The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
OF THE
~
~
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK Of DALLAS
Ch
CHAS. C. HALL-W. J. EVANS
C. C. WALSH
airman and Federal Reserve Agent
Assistant Federal Reserve Agents
n
U
~K: M~~~~==: 15, 1:~~K::::X~~~
Dallas, Texas, March 1, 1932
}Olume 17, No.1
This copy is released for publication in afternoon pnpers
March 2
DISTRICT SUMMARY
-
THE Sl'1'UATION A'r A GLANOE
Elevonth Fedoral Reserve Distriot
_
Bank ":-de'":""b'- ts-t--,-, - - - - ,
oities) I 0 IndlVldunl nooounts (nt 17
DOPart "" " " """""""""""" ' "
Itca.ir mg nt store sales", , '" " " " ' " , " '"
of ~e nk lonns to momber banks nt end
h
R~."~~~k'r~i;~ ~i'el;d '~r'.:n'~~th:: ::: :: : : :
Co~ng rarmit valuation nt larger oonters , , , ,
C~IIUn!~~i:1 ~::Iures (~u"!~er) "" , , , , , , , , , " ,
0" prod ' ures (hablhtles) , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
--=!lotIon (bnrrels) , , , , , , , , .. , , , , , , , , , , ,
Janunry
1032
Ohange From
Dooembcr
1 - - - -1 - - -S500,515,OOO
$ 15,077.566
58 ,5%
$ I,OOS,Oa8
178
$ 4,051,620
28,336,550
-
4 .8%
58 .8%
+ 45 .0%
-
3 .7 points
1.0%
-
7 .8%
+ 32 . 8~
+ 71.3'10
adv Unseasonably warm weather and frequent rains had an
F'ederse effect upon business and industry in the Eleventh
the eral Reserve District during the past month. Much of
has butdoor work has been retarded and consumer buying
reR een sluggish. Department store sales in larger centers
the ec~ed. a seasonal decline of 59 per cent as compared with
the p eVI?US month, and were 29 per cent smaller than in
thro OpeDlng month of 1931. Distribution of merchandise
sonalgh Wholesale channels showed less than the usual sealast expansion, and was materially smaller than in January
due 7ea r. Consumer buying in rural sections has been slow
area In part .to the difficulty of travel over bad roads in some
taint Retailers are adhering strictly to the policy of mainas cong low inventories and of making replacement orders
durinnsuhrner demand arises. Collections were generally slow
g t e month.
Agricultural conditions continue generally favorable.
Small grains and other winter crops have made good
progress and present prospects are encouraging. A deep subsoil season obtains in all sections of the district, which will
be a sustaining factor in the event of dry weather late in
the season. On the other hand, land preparation has been
retarded and there have not been sufficient freezes to pulverize the soil and kill insects. Livestock and their ranges continue in good condition and prospects point toward early and
abundant pasturage in the spring.
Financial operations reflected largely the effect of seasonal factors. Federal Reserve Bank loans to member banks
declined from $16,572,000 on January 15 to $14,168,000 on
February 15. There has been a gradual return flow of Federal reserve notes, the actual circulation being $41,835,000
on February 15, or a recession of $4,978,000 since the first
of the year. The loans and investments of member banks in
reserve cities showed an expansion of $5,390,000 between
January 6 and February 10. The daily average of combined
net demand and time deposits amounted to $664,954,000 in
January, as compared with $677,029,000 in December, and
$798,354,000 in January, 1931. Effective January 28, the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reduced its discount rate
from 4. per cent to 31/2 per cent.
The volume of construction activity, as measured by the
valuation of building permits issued at principal centers,
was practically the same as in December, but was only 50
per cent of that in January, 1931. For the third consecutive
month, the production of petroleum in this district reflected
a decline. Drilling operations, however, continued active
and the initial production of new wells increased.
BUSINESS
There was less than the usual increase in
activity in the wholesale channels of
of gro'
distribution during January, and the lines
the salenes , hardware, and drugs registered declines. While
\\rere 1es of farm implements and dry goods in this district
llIent ~rger than in December, in the latter case the improveJanuar as ~ppreciably smaller than is usually expected in
illcl y. Distribution was retarded in most sections by the
ern
ent weather and heavy rains. As compared with Janu-
ary, 1931, there were declines ranging from 25.3 per cent
to 66.8 per cent. Some reports indicate a slight strengthening in sentiment recently and that business is showing a better tone in some areas. Orders, however, continue to be restricted to immediate demands. Inventories of groceries and
dry goods were increased during January, and those of other
reporting lines remained at approximately the same level.
