The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business
•
rev.ew
february 1967
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
the paper tiger . . . . . . .. ... . .. . .... . . . .... . . .
3
king cotton has problems . . .. . ..... .. ..... . . .
7
district highlights . . . . .. . . . . ..... .. ....... . . . . 11
The banking industry's paper tiger - the
ever-mounting volume of checks - remains far
from being tamed. Giant strides have been
made toward coping with the avalanche of
checks, but progress has not been rapid enough
to keep pace with the gain in the use of checks.
The stakes in the orderly and efficient handling
of the billions of pieces of paper that flow
through the banking system each year are high
and quite personal, since the pocketbooks of
everyone who gives or receives payment by
check are involved.
Unless there is a more rapid and universal
usage of checks that can be handled mechanically, the current degree of efficiency and speed
of collection, which is often taken for granted
by those outside of the banking industry, may
be seriously impaired. Concern about such a
possibility has prompted the Federal Reserve
~ystem to adopt further measures to encourage
IOcreased usage of checks which can be handled
by high-speed electronic equipment.
The principal and most practical means that
bas been devised thus far to maintain an efficient check collection system is the Magnetic
Ink Character Recognition Program of the
American Bankers Association. This program
Was developed through long and painstaking
research and study by a broad spectrum of the
bUSiness and financial community - including
bu.sinessmen, equipment manufacturers, check
P~lOters, and representatives of the ABA, indivldual banking institutions, and the Federal
Reserve System.
The MICR program, as it is popularly
kno,:",n, has been in operation for about 8 years.
DUflng this period, substantial progress has
been made in establishing the program due to
the broad-scale efforts of the business and bank-
ing community. The Federal Reserve banks
have been aggressive supporters of the MICR
program. Although its support during the ipitial stages of the program was mainly promotional in nature, by 1964 the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dalll;ls had assumed a more active role
toward the end of increasing the effectiveness
of the MICR program.
The actions taken by the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas have generally involved placing
restrictions on the types of transit items it
would handle as cash items. A check handled
by a Reserve bank as a cash item is credited
to the account of the sending bank in accordance with a time schedule, depending mainly
upon the location of the drawee bank. This
time schedule is the basis for determining if
credit for the check will be granted immediately or deferred for up to 2 days.
Due to the sheer time it takes physically to
deliver items to various banks, the observance
of customary banking and business hours of
work, and the like, it is not always possible
for the Federal Reserve Bank to receive payment from banks upon which checks are drawn
within the time schedule for granting of credit
to the sending bank. Delay of items in transit
because of bad weather or other reasons also
increases the length of time it takes for final
payment of items to be made. The fact that
credit is given to banks before an item has
been collected gives rise to "float."
In the case of noncash items, the sending
bank does not receive credit for an item until
the Federal Reserve Bank receives payment
from the bank upon which it is drawn. Since
they require special handling, the collection time
for noncash items is almost always longer than
for cash items.
business review/february 1967
3
Effective January 1, 1964, restrictions were
placed upon the handling of odd-sized or nonstandard checks, called "headache" items by
bankers. The dimensions or design of these
items, including envelope drafts, are so unusual that they cannot be processed by lowspeed proof machine equipment and must receive special handling. Beginning in 1965, the
Reserve Bank also placed restrictions on handling voucher checks which are folded or doubled, because they cannot be processed in a
fully automated fashion on high-speed equipment. These actions were taken to improve the
efficiency of the check collection system.
Last August, all commercial banks in the
Eleventh Federal Reserve District were notified that the Federal Reserve Bank would institute additional and broader requirements for
handling cash items through its facilities. Notice
was given that, effective September 1, 1967,
checks not bearing routing-transit numbers
preprinted or postencoded in magnetic ink,
according to specifications of the American
Bankers Association, will not be handled as
cash items. Checks not meeting ABA requirements are called nonconforming items, and they
are incompatible with high-speed check-handling processes.
, ~~~~~~______ 19~
~~~~:~~~~~~ff~--------$~\~'---
Beginning in September, nonconforming items
of $1,000 or more sent to the Head Office or
branches of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
by banks located outside the city of the receiving Federal Reserve office will be handled
as noncash items. All other nonconforming
items will be charged back and returned to the
sending bank. Returned items can be resubmitted to the Federal Reserve Bank either as
cash items, if the sending bank encodes the routing symbol-transit number on the items, or as
noncash collection items.
The various decisions of the Reserve Bank
to restrict its processing and forwarding of
checks as cash items to only those checks which
are capable of being processed on high-speed
equipment were made after long and considered
deliberation. The actions taken - especially the
most recent one - have been prompted by
recognition of the fact that urgent steps had
to be taken to improve check handling, which
Was fast being overwhelmed by a mountain
of paper. Further, with the Federal Reserve
Bank taking the leadership in restricting the
types of items it will handle, it is felt that the
commercial banks, operating within their highly
Competitive environment, will be in a stronger
position to encourage their customers to cooperate in a program that is vital to the interests
of everyone.
A growing volume of business, especially
when it is profitable, is delightful to almost
everyone connected with the firm - workers,
owners, and even taxing authorities, who, in
one way or another, share in the increased
profits. Bankers are among those businessmen
Wh~ have experienced a growing volume of
busrness. However, one area of bank services,
check clearing, has shown such rapid growth
a~d reached Such large proportions that effiClen~y must be stepped up, charges for the
servlces increased, or both.
Data are not available on the growth in the
total volume of checks handled by individual
CHECKS HANDLED ~ AT FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF DALLAS AND ITS BRANCHES
MILLIONS OF ITEMS
20
280
240
200
• Excludes U.S. Go vernmen t ch.ck~ and pos lal mon.y orders.
commercial banks and clearinghouse associations. But, trends in check activity at the four
offices of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
may be enlightening. Exclusive of U.S. Government checks, postal money orders, and
checks drawn on the Federal Reserve banks, the
number of checks handled at the four offices
between 1958 and 1966 rose from nearly 172.7
million items to about 315.9 million checks.
This 83-percent increase in the number of
pieces of paper handled was accompanied by
almost a doubling of the dollar amount of
checks processed. The growth in the number of
checks handled by the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas during the period outstripped, by a
substantial percentage, the increase in the volume processed by all 12 Federal Reserve banks.
