The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business
•
revIew
february 1965
FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF DALlAS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
contents
industrial development
corporations in texas
(part 1) .. . .. . ........................... "
3
the use of
cash in texas
9
district highlights ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
indust,·ial development
co'po,·ations in texas
(part 1)
Industrial employment opportunities have
been slow to develop in many Texas counties
undergoing adjustments out of cotton and into
livestock and experiencing mechanization of
farms and expansion in the operating size of
f~rming units. The resulting heavy out-migration from these rural areas has generally been
selective with respect to age and education, thus
leaving affected counties with a high percentage
of their population in the less productive age
bra.ckets. As a consequence, welfare and educatIOnal costs have fallen on a shrinking population. In addition to these increased social costs
the community must bear, the contraction in
the local popUlation has reduced the market for
retail firms and utilities servicing an area.
. After World War II, local groups interested
stopping the out-migration became vocal and
began action programs aimed at generating industrial employment in their communities. It
was hoped that such activities would at least
stabilize employment opportunities in the labor
s~rplus communities and, thus, prevent additlO~al selective migration. The organization
O.f Industrial development corporations (sometimes called foundations) was one of the appr~aches taken by many communities hoping
to Improve local employment opportunities.
In
leverage for funds
The constitution of Texas in contrast to some
other states, has mitigated' against the use of
pub!'IC credit, backed by the taxing powers of
.
~e State, to finance development programs.
Iso, the wide v.ariation in economic conditions
within the State has made it difficult to obtain
a statewide consensus as to those areas where
empbasis on industrial development should be
placed. These limiting factors have prompted
local action groups in Texas communities to
take the initiative in attracting industries.
Because the local action group usually handles
funds and frequently acquires property in the
course of this activity, a special type of
organization - one which seems to have satisfied most of the practical and legal requirements of local action groups - has been developed, the industrial development corporation.
In 1943, there was one operating local industrial development corporation (LIDC) in
Texas. Data indicate that the number of industrial development corporations in the State has
grown rapidly since the Korean conflict, increasing from 15 in 1950 to 71 in 1959. As of
January 1965, the Texas Industrial Commission
estimated that there were about 200 such organizations operating within the State.
Industrial development corporations have become a unique form of financial intermediary
in Texas - unique because they typically are
nonprofit, perpetual-fund corporations organized for the express purpose of attracting private industry into a community. As a corporate
entity, a local development organization may
sell stocks and bonds and obtain donations in
order to finance its activities. In addition, local
industrial development corporations may borrow from commercial banks and participate
with Federal agencies in projects to aid private
firms.
business review/february 1965
3
The local industrial development corporation
is, in essence, a quasi-public organization.
Nonprofit industrial development corporations
have been exempt from paying Federal income
taxes for many years. In 1964 the U. S.
Treasury provided specific exemption from taxation for those organizations set up to aid and
promote the purposes of the Area Redevelopment Act; this ruling also permits contributions
to such organizations to be treated as ordinary
business expenses. In order to qualify for the
above exemptions, the charter of an LIDC must
provide that all property held by the corporation will revert to public ownership in the event
of liquidation of the LIDC.
The Comptroller of the Currency also has
stated that national banks can donate (or invest) up to 2 percent of their unimpaired
capital and surplus to business development
corporations. The contributions (and, in some
cases, the investments) of national banks to
development corporations can be written off
as business expenses. The modest capitalization
of many rural banks may limit the flow of funds
to industrial development corporations from
this source. Nevertheless, an important marginal
influence on the growth of development corporations might be exerted by national banks.
Funds of industrial development corporations
may be given considerable leverage in case the
development corporation is located in a county
qualifying for Area Redevelopment Administration aid. Areas designated by the ARA include counties in eastern Texas and a number
of counties paralleling the Rio Grande River.
Areas are designated on the basis of their unemployment rates over a number of years,
median incomes, and agricultural productivity
in relation to the comparable national averages
for these three factors.
In designated areas, the ARA may furnish
up to 65 percent of the funds required by a
new firm or branch plant. Funds not provided
by the ARA must come from non-Federal
4
sources. Some local action group, usually an
LIDC, must provide at least 10 percent of
the total funds for the project, either through
loans or through grants. The remaining share
of the required funds may represent either
equity of the firm to be aided or borrowings
by the firm.
The Area Redevelopment Act was passed in
1961; and through August 31, 1964, 16 loans
to private companies, amounting to $3,290,000,
had been granted to private firms in Texas by
the ARA' The firms receiving ARA aid in the
State have represented a wide range of industries, including 3 motels, 3 tile and ceramic
plants, and 10 manufacturing firms. During this
same period, LIDC's furnished an estimated
$1,772,000 in matching funds required in the
establishment of the aided firms. These 16 new
firms account for an estimated employment of
1,306 persons in a number of different Texas
counties. In addition, the ARA has made loans
directly to two LIDC's.
Local industrial development corporations,
acting in quasi-public capacities, also may receive loans directly from the Small Business
Administration if the firms to be aided qualify
as small businesses under the Small Business
Act. The purpose of these loans is to allow the
industrial development corporations to finance
development projects for new or existing small
businesses in the community. As of March
1964, approximately $770,000 (cumulative
since 1962) had been allocated to Texas development corporations by the SBA. Most of
these loans were for the expansion of existing
plants, firms currently employing a little less
than 600 persons.
inducements 01 texas lidc's
In the summer of 1964, the Texas Industrial
Commission conducted a survey to obtain information on the types of inducements offered
industrial firms by LIDC's in Texas. The survey
requested officials of LIDC's to indicate the
EXTENT OF ACTIVITIES OF 74 LOCAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATIONS, BY TEXAS REGIONS, 1964
Percentage of responding corporations
North,central
Texas
East
Texas
Activity
Acquired indust ria I prope rt y "" " " " " "
'
S
MOld, leased, or rented land to firms, , , , , , ,
S ade loans to firms , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
old, leased, or rented buildings
S to firms " , ' , " , " " " " " " " " . ',.
O~d, lea sed, or rented machinery
8 0 firms , , ' , ' , " " " " ' , " "
p ought stock or bonds in firms , , , , , , , , , • ,
rovid ed roads or utility connections
a~ the plant site that were not
M a ready available " , ',,'," , ' , . , " ' "
p ad 7 cash grants or gifts to firms , , , , , , • ,
rovlded funds to train or retrain
P w~rkers " " ' , . , " " " " " " " ' , .• "
rovlded funds for the moving
o expenses of firms , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . ,
.