Collections during the month reflected general declines from
December, which were to a large extent seasonal in character.
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
2
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l
While the business of wholesale dry goods firms during
January was 11.8 per cent better than in the previous month,
it was considerably less than usual and showed a decline
of 28.3 per cent from a year ago, as against a similar reduction of 13.1 per cent in December. The heavy rains since the
first of the year have made travel in rural sections difficult
with the result that consumer demand in those sections has
fallen off. Consequently, buying at wholesale has been restricted as retailers are keeping purchases in close alignment with consumer demand. Most orders are for small
quantities of goods and are for immediate shipment. The
month witnessed a substantial decrease in collections.
Contrary to the seasonal tendency, sales of drugs at
wholesale during January registered a slight decrease of
0.9 per cent from the previous month. They showed a reduction of 25.9 per cent as compared with the corresponding
month last year, this being the largest such decline that has
been recorded during the present depression. Retailers are
limiting their purchases to staple merchandise, and they
show no inclination to buy until the actual demand arises.
Collections were only 2.7 per cent under the volume of
December.
The distribution of farm implements during January by
reporting wholesale firms in this district was on a scale
89.4 per cent larger than the low December volume. While
the improvement was for the most part of a seasonal nature,
the comparison with the corresponding month a year ago
was more favorable than in either November or December.
There was a further material decrease in collections.
A larger than seasonal decref!se was reflected in the January business of wholesale hardware firms in t~e Elevent~
District. Total sales were 21.2 per cent less than III the preVIous month, the decline being attributable in part to the December increase, which was contrary to the usual tendency
in that month. Business was impeded by heavY rains and
generally unfavorable weather. Distribution during January
was 28.4 per cent below the volume of a yea~ ago. The ratio
of collections to accounts and notes outstandmg at the close
of the previous month decreased from 34,.3 per cent in
December to 27.2 per cent in January.
There was a further falling-off in the dollar volume of
groceries sold at wholesale in this district during January.
Contrary to the usual upward movement, sales of reporting
firms reflected a decline of 5.7 per cent from December, an~
were 25.3 per cent smaller than in January a year ago. Bus~' ,
ness is reported to be improving somewhat in certain 10cal1'
ties. Stocks on hand increased 7.4. per cent during January·
The volume of collections was 19.1 per cent below the le"el
of the previous month.
CONDITION OF WHOLESALE TRADE DURING JANUARY, 1032
Porcentage of increase or deoreaso in-
Groceries... .. . .. . . . .
Dry goods.. .. .... . ..
Farm implements. . . . .
Hardware... .. . . ... .
Drugs.. . .. . . ........
Retail
Trade
Business of department stores located .in
principal cities of the Eleventh DistIlcl
evidenced a larger than seasonal decline
during the past month, and continued considerably beloW
the corresponding month a year ago. January sales of mer'
chandise declined 58.8 per cent from those in December,
and were 29.3 per cent less than those in the initial month
of 1931. Although returns from reduced price sales featured
~uring January and early February were retarded subs tan
tlally by the abnormal precipitation, high temperatures, an d
curtailed purchasing power of the public, retailers h8"e )
been moderately successful in disposing of their winter mer·
chandise, and are entering the spring season with a smaller
carryover than that of 1931.
Inventorie~ on hand at the close of the month showed d
further reductlOn of 4.4. per cent from the low volume hel
on December 31, and were 16.6 per cent less than those 011
hand on January 31, 1931. The rate of stock turnover dut;
ing the month was .19 as compared with .23 in January laS
year.
Collections reflected a decline during the month. The
ratio of January collections to accounts outstanding ~II
January 1 was 31.3 per cent, as against 33.1 per cent III
December, and 32.7 per cent in the first month of 1931.
BUSINESS OF DEPARTMENT STORES
Total Sales (Porcentage):
January, 1032, compared with January, 1081. ... . . .. ... . . .. .. .. .... . .. •. . ..•.... . ... ... . ......
January, 1032, compared with December, 1031. ..... ... ........ ... .. ... .. . . . ... . .............. .