It is difficult to visualize how the present
daily volume of checks could be processed without the MICR program. Currently, the Federal
business review/february 1967
5
~eserve Bank and its branches are using seven
high-speed check-handling systems; yet a substantial number of checks must be h;ld over
on days when the inflow of items is particularly
heavy. As a matter of fact, most nonconform~ng items are held over every day. If these
Items were ~ully qualified, they could be processed on high-speed machines at the rate of
?5,000 item~ per hour. Instead, nonconforming
1tem~ are reJe~ted by the high-speed equipment.
SpeCIal handling of these items is required in
order to provide an accurate total of all the
checks received from a particular bank since
both fully qualified and nonCOnformin~ items
are. .often sent to the Reserve Bank in one
maIling. The nonconforming items are the
sorted and listed, according to drawee ban:
?n proof machines at the rate of only 1,500
Items per hour.
The Fede~al Reserve System is apprehensive
th~t delays ~ presenting checks for paym,ent
lnlght result 10 losses to banks and the public.
Fur~her, the float created by the slower collectIOn of nonconforming checks is a major
concern. The float of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank averages between $125 million a d
$150 million daily. The deferment sched~e
NONCONFORMING TRANSIT ITEMS
AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
(Based on December 1966 surveys)
Description
Individu al
accounts
Corporate
accounts
Counter
drafts .
Changed
checks
Insurance
premium
drafts .
All others ..
TOTAL
....
Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas
and its branches
Number
As
of non·
percent
conforming
of
items
tota l
All Federal
Reserve banks
and branches
Number
As
of non.
pe rcent
conforming
of
items
tota l
14,936
16.1
108,904
20.8
27,837
30.0
184,113
35.2
36,977
39.9
103,975
19.9
2,694
2.9
20,957
4.0
6.7
32,851
~
~
6.3
13.8
6,200
4,094
92,738
100.0
522,324
100.0
SO URCE: Federa l Reserve Subcommittee on Coll ections.
6
accounts for a sizable portion of the float,
while the remainder arises from holdover, bad
weather, and transportation delays. Federal
Reserve banks have been urged by a congressional committee to reduce the volume of float,
and the September restriction on the handling
of nonconforming items is a major step in this
direction.
Southwesterners face a major challenge in
reducing the volume of nonconforming items.
As compared with the experience for all 12
Federal Reserve banks, the proportion of nonconforming items handled by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is quite large. On December 21, 1966, a little over 8 percent of the
checks received at its four offices did not bear
MICR routing designation, as compared with
less than 3 percent for the 12 Reserve banks
combined.
The survey also revealed the types of accounts and items for which the problem of
nonconformity was most serious. As the accompanying table shows, counter drafts account for
the major proportion of nonconforming items
- about 40 percent of the total - followed by
corporate accounts and individual accounts.
An early and substantial improvement in the
usage of MICR transit numbers on personal
and corporate checks and the elimination of the
use of counter and customer drafts would provide a significant boost to the efficiency of
check-clearing operations.
In order to inform the public of the restrictions to be imposed in September, as well as
the part they can play in improving the handling of their checkbook dollars, the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas is conducting a comprehensive educational and promotional program.
Some of its educational efforts include distribution of promotional material for the use of
banks and business firms, provision of mailers
to be included with the bank statements of in~ividual customers, articles in various publicatIOns and news media, speeches at meetings of
businessmen and bankers, and letters to and
discussions with large issuers of nonconforming
checks.
Some businessmen who have already embarked upon a program of eliminating customer
draft forms have been pleasantly surprised. One
large retail firm which recently began to re-
quire customers to use personalized checks has
found that losses from bad checks have been
reduced from over $1,000 per month to just
slightly more than $100. It is well known that
losses on hot checks and also the source of most
ULA (unable to locate account) items are
primarily centered in the acceptance of customer drafts.
I~ing
cotton
has p,·oblems
· The U.S. cotton industry's economic welfare
IS highly related to the Nation's share of world
markets for cotton. Exports of this commOdity are vital to the maintenance of farm
income and to the overall level of economic
~ctivity in major cotton-producing states. The
Income and employment of ginners, warehousel11e~, merchants, farm supply firms, and other
bUsIness concerns are affected by the volume
of cotton exports.
· The number 1 cash crop in the United States
IS cotton, and farm income derived from this
fi~er accounts for a large share of the cash receIpts from farming in many states. The southwestern states have a great stake in cotton
developments, since almost 45 percent of U.S.
prodUction originates in this area.
Although change has been part of cotton's
tradition, some very distinct adjustments have
taken place 10
" ItS pro d
'
.
uction
consumption,
and
du
.
h
'
trade
th
nng t e past two decades. In 1947,
th ere Were only 16 countries producing more
2San 100,000 bales annually; today, there are
· Such countries. Many of the countries joinIng the ranks of cotton producers have even
become net exporters of the crop. World production has continued upward as more acreage
has been planted and yields per acre have
improved. Following the disruption of all facets
of the cotton industry in World War II, production advanced sharply and reached a new
high of more than 42 million bales in the early
fifties. Output has continued to increase and,
now, is near the 50-million-bale level. Foreign
countries contributing most heavily to increased
production and exports have been Mexico,
Brazil, Peru, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Egypt,
Syria, India, and Pakistan.
Cotton production in foreign free world
countries increased from less than 9 million
bales annually in 1947 to more than 23 million
bales in 1966. The acreage expansion in foreign
countries has been spurred by the profitability
of cotton as a cash crop and earner of foreign
exchange.
A contrasting acreage situation has occurred
in the United States. Acreage controls in force
at the start of World War II were lifted in
order to assure adequate cotton supplies for
the war effort. Prices also were supported at
business review/ february 1967
7
-
relatively high levels to encourage a production response. In 1950, it was necessary to
reimpose acreage controls after surpluses began
accumulating at a rapid rate. A drastic reduction in acreage had hardly been accomplished
when the Korean War began. The much smaller
U.S. crop harvested in 1950 and the world's
fear of a general war resulted in increased demand. Prices in world markets reached record
levels of more than 60 cents per pound, and a
price ceiling was placed on American cotton.
There were no acreage restrictions in the United
States for the 1951-53 crops, and production
again outstripped consumption; consequently,
surpluses soared.
u.s.
COnON ACREAGE. PRODUCTION
AND CONSUMPTION
•
SOURce u.s, Departm ent 01Ag ri cultu f •.
Acreage controls were reinstituted for the
1954 crop, and restrictions have continued in
force for each successive crop. During the
period from 1954 to 1966, cotton acreage harvested in the United States declined from about
19 million acres to less than 10 million acres
- the smallest acreage in almost a century.