'
p eveloped an In d us t ria I Sl't e , , , , , , , , ' , , , . '
b
u lished brochures or conducted
p ~dvertislng campaign for industry , , , , , . '
paid expenses for prospecting trip , , , , , , , ,
p rov,lded free utility service to firms , , ' , , ,
rOVI?ed continuing aid (or
p reflna nci ng) ' . , . , " " " " ' , .. , " , " , .
rovided Work'
't
Other
Ing capi a I , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' , , .
South' c entLa l
Texas
Western
Plains
All
REGIONS
Have
done
Wil l
do
Have
done
Will
do
Have
done
Will
do
Have
done
Will
do
Have
done
Will
do
91
83
65
100
100
76
79
75
42
100
92
83
88
88
25
87
93
53
54
31
31
86
64
64
80
72
43
95
89
72
74
100
67
96
63
87
15
71
59
91
13
9
38
24
4
4
42
25
13
19
40
20
8
8
29
21
9
9
38
23
61
17
86
24
67
8
88
29
56
19
60
20
15
0
64
21
54
12
77
24
4
14
4
38
0
7
8
36
4
24
0
70
14
86
8
63
38
92
19
75
13
87
0
15
21
64
7
59
23
84
70
39
4
71
62
10
67
50
8
83
58
21
63
38
0
80
53
7
54
39
0
71
50
0
65
42
4
77
57
4
4
0
19
14
5
13
13
0
38
33
4
19
19
0
7
7
0
8
8
0
36
29
0
11
26
22
3
... . . . .... . , . .. . ....... . ........
11
0
11
SOURCE : Texas Industrial Commission survey.
activities their development corporations had
Used to attract industries, as well as activities
they would be willing to undertake in the future. Each development corporation returning a
q~estionnaire was engaged in two or more types
of activities.
Although the LIDC's responding to the survey indicated a willingness to engage in a wide
range of activities, an overwhelming proportion
of the activities centered around the acquisition
of . in.dustrial sites, including the provision of
bUlldlllgS and utility connections. Favorable
leasing and rental arrangements on industrial
properties handled by Texas industrial development corporations are more prominent than
other types of aid because the development
Corporations may directly aid the firm involved
by charging low or nominal rentals. Since Texas
law pro h'b' the granting of tax exemptions on
1 Its
property, leasing and rental arrangements form
one method of offering relief from ad valorem
taxes.
Survey results indicate that 80 percent of
the 74 Texas LIDC's responding to the questionnaire have already acquired industrial
property; 72 percent have sold, leased, or
rented land to private firms; and 59 percent
have sold, leased, or rented buildings. However,
less than 9 percent have engaged in selling,
renting, or leasing machinery and equipment.
Avoidance of involvement in providing specialized machinery and equipment is further reflected by the fact that slightly less than 38
percent of the development corporations anticipate that they will undertake such financing.
The Texas Industrial Commission has suggested
that Texas development corporations avoid acquiring specific, hard-to-dispose assets.
In line with the concentration of activity in
either acquiring or developing industrial sites,
about 54 percent of the Texas industrial development corporations have provided utilities
or roads to the acquired industrial sites. However, officials of 77 percent of the development
business review/februllry 1965
5
companies indicate that they would be willing
to engage in this activity in the future.
Almost 45 percent of the industrial development corporations in the survey have chosen to
make low-interest loans to industrial firms.
Low-interest loans and sales or rentals of real
estate have characterized the inducements offered to firms by industrial development corporations in Texas. Only about 10 percent of the
development corporations have provided refinancing services or have furnished working
capital to private firms, and there is little indication that development corporations are inclined to go into these activities. Although about
43 percent of the LIDC's have made loans to
firms, only slightly more than 9 percent of
the development corporations have bought
the stocks or bonds of the firms they attracted
to their communities. As in the case of machinery and equipment financing arrangements, the
lack of participation in equity or debt financing
by the development corporations indicates a
fear of involvement with the specific operations
and assets of an industrial firm.
Interestingly enough, more development corporations made outright grants to firms (12
percent) than bought equity stock, provided refinancing, or furnished operating capital. ' The
granting of such "gifts" indicates the strength
of the bargaining position of some of the firms
receiving direct aid from the development corporations, as well as the eagerness of some
local industrial development corporations to
attract payrolls.
variations in texas inducements
Although the types of inducements offered by
LIDC's throughout Texas are similar in some
respects, there are interesting variations in the
activities of industrial development corporations
located in various parts of the State. On
balance, the LIDC's in east Texas, as compared
with those in some other areas of the State,
appear to be somewhat more conservative with
respect to the inducements they have used, or
indicate they are inclined to offer, in order to
attract new industries. This relative conservatism may reflect, in part, the fact that LIDC's
in east Texas generally have been organized
for a longer period of time. It is also possible
that the east Texas area has certain locational
advantages relative to other regions in Texas
experiencing heavy out-migration.
East Texas development corporations have
generally been inclined to aid firms for which
some evaluation of financial status can be made.
In 1964, about 53 percent of the employment
of firms aided by east Texas LIDC's was accounted for by branch plants, as opposed to
24 percent of the employment of firms aided
by LIDC's in the north-central region. Com-
EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION, BY TEXAS REGIONS, FOR TYPES OF FIRMS
AIDED BY LOCAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, 1964
Percentage of employment accounted for by:
Area
iEast Texas .... . . .... ....• . . .. • . .
INorth 'central Texas .. . . . • • .. .. . . .
ISouth-central Texas
1 and Western Plains .... . _ .. .. .. .
All regions ......... . . . ....... .
!
New
branch
plants
New
firms
Expanded
firm s
Relocated
firms
Unclassified
firms
ALL
AIDED
FIRMS
53
24
14
35
7
13
7
12
20
16
100
100
9
24
22
14
10
51
15
1
16
100
' 100
38
Total employment amounted to over 18,000 persons.
NOTE. - Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: Texas Industrial Commission survey.
1
6
pared with the experience in east Texas, the
north-central region has been especially active
in aiding new nonbranch enterprises, and 35
percent of the total employment of aided firms
in the region was in such enterprises.