Credit Sales (Percentage):
January, 1082, oompared with January, 1031. . . .... . .... . ...... .. . ........ . . .... .... .. . . ..... .
January, 1082, compared with Deoember, 1031. .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . ... .. .. .. .. ... . . .... . . ... . . . .
Stocks (Percentage):
January, 1032, oompared with January, 1031. .. . . . ..... .... ............... . . ..... .. .. . .. . . . .. .
January, 1032, oompared with Deoember, 1031. ...... . ... .. .. . .... . ... . . ... .. ....... . ... . . .... .
Stock Turnover (Rate) :
Rate of stock turnover in January, 1031. ................. .. .... . ....... .. ...... ... .. . ... .. .. . .
Rate of steck turnoverin January, 1932 .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . ... ....... . . ... .. ........ . ... . . . .... .
Ratio of January ooUeotions to aooounts receivable outstanding January I, 1032 .... .. .. ........ . . . . ... .
While the record of commercial insolvencies in the Eleventh District during
January was at a high level, the increase
was to some extent seasonal in nature. Figures compiled by
R. G. Dun & Company show a total of 178 failures during
CommercUd
Failures
-
Net Snles
Stocks
Ratio of 001100January, 1982
January, 1932
tions during Ja"d'
compared with
compared with
to nooOllnts an
January Dooember January December notel! outstanding
1031
1081
10S1
1031
December 31.
-25.3 - 5.7
+ 7.4
55. 8
- 15 .1
-28.3 + 11 .8
--3 1.5
+20 .0
23.7
- 66.8 + 89 .4
- 10 .0
.7
2.1
-28.4 - 21. 2
- 8.0
+ .5
27.2
- 25 .9 .0
- 17 .0
.4
36 .1
--
Dallas
- 24 .0
-56.3
Fort Worth
-25.1
- 64.0
Houston
- 3'1. 3
- 60.7
Others
-34.5
-57 .1
Total Distriot
- 20.3
- 58. 8
-25.5
- 54.2
-24.8
- 64.8
- 34 .6
- 56 .0
- 34 .7
-55.0
_ 20.7
- 56 .8
- 10 .2
- 5.5
- 21.5
- 1.0
-
.5
5.5
- 17 .8
- 3.5
_ 16 .6
_ 4.4
.22
.21
30.1
.17
.16
20.2
.32
.21
33 .3
.23
.18
33 .2
.23
.19
31.3
the month, with liabilities amounting to $4,051,626..In ~:.
previous month there were 134 defaulting firms, WIth 1
etO
debtedness totaling $2,365,202, and in January a year, a~d
the number of commercial failures was 127, with cornb 1n
liabilities amounting to $1,954,,681.
1
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
3
AGRICUL TURE
Crop Can.
ditions
The heavy and persistent rains over much
of the Eleventh Federal Reserve District
since the first of the year have retarded
considerably the preparation of the soil for spring planting
and this work is considerably behind schedule in most areas.
Practically all seotions of the district have a deep subsoil
sea~on and plowing and planting operations can go forward
rapidly with the advent of dry weather. An unfavorable fac·
tor, however, has been the lack of freezing temperatures to
~ulverize the soil and kill the insects. Small grains have con·
tIn~ed to make good progress under the stimulus of ample
~Olsture and favorable temperatures. These grains have fur·
~Ished an abundance of pasturage for livestock. The plant·
Ing of corn and cotton has begun in the extreme Southern
part of Texas and should make rapid headway in the next
two weeks.
F According to the Department of. Agriculture's report of
e~ruary 1, truck crops in South Texas have made generally
satIsfactory progress. Rains have been excessive in some
areas, yet the warm weather has been favorable for crop
~ro:wth. Prospects are that the planting of some of t~e
IrIng crops will be delayed on account of the wet. soIl.
he most noticeable improvement has occurred in the spmach
Wop with yields and quality reported as above the average.
eather conditions have also been very favorable to the
onion crop which has grown very rapidly. While the spring
~Omato crop in the lower Rio Grande Valley is somewhat
ate, this factor may be more than offset by favorable weath·
er. Other crops which showed an improvement were beets,
peppers, and potatoes. The prospects for the strawberry crop
h~e .ex~eptionally good in all areas and the berries are now
glnDlng to ripen.
-
CONDITION OF COMMERCIAL TRUCK CIWPS IN TEXAS
February 1.