Although world acreage has been decreasing
slightly from the level of more than 80 million
acres in 1965, most of the decrease is as so-
8
ciated with that in the United States. Despite
the acreage reduction, the United States currently harvests 20 percent of the world's output
from about 12 percent of the acreage.
World cotton consumption has moved upward during the past two decades, although the
use of cotton has varied widely among countries
and regions. Foreign free world countries used
about 25 million bales in the 1965-66 season,
compared with 14 million bales two decades
earlier. Net exporting countries will continue
to require more cotton for internal use.
Many of the cotton-producing nations are
developing countries, and they use the product
grown domestically, rather than importing other
fibers and utilizing scarce exchange. Moreover,
the developing countries usually have problems with population growth and low per
capita incomes, which tend to reduce the effective demand for imports. The industrialized
nations of the world show a slight upward trend
in cotton consumption, depending upon the
status of the textile industry within each country and the inroads made by synthetic fibers.
There are several major factors that operate
to increase or deter cotton consumptionpopulation, cotton prices, prices of man-made
fibers, and general economic conditions.
Man-made fibers provide stringent competition for cotton and have adversely affected
the use of cotton fiber. The consumption of
man-made fibers rose from slightly over 2 billion pounds in 1947 to about 12 billion pounds
in 1965, and a further rise likely occurred in
1966. Despite the absolute gain in world cotton consumption, the rate of growth has not
increased as fast as that for man-made fibers.
In fact, man-made fibers have increased their
share of total fiber consumption from 12 percent to over 30 percent in two decades. A large
part of the expansion occurred in the past 10
years, with new synthetics receiving wider
market acceptance than some man-made fibers
which had been in use for a number of years.
PER CAPITA MILL CONSUMPTION OF FIBERS
United States
(Perc entage of tota l consumption)
Cotton
Wool
Man·made
fibers
All
fibers'
1947 .
1948 .
1949 '"
72.6
69.8
70.6
10.9
10.8
9.2
16.5
19.4
20.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
1950 . . . . ....
1951 ...... . .
1952
1953 .
1954
68.5
71.3
69.6
68.8
68.6
9.3
7.1
7.2
7.6
6.4
22.2
21.6
23.2
23.6
25.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
...
.. .
... .. ...
. ' . . ....
65.4
66.8
65 .3
64 .9
63 .4
6.2
6.7
5.9
5.5
6.4
28.4
26.5
28.8
29.6
30.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
...... . .
. ...... .
. .. . .. . .
. " ... ..
.. . . . ...
64.7
62 .2
59.5
55.7
54.6
6.3
6.3
6.1
5.7
4.6
29.0
31.5
34.4
38.6
40.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1965p ... . ...
52.7
4.6
42.7
100.0
Year
Does not inclu de f lax and s il k.
P - Preliminary.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agricu lture.
1
Total production of man-made fibers currently is equivalent to more than 33 million
bales of cotton, and output of synthetics probably will increase further. The greater use of
these man-made fibers by textile mills in developed countries has been at the expense of
cotton. Mill consumption of man-made fibers
has tended to concentrate in the United States,
We.stern Europe, and Japan. For instance, the
Uruted Kingdom has reduced the proportion of
cotton used in its textile mills from more than
50 percent of all fibers in 1950 to less than 30
percent at the present time.
The relatively high price of U.S. cotton for
many years has done much to foster production
of the crop in other countries. Furthermore,
the expanded production of man-made fibers
b h '
,
ot In the United States and in other countries, has contributed to the slowing in consumption of cotton. The response of cotton
pr?duction and consumption to rather small
pnce changes is considerable. It has been esti-
mated that a 1-cent-per-pound change in the
world price of cotton is associated with a
change, in the same direction, in world plantings of over 200,000 acres of cotton. Likewise,
a 1-cent-per-pound change in the price of cotton can mean a change in consumption, in the
opposite direction, of more than 100,000 bales.
The high world price for cotton in the early
fifties not only encouraged the development of
new fibers but was an incentive for mills to
use the new materials in various textile products. The synthetic fibers were found to be
suitable for a wide range of products and to
rate high as a substitute for cotton. The quality
control maintained on man-made fibers permits less wastage; and even though the price
per pound is higher, the difference in cost is
not as great when a larger percentage of output is usable.
Cotton prices have been declining since the
early fifties, when world production gained
momentum and the strong demand for cotton
was short-lived as the volume anticipated for
the Korean conflict did not materialize. The rate
of the price decline has slowed since 1958.
Price weakness was particularly noticeable in
the past 5 years. The continued large world
output, accumulating surpluses, and greater
inroads in textile markets by man-made fibers
have placed pressure on cotton prices.
The potential for U.S. cotton exports is directly associated with the difference between
foreign production and consumption, changes
in stocks, and the availability of substitute
fibers. World stocks of cotton have generally
varied in proportion to U.S. stocks because of
the relative importance of American production
and the Nation's provisions for maintaining
control over surpluses. The carry-over of world
stocks during the past 20 years varied from a
low of 12 million bales on August 1, 1951, to
the record 30 million bales on August 1, 1966.
The U.S. carry-over of 16.8 million bales on
August 1, 1966, was higher than usual but
business review/ february 1967
9
U.S. SHARE OF WORLD conON ACREAGE,
PRODUCTION, AND EXPORTS
(Percentage of total)
Year
.. . ... . ... .. ..
1957
1956
1959
........
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
.
.. .. .. , .....
... .. .. , .. . . . .
1965
1966p
...
Acreage
Production
Exports
17.1
15.1
16.9
25 .9
25.6
31.1
40.4
20.7
41.4
19.1
19.4
19.6
17.7
17 .2
31.0
31.9
31.2
30.5
29.2
36.8
31.6
21.4
31.7
24.4
16.7
12.6
26.0
21.4
17 .3
27.3
p - Preliminary.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
represented about the same general proportion
of world stocks as it had in the preceding decade.
Currently, cotton is the only U.S. farm commodity with alarmingly high sto<;ks. Surpluses
of many other commodities reached troublesome levels a few years ago but have been
sharply reduced. Despite a reduction in acreage, which receded from a high of over 27
million acres in 1949 to a low of less than 10
million acres in 1966, cotton production has
been maintained at a high level. The enlargement of farm units, doubling of yields per acre,
greater use of irrigation, and more mechanization have made it possible to produce more
U.S. COnON CARRY-OVER AND EXPORTS
(Year beginning August 1)
S OF BALES
e-E$tlmated .
