rapidly and prospects point toward fair to good summer
and fall pasturage. There are a few localities where the
rainfall has been insufficient and more is needed to insure
g-rass and to replenish the water supply. In the Central,
East and Coast sections of Texas conditions are reported to
be excellent with ample pasturage available and with
cattle generally fat and moving to market. In Southeastern
New Mexico the rains temporarily relieved the drouth and
brought about considerable improvement but recent reports
indicate that ranges are again deteriorating. While the lack
of rainfall affected adversely conditions in Southwestern
New Mexico during June, local showers early in July have
brought about some improvement. Conditions of range and
livestock in Southeastern Arizona are generally good.
The average condition of cattle ranges in Texas was reported as 88 per cent of normal on July 1, an improvement
of five points during the month and the condition of cattle
1.. dvanced one point to 89 per cent of normal. TIle condition
of sheep and goat ranges was placed at 89 per cent on July
], as compared to 86 per cent a month earlier. The condition of sheep and goats was reported as 93 per cent and
94 per cent respectively. The Department of Agriculture
reports that the largest calf crop in Texas in recent history
of the industry is being saved this year with the greater
proportion in excellent condition. In view of the fact that

.MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW

3

many ranges are understocked the number of cattle going
to market this year is expected to be less than usual.
Movements and
Receipts of cattle and sheep at the Fort
Prices
Worth market during June reflected a
sharp falling off as compared to both the
previous month and the same month last year. The receipts
of calves were slightly larger than in May and were con·
siderably larger than in June, 1926. There was a decline
in the receipts of hogs as compared to the previous month

amounted to 4,81,943 bales as compared to 628,132 bales in
May and 34.6,533 bales in June last year. The domestic
consumption of cotton in June, which amounted to 662,630
bales, exceeded the May consumption by 4,.7 per cent and
was 27.8 per cent larger than in the same month last year.
The. combined domestic consumption and exports of cotton
dunng the eleven·month period ending June 30, was 26.4
per cent greater than during the same period of the previ.
ous season.

but a substantial gain as cOlnpared to' the corresponding

~1I1II1I'1It11111111111111111111111111'1I1I1I1I1I11I1I1I1I1II1I1I11I1I1I'1II1111111111111'"1I1I1I1I1I11I1I 11111111111118

month last year.
Following the reaction early in June, cattle prices again
turned upward and some of the best prices of the year were
recorded. Choice steers notched $11.00 and good cows
reached $7.00. During the greater part of the month, there
was a good demand for all quality offerings. During the
last days of June and the first days of July, the market re-

acted somewhat, due to the heavy receipts during that period.
Prices again strengthened during the second week of July.
H og prices during the second week of June reached the low·
est level since 1924" but during the last half of June and the
first half of July prices strengthened somewhat. During
part of the time receipts were below requirements and packers were forced to bring in supp lies from other markets.
D .
h
11'
f h

~~k~~ t~ i

le~:I:.ece1

w
o;:·a
pts prices 0 seep and lambs
~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIII 111111.11111111111111111111.111111111111111111111 1 .11111111111111 1f!)
::
FOR'I1 WORTH LIVESTOCK RECEIPTS
::

i Cattle .............. 80.990
t~2n7e
~

:: Calves ............ 21.577
Hogs ................ 45281
21.349
Shee

~

..

i~~:
94.669

12.043
16.004
98874

Ol

LG:in '
L 13.679
G 9.534
G 58 143
5.845
L

19.647
29.913

100869

1.980::
L 8.564 ~

G

L 66 128:

~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. 1I1I .. IIHUIlIIlIlIlt;"

§

::
::
~
::
::

COMP ARATIVE TOP

LIVES~~::

1927
Beef Steers ........................................................ $11.00
Stocker steers .................................................... 8.20
Butcher cows .................................................... 7.00
Stocker cows ...................................................... 5.50
Calves .................................................................. 10.75
Hogs ...................................................................... 9.30

~ ~~:gB .. ~::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: l~:~g

~

Net receipt.•...................... 49.662
- Exports June 80 ................ 107.414
g Stocks. ..............................

PR::::
1926
$ 8.50
8.10
6.50
5.25
10.35
15.S0

1~:~~

l~:~g ~

(EJ III IIIIIIIIIII., I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII.lIllllllllllfllIl.III1IIIIIUlI .. , 11I1I1I1I1111I1I1I1I1I1I111111111111111.,.,1111111111!l

Cotton

Receipts and exports of cotton at the
MovemenJ,s
ports of Houston and Galveston reflected
a seasonal decline as compared to the
.
previous month but exports continued to sh ow a gam as
compared to the same month last year. Stocks on hand at
~hese ports on June 30, were smaller than on the same dale
In 1926.
F .
.
'
'
'orelgn exports 0f cotton ( Inc1UCj Jng l Inters )

This Season Last Season
3.811.659 3.082.748 §
8.713.980 2812239247.605
.272;076 S

m

~llIllIlIllIlIlIlIllIllIIlIlIlIIlIlIllIlIlIlIllIlIlIllIlIlIlIllIlIllIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIllIlIlIllIn1111 IIIIIUI II II 1111 W (!]

~
:
::
:: For G

§

t

GALVESTON STOCK STATEMENT
June 30.
1927
B 't .
8800

~~:: ~£~~ef~~~i~~::: ;~;~~~::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: 3~:~gg

~ For coastwise I)Olts ................................................ 2.500
:: In compresses and depots ...................................... 197.905
§ Total ....................... _...........................................247.605

~
June 30. :
1926::
::

t~~~

§

2.500 g
257.876::
272.076 ~

[!lUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII., 1 11111111111111111111111111111111.11111111111.1 1 1111111111118

I!l~: ~:_§ = ~·~~~~: :~~·~:~;~~J·1·uT9..2~~·~~~~·~J·1·9·2~..6He~·T';h~,!>S~'u'Se~gu"a:'~~~n'l"H'Lt'O'nOJs'~ 'Sn''T"a03's'0~o"nl l"l!J
...
e'
....

..

s
r..

Net receipts ...................... 28.207
Exports .............................. 94.670
Stocks. June 80 ................