1032
January 1.
1082
Fcbruary 1.
1031
(Por Cent)
Bee",
(Per Cent)
(Pcr Cent)
85
82
82
84
86
75
80
70
85
78
64
05
74
82
86
86
85
92
85
1::1:: I
'l'urni
...................... . ..
80
Straw\!' ...........................
73
mes. ........ ....... ..... ..
87
SOURCE: Dcpartmcntpf Agriculture.
of the district, and winter grains are furnishing an abund·
ance of supplementary grazing in the Northwest, West·
Central, Central, and Northeast districts of Texas. Prospects
point toward an early and abundant supply of spring grass.
While range and livestock conditions usually decline in Janu·
ary, the falling off was less than usual this year. According
to the Department of Agriculture, cattle ranges in Texas
averaged 78 per cent of normal on February 1, which was
the same as a month earlier and a year ago. The condition
of sheep and goat ranges at 80 per cent of normal was 1
point lower than on January 1, and 2 points below that on
February 1, 1931. While there was a decline of 2 points in
the condition of cattle during January, the 79 per cent of
normal condition on February 1 was the same as that a
year ago. The condition of sheep declined 2 points during
the month and was 3 points lower than a year ago. While
the condition of goats on February 1 was only 1 point lower
than a month earlier, it was 5 points below that on the
corresponding date in 1931. Livestock generally are going
through the winter in good shape and are expected to im·
prove rapidly with the advent of spring. In New Mexico
there was a slight decline in the condition of both livestock
and ranges, but conditions are generally favorable and
should improve with the advent of warmer weather. Condi·
tions in Southeastern Arizona are generally favorable.
The outstanding features of the report of
the Department of Agriculture on the
number and value of livestock on farms
as of January 1, 1932, were the increase
in the number of animals (except horses and mules) and
the sharp decline in values. Despite the increase in numbers,
the total value of all classes of livestock reflected a sharp
decline from a year ago. Throughout the year 1931, live·
stock prices showed a steady decline. While the marketings
of cattle, swine, horses and mules, showed a substantial
decline from the previous year, those of sheep reflected a
large increase. Receipts of sheep and lambs at the Fort
Worth market were the heaviest on record and exceeded
those of 1931 by nearly three times. Price declines were
the most drastic in the case of sheep and goats.
Livestock
Values De·
cline
00
84
77
84
86
80
The Department of Agriculture's reports show that ship.
u ents of Texas fruit and vegetables have been in heavy vol·
1~2 this season. Shipments prior to February 13 totaled
s ' 4~ cars as compared with 14,789 cars during the corre·
sh?ndmg period of the previous season. Crops of which
g IPments have exceeded a year ago are beets, cabbage,
rapefruit, greens, oranges, and tomatoes.
lb.
LivestoCk
.
.
Llvestock an d range con d' .
ItlOns m the
ti
Eleventh Federal Reserve District con·
\'{nUed generally good throughout the past month. The
heather has been unusually mild and moisture conditions
g;ve been favorable in most sections. Winter weeds and
asses.. have made good growth over a substantial portion
NUMBER AND VALUE OF LIVESTOCK ON FARMS AS OF
JANUARY 1. 19S1. AND 1932
Number
(OOO's omitted)
AVCrR@Pricc
Per Read
1932
1931
1932
1931
Toxas
960
090
S47.00
$54. 00
Mules .... ..... ..
704
741
30.00
35.00
Horses ......... .
1,288
1.238
29.00
36.00
Milk cows' ... . . .
17.30
23.90
All cattle ....... .
6.127
6.127
6.00
8.20
2.088
1.600
Swine ...... .. .. .
2.90
4.20
7.312
6,834
Shoep .......... .
3,100
1.35
3.00
Goats .......... . 3.317
Louisiana
63.00
74.00
197
189
Mules ..... . .....
11 2
46.00
38.00
106
Horscs ....... ...
30.00
36.00
260
247
Milk calVo' ..... .
18.20
22.70
740
705
All cattlc ........
0.50
7.30
605 .
Swine...........
679
2.70
2.70
140
133
Shoop ...........
Ncw Mexico
22
23
39.00
30.00
Mules .. ... ..... .
23.00
28.00
128
135
Horses ..........
37.00
50.00
70
69
Milk cowo' ......
1,100
21.30
30.30
1.144
All oottle ........