SOURCE: U.S. Department 01 AgriCulture.
10
cotton on fewer acres and with considerably
less labor. The rapid improvement in production efficiency, relatively slow growth in total
consumption, and increased competition from
man-made fibers have created problems. The
problems may be broadly identified as excessive
farm labor and substantial reductions in the
purchases of goods and services used in production and marketing by the cotton industry.
The U.S. cotton industry has been dependent
upon a strong export market and has been a
major participant in world trade. This country's
share of world export trade in cotton declined
from 40 percent to about 25 percent in the
past two decades. The level of world trade has
lagged behind world consumption because
many cotton-producing countries consume more
of their domestic output and, at the same time,
others have increased domestic production and
are more nearly self-sufficient.
Under these conditions, the United States
finds its foreign market shrinking. In ad<lition,
man-made fibers are taking a larger share of
domestic and foreign textile markets in the
industrialized nations. Cotton's share of the
domestic fiber market has decreased steadily
and, currently, accounts for about 53 percent,
as compared with 43 percent for man-made
fibers.
The current U.S. surplus of cotton probably
will be overcome rather quickly if the adjustment in 1966 is an indication of production
trends. Exports are likely to increase, as prices
under the current Government program are
based upon estimated world prices. The total
carry-over may decline as much as 4 million
bales during the present marketing year, since
domestic consumption is estimated to be near
last year's output. Nevertheless, if the past
provides any judgment about the future, it
seems clear that the U.S. capacity to produce
cotton is well ahead of foreseeable domestic
and foreign consumption at existing prices.
J. C. GRADY, JR.
distriet highlights
The seasonally adjusted Texas industrial production index climbed somewhat less than 1
percent in December to reach 150.5 percent of
the 1957-59 base, the first time that the index
has attained the 150 mark or better. The December output was 9 percent higher than in
the same month a year earlier.
Output of durable goods in the State rose
less than 2 percent between November and December, with electrical machinery, fabricated
metal products, and nonelectrical machinery
being especially strong. A production increase
in aircraft and parts was counterbalanced by a
decrease in automobile assemblies. Despite de~lines in construction, output in a closely related
Industry - namely, stone, clay, and glass products - advanced moderately during the month.
Compared with a year ago, durable goods manufacturing was up 11 percent. Nondurable
goods manufacturing exhibited a very slight increase during December but was almost 6
percent ahead of the same month in 1965.
Petroleum refining and related industries showed
t~e only notable advance, being over 3 percent
higher than in the previous month; other nondurable goods categories registered only small
changes.
During 1966, the Texas production index
advanced at a faster rate than the national
index of industrial production, rising in excess
of 12 points versus an increase of less than
10 points for the national index. The actual
level of the Texas index continued below the
national one, but the gap between them has
bee~ narrowing steadily as a result of a more
~apld rate of industrial growth in the State than
In the Nation as a whole.
. Nonagricultural wage and salary employment
In the five southwestern states advanced about
1 percent during December to a level of
5,539,700 workers; this advance is somewhat
greater than the normal seasonal change. Manufacturing employment did not decline as much
as usual, and the nonmanufacturing work force
rose somewhat greater than normal. Within
the manufacturing sector, durable goods firms
showed employment strength as opposed to
nondurable goods concerns. Trade employment,
reflecting a normal seasonal gain for December,
rose over 4 percent; post office employment,
as well, increased seasonally during the month.
However, construction employment eased over
1 percent, which is somewhat less than the
normal seasonal decline.
Nonagricultural employment in the five states
in December rose about 4 percent over the same
month in 1965. Manufacturing employment
showed great strength, increasing almost 6 percent; for nonmanufacturing, there was a 4percent gain. All nonmanufacturing employment
categories registered year-to-year increases except mining, which declined slightly. Employment in construction was almost 2 percent
ahead of the comparable 1965 figure.
Registrations of new passenger automobiles
in December in four major market areas in
Texas were 9 percent below both the previous
month and December 1965. During 1966, total
registrations in the four markets were fractionally lower than in 1965. Cumulative registrations in Dallas and Houston each were down
1 percent, but those in Fort Worth and San
Antonio increased 4 percent and 2 percent,
respectively.
Department store sales in the Eleventh District during 1966 were 6 percent greater than
in 1965. On the other hand, sales for the 4
weeks ended January 21 were 1 percent below
business review/ february 1967
11
the corresponding period last year, and cumulative sales for the first 3 weeks in 1967 were
2 percent lower than in the comparable period
in 1966.
Despite some light rains in scattered areas,
soil moisture remains generally short over most
of the Eleventh District. Winter wheat and oats
need rain badly to prevent freeze and wind
damage. Dryland small grains have received
very little effective moisture since last fall. Range
and pasture grasses are providing limited green
grazing, and dry forage supplies are rapidly
diminishing. Grazing of small grains has been
largely discontinued because of limited growth
resulting from dry, cold weather. Supplemental
feeding has been required in most areas to
maintain the condition of livestock.
As a result of the rapid reduction in money
market rates in recent weeks relative to rates
paid on large negotiable certificates of deposit,
the District's weekly reporting commercial
new
par
banks
12
banks have experienced a large inflow of such
deposits since mid-December. On December 14,
1966, negotiable CD's issued in denominations
of $100,000 or more by the District's weekly
reporting commercial banks reached their lowest level ($999.8 million) since March 23,
1966. The sharp turnaround of money market
rates in December 1966 and early January
1967, however, reversed the 5-month-Iong outflow of these deposits. By January 18, 1967,
these deposits had risen 11.2 percent to a level
of $1,111 million, or only $ 8 million below
the peak level attained on July 13, 1966.
The Nation's weekly reporting commercial
banks have experienced a similar but slightly
smaller inflow of large negotiable certificates
of deposit since mid-December. The latest figures available show that the Nation's weekly
reporting commercial banks had a $1,615 million net inflow (or a gain of 10.5 percent) of
large negotiable CD's between December 14,
1966, and January 18, 1967.
The Northline State Bank, Houston, 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 its opening date, January 21, 1967.
The officers are : W. S. Elkins, President; W. J. Keitt, Vice President; Bernard S.
Beaman, Jr., Executive Vice President; and Micheal L. Bosco, Cashier.
The American Bank of Commerce, Grapevine, Texas, a nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, February 2, 1967.