16.897
68.687

3.568,589
2.571.815
287.585

2.599.597
1.755.024
819.677

L!l11I1I1I1I11I1I1I1I1I11II1I11I1I11I1I1I1I11I1I11I.1I1I11I11I1I1I1I1f11l1f1l1l11l1l1l11l1l11l11111111111111111111111111118

8 ....................... •................................ •......................... •.... •.......................... •.... m
§
SEASON'S RECEIPTS, EXPORTS, AND STOCKS AT ALL

I ~: _.! R".;,"

May l'
1927
$10.25 ~
9.15::
8.00::
6.00::
10.25::
9.85::

52.450
108,912

[ElIIIIIIIIIIIII.1I1I1I11I1I1I IIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111111111111111111111111 1I1I1I11I1I11I1I1I1I1I ...

~~~ L 11.750::I
~:rnor
92.740

G
...........~ .. ;;;;;;·::;;;;· :..................:...................:..................:...................:........ 8
.....

~
I

: .~: co ON M
m OVEMENTS :;OUGH{:; POR:,:, ~:L:~~N :_~:

~

-=~::~~:~;~~i"" J~\~'Jt;,l11

Exports: G"eat Brltalll .............................. 2.587.680
Frall!,e ...........................-............... 1.000.032
Contment ....................................... 5.247.826
Jap'!n-Chllla .............................. 1.773.098
MeXICO .... :....................................... 17,560
Total foreign ports...................... 10.576.146
Stocks at all U. S. ports. June 30............ 1.267.514

2.245 .158
892.088
8.312.342
1.146,840
45,296
7.6U.724
676,437 :

[€IUIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111110

~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISlpO'TIICOTTONlp'RICE'SIIlIIlIlIIIIIIlI1UIIIIIIIII.,1I1I1I1I11¥I

~
(Middling Basis)
~
:
Hi~hne. 192Low
J~~2~5:
§ New Yol'1< ...................................................... 16.75
17.10
16.35
18.00 §
- New Orlenns ................................................
15.85
17.6~:: Dnllas" ............................................................ 16.30
15.00
17.80::
~ ~~~s:t':,n ....:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~g:~~
~~:~~
g:~~ §
~ t ;Bnsis/or 'k~ot~~~; changed fl'O m o/s.inch stnple to 15/16-inch §
- s all e on une.
.
:
[!)

8

111.111111111111111111111111.11111111111111111111111.1.111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUlIIIIII.II ••

I!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.I.II.I •• II'I.I •• '.'.IIIII.I.'III'I1111,111111111111,111111.1111111111111,'111 1 1.,11 1 1111111111 11 111,1111111, " 11',11111111111111111111111'1111,.,1. "1 " "111111111111111"'111111 "' 1111"'11111111111111111111111""1 t.llllll. 'IIII ,[!)

~

co'nON CONSUMED AND ON HAND
COTrON GROWING STATES
August 1 to June 30
June
.Tune
'rhis
Last

:
~
~

:

~:

Cotton con.ume'!... .............................................. _...................
Ootton on hllnd June 80 :
(n) In consuming stnblishments................................
:
(b) In public storage and compl·esses......................

~

[!JIIIIIII"IIIII.I'IIIII'.IIII".I'III.II.II.IIIIII'II ••

4~~~:77 3~:~;82 4~7a8~::2 4~:::~:O9
............
............

............
............

1.096.747
1.828.821

746.190
2.171.512

;
:
UNITED STATES
~
August 1 to June 30 §
Juno
June
This
Last:

6~:~6780 5::.~:7 6.~;:::;4 5~ge9a:.~:9 :~
............

............
............

1.607.676
2.164.108

1.286.707' ~
2.410,261 ::

1111'1'111"1111'111,,1111"'11111111111,'111111111111 111'lllllfll'I ~IIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'1111 111111,.,1111.1.,111111111"1'1111111111.111111.111111.,III.IIIIIIIIII.,lf.,IIIIIIIIIIII@

COTTONSEED PRODUCTS
~ith the exception of linters, which remained the same
as In May, the average prices received for all classes of cot·
tonseed products shipped by reporting mills in this district
were greater in June than in the previous month. The aver·

age price received for crude oil increased from $ .074.3 per
pound in May to $ .0777 per pound in June; cake and meal
from $29.33 per ton to $32.14 per ton; and hulls from $4.34.
per ton to $5.00 per ton. As in the previous month, the
average price received for linters in June was $ .0245 per
pound. There were 4.,44 9 tons of cottonseed purchased by

MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW

4

34 reporting mills in June at an average price of $30.68 per
ton, as compared to 2,600 tons bought for an average price
of $26.29 per ton by 30 mills in May.
8 ............

111 ......... 1111 .... 11111 .. 1111111 ... 1111 .. 111111.111 ... 111111111111 .................. IIIIIIIIIII.IIIIII .. II!J

1 OOTOONSEED

PRODUCTSR~Jf."g

;;;::;;:;

Crude oil ..............................................
Cake and meal...................................
Hullo ......................................................
Linters .....................•.........................•

6.843.682 lb.. $ .0777
6.408 tons 82.14
4.741 tons
6.00
1.971.241IbB.
.0246

:1:' : ~I

per lb.
per ton
per ton
per lb.

[!J ...... III ........... tIIIlIlU .. IIII.UIlIlIIlIIIlIIIlIlIl .... UII .. 11I1I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111·0
mllltllllll.llllltell •••• '.".IIIIIIIII •••• IIIIIIIIII.1'1'1111111111111111111111111"11111111111"'111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIC!)

:
:

STATISTICS ON COTTONSEED AND COTTONSEED
PRODUCTS
Texas
August 1 to June 80
This Season Last Season

§

:
:

United States
August 1 to June 80
This Season Last Season

Cottonseed received
at mills (tons).... 1.908.081
1.888.016
6.321.349
6.585.838
Cottonseed crushed
(tons) .................. 1.875.588
1.898.410
6.286.070
6.518.623
Cottonseed on hllnd
(tons) ..................
82.655
10.699
101.391
40.367
Crude oil produced
(lbs.) ................. .526.083.279 891.956.000 1.864.773.403 1.597.833.000
Cake and meal pro·
duced (tons) ......
866.295
650.000
2.801.086
2.567.000
Hulls produced
(tons) .... .... ..........
559.404
392.000
1.884.317
.1.629.000
Linters produced
(500-lb. bales)......
306.896
264 .000
1.027.668
1.035.000
Stocks on hand
June 30:
Crude oil (lbs .) .... 2.611.247
684.000
10.411.064
4.338.000
Cake and meal
(tons) ............ ......
22.115
45.000
102.695
282.000
Hulls (tons) ............
54.471
52.000
188.188
126.000
Linters (500-lb.
00
bales) ..................
17.864
22.000
80.743
109. 0

:
(!J 1111111 .. It II I fllllllfllIlIlllIll.1I1I1I1I11I1I1I1I1I1I111I1I '1111111,111111111'1"111111111'"

11111'111111111' .1111"

[!]

TEXTILE MILLING
Reports from textile mills in the Eleventh District show
that cotton consumption and spindle activity were greater in
June than in the same month last year and only slightly
less than in May. There were 3,244 bales of cotton consumed during June, as compared to 3,295 bales in the previous month and 2,600 bales consumed in June, a year ago.