In the Western Plains region of the State,
where LIDC's have been organized for a
shorter period of time than those in most other
areas of the State, the industrial development
Corporations appear to be willing to provide assistance to firms in the form of refinancing or
Working capital. Approximately 36 percent and
29 percent, respectively, of the LIDC's in this
~rea indicated that they would provide refinanclllg and working capital to industrial concerns.
TEXAS
REGIONS
Ea'i Tua a Co untie,
c::::J Narth ~Ce ntro' Countlu
r.:=J SOulh~C.ntrol Counties
c:J Weatarn Plolns Countle.
LIDe's in the south-central region show a
history of paying the moving expenses of firms
relocating in the area ' about 19 percent of
~he i~dustrial developm~nt corporations operattng tn this region have provided such aid.
~pproximately one-half of the workers in firms
aided by south-central LIDC's were employed
by firms that had relocated. The fact that 51
per.c~~t of the employment resulting from the
actIVities of LIDC's in the south-central region
Was in relocated plants and that LIDC's in
~his area encourage relocations by paying mov~ng expenses may indicate that communities
In the south-central region are bidding against
One another to expand industrial employment.
interstate competition for industry
Communities in Texas not only are faced
with competition for industrial plants from
other communities within the State but also may
be in active competition with communities in
neighboring states. In reviewing the Texas
situation, the Texas Research League, an organization which studies state and local government problems, has stated that:
The greatest competition ... is in areas
along the Oklahoma, Arkansas or Louisiana borders .... While the impact was
found to a degree inland, it diminishes
drastically the farther one moves from the
border. It is especially significant in cities
like Texarkana, Marshall and Orange ....
The New Mexico financing programs are
not creating the degree of competitive
problems as those in Oklahoma, Arkansas
and Louisiana.
Unlike Texas, where statewide financial assistance to attract industry is not available, a
number of neighboring states have adopted
governmentally administered industrial location
financing programs. The programs generally
include one or more of the following types of
assistance: (1) concessions on state and/or
local property taxes, (2) granting of taxing
authority to special districts for the purpose
of aiding industry, and (3) financing aids from
a state development authority. In most cases,
the nontax inducements depend upon joint efforts of the state authority and an LIDC.
Louisiana is a good example of a southwestern state utilizing property-tax exemptions as
an incentive to attract industry. However,
Arkansas and Oklahoma also offer limited ad
valorem tax concessions for some types of industrial investment.
The states surrounding Texas have made
particular use of local bond issues to finance
industrial development. Thus, Texas has been
using promotional tec1miques that vary, in a
very real sense, from those in use in bordering
bu,s iness review/february 1965
7
states. The States of Louisiana, Arkansas, and
New Mexico have passed enabling legislation
allowing local taxing authorities to issue revenue and general obligation bonds in order to
finance the purchase of sites and the construction of facilities for sale or lease to private
concerns.
State legislatures, by allowing municipal
corporations or LIDC's to issue industrial
bonds based on the credit of the local government in order to encourage the location or
expansion of private firms in their communities,
make it possible for some firms to reduce the
impact of Federal income taxes on their corpOl·ate income. The interest on the obligations
of statewide development credit corporations
is also exempt from Federal taxation.
Whether the bonds are general obligation
bonds backed by the full faith and credit of
the taxing authority or are revenue bonds
based only on the revenue of a particular
industrial enterprise, the obligations must be
honored by the issuing authority if the credit
rating of the taxing authority is to be maintained intact.
The third method used by states contiguous
to Texas to encourage industrial expansion
takes the form of a state industrial financing
authority. Such an authority either receives
appropriations from the state legislature to be
used in a revolving fund or is empowered to
issue bonds guaranteed by the state. At present,
private firms in both Oklahoma and Arkansas
can obtain funds from a state industrial financing authority.
Instead of lending funds directly, some state
financing authorities guarantee the mortgages
issued by LIDC's for their industrial projects.
This guarantee would make the mortgages of
local industrial development corporations more
attractive to such financial institutions as banks
and insurance companies. The state financing
authority may join with LIDC's on a partici-
8
pating basis to provide funds to be used in
aiding private industry. Legislation has been
suggested to authorize the establishment of a
state financing authority in Texas.
In attempting to evaluate the attractiveness
of teclmiques used to foster local or regional
economic development, the Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston asked various state officials
knowledgeable about industrial development
programs to rank the effectiveness of development techniques used in their respective states.
The returns indicated that the use of municipal bond issues received the highest rating;
long-term, low-interest financial assistance from
state financing authorities ranked second in
importance. The officials ranked both tax exemptions and the risk loans of LIDC's in third
place.
concluding comments
It is not possible to assess with any degree
of accuracy the impact that the assistance
available in some bordering states from
statewide financing authorities has had upon
the activities of Texas LIDC's. However, the inducements offered by LIDC's in the Stateparticularly those in east Texas, where competition from communities in neighboring states presumably may be especially intense - do not
provide any noteworthy indication of the willingness of Texas industrial development corporations to engage in activities usually
associated with relatively greater risks.
Despite the fact that a larger number of
LIDC's have ,stated that they would be willing
to consider extending greater aid in the form
of machinery and equipment rentals and purchases of the stocks and bonds of firms, the
percentage of development corporations in the
State reporting such inclinations remains small.
Most of the organizations expect to continue
emphasizing the provision of favorable sale and
leasing arrangements for industrial sites and
plants.
Local industrial development corporations
in Texas reported that, as ' of mid-1964, they
had aided industrial firms having an estimated
employment of over 18,000 persons. A subsequent article will discuss the composition of
the employment of firms aided by LIDC's in
Texas. The article also will highlight informa-
tion obtained from officials of firms which have
been aided, regarding locational and other inducements considered important determinants
in their decision to choose a particular location
for a plant.
CARL
W. HALE
Industrial Economist
the use of
cash in texas
There is evidence to suggest that checks are
~sed more extensively in transacting business
In Texas than in the rest of the Nation. For
a number of years, the note circulation of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in relation to
member bank reserves was significantly lower
than for the other Reserve banks. Since 1943,
combined note liabilities of Federal Reserve
banks have surpassed member bank reserve
aCCOunts by a substantial margin, but not until
the end of 1963 did note liabilities of the Dallas
Bank exceed the reserve balances of Eleventh
District member banks.