The officers are: Carlton D. Pittard, Chairman of the Board; D. D. Patteson,
President; and R. B. Goldstein, Cashier.
STAlilSTICAL SUPPLEMENT
to the
BUSINESS REVIEW
Februa ry 1967
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS
CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS
RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Ave rag es of daily flgures. In thousands of dollars)
(In thousands of dollars)
Jan. 4, 1967
5 w •• ks . nd.d
D.c. 7, 1966
5 w •• k•• nd. d
Jan. 5, 1966
653,539
602,150
51,389
646,966
6,573
53,7 44
-47,171
629,947
583,727
46,220
622,737
7,210
75,180
-67,970
623,833
575,451
48,382
618,325
5,508
11 ,170
-5,662
654,241
497,400
156,84 1
620,790
33,451
2,161
31,290
643,123
492,542
150,58 1
610,008
33,115
8,469
24,646
617,597
470,403
147, 194
585,116
32,481
2,667
29,814
1,307,780
1,099,550
208,230
1,267,756
40,024
55,905
- 15,88 1
1,273,070
1,076,269
196,801
1,23 2,745
40,325
83,649
-43,324
1,241 ,430
1,045,854
195,576
1,203,441
37,989
13,837
24,152
4 weeks en d ed
Item
Jan . 25,
1967
Dec. 28,
1966
It.m
Jan . 26,
1966'
RESERVE CITY BANKS
ASSETS
Net loans and discounts .... .. .................
Valuation reserves . . ........... .. .. . ... ......
Gross loans and discounts . .. ..... .... ...... . . .
4,991,715
98,544
5,090,259
5,238,671
88,331
5,327,002
4,802,435
89,864
4,892,299
Commercial and industrial loans ... ... . .. .....
2,503,228
87,780
2,52 1,7 19
85,602
2,237,359
64,506
20,007
38,501
14,002
35,046
2
50,043
1,309
315,770
733
330,698
2,875
309,084
162,236
244,212
464,894
157,844
3,969
510,506
174,033
262,326
467,292
307,507
4,506
513,568}
130,576
276,696
445,690
15 1,597
3,918
Agricultural loans 2 • ••••••••••••••••••••••••
loons to brokers and dealers for
purchasing or carrying:
U.S. Government securities . .. .. ... .. .. ....
Other securities . . . ... ... ..... ...........
Other loan s for purchasing or carrying:
U.S. Government securities . ...............
Other securities . .............. . .. . ..... .
loons to nonbank flnancial Institutions:
Sal es finance, personal Anance, foctors,
and other business credit companies .. .•. .•
Other ......... ..... ... ....... ... ... ...
Real esta te loan s.. . ..• .. .... . .. . ... ...... .
loans to domestic comm ercial banks .... .......
Loan s to foreign banks • • . .....•......... •..
Consumer instalment loan s..... ..... ....... . .
loons to foreign governments, offlciol
institutions, etc.... .............••........
Other loans2 • ••••••••••••••••••••••• •• •••
o
' 1,219,953
2,271,815
1,084,324
48,171
15,209
1,089,864
48,596
15,659
1,289,511
112,393
41,623
161,997
601,416
257,531
164,848
599,844
260,917
195,003
581,606
358,886
7,601
944,551
963,864
Other assets.•• ••••••.•.. ••. . .•.• •. ....• •...
99,377
67,785
799,679
675,993
78,015
458,164
4,141
335,713
90,188
67,941
778,395
543,791
87,857
484,429
4,752
342,705
777,544
552,144
70,895
442,913
3,746
328,934
TOTAL ASSETS •••••••••• ••• • •• .•• •• ..
9,547,058
9,704,772
9,250,426
Treasury bill s..•.... .••... .•.. . ..... ... .
Treasury certiAcates of indebtedness . ..•...•
Treasury notes and U.S. bonds maturing:
Within 1 y.ar ......... ....... . .. ... ..
1 yea r to 5 years .... •. .. ..•. .....•...
Aft.r 5 y.ars •• •• . ••. ..•••..••• •..••..
Obligations of states and pol itical sub divisions:
Tax warrants and short-term not es and bills . •
All oth.r ...... ... ... ...... .. .. .. ..... ..
Oth er bonds, corporate stocks, and securities:
Participation cert/ncates in Federal
agency loan s2 • •••••••••••••••••••••••
All oth.r (including corporat. stocks, ••••••..
Cash items in process of collection • •. ... ..... . . .
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank • ••.. .• .... ..
Currency and coin . ....• •• ...•••.••...•...•..
Balances with banks in the Unite d States .. .....••
Balances with banks in foreign countries • ....•...
Total reserves held . •... ... ....
With federal Reserve Bank .. ..
Curroncy and coin . ....... .. .
Required reserves . .••••......•
Excess re serves • •........ .. ...
Borrowing s•. .. • .. " •..... . ...
Free reserves . ...•..... . ......
Total reserves hel d • ........ .. .
609,970
2,224,172
Total U.S. Govern men t securities ..... .........
COUNTRY BANKS
ALL MEMBER BANKS
0
580,003
2,203,638
Total investments . • ..... •.•.....•... .... .. ...
Tota l reserves held . .....•.... .
With Fe d era l Reserve Bank .. ..
Currency and coin ... ..•.. .. .
Required reserves . •........ ...
Excess reserves . ..............
Borrowings . .. .......•........
Free reserves •. ... . ....•... . ..
"'' '}
With F.d.ral R.s.rve 8ank ....
Currency and coin . ........•.
Required reserves . ..... . .... ..
Excess rese rves . ....... . ......
Borrowings . .. .. . .............
Free reserves • .•....•.... . .. . .
CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
(In thousands of dollars)
Jan. 25,
1967
it.m
982,304
Totol gold certiflcate reserves •.••... ...•....
Discounts for member banks . .......•.......
Other discounts and advances . ............ .
U .S. Governme nt securities . .. . ..... ..•... . .
Total earning asse ts..•.. ....... . ..........
Member bank reserve d eposits••.. ..........
federal Reserve notes in actual circulation •..••
Dcc.28,
1966
Jan. 26,
1966
575,648
1,023
448,582
400
1,628,077
1,629,100
1,108,165
1,2 46,827
1,502,065
1,502,465
966,058
1,283,132
418,000
13,646
1,160
1,648,153
1,662,959
972,656
1,177,134
o
o
CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS
L1A81L1TIES
Total d.posits ..............................