Production of cloth, which amounted to 1,505,858 pounds,
was 25.5 per cent greater than in the corresponding month
of last year and 6.0 per cent larger than in May. Orders
on hand at the close of June were greater than a month
earlier and were considerably above those recorded a year
ago, while stocks on June 30, were less than at the end of
May and below those carried on June 30, 1926.
r=J .11111111 ...... ,1 1 11111111111111111111 .... 1111.111111 .. 11111111111111111111.,111111111111111,,111""
§
TEXTILE MILLING STATISTICS

IH:~E; ~":i~&~';:E:'!::,:~l~li: ,.:;1~! 1

'1'1111111111111 1

[!]
:

jl!! I

and retailers are less than a year ago and this fact evidences
an element of strength in the current trade situation. Buying in small lots and to cover only current requirements
continues as conservatism in buying remains the ruling factor in the retailer's policy. Nevertheless, as the season advances optimism regarding the future is becoming more
general by reason of the improved crop conditions and the
rising prices of agricultural products.
The past month witnessed a seasonal decline in the demand for dry goods at wholesale but the slackening was less
than usual for this season. While the sales were 10.4. per
cent less than in the corresponding month last year, the
decline is not surprising in view of the fact that the distribution of dry goods was exceedingly heavy during the latter
.
month. Sales for the first half of 1927 averaged 4•9 per
cent less than during the same period of 1926. Dealers
report that the demand for merchandise is already showing
some improvement and that the outlook for fall business is
favorable. While merchants generally are still limiting
commitments to current requirements, the volume of forward orders is increasing.
The distribution of farm implements continued on a
small scale. Sales durin g June were 25.2 per cent less than
during the previous month and were 23.8 per cent less than
in the corresponding month last year. While sales during
the first six months of 1927 have averaged 40.3 per cent
less than during the corresponding period of 1926, it should
be noted that the spread between 1927 and 1926 sales has
been gradually diminishing and the decline of the current
month's sales from those of the corresponding month of the
previous year was smaller than in any month since September, 1926. Dealers report that due to the improved crop
conditions there is a better outlook for fall trade and optimism is becoming more general.
June sales of reporting wholesale drug firms reflected a
decline of 4 per cent as compared to the previous month
and 3.8 per cent as compared to the same month last year.
Retailers continue to limit orders to actual requirements.
Some dealers report that the demand has been good for
staple articles. Prices have shown practically no change.
The demand for groceries at wholesale during the past
month was sustained at near the same level as in the previous month but was 3.7 per cent less than in the same month
last year. Buying appeared to be somewhat spotted. Some
dealers report that the city trade has been good while the
dcmand from the country trade has been poor. Prices remained generally steady.
i!l::::._:::::

811 •• ,.,.,11,.11,1111,.,11111.111111111,1,.11111,111,111111111111,1111111,111111.,.1,.1, .... ' ••••• ,1111 •• ,.,11111.11.11 ........

WHOLESALE TRADE
Quietude prevailed in wholesale channels of distribution
during the past month. Sales reflected a seasollal decline as
compared to the previous month and were considerably
bdow June a year ago, ranging from 3.7 per cent in the case
of groceries to 23.8 per cent in the case of farm implements.
In considering the decline from a year ago, howenr, it
should be remembered that trade in June, 1926, was unusually active for that month. It will be noted that while sales in
every reporting line for the first six months of 1927 have
fallen below the same period of 1926, the decline in each
line except farm implements has been of moderate proportion and indicates that buying has held up remarkably
well under the circumstances. Stocks of both wholesalers

1111111111.11111111111111.111111111.111111111111111111111111111111111"'11 I 11111 fllIlIlI fll.I.I.,'" '1.11111'" I

CONDITION OF WHOLESALE TRADE DURING JUNE. 1927
Percentage of Incrense 01' Decrease in:

"IIII!l:::::.::::

-Net Sales- -Net Sales-StocksJune. 1D27
Jan. 1 to date
June. 1927
compared with compared with compared with §
§
June
May same period June
May §
§
1926
1927
last year
1926
1927
§
: Groceries ........................- 3.7
.7
- 5.0
- 8.4
- 8.S :
: Dl'Y Goods .................... -10.4
- 4.4
- 4.9
- 4.8
+12.1:
§ Fal'm Implements ......- 23.8
- 25.2
-40.3
+.6
- 4.6 §
: Hlll'dwul'e .. ....................- 8.6
+.8
- 8.8
-18.8
+ 1.4 :
: Drugs .......................... .. - 8.8
- 4.0
- 6.1
- 6.5
+ 1.3 :

g

W,.,·,IIIIIIIIIIII •• ,II.I.IIII.I'"I.IIIIIIIII",III,I,IIIIIII.II,II11111I111.,III.IIIIIII.IIIIII.,III.,.,IIIII.III.,II,1!l

RETAIL TRADE
The volume of retail distribution in the larger cities as
measured by department store sales reflected a seasonal decline of 15.4. per cent as compared to the previous month and
was 7.9 per cent below the corresponding month of 1926.
While the midsummer dullness in buying at department

MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW

5

stores was in evidence during the latter part of June and the
first half of July, buying has been stimulated to some extent
by widespread clearance sales.
Stocks on hand at the end of June were 7.5 per cent less
than a month earlier and were 7.7 per cent below those carried on June 30, 1926. The percentage of sales to average

stocks during the first half of 1927, was 136.6 as compared
to 126.8 during the same period of 1926,
Collections reflected a further decline during June. The
ratio of June collections to accounts receivable due and outstanding on June 1, was 33.7 as compared to 35.2 in May
and 36.2 in June last year.
~111111I1I1I1I""tllIlIllIlIlIlIlIllllIlIlIlIlllIl'III'IIIIII'11I1I1I1I11I1I1I1I1I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.111
11.9
.. 1111111111111111111111111 .. 1111111 ....... 111 ... 1111 .. 1111 ... 1111111 ......

:

E
:

::

BUSINESS OF DEPARTMENT STORES
Total Sales :
June, 1927, compar ed wit h June, 1926........................................................
June, 1927, compared with May, 1927........................................................
J a nua ,'y 1 to date, compa r ed with sam e period last year ..............................