. Information which tends to confirm the relahvely small use of coin and currency in Texas
~as been obtained through a survey of 131
Dember banks by the Federal Reserve Bank of
alIas. These banks were asked to report their
.
total e '
N dPOSIt receIpts for November 16 through
ovember 20, 1964, and the 'amount of these
receipts represented by cash. To determine
whether there are differences in the rates of
coin and currency use within the State, the
sample was stratified into the territories served
by the three branches and the Head Office of
the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
The survey results reveal that, out of each
dollar received on deposit during the period,
only slightly more than five cents was in cash.
This proportion is below the 1962 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston estimate of 7.22 percent
for the Nation. 1
The study also discloses very interesting geographical differences in the importance of cash
in deposit receipts within Texas, as well as
differences between sizes of banks. Texas banks
located in the areas served by the San Antonio
and EI Paso branch territories (southern and
1 "Use of Cash in Payments," N ew England Business Review, September 1963, p. 6.
business review/february 1965
9
western areas of the State) received significantly more cash in total deposit receipts than
banks in the Houston territory and the area
served by the Head Office (eastern and northern areas). The relatively high ratios for the
San Antonio and El Paso territories - 16 percent and 7 percent, respectively - may be
partially explained by the fact that the large
number of military installations in these areas
meet their payrolls in cash.
It is noteworthy that the relatively high cashdeposit ratios in both the southern and the
ELEVENTH
FEDERAL RESERVE
DISTRICT
western areas of the State reflected heavy cash
inflows to the city banks whereas, in the northern and eastern areas, relatively larger cash
inflows were reported by banks outside the reserve cities. The survey shows that customers of
country banks deposit relatively more coin and
currency than customers of reserve city banks.
The cash-deposit ratio of country banks was
9.51 percent, in contrast to 4.11 percent at
reserve city banks. The ratio for reserve city
banks is lowered to 2.72 percent when reserve
city banks in San Antonio are excluded from
the classification.
district highlights
A significant feature of Eleventh District
banking during 1964 was a continuation of the
rapid inflow of time and savings deposits which
had heavily influenced bank management policies during the previous 2 years. At the end
of 1964, time and savings deposits accounted
for slightly over one-third of total deposits at
District member banks, compared with less
~han one-fourth in 1961. The rate of gain in
IOterest-bearing deposits slowed, however, to a
14-percent rate in 1964, which compares with
rates of 24 percent and 19 percent in 1962 and
1963, respectively.
This slackening principally reflected a moderation in the growth of time and savings deposits at reserve city banks in the District.
Country banks recorded a modest increase in
th~ rate of influx of such deposits. It is inter~StlOg to note that the reduced rate of savings
IOflow at reserve city banks was accompanied
by an acceleration in demand deposit growth,
Whereas an increase in the inflow of time and
s .
~vlngs deposits at country banks was assoCIated with a slackening in demand deposit
growth.
Nonagricultural employment in the five
Southwestern states in December advanced
about 1 percent over November to a total of
~,983,400 persons. The increase was centered
10 the trade sectors, especially retail trade. Constr uc f IOn employment declined seasonally dur.
109 December, falling to a level of 327,400
persons.
The seasonally adjusted Texas industrial pro-
~uction index advanced fractionally in Decemer to a level of 129 percent of the 1957-59
average. A I-percent decrease in mining output
wa~ more than offset by an increase in manufactunng activity. Especial strength occurred in
durables manufacturing, as transportation
equipment output rose substantially over its
strike-reduced November level. Among nondurables, weaknesses in chemical, apparel, and
paper production moderated the expansion in
other sectors, and nondurables output rose only
slightly over the previous month.
The cumulative value of southwestern construction contracts for January - December 1964
registered a 3-percent lead over the comparable period in 1963, with strength in nonresidential and nonbuilding contracts continuing
to offset a decline in the residential sector. The
most rapid rates of growth in the value of
building permits in Texas continued to be in
the nonmetropolitan areas, although the dollar
volume of new construction authorizations was
lower than in metropolitan areas.
Daily average crude oil production in the
District advanced nearly 2 percent in January
from the prior month to a level that was almost
4 percent above a year earlier. The gains over
both December and January 1964 reflected
higher allowables in Texas, Louisiana, and
southeastern New Mexico. The Louisiana allowable in January was a record for the State. Despite the uptrend in District crude oil production
since last August, inventories of crude oil at
mid-J anuary remained significantly below the
year-earlier volume.
The seasonally adjusted index of District
department store sales in December rose to an
all-time high of 129 percent of the 1957-59
average, up 5 percent from November and 7
percent from December 1963. Department store
sales during 1964 showed an II-percent increase over 1963 . In the 3 weeks ended January
23, 1965, sales were 13 percent above a year
ago.
lJUsiness ,.eview/february 1965
11
New automobile registrations in four major
Texas markets during December exceeded
those for any prior montb. For the full year
1964, total registrations for the four markets
were up 8 percent from 1963; Dallas and Houston recorded increases of 11 percent and 9 percent, respectively, followed by Fort Worth and
San Antonio with gains of 6 percent and 3
percent.
the 1959-63 average. The number of sbeep and
lambs on feed in tbese states at the beginning of
this year totaled 290,000, or one-tenth fewer
than a year earlier. Wbeat pastures in the District provided very little grazing through January 1, and the number of sheep and lambs on
wheat pastures in tbe Texas Panhandle is estimated at 6,000 head, compared with 11,000
a year ago.
The number of cattle and calves on feed
in the principal cattle-feeding states of the District (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas) as of January 1, 1965, is placed at
nearly 1.1 million bead, reflecting increases of 3
percent over a year ago and 46 percent over
Moisture conditions in much of the District
are improved over a year ago. Winter wheat
is making good development, and land preparation for spring crops is under way. Range
conditions in much of the District are better
than a year ago but remain below average.
new
membe,·
banJ~
new
par
banks
12
The Bayshore National Bank of La Porte, La Porte, Texas, a newly organized
institution located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business January 11, 1965, as a member
of the Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of $200,000,
surplus of $200,000, and undivided profits of $100,000. The officers are: R. W.
Freeman, Chairman of the Board; G. J. Hoff, President; and W. E. Boaze, Jr.,
Vice President and Cashier.
The First State Bank, Wells, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located in
the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, was added to the Par List on January 14, 1965. The officers are: E. B.