0.60
5.70
74
62
Swinc . ..... .....
2.30
4.00
3.058
2.780
Shoop...........
'Two years old and over kcpt for milk.
SOURCE: United States Departmcnt of Agriculture.
Total Value
(OOO's omitted)
1982
$ 45.441
21,135
37.352
100,087
12,438
21,215
4,478
1931
S 53,697
25,868
44.568
146,509
13.115
28.562
9,300
11.836
4.040
7.800
13.456
4,413
372
14.496
5.114
8.892
10.016
4.418
364
855
2,930
2,500
24,386
422
0.899
903
3.717
3.450
33.290
596
13.520
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
4
The January receipts of cattle and calves
at the Fort Worth market reflected a
further decline as compared with the
previous month, and those of calves were substantially
smaller than a year ago. While the arrivals of hogs were
noticeably larger than in December, they were less than in
January, 1931. The receipts of sheep showed a large increase over both comparative periods.
Movements
and Prices
FORT WORTH LIVESTOOK REOEIPTS
(Number)
Oattle . . .. . . .. .. .
Oalves ... .. . . .. .
Hogs .... . .. .... .
Sheep .. ...... .. .
January
19S2
40,452
14,045
24,322
75,028
January
1931
40,649
17,353
25,760
35,924
Ohange over Decembor Ohange ovor
1931
month
year
- 3,507
43,059
107
- 2,224
16,269
- 3,308
+ 6,013
18,309
- 1,438
25,562
+49,466
+39,104
The market on all classes of livestock drifted to lower
levels during the past month. Hog prices have shown a
gradual decline despite the small receipts, The market on
lambs has been irregular with the trend toward slightly
lower levels. Sheep have been generally scarce and have
ruled fairly steady.
OOMPARATIVE TOP LIVESTOOK PRIOES
(Dollors per hundred-weight)
Beef steers .... .. ............... . ..... . .. .
Stocker stcers .... .. ... ..... . . .. .. .. . . . .. .
Butcher cows . ........ .. ....... . ....... . .
Stooker cows .................... . . .. .... .
Oalves ........... .... ......... . ........ .
t:~::::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::
January
1932
$6.60
5 .00
4.00
S.75
5.50
4.80
4 .25
5.50
Jaauary
1981
$9.40
7.50
5.25
4.60
8.50
8.25
5 .50
8.00
December
1031
S6.65
5 .00
4.25
4.00
5.65
5 .65
8.25
4.75
FINANCE
Member bank borrowings at the Federal
Reserve Bank reflected a decline of $2,4.04,000 between January 15 and February 15, but on the latter date they were
$8,039,000 greater than a year ago. These loans, which
amounted to $16,572,000 on January 15, increased slightly
during the subsequent week, but showed a steady declinc
throughout the remainder of the period. The reduction was
due almost entirely to the liquidation of indebtedness by
country banks, as the borrowings of reserve city banks
showed practically no change. The number of banks borrowing at the Federal Reserve Bank declined from 200 on
January 15 to 130 on February 15. This bank's holdings of
bankers' acceptances bought in the open market amounted
to $4,478,000 on February 15, which was $1,34,7,000 greater
than a month earlier and $1,990,000 larger than a year ago.
Holdings of Government securities showed practically no
change. The reserve deposits of member banks rose from
$48,510,000 on January 15 to $4.9,861,000 on February 15,
but on the latter date they were $10,321,000 less than a
year ago. Federal reserve notes in actual circulation showed
a further decline of $3,737,000 during the month.
Operations of
the Federal Reserve Bank
loans, which amounted to $273,888,000 on February 10,
were $1,328,000 greater than on January 6, but $4.1,819,000
less than on February 11, 1931. There was only a sllla~1
change in the deposits of these banks. The total of their
combined net demand and time deposits on February 10
amounted to $375,267,000 as compared with $376,092,000
on January 6. These deposits, however, were $51,269,000
below those on the corresponding date a year ago. The bor'
rowings of these banks from the Federal Reserve Bank
amounted to $5,548,000 on February 10, as compared with
$5,363,000 on January 10, and $350,000 on February 11,
1931.
OONDITION STATISTICS OF MEMBER BANKS IN SELEOTED CITIES
(In thousands of dollars)
United States securities owned ....... . ....•
All other stocks, bonds, and seourities owned.