8,210,622
8,363,840
8,052,059
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
Total d. mand d.posits •••• •••• •• •• ••. • ••. • •
4,938,592
3,375,835
289, 110
100,607
1,075,450
5,184,598
3,549,767
281,115
98,146
1,155,733
4,864,814
3,376,221
242,802
152,635
1,008,1 27
(In millions of dollars)
5,239
20,149
72,202
3,272,030
3,138
22,881
73,818
3,179,242
2,815
20,233
61,981
3,187,245
1,114,401
1,490,780
640,968
8,878
15,473
1,187,044
1,357,486
609,523
8,790
14,059
1,307,987
' 1,300,787
560,853
3,519
11,259
800
730
800
1,540
1,300
1,540
316,267
168,171
280,520
206,799
228,488
165,987
Individua ls, partnerships, and corporations •. . •
States and political subdivisions . ... ...... ..
U.S. Government . ... .....•. ...•..... .. . .
Banks in the United States ..• •. .• ........ . .
Foreign:
Governments, ofAcial institutions, etc.... .•.
Commercial bonks . ...............•...•
Certifled and offlcers· checks, etc .. .........
Total time and savings d eposi ts .. ...• • ... ....
Individuals, partnerships, and corporations:
Savings deposits . •••...•..............
Other time deposits.• . .. . ...•. .• .......
States and political subdivisions • .•.... . . . ..
U.S. Government {including postal savings} . ••
Banks in the Unite d States ..... •... • .......
Foreign:
Governments, ofAcial in stitutions, etc . .. ....
Commercial bonks •• •. .....• •. ...•. ....
Bills payable, rediscounts, and other
liabilities for borrowed money • ... .. . . .... . ..
Oth er fia bilities • . . ...............• ...•.. . ...
Dcc.28,
1966
Nov. 30,
1966
D.c. 29,
1965
loans and discountsl . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
U .S. Government obligations .••. . .. ... . ...
Oth er securities l •••• •• .• • • • . . • • • . • • • • • • •
Reserves with Fed eral Reserve Bank ...•.. ..
Ca sh in vault • .. .. .. •. .... . ...... .. . ...
Balances with banks in the United States . .. .
Balances with banks in foreign countries e .. . .
Cash items in proc ess of coll ection . ....... .
Other a ssets e ••• ...............•.......
8,932
2,299
2,244
966
241
1, 111
7
884
485
8,639
2,330
2,274
966
228
1,125
6
913
452
8,445
2,461
1,964
983
229
1,147
6
947
484
TOTAL ASSETS· .. .... . ........ ..... .
17,169
16,933
Demo nd d eposits of banks • ....•... ......
Oth er d emand d eposits .... .......•......
Tim e d epo sits ... •.....................•
1,4 10
7,835
5,889
1,363
7,635
5,829
1,394
7,783
5,487
15,134
285
281
1,469
14,827
356
283
1,467
14,664
342
262
1,398
Item
ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS .... ... ......... ....... .
851,998
853,613
803,892
Total d. posits ••••. . •. .. •.... . •..•• •.
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
9,547,058
9,704,772
9,250,426
Borrowings . .. .............. .. . ... .... .
Oth er lIabiliti es e • ......... . ........... .
Total capital accoun'se . ... " ........... .
1
Beca use of format and coverage rev ision s as of July 6, 1966, ea rli er data are not
fully comparable.
~ Certiflcates of participation in Federal agency loon s include Commodity Credit
Corporation certiflcates of interest previously Included in "Agricultural loan s" and
Export-Import Bank participa tion s previously included in "Oth e r loan s."
:1 Amount includes deposits accumulated for payment of instalment loan s; a s a result
of a change in federa l Reserve regulations, effect iv e Jun e 9, 1966, such deposits are
no longer reported.
2
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTS· ..••••••...••..•• . ...•
1 Beginning Jun e 15, 1966, Commodity Credit Corporation certiflcates of interest aod
Export.lmport Bonk participations are included in " Oth er sec uriti es" rather thol'l
.. Loans and di scount s."
'
e-
Estimated.
BANK DEBITS, END-OF-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts in thousands, seasonally adiu ste d)
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change
1966
(Annual· rale
basis)
Standard metropolitan
statisfical ore a
ARIZONA: Tucson ••....... . .• .. .....•.•...••. .•. ••• .
LOUISIANA: Monro e ......... ... ....................
$
Annual rote
of turnover
Decem ber 1966 from
December
November
December
1966
1965
12 months,
1966 from
1965
Decem b er 31,
1966
Decemb er
Novemb,er
December
1966
1966
1965r
$ 157,7 13
71,305
214,436
33,862
94,019
136,086
184,051
213,061
61,522
184,561
27,337
1,702,115
195,671
5 16,893
94,669
1,869,722
32,616
139,6 11
11 7,27 1
60,197
57,535
490,298
56,919
83,136
104,045
109,544
22.5
2B.7
25.1
18.9
20.5
32.2
24.5
25.6
25.9
20.2
11.7
37.2
25.6
28.1
20.0
32.5
19.3
20.9
13.4
20.3
16.5
23.7
20.4
19.5
18.8
18.5
24.3
26.1
26.5
20.7
20.1
29.7
24.4
26.2 '
26.0
19.2
12.6
39.7
25.1
28.0
21.6
31.2
20.0
20.8
13.4
19.3
17.0
23.4
20.0
18.5
19.4
17.1
23.6
25.1
26.0
19.2
20.4
31.7
23.4
24.5
26.6
20.6
11.8
34.7
24.9
26.9
21.1
29.5
18.0
24.2
14.4
18.4
16.9
24.0
19.9
20.4
19.3
17.8
29.2
29.4
27.7
~k~~t'd j:~il~: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
3,615,3B4
2,031,024
5,319,744
63B,I72
1,943,952
4,371,024
4,502,172
5,447,916
1,550,328
3,7 43,664
325,704
62,495,196
5,063,052
14,301,816
1,826,0 16
61,371,960
623,520
2,998,260
1,542,792
1,251,564
932,700
11,669,148
1,145,472
1,638,888
1,996,548
2,023,944
-12
10
-6
-8
4
7
0
- 1
1
5
-11
- 6
0
3
-4
2
-2
-4
0
2
-3
0
4
6
-5
8
':""3
3
-1
13
9
-3
3
1
12
2
6
-4
8
20
- 13
-2
6
-1
1
12
2
- 1
-4
2
9
10
2
9
8
8
11
8
7
10
16
2
10
1
12
12
5
-5
12
9
10
7
6
10
6
TOl a l_ 26 c. nl.rs ..... .. . ............ .. . ... ....... ..