Credi t Sa les '
June, 1927, compa r ed with June, 1926 ...................................................... ..
June, 1927, compared w ith May, 1927.. .................................................... ..
J a nua r y 1 t o date, compared with same period las t year ......................... .
Stocks :
June, 1927, compared with June, 1926...................................................... .
June, 1927, compar ed wit h MIlY, 1927 ....................................................... .
P ercen tage o f sa les to average stocl<s in :
June, 1926 .................................................... ......................................................
June, 1927 ................... ......................................................................................
P ercen tage of sales to avera ge s tocks:
J a nuary 1 t o June ao, 192 6...........................................................................
J a nual'y 1 to June 80, 1927............................................................................
Ratio of outsta nding or de,'s to last year's purch asos ...................................

;;

Da llas
- l S.5
- 19.9
- 6. 5

Fort Worth
- 2.7
- 11.4
+ 4.9

;;
Houston
- 4.0
- 8.7
+ 2.8
-

- 10.4
-25.1
- 1.6

- 8.9
- 18.5
- 2.0

-

-

+1.1

-18.7
-21 .8
- 8.6

- 14.9
8.1

-14.4
- 5.8

-

Total E
:
District ;;
- 7.9
- 15.4
- 1.2

All
Ot hers
- 7.8
- 19.5
.9

8.6
.8

804
6.8

+ 5.9
+ 10.1
5.6
-

19.2
19.1

20.8
20.9

80.6
28. 6

22.7
22.2

21.9
21.8

119.9
14 8.7
4.0

115.6
130.2
18.1

166.4
167.8
2.8

129.5
183.8
5.6

126.8
136.6
4.0

29.7

ing June I , 1927..............................................................................................

+

82.6

38.3

87.8

83.7

4.7
9.4

7.7
7.6

§

8"1111111111 ... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIfCllI.IIIIII.I ... 11.111I1111I ..... IIIIIII.III .... IIIIIIII ...... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ...... IIIIIIIUIIlIU ....... 11 ... 111118
0111 •• 11111111111.11111.11111111.11 •• 11 •• 11.,1.1111111111111111111111111111,11111 •• 11111.111 •••• 1.11.11.1.11IIII •••• IIII[!]

FINANCIAL

r

::
;:

DEBITS TO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
(In 'Phousands of Dollars)

r:f:;~r;::~~~:~~~lI~:~~t:~:i~::~~:~:~f!g ~:!:1: ~;=' lWa
. d"d 1
year. The total vo 1ume 0 f deb its to m IVI ua accounts at
th
.. d '
J
t d t $725 398 000
h' h

·::1::

Corsicana ..................
4,891
Dullos ........... "............ 188,284
EI P aso .................... 82,037

' li:8 8o: 5
9:6:,:,,6 s89:7
i
.,
29,846

;;
::

I_i2;'~4 : 5 0' '~!i! I'fi !
+ 7.8

5,224
181,438
30,299

- 6.4
+ 3.8
+ 6.7

~~;I~~'Ei;~[u~~:;~~~~;~;;b~~ ;;;;~~~: i~~~~: ~; 'il!lll '1:l4;9:,'0;8: ~24':9; ~:1+:6 0:.·:g! ';I:l!l H!
1:::_1

trict reflected a further seasonal decline
during June. Acceptances outstanding on June 30, totaled
$2,684.,951 as compare d to $3,06 1,039 on M ay 31 . Th e
amount of outstanding acceptances executed against import
and export transactions increased from $834·,957 on May 31,
to $1,130,159 on June 30, but this increase was mO.re th.an
offset by the decline of those based on the domestIc shIp.
ment and storage of goods which amounted to $1,554.,792
on June 30, as against $2,226,082 on May 31.
Condition of
Reports from member ba~ks in se~ect.ed
Member Banks
cities reflected a further mcrease m min Selected
vestments but a decline in loans during
Cities
the five· week period ending July 6, 1927.
During this period their investments in
United States securities rose $2,4.59,000 and those in other

Tucson ........................
8,846
8,988 - 1.6
Waco .......................... 14,98 7
14,759
+ 1.2
Wichita Falls ........... 27,855
38,114 -15.9
25,180
.tl0.8
§ Total, 11th Di8trict .. $725,898 $707,852 + 2.6 $715,200 + 1.4
[!J!.. III .... IIIIIIII .. IIIIIII •• IIIII.IIIIIIII ... IIII .. IIIIIII .. IIIIIIIIIIII.I ..... IIIII1111 ... 11111 ...... 1111111 ......... 9

stocks and bonds increased $335,000, making a total increase
of $2,794.,000. Commercial loans were expanded $2,910,000 hut this increase was more than offset by a decline of
$4.,163,000 in loans secured by corporate securities. The
net demand deposits of these banks reflected a decline of
$5,715,000 but time deposits rose $1,218,000. Their bills
payable and rediscounts with the Federal Reserve Bank
amounted to $2,179,000 on July 6, as compared to $2,825,000 on June 1, and $4.,210,000 on July 7, 1926. It will be
noted that the ratio of loans to net demand deposits rose
three points during the month but was two points lower
than 'a year earlier.

1!l11.111111111 •••••• IIIIIIIIII •• I.I •••••••• III •••• I.1111111'11111.1111.,,11,1,.111,111111'1111""1111.1.1 •• 111111 •• 1.11,.,1.1.111111111111111.1,.111 ••• 111 •• 11,1.1.1111 ••• 111, •• 11'1 •• 111,.11111"" •• 111111.11.111.1111.11 ••••••• 1111,.11.11,.,1,.111.1111,8

§
§

§
;;
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
::

§
~

1.
2.
8.
(.
6.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

CONDITION STATISTICS OF MEMBER BANKS IN SELEC'l1ED CITIES
July 6, 1927
June I, 1927
Number of reporting banks ........................................................ _.................. _· ....·.. ·....................
45
45
U. S. securities owned ........................... _..........._............... ~ .............. - ...................... _.. -...............
$ 68,768,000
$ 61,809,000
All other stocks, bonds and securities ow~ ed.: .............................................·- ....·....................·
28,025,000
27 ,690,000
Loans secured by U . S. Government obhgatlOns ........................................·....:......................
2,986,000
2,900,000
Loa ns secured by st ocks and bonds other than U. S. Government oblllll1tlons...............
76,061,000
80,224 ,000
All other 108ns ................ _............................ _....................... _.............·. ................. _.......................
281 ,919,000
229,044,000
Net demand deposits ............ _.... _........ _........................... - .................. - ..·...... - .................... -.........
267,768,000
273,468,000
Time dep osits .............................................. - ....................................... _..................................._......
109,396,000
108,178,000
Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank........................._.............. ·............. ·_.................. _·....·..........
29,879,000
80,114,000
Bills payable and r ediscounts with F ederal Reserve Bank ............ - ........ _.................. _........