Bailey, Chairman of the Board; Jack R. Stone, President; and R. M. Shumaker,
Executive Vice President and Cashier.
The Yorktown Community Bank, Yorktown, Texas, an insured nonmember
bank located in the territory served by the San Antonio Branch of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date,
February 1, 1965. The officers are: J. O. Frisbie, President (Inactive); T. J.
Koopmann, Vice President (Inactive); LaVerne Brieger, Executive Vice President; Mrs. Lois Strieber, Assistant Vice President; Mrs. Sylvia Blaschke,
Cashier; and Mrs. Annabelle Horny, Assistant Cashier.
STATISTICA~
Sl!JPPI!EMENti
to the
BUSINESS REVIEW
February 1965
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS
CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
MEMBER BANKS IN LEADING CITIES
RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve Di strict
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Averages of daily Agures. In thousands of dollars)
(In thousands of dollars)
Jan. 27,
1965
Dec.30,
1964
Jan. 29,
1964
Net loans ............... • ...... ... ........ .
Valuation re,erYe, ........ •....... .... ......
Gross loans ..... .... ................ . ... . ..
4,502,808
82,086
4,584,894
4,577,237
73,304
4,650,541
4,136,800
77,550
4,214,350
Commercial and industrial loans •.......... . .•
Agricultural loans . • ... •....••....... . ... ..•
2,124,901
59,324
2,062,170
58,729
1,985,260
46,420
558
39,368
295
41,301
274
49,012
2,433
277,565
3,569
278,850
2,929
257,436
108,604
265,650
175,725
4,289
379,324
1,147, 153
2,124,128
128,591
286,683
221,264
4,152
377,549
1,187,388
2,102,922
93,360
262,075
131,925
2,269
345,728
1,037,662
2,096,033
1,383,695
154,480
0
1,360,111
119,982
0
Cash items in process of collection . •.. ..•. •• •• •.
Balances with banks in the United States • .. .••.••
Balances with banks in foreign countries ••••.••..
Currency and coin ....•..•.••••...... .. •••.••
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank •••...•••••.•
Other assets •••......... . •...•..••.•••. .. • ..
178,518
589,974
460,723
740,433
646,681
458,669
3,603
66,086
575,221
297,983
182,600
670,072
387,457
742,811
816,878
5 17,811
2,939
70,978
537,763
301,123
108,222
713,357
420,198
671,750
585,438
482,709
3,401
64,208
532,632
278,225
TOTAL ASSETS .. . ............ ........ ..
8,675,179
5 weeks ended
Jan. 6, 1965
Item
4 weeks end ed
4 weeks end ed
Dec. 2, 1964
Jan. I , 1964
624,302
579,437
44,865
620,730
3,572
14,343
-10,771
612,501
571,659
40,842
608,105
4,396
21,679
- 17,283
607,609
561,259
46,350
604,621
2,988
45,636
-42,648
586,682
450,752
135,930
549,739
36,943
1,225
35,718
577,559
444,165
133,394
539,220
38,339
4,887
33,452
561,106
434,659
126,447
518,116
42,990
2,159
40,831
1,2 10,984
1,030,189
180,795
1,170,469
40,515
15,568
24,947
1,190,060
1,015,824
174,236
1,147,325
42,735
26,566
16,169
1,168,7 15
995,918
172,797
1,122,737
45,978
47,795
- 1,817
1,424,283
121 ,337
61,169
Itom
RESERVE CITY 8ANKS
Total reserves held •• . •••..•.. .
ASSETS
Loans to brokers and dealers for
With Federal Reserve Bank ... .
Currency and coin •••.•...• ..
Required reserves •.....• ... ...
Excess reserves • . •• . . . .•.•.•.•
Borrowings •.•.... .•.•••••••• •
Free resorves •.. .... .• . ..•.•••
COUNTRY 8ANKS
Tota l reserves held .• . .........
purchasing or carryingl
U. S. Government securities .•..............
Other securities ........................ .
Other loans for purchasing or carryingl
U. S. Government securities ..•........•.•..
Other securities ....... ... . ............ ..
loans to nonbank flnancial institutionsl
Sales finance, personal flnanco, etc .......•..
Other •• •••••• •••••••. •••••••••• •••••••
loans to domestic commercial banks • ••• ... . . ••
loans to foreign banks • .. . ..•. •.• •. .•.• ....
Real estate loans •• .....• ..•••••.• • ••••.•..
Other loans ........................ ......
Total investments .• .•... ...• •. . ••. • •••• .• •• .•
Total U. S. Government securities .••......••••
Treasury bills ••• • • •• • ••••• ••.••••••• ••• •
Treasury certiflcotes of indebtedness •• .... ••
Treasury notes and bonds maturing:
Within 1 year ... .....................
1 to 5 years •• ••••••• ••••• • • •• •••• ••••
After 5 years ......... ... ..... ... .....
Other securities •• ... •• .. ..••••.•..•••••.•.
8,927,651
With Federal Reserve Bank ....
Currency and coin ...........
Required reserves .. ..... . .. ...
Excess reserves . . ........... ..
Borrowings . •....•....•.......
Free reserves ... .... . .........
ALL MEMBER 8ANKS
Total reserves held . . ..........
With Federal Reserve 8ank ....
Currency and coin .... .......
Required reserves ..... ........
Excess reserves • • .. ..........•
Borrowings ...................
Free reserves •.... .... .. . .....
GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Averages of daily Agurcs. In millions of dollars)
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
8,179,446
---
TIME DEPOSITS
Date
lIABILITtES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Total deposits ..............................
7,591,186
7,863,600
7,167,462
4,758,088
3,264,383
5,117,823
3,357,715
4,623,250
3,209,723
2,900
119,439
274,888
4,026
141 ,775
304,036
1,2 11,068
15,145
84,058
2,745,777
1,223,569
1,168,453
500
4,430
338,686
Capital accounts .•.•.•..................•...
7,839
2,300
152,948
189,359
721,744
8,574
2,400
196,070
120,840
695,074
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
8,675,179
Reserve
city banks
Country
banks
1962. December ..
1963. December ..
1964, July .... ...