$204,369,960
- 1
7
12
Shrev eport ••• ••••••••• •• ••••••••• •• •••••
NEW MEXICO: Rosw.II ' ••... •••...•.•.•••••.••••.•.•
TEXAS, Abil en. .. .......... . ... ... ........ ..........
Amarillo • • ••••• • •••.• •••••••• •• •• • •••• •• ••••
Au stin .•••• . ••• ••••• • . •• •••••••••••••• ••• • • •
Bea umont-Port Arthur • •• ••••••••••••••••••••••
Brownsvlll e. Harling e n-San Benito ••.•••..•• .• .••.
2~~~~~~'V~s.ti:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Dalla s •••......•... . .... . •..•.....•••. . . • .. •
EI Paso •...•........• ••.•• .•. • .... •.• • •• ..••
Fori Worlh .. .... .... .. .. ....... .... ..... . ...
Galveston -Texa s City . ... •.. •... ..• •..•• .. . .••
Houston:! •••.• • . •.••• • • •..• •• • •••••• ••• ••••• •
Lare do . .... .•• ... • ... ..•...•...••. .•• • .• • • •
Lubbock . ..................... .. ... .... .....
Midland ... . ... . .. ...... .. .... ..............
Od essa •. ••.. . . ...•...•.•.. • .... • •..•••• . .. .
~~~ ~~~o~~:
: : :: : :::: : ::::: : :::: : :: : :: : :: :: :
Texarkana (Texa s~ Arkansas) ••• • ••. •••..•.•• • •..
Tyl . r ... . ... .. .. ..... .. .. . ...... ............
0
---$7,008, 195
~ De posits of indiv iduals, partnerships, and corporations and of states and political subdivisi ons.
- County basis
" R.vls.d (1965) SMSA boundaries.
r - R. vls.d.
GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
ANNUAL BANK DEBITS AND ANNUAL RATE
OF TURNOVER OF DEMAND DEPOSITS
Eleventh Fed e ral Reser ve District
(Dollar amounts i n thou sands)
(Averag es of daily figures . In mil lion s of dollars)
-=
Demand d.posits'
TIME DEPOSITS
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
De bits to d em and d eposi t accounts l
001.
TOlal
Reserve
city banks
Counlry
banks
Talal
Reserve
city banks
Counlry
banks
1964: Dec. mb.r ..
1965: D. ce mb .r ..
1966: July .......
Aug us!. ...
t · PI. mb er .
8.852
9,077
8,912
8,637
8,797
8,847
8,914
9,098
4,213
4,241
4,165
3,982
4,080
4,064
4,061
4,202
4,639
4,836
4,747
4,655
4,717
4,783
4,853
4,896
4,7 13
5,451
5,734
5,764
5,73 6
5,726
5,75 1
5,781
2,288
2,610
2,660
2,670
2,634
2,595
2,58 1
2,575
2,425
2,841
3,074
3,094
3,102
3,131
3,170
3,206
ctob or • . •
Novemb er . •
Decemb e r ..
Siandard
me tropolitan
stati stica l a rea
ARIZONA
Tu cson •••••••..... • . $
Monro e .••. •• .. •••••
Shre ve port •.•..••..•
Roswe ll : ! •.• . •• . ••• .•
Carpus Chrisli ........
Corsicana : l •..... • ..•
Pe rcent change fro m
Are a
ELEVENTH DISTRICT
T·G'~li ·c· ·· · ····· ·· · ·· .
West T~~st •.••.•. • •• .•
~a sl Texa~s(~;~p ~;)' • •. •
anhandle
• • •. •
R.sl of Sla; •••••.•....
~outheastern ~~.,; M~~i~~: :
arth ern Louisiana
OUTSIDE ElEVENTH
UNITED STATES
'~I~~R;C;
........... .
Decem b e r
Nove mb e r
December
Novemb er
De cemb e r
1966p
1966p
1965
1966
1965
3,516.4
3,031.1
563.1
1,378.1
160.2
99.4
830.3
311.2
174.1
5,053.4
8,569.8
3,467.6
2,985.3
555.3
1,364.2
127.2
96.6
842 .0
308.2
174.1
5,006.4
8,474.0
3,341.6
2,889.6
540.7
1,313.5
119.8
100.8
814.8
298.5
153.5
4.838.5
8,180.1
~OU:~·lhnlnary ..
ES . American Pe trol e um In stit ut e .
U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Fed.ral Re se rve Bank of Dallas.
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.0
25.9
2.9
-1.4
1.0
.0
.9
1.1
5.2
4.9
4. 1
4.9
33.7
-1.4
1.9
4.3
13.4
4.4
4.8
$
3,844,327
9
10
Annual rate
of turnove r
1966
1965
24.1
24.5
25.3
25.3
23.7
24.2
18.7
18.2
1,902,402
5,325,796
1,752,440
4,834,907
638,955
627,694
1,878,965
4,266,064
4,257,025
5,262,551
1,733,221
3,974,168
3,935,491
4,7 17,476
8
7
8
12
20.3
30.9
22 .8
25.1
19.4
28.6
22.3
23.6
1,303,025
3,766,141
336,393
63,396,639
4,866,956
13,960,444
1,936,879
60,979,348
567,142
3,556,131
1,576,478
1,262,932
903,860
11,61 4,11 4
1,227,987
3,523 ,1 45r
307,211
54,732,500r
4,765,774
12,707,573
1,919,2 37
54,477,032r
506,388
3,4 11,757
1,661,711
1,1 25,660
830,374
10,626,633
6
7
9
16
2
10
1
12
12
4
-5
12
9
9
22 .8
21.0
11.9
38.4
24.5
28.0
21.8
31.4
18.8
23.7
13.7
19.7
16.2
23.4
22.5
20.6r
11.2
34.3r
23.8
26.3
21.3
29. 1r
18.2
23.4
14.6
18.4
15.6
22.3
16
6
10
6
19.5
19.0
19.7
18.4
18.5
18.7
18.4
16.8
11
29.1
27.1r
NEW MEXICO
Amarillo ..••...••.• •
Austin .• .• ••. • ••• • • •
B e aumont ~ Po rt Arthur . .
BrownsviU e· Hariing e n·
So n Benito .• •. .•..