2,179,000
2,825,000
Ratio of loans" to net demand deposits ................................. ·............·........ - ......·....................·..·
88 %
85%
°Loans include only items 4 and 6.

§
July 7, 1926
§
48
§
$ 58,716,000
§
21,958,000;;
8,976,000;;
70,708,000;;
228,050,000;;
261,196,0 0 ' : :
106,826,0001;;
26,983,000;;
4,210,000;;
90 % §
:

~.llllllllllltlllllllllllllllll.III.111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,.1.11,.1.111.1'1.11111111111111,1111'111111111.111.11111111111.'11111111111.1111.11111'11111111111111111"111.11111111.IIIIIII •• IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII@

Savings
Deposits

Savings deposits of banks located in this
district, operating a savings department,
reflected an increase of 2.2 per cent on
June 30, as compared to May 31, and were 10.2 per cent

greater than a year ago. There were 259,495 accounts carried at these banks at the close of June as against 257,967 a
month earlier and 232,632 on June 30, 1926.

MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW

6

[!JIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIII •• IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111,1'1'1111111111111111111111111111111111'111111111111111111111111'11111111.,.1.,11111111111111111111111111111fllllll'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIII'III'1111111111111111111111111111111, •• 111111111111

June 30. 192'7
Number of Number of
R eporting Savings
Banks
Depos itors
Beaumont ...................................
Dallas ............................... _........
EI Paso .................................... .
Fort Worth .... ...........................
Ga lveston ..................... _
............ .
Houston ............... _.......... ..........
San Antonio .............................
Shreveport ...............................
Waco ................................_......... .
Wichita Falls ................... _...... .
All others ...................................

4'
6
2
8
8
13'

6'

3
4

8
39 '

5.632
51.848
12.695
20.744
18.280
61.746
23.116
23.569
8.302
5.930
32.633

SA VINGS

Amount of
Savings
Deposit..
$

D::~eSI:: 1926

Number of
Savings
Depos itors

2.428.960
20.358.947
4.800.298
6.668.582
9.723.999
29.228.819
13.469.918
9.621.857
5.645.254
3.245.389
16.933.754

5.367
88.187
13.288
19.506
12.697
54.795
21.920
20.386
7.512
7.074
31.950

Amount of
Sav ings
Depos its

$

2.258 .1 53
16.905.525
5.619.370
6.482.017
8.559.681
26.751.225
12.249.510
9.538.397
4.359.226
3.824.246
14.829.890

:~

May 81. 1927
Inc. or
Dec.

+

7.8
+20.4
- 14.6
8.7
+13.6
9.3
+10.0
.9
+29.5
- 2.4
+ 14.2

+
+
+

Number of
Savings
Depos itors
5.607
51.746
12.529
20.739
13.223
60.717
23.878
23.502
8.260
5.907
82.859

Amount of
Savings
Deposits
$

(!]

I nc. or
Dec.

2.383.624
19.637.941
4.620.489
G.545.972
9.859.182
28.386.822
18.280.715
9.627.062
5.449.988
3.267.970
16.423.579

+ 1.9
+ 8.7
+ 3.9
+l.O

-

1.4

+ 3.0
+ 1.4
.1
+ 8.6
.7
+ 3.1

TotaL..................................
86
259.495
$122.125.727
232.632
$110.817.270
+10.2
257.967
$119.483.294
+ 2.2
'Only 3 banks in Bea umont. 12 banks in Houston. 5 banks in Sa n Antonio nnd 36 banks in "all others" reported t he number of savings depositors.

~

8 '1111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 1111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 IIII IIIIUIIIIIIIII 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111 [!]

I!llllllill til' 11 1.111111111111,. ' 1'11111111111111111111 11' 111 11 11111111"' 1 '11111111111,111 11 "'111111111111'11111111111111. '1111 " 11111 1 1111 f f 1.11111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 •• 1.1111.1.11111111111111111111'1111 t .11111,1, IIIIIIII ' ~:::

JULY lJISCOUNT RATES

Prevailing' rates

8

5-8

5-6

4lh-7

G-8

5

6

5-6

5

4lh -6

5-6

5-6
5-7

8
8

6-8
6-8

5-6
5-G

5-8
6-8

6-8
6-8
6-8

Deposits of
Member Banlcs

The net demand deposits of member
banks in this district reflected a decline
of $6,440,000 between May 25, and June
22, but time deposits increased $1,650,000 during the same
period so· that the net decline in combined deposits amounted
to only $4,790,000. The decline this year compares with a
net decline of $8,680,000 during the corresponding period
in 1926. The decline in demand deposits this year occurred
principally at banks in cities with a population of 15,000
to 100,000, whereas, the maj or portion of the decline last
year occurred at banks in cities of less than 5,000 population. The combined deposits of member banks on June 22,
amounted to $787,241,000 as compared to $792,031,000 on
May 25, and $754,902,000 on June 23, 1926.

I

0

I

111111111111111111111111111111'"111111111111'1111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUI.III1I1III1IUIlIlItIII ' 1!J

I

I

DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Total
pemand

es

Banks in cities Bnnks in citi
Total with a popu]a. with a popula
tion of over
tlon of less
Time
thnn 15.000
15.000
Demand Time
Time

--- I -

~

-I

June 23. 1926.... _...... _ 588.075 166.827 259.63 0 44.937 328.445 121.89
July 28. 1926 _____ 589.748 165.299 262.499 45.628 327.249 119.671
Aug. 25. 1926.._ __ 584 .468 165.277 257.886 45.407 326.577 119.870
Sept. 22. 1926 ..............•• 612.834 165.732 275.780 45.640 337.054 120.09
Oct. 27. 1926 .... _.......... 626.554 164.972 281.080 42.998 845.474 121.97
Nov. 24. 1926 .________ 635.704 165.718 287.413 44.194 848.291 121.51
Dec. 29. 1926 ....... _....... 682.391 161.503 281.721 41.290 350.670 120.21
Jan. 26. 1927................ 633.208 166.919 282.875 43.791 850.338 128.12
Feb. 28. 1927 ................ 650.879 176.503 290.885 44.869 360.494 181.68
March 28. 1927 ............ 645 .449 176.130 278.998 46.021 366.451 130.10 9
April 27. 1927 ............. 632.818 175.886 272.254 46.624 360.664 129.21 2 :
Mny 25. 1927 ........... _... 613.136 178.895 265.858 47.G18 347.278 13 1.277 §
:: June 22. 1927 .............. 606.696 180.545 263.813 48.119 342.883 132.42 6 :
~111 '1111111111"l lf lf'II'I I IIIIIIIIII'I'I'lllltl'lll' 11'11111111111111.11.1111 1 11.111.111111111111 11 1111111111111 1 1 1 1110

operations of

!'

Federal Reserve Bank loans to member
banks amounted to $6,220,655 on June
serve Bank
30, as compared to $6,282,212 on May 31,
representing a slight decline of $61,557.
These loans remained relatively steady throughout the month
as the liquidation received from day to day was sufficient
to offset the volume of new loans, but, during the greater
part of the month, there was a shifting of loans from reserve