8,496
8,682
8,314
8,313
8,530
8,582
8,683
8,852
4,180
4,192
3,941
3,957
4,090
4,098
4,120
4,213
4,316
4,490
4,373
4,356
4,440
4,484
4,563
4,639
3,497
4, 167
4,573
4,585
4,689
4,627
4,655
4,713
1,718
2,047
2,249
2,262
2,354
2,274
2,269
2,288
1,779
2, 120
2,324
2,323
2,335
2,353
2,386
2,425
503
4, 137
347,424
8,093
2,300
194,630
165,457
723,906
Total
1,118,872
1,062,302
500
3,594
367,338
Country
banks
1,048,295
14,065
57,256
2,544,212
1,244,269
1,207,004
Reserve
city banks
2,442
53,973
237,496
1,019,765
16,394
60,319
2,833,098
Total
Total demand deposits .....................
Individuals, partnerships, and corporations ..••
Foreign governments and offlclal institutions,
central banks, and international institutions ..
U. S. Government .... •... ....• ••••.. ....
States and political subdivisions . ••••• •• •• ..
Banks in the United States, including
mutual savings banks ••.••••....•••••••.
Banks in foreign countries •.. .• •. • •• •. • ... •
CertlAed and olAcers' checks, etc ... .. .. ....
Total time and savings deposits •••..•.. ••• •••
Individuals, partnerships, and corporations
Savings deposits ...•.......•••.•..••••
Other time deposits ••••.•••••.•••••••••
Foreign governments and official institutions,
central bonks, and International institutions ..
U. S. Government, including postal savings •• .
States and political subdivisions •• ••••••••••
Banks in the United States, including
mutual savings banks •. ..... ..••..••.••.
Banks In foreign countries ... ••••••••••• • ••
Bills payable, rediscounts, etc ..................
All other liabilities ••.••••••••••••..••.•• •• • • •
8,927,651
8,179,446
CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
Total gold certiflcate reserves •••••••. ...••••
Discounts for member banks ••••••.•..••••.•
Oth er discounts and advances ••••• ••• .•.•• •
U. S. Government securities •••••.•..••••••••
Total earning assets •••.•. . .••..•••••••••••
Member bank reserve deposits ••••.•.•..••••
Federal Reserve notes in actual circulation •••••
2
Jan . 27,
1965
684,366
o
2,610
1,361 ,731
1,364,3 41
976,394
1,071,627
Nove mb er ••
Decem ber •.
CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Res e rve District
(I n m III ions of dollars)
============================~
Dec.30,
Nov. 25,
Dec. 25,
1964
1964
Item
1963
~=---------------------------------~
ASSETS
7,735
loans and discounts •••..................
7,442
6,848
2,623
U. S. Government obligations ..•••.•.•..••
2,674
2,806
1,567
Other securities ..........••............
1,566
1,419
920
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank • •. . ....
982
1,011
210
Cash In vault e •••• • •••••••.• ••. ••• . • • ••
190
179
1,213
Balances with banks In the United States • •.•
1,129
1,222
5
Balances with banks in foreign countries e ....
4
5
Cash items in process of collection . ••.•.. ..
905
861
748
Oth er assets e . •............. ... ........
448
425
478
TOTAL ASSETse . ...... .. ............
15.626
15,161
14,828
Deman d d ep osits of banks •.. ...... ...•• .
Oth er dema nd deposits ..................
Tim e de posits ••.•.....•..•.•..•.....•..
1,483
7,688
4,783
1,302
7,443
4,673
1,443
7,449
4,182
Borrowlng se •......•..•... . ....•.....•.
Oth er liabilities e •• ... .....•... ... ......
Total capital accounts e . ••... .. •....•••..
Tota l de posits •••••. • ••.••••• ••. •••• •
13,954
153
237
1,282
13,418
220
242
1,281
13,074
365
204
1,185
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe ..••..•• • ..•••••.•.•••
15,626
15,161
LIABIlITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
(In thousands of dollars)
Item
August •.• •
September.
October •• •
Dec. 30,
1964
Jan. 29,
1964
571,000
20,100
1,7 10
1,344,562
1,366,372
919,028
1,091,625
593,826
2,000
1,824
1,28 1,886
1,285,710
915,037
955,553
e-
Estimated.
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
BANK DEBITS, END-OF-MONTH DEPOSITS
AND ANNUAL RATE OF TURNOVER OF DEPOSITS
= 100)
(Seaso nally adiusted indexes, 1957-59
{Dollar amounts in thou sa nds}
December
d e posit
accounts 1
Dem and de posltsl
Dec.
1964
Nov.
1964
Dec.
1963
176,543
22.9
21.1
22.7
20
-2
73,5 17
193,283
23.0
24.6
23.2
23.0
6
-9
33,595
18.8
17.8
19.0
l~~:m
17
22
-4
14
11
18
10
13
14
13
27
10
46
9
10
14
8
6
20
20
11
22
- 1
3
1
16
14
1
8
- I
14
8
8
3
11
6
5
6
8
16
74,254
129,870
188,156
116,165
130,229
23,386
1,519,556
203,505
430,847
64,191
1,776,248
29,996
159,995
46,480
52,776
463,809
20,633
77,779
85,131
110,590
22.1
33.0
19.2
24.0
22.6
12.1
37.7
25.6
28.3
20.6
31.8
17.3
29.6
18.1
15.1
22.6
18.2
18.2
21. 1
17.2
19.7
27.7
20.6
21.4
21.0
10.4
33.4
23 .5
25.0
19.1
26.6
16.9
22.7
17.5
14.2
20.3
17.2
17.6
17.4
15.0
20.0
27.2
20.8
23.3
23.0
10.8
34.4
26.4
25.2
20.9
29.9
17.8
29.9
18.7
13.8
22.3
18.5
18.1
20.9
14.9
cities . ....... $ 14,671,514
17
11
$6,180,534
29.4
25.8
27.6
1964
Nov.
196 4
328,936
14
133,367
378,600
12
14
53,015
133,463
352,883
290,84 1
227,2 14
238,227
23,057
4,592,687
430,354
1,0 14,739
106,999
4,518,309
41,376
ARIZONA
Tucson .............. $
LOUISIANA
~onroe.... . • • • • • • . •
reveport. • • • • . . . . •
NEW MEXICO
ROsw. II.. ...... .... .
TEXAS
~~~~~i~" "
.. .. ....
........ • .. •
A
8 ustin.. .. • • . . . . . . . •
C~~~:octhri"ti' . . • • • • •
Corsicana
• ••• . • . •
o
' " ..... '"
Ela~~:......... .....