(I n Ihousands of barr. ls)
3,9 14,567
LOUISIANA
TEXAS
Abil e n•••••.•. ..•• • •
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
1965
1966
Percent
chang e
Dalla s •••. . •..••....
EI Pa so •...•.••••.. .
Fori Worlh ..... .... .
Galveston·Tex a s City .•
Hou ston .•••.. .•. •••
Lare do . • ... • ... • .. .
Lubbock ............
Mid lan d •• ...•. .• ...
Od .ssa ........... ..
San Ang e lo .••.. •• • •
San Antonio •• • .••• • .
Texarkana (T cx a s ~
Arkansa s) ...••..••
Tyler ..... ....... .. .
Waco ••. . . ..•• • . •••
Wichita Falls . •..•• ..
1,063,718
1,579,559
2,06 1,419
2,075, 144
Total-26 ce nt ers •••••• $204,252,647
1
917,506
1,496,422
I ,B76,465
1,956,095
$ 183,489,2 14r
Unadlu sl.d deposits of individuals, partn ers hips, and corporations and of sta tes
and political subdivisions.
~ Count y basis .
r - Revised .
3
VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
(Seasonally adiusted indexes, 1957·59
= 100)
D ecember
November
1966p
1966
Area and typ e of index
(In millions of dollars)
October
1966r
January- December
December
1965r
December
November
Dece mber
1966
1966
1965
1966
1965
337
84
123
130
3,189
903
1,358
928
370
107
125
137
3,461
1,076
1,424
961
444
150
192
102
3,698
1,446
1,433
819
5,270
1,817
1,709
1,744
50,150
17,827
19,393
12,930
5,255
2,077
1,838
1,340
49,272
21,248
17,219
10,805
Area and type
TEXAS
Total indu strial production ......
Manufacturing ... ..............
Durable ..•.. .... .......... ..
Nondurable .... .. ............
Mining .......... o • • • • • • • • • • • •
Utilities •...............•.•..••
UNITED STATES
Total industrial production ......
Manufacturing ....... •• ... .....
Durable ...• .. ... .• ...... . ...
Nondurable ......... . .... ....
Mining ..•........•••.......• .
Utilities .... . ..................
p r -
150.5
167.9
183.7
157.4
117.9
189.3
149.3
166.6
180.9
157.1
117.1
186.6
148.0
164.9
180.1
154.8
115.9
186.9
138.2
155.6
165.4
149.0
106.4
172.5
158.7
161.0
167.3
153.2
122.8
177.0
158.6
161.0
167.6
152.8
120.8
176.5
158.8
161.4
169.1
151.7
121.4
175.2
149.0
151.0
155.2
145.7
11 8.3
164.9
fiVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' • •••.• ••••• •...•
Residential building • ••• •••
Nonresidential building ..•.
Nonbuilding construction •• .
UNITED STATES . . ......... .
Residential building •.•.•.•
Nonresidential building .. , .
NonbuiJding construction •• .
1
Arizona, Louisiana, N ew M ex ico , Oklahoma, and Texa s,
NOTE . - Details may not odd to totals be cau se af rounding .
SOURCE , F. W. Dodg" Company.
Pre liminary.
Revised.
SOURCES, Boord of Gove rnors of the Federal Reserve System.
federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
BUILDING PERMITS
;::,
VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousands)
Pe rcent change
Dec. 1966
NUMBER
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
Area
Five Southwestern States'
Type of e mployment
Total nonagricultural
wag e and salary workers •.
Manufacturing. , , •.•.. , ..
Nonmanufacturing .•..•...
Mining., • . •.. . •• .. . , .
Construction .. . ...• , •..
Tran sportation and
public utilities .• , , , . . .
Trade •••.•••.•••••..•
Finance ....• , ..... , ...
Service •......... .. ...
Governm ent •... . .• • ••.
Dec ember
1966p
November
1966
1965r
Tucson ••••...•
Dec. 1966 from
LOUISIANA
Shreveport ••••
TEXAS
Abilene •• •• • ••
Amarillo ..••••
Austin ••••••••
Nov.
1966
Dec.
1965
5,539,700
997,400
4,542,300
233,200
353,600
5,477,600
999,600
4,478,000
232,900
358,400
5,314,500
942,900
4,371,600
234,300
347,200
1.1
-.2
1.4
.1
-1.3
4.2
5.8
3.9
-.5
1.8
427,000
1,348,500
271,900
793,900
1,114,200
424,500
1,290,100
271,900
792,200
1,108,000
412,900
1,299,300
261,600
762,300
1,054,000
.6
4.5
.0
.2
.6
3.4
3.8
3.9
4.1
5.7
Arizona, Loui siana, N ew M exi co , Oklahoma and Texas.
p Pre liminary.
'
Revised .
1
r-
SOURCE , State employment ag encies.
4
December
Percent change
-77
-35
845
28,098
-73
- 40
25
755
4,179
3,655
1,905
4,396
21,878
4,798
7,461
1,087
22,880
1,835
1,018
1,224
1,071
14,815
2,394
791
975
2,992
4,442
315
2,723
13,578
4,973
3,549
223
16,599
5,771
498
242
48
6,715
550
304
13,911
35,033
78,635
14,757
34,818
188,652
59,807
74,198
11,532
333,149
61,683
13,811
11,196
4,818
86,949
14,448
14,469
477
232
-44
-75
-23
-9
-28
11
-46
-59
342
66
6
-76
93
-84
-6B
69
38
-9
-77
-26
-7
-4
-2
-69
-61
-11
-11
-51
-75
27
-87
-43
-16
3
21
-19
26
-5
4
39
46
-2
31
-6
-16
-23
19
-35
30
106,499
$66,002
$1,104,946
-31
-34
6,387
175
3,970
33
113
258
Beaumont •...•
127
Corpus Christi .•
300
Dallas ....... . 1,215
EI Paso • ••••••
292
492
fort Worth . .. .
Galveston ••..•
65
Houston •• •••• 1,135
94
Lubbock ••• • ••
61
Midland ••..••
Odessa • • •••••
72
44
Port Arthur ••••
San Antonio, ..
775
Waco ••.. .. ..
158
38
Wichita fall s ••
Total-19 cities ••
24,982
418
5,865
Dec.
1966
$
660
12 mos.
1966
12 months,
1966 from
1965
Dec.
1965
12 mos.
1966
ARIZONA
Numb er of persons
from
Nov.
1966
Dec.
1966
$
@FedFRASER