Loans on securities .................. . .. . .
All otherloane . ......................... .
Totnlloans ...................... . ...... .
Net demand deposi ts .. . . .. . . .. .......... .
Time deposits .. .. ........ . . . .. .......... .
Reserve with Fedcral Reserve Bank . ... . .. .
Bills payable and rediscounts with Federal
Reserve Bank .. . ........ . ............. .
-
Feb. 10,
1082
$ 86,914
00,722
80,589
193,209
273,888
244,667
130,600
30,366
Jan. 6,
1982
$ 82,949
00,625
79,507
1£3,053
272,560
245,221
130,871
28,707
Feb. 11,
1081
$ 67,087
51,155
91,111
224,506
315,707
274,852
151,684
32,105
5,548
5,363
350
OONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
(In thousands of dollars)
ToW CllIIlb reserves . ..................... .
Discounts for mcmbor banks ........ . , .... .
Other billa discounted .. . ....... . ... . ..... .
Bills bought in open market ...... . ...... . .
United States BOOuritiee owned •..... . ......
OtberinvestmeDts . ..................... •.
Totol carning OBBets .. . ... . ............. ..
Member bank rescrve deposits . . ..... . ... . .
Federol reserve notes in Dotual circulation . . .
Feb. 15,
1982
$ 55,020
14,168
1
4,478
29,865
5
48,517
49,861
41,835
Jan. 15,
1982
$ 56,045
16,572
1
3,131
29,863
5
40,572
48,510
45,572
Feb.15,
10S1
$ 57,405
6,129
134
2,488
29,437
7
38,195
60,182
27,100
There was a general increase in the loans
of member banks in selected cities in this
district during the five-week period ending February 10. The investments of
these banks in United States securities
were increased $3,965,000, and their investments in other
stocks and bonds rose $97,000. Their total investments on
February 10 were $28,494,,000 larger than on the corresponding date in 1931. During the five-week period these
banks increased their loans on securities $1,082,000, and all
other loans (largely commercial) rose $24.6,000. Total
Condition of
Member Banks
in Selected
Cities
The volume of bankers' acceptances e"e'
0n
cuted in this district and outstanding 1
January 31, which amounted to $2,99 ,.
516, was $1,296,728 smaller than on the last day of Dece~'
bel'. While the decrease was partially due to seasonal In'
fluences, there was a larger reduction from the same date
last year than was in evidence a month earlier. Acceptances
based on import and export transactions aggregated $599,:
701 at the close of January, as al?ainst $2,4.12,295 o~ Jan 1\
ary 31, 1931; those executed agamst the domestic shlplll~nh
and storage of goods totaled $2,397,815, as compared WIt
$3,761,706 a year ago.
. in
Deposits of
The trend of member bank depOSIts.
ng
Member Ba,nks
this district continued downward dun
January, all classifications reflecting J1'Illd
terial decreases. The daily average of combined net delll~ r
and time deposits declined from $677,029,000 in Dece1ll3i
to $664<,954,000 in January. In the opening month of 19 't'
the combined average amounted to $798,354,,000. Dep091 5
Acceptance
Mar/eet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jf reserve city banks, which averaged $34,0,274,,000 during
anuary, were $8,797,000 smaller than in the preceding
~onth. The daily average deposits of country banks, amounti)g to $324,680,000, reflecte,d a decline of $3,278,000 from
ecember.
DEBITS TO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
(In thouaands of dollars)
January
Abilone ........ .
Austin ....... , ..
Beaumont .. ,. , ..
Corsicana ...... .
Dallas ... ,,,.,, .
El Paso .... . " ..
Fort Worth ..... .
Gnlveston ...... .
Houeton ... ,., .. .
I'ort Arthur, . .. .
Roswoll , ., ..... .
San Antonio, ... .
Sbrovcport . .... .
Texarkana" .... . .
Tucson .. "."" .
Waco""""."
Wichita Falls .. ..
DAILY AVERAGE DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
(In thou8llnds of dollars)
-
Combined Total
Reservo City Bnnks
Country Banks
Net demand Time Not demand Time Net demand Time
doposits deposits deposits deposits deposits doposits
Jan" 1931
Fb
""" $666,388 $232,966 $268,313 $141,257 sa07,076 S 91,709
M' " 1931.. " ..
~~i: }~~L:: :::
J ny, 1931... ".