F t
G'r
orth..........
H a lvesto n..... . • . . ••
l:r~~~n ..... .. ... " ,
L bb .••••••••••••
P~rt A~~h~" • • • . • • • • •
San Angel~ . . • • • . • . .
San Antonio·········
Texarkana · · ········
W· ............
~~~~:: : : :': : : : : : : : :
65,425
861,941
31,024
114,364
Wichita Falls •• ::: : ::
~1-24
3~~:m
129
148
145
150
104
128
145
140
149
105
128
144
139
148
107
121
138
131
143
99
137
138
140
136
112
155
135
136
137
135
11 3
154
131r
132
130
135
112
154
127
128
127
129
Total Industrial production ......•.
Manufacturing ... ..... ... ....
Durab le •.................
Nondurable •.••.....••....
Mining •.•..••..••..••......
UNITED STATES
20.6
23.9
Decemb er
October
1964
December
1964
Dec. 31,
1964
Dec.
1963
$
1963
TEXAS
Annual rate
of turnover
Perce nt
chang e from
Area
Nove mb er
1964p
Area and ty pe of index
Debits to demand
Total Industrial production ........
Manufacturing ........ ..... ..
Durable . . ..... ...........
Nondurable ...... .. ....•..
Mining . ... ............ .. ..•
Utilities .................. . ..
p r -
m
Preliminary.
Revised.
SOURCES, Board of Governors of the Fed.ral Reserve System.
Federa l Reserve Bank of Dallas .
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
Five Southwestern States 1
Percent chang e
Dec. 1964 from
Number of persons
Dec.
Nonmanufacturing .•......
Mining •••.•.•.......•
Con struction .... . .... ..
Tran sportation and
public utilities .. •••...
Trade ••.• ••••.. • .. •..
Finance •••. ...... ...•.
Service ..........•....
Governm ent •.....•....
ANNUAL BANK DEBITS AND ANNUAL RATE
OF TURNOVER OF DEMAND DEPOSITS
Nov.
Dec .
1963r
1964
1963
4,931,000
865,300
4,065,700
235,300
332,400
4,839,200
838,400
4,000,800
231,600
305,200
1.1
-.2
1.3
-.1
-1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.6
7.3
391,300
1,228,500
248,800
705,400
982,900
Manufacturing •..........
Dec.
1964
4,983,400
863,900
4,119,500
235,200
327,400
Total nonagricultural
wage and salary workers . .
Nov.
1964p
Type of employme nt
388,900
1,178,500
248,400
702,200
980,000
388,900
1,201,200
240,300
682,800
950,800
.6
4.2
.2
.5
.3
.6
2.3
3.5
3.3
3.4
Ari zona, louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
p Preliminary.
r - Revised.
1
(Do llar amounts in thou sa nds)
===========================
Demond de posits!
Debits to demand deposit accounts !
-
Are a
SOURCE , State employment ag encies.
Annual rate
of turnove r
Percent
1964
1963
1964
1963
22 .7
chango
23.1
ARIZONA
BUILDING PERMITS
Tucson •• •••
$
LOUISIANA
Monroe ... . ...
Shreveport •• • •
NEW MEXICO
Roswell .......
TEXAS
Abilene
Amarlll~ " '" •
Austin .. :::: ..
Beaumont
..
~orpus Chri"ti·.:
D~lf!~ana .....
EI P
........
FortaW~;th' •• •
Galveston . 0 ..
Houston
••• • •
Laredo····· .
Lubbock: : : ...
Port Arthur '"
San Angel~: : :
San Antonio •••
Texarkana!
~Ier ..... ",: :
Wkh~t~' F~il;: :
-
Total_24 cities •.
3,758,488
3,734,866
1,352,813
' 4,226,473
1,203,223
4,154,717
12
2
22.1
23.5
21.4
22.8
600,825
666,284
- 10
17.8
18.6
1,394,951
' 3,509,804
3,615,070
2,541,600
2,739,469
' 238,833
' 46,626,019
4,530,937
10,680,457
1,241,615
45,093,468
451,970
3,239,054
793,257
758,179
9,397,025
373,893
1,311,879
1,596,363
1,631,737
1,294,807
3,017,455
3,435,917
2,328,050
2,563,600
229,0 11
42,769,526
4,385,544
10,263,352
1,209,656
39,935,728
429,230
2,970,437
766,407
697,621
8,966,733
353,182
1,240,487
1,493.002
1,484,7 48
8
16
5
9
7
4
9
3
4
3
13
5
9
4
9
5
6
6
7
10
20.4
28 .8
20.7
23 .6
22.8
10.9
33.9
23.1
25.3
20.2
28.7
16.9
23.9
18.5
15.1
21.5
18.7
18.4
19.4
15.9
18.2
24.5
21.0
21.6
21.8
10.8
32.5
23.6
24.9
20.0
26.6
17.0
23.3
17.9
14.2
21.3
18.9
18.1
20.4
14.5
' $ 151,704,179
$ 139,593,583
26.9
25.6
VALUATION (Dollar amounts In thousands)
Percent change
Dec. 1964
NUM8ER
Depos its of ' ' .
. .
SU~divisl on s.
individual s, partnership s, and corporations and of states and political
I
- Includes revl I '
•
:) Th ese fl
s.ons In previously published monthly figures.
In Texarkangure~ Include only two banks in Texarkana, Texas. Total debits for all bonks
amounted toa$80~xas.Arkonsas, including one bank located in tho Eighth District ,
,341,000 during 1964 and $783,135,000 during 1963 .
from
12 months,
Dec.
Area
12 mos.
1964
1964
12 mos.
1964
1964
1964
Dec.
1963
1964 from
1963
34,428
-28
-42
10
23,310
Dec.
Nov.
AR IZONA
462
8,252
$ 1,046
287
4,130
1,444
62
114
Austin ........
248
Beaumont .....
142
24 1
Corpus Christi ..
Dalla s .. ...... 1,599
28 1
EI Paso •.•.•.•
509
Fort Worth ....
99
Galveston •.•..
Houston •.••.. 1,560
230
Lubbock • •...•
83
Midland .• .. ••
67
Od essa ..• •. ..
79
Port Arthu r ••••
816
San Antonio •.•
249
Waco .... .. . .