city banks to country banks. During the last days of the
month, however, loans to reserve city banks again increased
while those to country banks declined somewhat. During
the Federal Re·

the first fifteen days of July our loans reflected an expan·
sion of $731,375 and the increase was fairly well distributed
between reserve city banks and the country banks. There
were 174 borrowing banks on June 30, as compared to 157
on May 31, refl ecting the wider distribution of loans.
Due to the decline in the volume of bills purchased in the
open market, total bills held declined from $18,737,749.89
on May 31, to $16,277,818.58 on June 30, distributed as
follows:
Member bank collateral notes secured by U. S. Government
obligations ... _................................................................................... $ 980.450.00
Rediscounts and a ll other lonns to member banks.................... 5.240.205.88
Open market put'chases (Banker's Acceptances) ........................ 10.057.163.20
Tota l bills held .............................................................................. .. $16.277.818.58

Federal reserve notes in actual circu lation, which amount·
ed to $34.,505,115 on June 30, reflected a further seasonal
decline of $972,480 during the month, and were $1,210,290
less than on June 30, 1926. The dail y average reserve deposits of member banks amounted to $58,4.96,457 during
June as compared to $59,74.0,881 during the preceding
month and $56,563,580 during the correspon ding month
last year.
FAILURES
The past month witnessed a moderate increase in both the
number of failures and the amount of indebtedness in·
volved, yet May was the only month of the current year in
which the number of failures was less and small er li abili·
ties were reported only in March and May. There were 59
fai lu res during Jun e with an indebtedness of $1,555,260 as
compared to 51 defaults in May with li abilities amounting
La $1,220,4.08 and 39 insolvencies in June, 1926, with aggre·
ga te liabilities of $1,034,020. During the first half of 1927
there were 4.81 failures as compared to 441 during the same
period of 1926 but the indebtedness of defaulting firms
during the half year of 1927, was $10,24.7,717 as compared
to $5,4.89,391 during the same period of 1926. It will be
noted, therefore, that while the number of failures showed
an increase of only 9.1 per cent the indebtedness involved
increased 86.7 per cen t, indicating that the size of the fi rms
defaulting in 1927, was larger than in 1926.

MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW

7

PETROLEUM
Field operations in June in the Eleventh Federal Reserve tral Wesl Texas were centered around Brown County, which
District reflected a further decrease and completions drop- reported a further gain in production and in Pecos County,
ped to the lowest level reached since February, 1926. Total where new development was begun in June. Total output
production of crude oil in J une amounted to 20,158,351 in North Louisiana amounted to 1,44.3,930 barrels, as combarrels as compared to 20,684.,558 barrels in May repre- pared to 1,4.70,888 barrels in the previous month, or an
senting a decrease of 526,207 barrels in total output. Due increase of 683 barrels in daily average production.

~~7~~eb~~~~{:rinmdoa~~~' a~~;:~:e~ie\~~reT~::e ';er:~;~s~o~~ ~: : ~ ···················· .. ··.. ···.. ·.. ·~~cml~p..l~e..-;~I~~p~. r~o·~_I I ;~I~G·~n..llJs~~~III11F·.·a..i·I·_IIIIIIIII..n..i·t..i·a·I.. •.. "~::i:
..o
..
pletions during the month of which 294 were producers of
oil and 25 were gas wells which represents a decline of 81
comp letions, 88 producers of oil, bu t an increase of 5 in
the number of gas wells. Initial production declined furh
t er, amounting to 86,059 barrels in J line as against 154.,-

Field-

tions

ducers

Wells

ures

Production

Central-West Texas....
E ast-Centra l Texas ....
'feX8S Coastal ............

232
158
7
88

152
100
1
20

5
5
2
0

76
48
4
18

19.711
44.108
16
20.578

NOl·th Louisiana ........

46

18

7

21

1.441

June totals. District.. 586
May totals. District.... 617

294
882

25
_20

217
215

86.059
154.066

E North Texns

:
::

§

06~ear~~~:n ::;~ge

production of crude oil in Texas
amounted to 623,814. barrels as compared to 619,796 barrels in May, representing an increase of 4,,018 barrels. A
decline in drilling operations was noted in all maJ fields
'or
of the state. Although the heaviest reduction in field work
occurred in the Central West Texas and Gulf Coast districts,
the daily average yield of these two areas increased substantially and accounted for the increase shown by the
st t
S ' dl T f' Id 1
d ' h G If C
'a e. pm e op Ie , ocate m t e u
oast region,
reflected an increase in total production over the previous
month for the first time since December. Activities in Cen-

_

(!] ItIIlIlIlIlIlIIlIlIlIllIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII UlII IIIIIIIIIIIII111111111 11 11 [3

CRUDE OIL PRICES

:~ : :

July 6
July 7
Texns1927
1926
Texas Coastal (G "ade .. A .. ) ........................................$1.2 0
$1.60
North a nd Central Texas and North Louisiana
(52 gr. a n d above) .................................................... 1.60
•
.Prices for July 6. 1926. not available on a compal'able basis.

E
-

[ [1111111111111111111111111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111 11 1111111111 1111 11 11 11111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIUlili m

i:_~ ~;:;:!',Z;' : i-=: : : : : : : -_:=: :=: : .: : : =: ·:1 51~ .·:29:190'J: ~;'8~8~':82:7~'4;·~TIO:1~.42:58g4~,:10865 M'B'ai~43 g~ : 'l otn~1:02:"'~845:~5" D~~~n AVg2i"·0~8 06
:1••

~

i

65°

4.800.520
1.01 8.860

148.361
88,962

4.146.095
1.104,275

:g

6 .1 0 ·
; :
0 454

188.745
35.622

i1y

Dec.
Inc.
Dec.

154.426
85.415

Dec.
Inc.
Dec.

L:;ui;r:::. .:::::::::::::::=
:::::::=:::::::::::::::::=::=::::::

~

l~:~!~:m

6!~:~~1

l~:m:m

6!~:m g:~:

4~~:~~~ ~~~:

4.~~~

20.158.861

671.946

20.684.558

667.244

526.207

4.701

Dec.

I nc.

(!]

:E:_I

9.606
1.660 E

Total. District .............................................. -._...

ot
Nort1

-1 -:
_--

1111111 1111 11 1111111111 1 11 1 111 1 111 111 11 11 111 1 11'1111'111 1 1111 11 11 1 11 1 11111111111111 11 1 111 1111'1 1 11 1 111111111 111 111 1 11 1 · 0

mlllll l lllllll l lllllll., I I I . I • • • I •• III.,I.,III • • I.II •• ".,11" • • ••• 1"' ••• 1 • • • 1"'1,1'1,1 1,.11,1,1,.,1,.",111,.1'1 ,. , . ,.111.1 1 111 1111,1 . 1.111111.1,11,11111"" " I.IIIIII.I'I.III.'I . IIII' • • I I . , S"I I IIII , I.I . I I. I I IIII11111'1' 111111 1 111"11111 11 11 111 11 1