J~re, 1931. ".,.
A Y, 19S1"""
&,\,193l...".
o ~ " 1931.. " "
N° " 1931.. ""
Dov" 1931 """
00" 1931
Jan" 1932: : ::::
676,808
667,468
667,001)
663,222
648,165
687,233
623,797
608,860
487,314
488979
47U35
468,172
236,260
234,767
234,141
233,663
23 1,880
225,028
222,266
216,974
202,624
203,719
202,094
196,782
264,844
263,123
269,207
267,010
254,063
257,244
265,684
242,731
232,544
231,919
226,397
221,709
143,681
143,080
142,689
140,362
139,890
136,499
133,668
129,110
119,826
121,8 17
122,674
118,~76
311,969
304,346
297,802
296,212
289,01)2
279,989
268,213
200,119
264,770
262,060
248,638
246,373
92,569
91,687
91,652
93,291
91,900
90,429
88,698
80,868
82,698
81,902
79,420
78,307
1981
$ 7,669
18,702
25,023
6,984
196,534
31,846
94,917
27,662
172,341
9,221
4,030
78,401)
32,486
12,789
16,712
17,461
20,016
Percentago
Percentagc
cbango ovor December obange over
your
1931
month
-28.8
- 13 .9
-21. 0
-27.9
-17.4
-42.9
-26.0
- 4,4
-20.8
-36.4
-42 . 2
-31.0
- 2. 1
-40,0
-31.6
-21.4
-44.7
1.8
+1.9
- 4 .9
-10,8
- 10.6
- 1.7
- 4.7
- 4,2
-18.2
-10.0
- 4,9
+18,8
2.0
+
-
.9
-
2.3
-1.7
Savings
Deposits
All reporting centers, with the exception
of Fort Worth, participated in a general
recession in savings deposits during January. On the last day of the month, there was a total of
$126,64.0,258 on deposit in the savings departments of 76
banks in the Eleventh District, as compared with $131,088,524, at the close of December, and $149,573,792 on January
31, 1931. There were 275,830 savings depositors on record
at 70 of these banks at the end of the month, as against
277,526 on December 31, and 297,256 a year ago.
Number of
Reporting
Banks
4"
4
4
3
10"
2
0"
4
3
2
34"
.Janunry 31, 1032
Amount of
Number of
Savings
Savin~s
Doposlts
Depositors
6,616
62,301
34,663
12,680
00,020
4,662
16,527
24,971
10,160
2,986
41,664
January 31, 1931
Number of
Amount of
Savings
SnvinltB
Depositors
DepOSIts
S 2,477,197
- 2,6
- 16 . 6
+ 0,0
- 3 ,9
- 12 ,2
+ 2,9
- 29 ,4
-26,9
-14,5
-33,6
-18,6
$ 2,543,683
26,676,733
11,742,809
7,052,769
36,066,502
1,739,438
20,382,022
14,566,078
6,462,930
1,638,016
21,013,822
6,446
64,172
34,618
12,043
72,284
4,822
19,577
26,802
10,488
3,766
44,399
Deccmber 31, 1931
Number of
Amount of
Savings
Savinp'
Depositors
DepOSIts
6,541
S 2,689,670
Pcrcontage Chango
Ovcr Year in
Savings Deposits
62,535
34,508
12,914
61,217
4,627
16,223
25,190
10,316
3,066
41,395
Total. ... ' ......
76
276,830
$126,640,258
297,256
$149,573,792
-16,3
277,626
"Only 3 banks in Beaumont, 9 in Houston, 6 in San Antonio, and 31 in "All otbers" roported the number of savings depositors,
Percont~e
Change
Ovcr onth in
Savings Deposits
23,077,422
11,418,903
8,269,220
32,661,421
1,821,787
16,183,321
11,083,922
6,891,989
1,1 28,613
17,972,366
$l31,088,624
~r .
..... ... .. ..••
O:tl~:::::::::::::::
ichii~ 'F~li ' ...
II others ,
-
-
SAVINGS DEPOSITS
Beaumont .................