75
Wichita Falls. •
1,041
2,809
4,006
2,827
3,957
24,502
4,880
8,415
1,563
22,851
2,273
1,089
1,238
1,749
13,743
2,844
1,441
721
1,785
3,742
361
1,782
9,653
4,741
2,924
5,120
21,209
5,732
623
294
144
5,015
1,202
628
Total-19 cities. • 7,203
113,610
$68, 166
Tucson • ..• .. ..
LOUISIANA
Shreve port •.••
TEXAS
Abil.ne ••• ••••
Amarillo .•••••
$
49
42
-15
12,183 -25
43,495 -44
71,491
38
15,683 -32
31,836 -43
198,744 -36
46,197
4
69,131 -85
15,281 1,011
321,695 -30
59,142
135
11,33 1
25
5,933 -44
6,190 -34
70,281 - 15
15,631
50
12,47 1 -22
12
-11
- 11
-38
-6
-34
71
-4
71
36
238
166
-4
-57
-25
86
-62
-18
1
-12
14
25
-12
8
31
4
1
45
1
-19
27
15
-2
-15
-28
9
---$1,064,453
3
VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
NATIONAL PETROLEUM ACTIVITY INDICATORS
(In millions of dollars)
(Seasonally adjusted Indexes, 1957·59
January-December
Decem ber
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' • ••.• •••••••••••
Residential building • ••••• .
Nonresidential building .•.•
Nonbuilding construction ..•
UNITED STATES ••••..••••••
Residential building •••••••
Nonresidential building ....
Nonbuildlng construction ...
1
November
1964
1963
December
November
December
Indicator
1964p
1964p
1963
CRUDE OIL RUNS TO REFINERY
STILLS (Daily average) •.••..•. .•• ••••
DEMAND (Dally average)
116
114
111
118
131
100
105
112
112
138
108
96
109
113
142
113
101
112
114
131
114
71
109
116
121
110
73
108
110
124
112
84
108
December
1964p
Area and type
504
140
161
202
3,598
1,306
1,298
994
372
161
138
74
3,757
1,482
1,263
1,012
= 100)
1964p
1963
5,032
2,156
1,493
1,383
47,299
20,561
15,495
11,244
398
131
146
121
3,413
1,325
1,102
985
4,882
2,166
1,390
1,327
45,546
20,502
14,377
10,667
Gasoline • .... ..... ...• .. .... . ..... .
Kerosene . ....... . .........••..•...
Distillate fu.1 all ....
Preliminary,
NOTE. - Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
••
00
•••
00
••
00
••
Residual fu el oil ... ....... . . ... ..... .
four reflned products. ..•.. ........
STOCKS (End of month)
Gasoline . . •. .. .......... ... .. . . •. .
Kerosene . •.....................••.
Distillate fuel all ....
Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexi co, Oklahoma, and Texas.
00
00
••••
00
•••
00
••
00
Residual fuel oil . •..... . ..•. • .. •• ....
four reflned products ............. .
p -
SOURCE : F. W. Dodge Corporation.
p -
Preliminary .
SOURCES , American Petroleum Institute.
U. S. Burea u of Mines.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dalla •.
MARKETED PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS
Seasonally adjusted index
(1957-59 = 100)
In millions of cubic feet
INDEXES OF DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
Third
Second
Third
Third
Second
Third
quarter
quarter
quarter
quarter
quarter
quarter
Area
1964
1964
1963
1964
1964
1963
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
louisiana .......
Ne w Mexico .. ...
Oklahoma •• . •.•
976,700
211,100
306,000
1,559,363
901,400
185,800
237,000
1,489,400
183
126
199
121
194
123
179
120
180
110
159
115
(Daily overage sales, 1957-59
Tex as ..........
966,200
212,900
297,000
1,574,400
Total •• •.• ••.•
3,050,500
3,053,163
2,813,600
145
142
133
Seasonally
adjusted
Date
1963: December ....
1964: July •• •• •••• ...• •.•• • •.••••••••••
00
SOURCES: U. S. Bureau of Mines .
= 100)
••
00
00
00
••
00
••
00
••
August . • •. • ...•.•... ••• . . . . ... . .
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
September •••..• . • ...• ••••• ••.. ••
October ••......... ...... . ...... .
Nove mber .•.....•••.. . ... . .. .• . •
December •.• . . . . .....•.•..•...•.•
r-
Unadiusted
121
128
124
123
117
124
129
210
116
125
118
120
142r
224
Revised .
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
(In thousands of barrels)
Percent change from
December
ELEVENTH DISTRICT. ••
00.
00
Texas ..•.. ...... ...•.••
Gulf Coa st •• •• .•.. ••••
W est Texas . ..........
East Texas (proper) ... ..
Panhandle •••...•.... .
Rest of State ••
00
••
00
••
Southeastern N ew Mexico ..
Northern Louisi ana ... ... . •
OUTSIDE ELEVENTH DISTRICT
UNITED STATES ..
00
p -
••
00.00.
December
~ovember
1964p
1963
1964
1963
3,256.7
2,780.4
537.7
1,229.8
112.1
103.2
797.5
289.9
186.4
4,421.2
7,677.9
3,208.1
2,743.4
531.9
1,212.1
110.3
103.0
786.1
278.3
186.4
4,573.9
7,782.0
3,109.4
2,679.9
519.9
1,200.6
120.6
104.5
734.3
277.8
151.7
4,401.7
7,511.1
Preliminary.
SOURCES: American Petroleum Institute.
U . S. Bureau of M ines.
federol Reserve Bank of Dallas.
4
DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
December
1964p
Are a
November
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.6
.2
1.5
4.2
.0
-3.3
-1.3
4.7
3.8
3.4
2.4
-7.1
-1.3
8.6
4.4
22.9
.4
2.2
(Percentage change in retail value)
December 1964 from
November
Area
1964
Total Eleventh District •• • •••• • .
Carpus Christi .............. . .
Dallas .. . .............. .... .
EI Paso ••••.••.•••••..••..••
70
68
79
65
73
61
59
67
69
Houston •.••••.... ..•.....•.
San Antonio ..•••.. ..•.......
Shreveport, La .•••.... .......
Waco •. . ... .. .... ..... .....
Other cities •• • ••
00
00
......
..
1963
12 months,
1964 from
1963
11
4
11
5
17
13
6
5
9
11
6
10
8
16
12
4
9
9
December
@FedFRASER