East-Oentral Texas ..__ .............._...............................
Texas COnstaJ...............................................................
Southwest Texas..........................................................

E

~:;;.:.::?=~: .:: , ; ,; ,:: ",:::

- --:1
_

8

E
:
;;

i
~

Gl 'IIII.I"'IIII.I ••• I ••••• ' •••• ,IIIIII •• I.I.III." 1 1111 1.1111111 11111.111.1111111.111111.1 111111 1 11111111111111111111111111 11 1" ,'11111111 11111 1 1'11111111111'111111111111 1 111111,1111,1.1111,111111. 1 .1111. , 111.,,1 11111111111'111'111111'1'111111111111" 0

(Oil Statistics compiled by "The Oil Weekly." Houston. Texas)

LUMBER
Seasonal influences were reflected in the operation of pine
rnills in this district in June. Shipments of lumber declined
from 87 per cent of normal production in May to 70 per
cellt in June, which was the lowest level reached since last
December. Production amounted to 80 per cent of normal,
as compared to 84, per cent in the previous month, while
orders received at these mills dropped from 15 per cent

below normal production in May to 33 per cent in J une.
Stocks on hand at the close of the month continued to decrease and amoun ted to 87 per cent of normal on June 30,
as compared to 90 per cent a month earlier. Unfilled orders
on the b ooks of 51 reporting mills at the end of J une
amounted to 4,5,84.5,586 feet of lumber, as against orders
for 51,779,756 feet recorded on May 31.

CEMENT
After increasing steadily for five consecutive months,
shipments of Portland cement from Texas mills declined in
June and were 20.8 per cent less than in May. Shipments
in June amounted to 454,,000 barrels or the same as in the
~
;;
,corresponding month of last year. On the other hand, pro::
duction increased 1.5 per cent over the previous month and
~ was 12.7 per cent greater than in June, 1926. Stocks on
::
hand on June 30, were 5.1 per ceJlt lnrger than on May 31,
::
::
g but were 31.0 per cent below those carried on the same date
a year ago . Production of cement during the first half of

m
...........'.. "...............;.~~~"~~...;;;~~~...~~~~~.~~~~~ ........ '...... ".... "······" i::
Wumber of reporting m ills........................................

51

Shf:;:,~~~

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~:m:m ~::~
........................................................................ 75.770.497 feet

:

grders
N nfiJIed orders J.u ne 80 ....................................... _.. · 46.845.586 feet
S ormnl production ....................................................113.294.089 feet

:
:

A ipments below nOI'mnl production .................... 84.462.000 feet--3 0%
0 clunl p"oduction below norma!... ......................... 22,303 .996 feet-2 0%

~ ~~I?~~I ~~~~I':O:::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::m:m:~~~ i:~

= S rdel's be:ow normal pl·oduction ............................ 87.528.592 feet-88 %

J,,, ,,,,~ocl's below norma!... ............................................... 41.926.860 feet-18 %
~

11 I 1I I11 I 1 III1111 1 11111 11 111111 1 1111111 111 111111111 1111111 1111111111 111 1 11111 1,"111 11 11 1111111 1111 1111 11 1111111 W

Lumber s tatis t;cs compiled by the Southern P ine Association.

~IIIIII I IIII'IIII'11 1 11111111 1 1111 ' 111 1 1111111111111'11 11111111111111111111111 11 11111 1 1111111111 1 11111111 . 1111111111111 1 111 11 111 11 1111 1111 1 1. 1111111111111111111 1 1 11 1111111111111111 11 1 1 111 1 1 111 1 111 1 111111 1 1 1 11 11111 1 1 1 1 11 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111111 1111 111 1 1 [;)

§ =

~_

§
:
:
:

~

PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS. AND STO CKS OF P ORTLAND CEMEN'l1 (Burr els)

Productl on a t T exas M'IIS........................
SI '
I
St"ptents from Texas m iJIs .............:......
1E!11 11 11I ~C (8 at end of month nt Texas mln8.~

J une
1927
469 ,000
454.000
380,000

{~~~
416 •000
454,000
478,000

Inc. 01'
Dec.
+N12.7
ong
-31.

1 111111 1 111111111111 11111 1111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111111 11 1111 111 1111111111 11 1111111111 1 11111111 1 1111111 11 .. 111 11 11 1111 I1 1I111I

May
1927
462.000
678 000
314'000

I nc. or
Dec.
+ 1.5
-20 8
+ 6' 1

Six Months
1927
2,644.000
2 757 000
••

11 11111 :111 111 11 11111111111111 :11 111111111111"11111

1926
2.456.000
2
.459.000

Inc. or
Dec.
-\- 7 .7
+ 12.1

~_
~
:
:
::

:
111I1I111I 1I1l 11 U I II II I I . l llIl1 ll l lll l l llll1ll l llll l lrn

MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW

8

the current year reflected an increase of 7.7 per cent over
the same period of 1926, and shipments were 12.1 per cent
larger,
BUILDING
Construction activity as measured by the valuation of
building permits issued at the principal cities of the district
reflected a decline of 12.8 per cent as compared to' the previous month and was 33.4 per cent less than in June, 1926.
June was the tenth consecutive month that the volume of
building for a current month has fallen below that for the
corresponding month of the previous year and it will be
8

!I.

111111 ..... 111111111 ......... 11 .. 11 .............. 11111 .. 1111111111111 .... 11 ............ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11111111111111111\1111111111 .. 1111111111 ..... 11111111 ...... 1111111111111 ..... 1 .... 111111111 .. 111111111111 .. 111111.11111

A~d".____ N:~ :· :~~~.. ~::··j~."2 Ii~:~Dm;;:~~~, :~::: ,.;'; I: ~:;,; ;M·~ :2I~:~ ;:~;" I:,.::,

Austin ..................
Beaumont ............ _
Corpus Chris ti...... .
Dallas ....................
El Paso ................
Fort Worth ........ _
Galveston ............ _
Houston ....... _......
Port Arthur.......... _
San Antonio ....... .
Shreveport ............
Waco ................... _
Wichita Falls ....... .
'I1otnl ................
8

noted that the decline in June, with one exception (October,
1926), was the largest during that period. The valuation of
permits issued during June at the cities of Austin, Beaumont, El Paso and Waco showed a substantial gain as compared to both the previous month and the same month last
year.
The combined valuation of permits issued at all reporting
cities for the first six months of 1927, amounted to' $53,439,738 as compared to $69,397,056 during the same period
of 1926, representing a decline of 23 per cent. It will be
noted that the cities of Beaumont, Corpus Christi and
Galveston were the only ones to show an increase in 1927,
as compared to 1926.

47
267,071
43
167,640
181
447,712
166
112,620
68
428,076
66
323,160
260
1,466,225
849
2,292,352
55
98,986
68
76,543
863
1,206,487
286
2,208,054
206
202,161
286
438,221
519
1,726,781
655
1,761,946
118
124,646
127
101,107
269
1,067,696
251
633,266
160
219,140
256
282,968
25
111,190
40
100,965
78
282,660
184
1,246,189
2,480 $8 ,252,819 3,003 $12,888,837

+ 69.4
46
96,194
+297.6
192
840,664
+ 32.6
69
644,066
- 36.0
871
738,428
+ 22.8
61
68,516
- 46.4
289
1,262,133
- 68.3
247
199,994
2.0
477
1,993,882
+ 23.8
109
182,240
+ 68.6
262
2,936,470
- 22.6
186
386,820
+ 10.1
18
41.086
- 77.8
69
166,066
- 83.4 2,682 $9,459,467

+177.6
210
649,887
277
686,667
+ 81.4
1,104
8,196,247
1,072
886,792
- 88.6
881
1,686,870
881
1,084,155
+ 99.9
1,977
4,801,891
2,316
10,782,584
+ 48.0
360
408,176
424
629,879
4.4
1,961
7,818,080
2,210
10,758,849
+ 1.1
1,884
2,029,162
1,627
1.266,743
- 18.4
3,204
14,548,052
2,975
16,688,435
6.7
706
729,949
768
816,590
- 63.6
1,787
8,064,401
1,868
8,769,044
- 43.3
1,118
1,893,166
1,612
2,086,969
+170.6
179
682,874
266
720,675
+ 70.2
518
2,089,892
1,115
6,181,247
- 12.8 16,040 $63,489,788 18,087 $69,397,056

[3

:1

- 19.8
+260.8
+ 55.6
- 65.8
- 35.2
- 32.0
+ 61.0
- 12.8
- 10.0
8.1
9.2
- 12.2
- 66.2
- 23.0

1
11111111111 ••• ".1 •• 11 ••• '111111111111111111111111111,111""'1"111111111, •• 1.,"11111111111111111.1111"'1,1".1.,111., 11 111111.11, •• 111111,.,11111, •• ,111111111,.,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'111111111111111111111111111,.".,1111.0

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS
(Compiled by the Federul Reserve Board as of July 26, 1927)

The output of industry declined substanti!l'Jly in June to a level
close to that of a year ago, reflecting reduced activity both in mines
and in factories. The value of building contracts awarded was the
largest for any month on record. The general level of prices remained practically unch!l'nged.
PRODUCTION
Production of iron and steel and automobiles declined considerably in June and curtailment in these industries continued during
the early part of July. There were also decreases in June silk deliveries, sugar refining, and production of lumber, copper and anthracite coat Cotton and woolen mills continued active for this season of the year, and consumption of raw colton was larger than in
any previous June on record. Meat packing, shoe production, and
the manufacture of building materials showed increases. Production
of manufactures, as a group, was slightly larger in June than in the
same month of 1926, but output of minerals, owing largely to decreased
production of coal, was in smaller volume than a year !l'go. The value
of building contracts awarded in June was larger than in any previous
month on record, owing chiefly to the steady increase within recent
months of contracts for public works and public utilities. Awards
were particul!l'rly large, as compared with previous months of this
year and with June of last year, in the New York and Chicago Fed·
eral Reserve districts. Contracts were awarded during the first half
of July in practically the same volume as in the corresponding period
of last year. On the basis of conditions on July 1, forecasts of the Department of Agriculture indicate increases as compared with the 1926
harvested production in the output of wheat, oats, barley, rye, hay
and potatoes, and decreases in corn, tobacco, and the princip!l'l fruit
crops. Cotton for which no production estimate was given, shows a
decrease of 12 per cent in acreage planted, while the total area planted
10 all crops shows a reduction of two per cent. A reduction of 371,000,000 bushels in the estim&ted production of corn, compared with
1926, indicates the smallest crop since 1901.
TRADE
Wholesale trade in most leading lines increased slightly between
May and June, while retail trade showed less than the customary seasonal decline. Sales of department stores were in about the same
volume as II' year ago while those of mail order houses and chain
stores were larger. Sales of meat, dry goods, and hardware at
wholesale were smaller than in June of last year while sales of

groceries, shoes and drugs were about the same in volume. Inventories of department stores declined further to a level !l'bout 3 per
cent below that of June, 1926. Stocks carried by wholesale firms
showed no change for the month and were sm!l'ller than a year ago.
Daily average freight car loadings failed to show the customary
season&l increase ·between May and June and were in smaller volume
for early in May to the middle of July than during the corresponding
period of last year. Shipments of almost all groups of commodities
have been smaller than a year ago. The largest declines occurred in
the shipments of coal and coke.
PRICES
The general level of wholesale commodities prices, a'Ccording to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics index, continued practically the same
in June as in the two preceding months. The prices of agricultural
commodities as a group declined slightly while the average for the
non.agricultural group remained practic!l'lly unchanged. There were
declines between May and June in the prices of silk, iron and steel,
non·ferrous metals, building materials, and rubber and advances in
grains, colton, hides, skins, and anthracite coal. During the first
three weeks of July prices of whe!l't, bituminous coal, iron and steel,
and rubber declined while those of livestock, cotton, wool, copper,
and hides advanced.
BANK CREDIT
The demand for member bank credit decreased from the latter
part of June to the middle of July and on July 20, the loans and investments of member banks in leading cities were more than $200,000,000 lower than a month before. The decline was principally in
the ba'nks' investment holdings and in loans secured by stocks and
bonds. Loans for commercial, agricultural and industrial purposes
decreased by about $45,000,000 and for reserve bank credit in connection with settlements at th e end of the fiscal year and increased
currency requirements over the holiday period carried total discounts
for member banks on July sixth to the highest level since the first of
the yellT. Thereafter, largely in consequence of the return flow of
currency from circulation, there was a decreased demand for member
bank accommodation and on July 20, total discounts were in some·
what smaller volume than four weeks earlier. Holdings of U. S.
securities showed a slight increase during July. Conditions in the
mon ey market, after seasonal firmness at the end of June, were ea-sie r
in July.