Dallas
Fort \Vortb'· ········ ····,'
Galvcst
..... . . , ........
licusto en .... , ...... . .... ,
I'ort ~h''''''' '''''''''''
nco
+ 3,2
$ 6,290
10,389
19,404
6,296
181,133
20,380
71,408
27,631
142,680
7,169
2,689
56,906
26,772
7,447
10,868
13,941
11,331
Total. .. .. .. $696,616
5770,689
-22,6
5626,484
- 4,8
Distr~~t~ludes the figures of two banks in Texarkana, Arkansas, located in the Eighth
Debits to
A seasonal decrease of 4,,8 per cent was
Individual
reflected in the amount of charges to deA.ccOunts
positors' accounts during January at
1'h
banks in principal centers in this district.
$6~re was a volume of $596,515,000 as compared with
J 6,484,,000 in the preceding month, and $770,689,000 in
1'anuary, 1931. At Abilene, Beaumont, Shreveport, and
thel{a~kana total debits to individual accounts were larger
te a~ In December. For the third consecutive month, all cities
glstered declines from a year ago.
-
January
1932
S 5,459
16,101
19,764
6,032
161,690
18,196
70,191
26,346
136,576
6,864
2,330
64,127
31,804
7,693
10,770
13,710
11,066
. , .. . . , , , ..
.~::::::::::::::
----
22,426,561
12,801,670
7,6-14,359
30,709,560
1,700,739
14,399,843
10,639,723
6,523,610
1,021, 166
17,116,836
Ilnte ehISco':r t under the Feral neBcrve Act ..... , " , , .. " . , . , " .. , , . " .. , .. " .
Ilalc onalge on loans to other banks secured by bills receivable, , , .. , , , , , , .. , . , , . ,
inCluJ.anslscoured by primc stock cxehange or other currcnt collateral (not
DIng ouos placed in other markets througb correspendent banks):
~~~~'.'.":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ilnto oha
nato on ~:ttlool~~ommodlty paper scoured by warohouso roceipts, etc., " . , ...... , ..
~
ns. ,.""."."."."."."", .. , .. , .. """""",."., .. "
Dallas
-1.7
-
5.2
4,0
0.3
9.6
4,8
-
3,4
....................... ..
FEBRUA RY DISCOU NT RA ,
TES
"
n;;- customers 0'!J:rimc eommcrcial paper such as is now eligible for
Icr~orged
- 4,3
- 2,8
+12 . 1
- 7,6
- 6,7
mg
PrcvnJT rates:
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
San Antonio
Waco
6
6-8
6-6
4J+-8
6-0
6-6
4J+-O
0
6
6- 8
6J+-6
6-7
6-7
6
6-8
6- 8
6-8
8
6-8
6-10
6- 10
6- 8
6-10
6- 7
6-7
67t<-7
7-10
6-8
6-8
6- 8
7-10
6-8
6-8
6-7
8
4~- 6
INDUSTRY
Cl)Otlonseed
I' d
The continuation of seasonal curtailment
was evidenced during January in the
o Ucts
1'exa
operations of cottonseed oil mills in both
ceipt s and the United States, but at the former mills the res nnd crushings of seed and the production of all
products other than linters was considerably in excess of
those in J nnuary a year ago. During the first half of the
current season operations at Texas mills, except the production of linters, exceeded those in the corresponding six
months of the 1930·31 season, and compared favorably with
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
other years. On the other hand, at all United States mills the
comparisons varied widely; the volume of cottonseed received at these mills during the period was the largest in
several years, but the amount of crushings was below all
seasons subsequent to 1924-25. As a result of these conditions the volume of seed held by mills on January 31 was
unusually large. Inventories of crude oil and hulls on hand
at the close of January at both Texas and American mills
were above those a year ago, while cake and meal and linters
were smaller.
STATISTICS ON COTTONSEED AND OOTTONSEED PRODUCTS
Texna
United States
August 1 to January 31 August 1 to January 31.
This Senson Lnst Season This Season Lnst Senson
Cottonseed received at mills
1,192,227
4,716,775
4,304,302
(tons) .. . ........ . ..... . .. .
1,400,760
3,547,330
3,730,660
1,03 1,416
Cottonseed orushed (tons). ... .
1,154,347
Cottonseed on hand Jan. 31
177,514
1,179,210
610,148
358,565
(tons) . ............... ... .
Crude oil produced (pounds) .. . 342,211,873 300,535,534 1,105,491,052 1,126,889,184
483,098
1,591,303
1,688,581
530,183
Cake and meni llroduced (tona)
289,521
097,548
1,030,766
333,222
Hulls produced (tona) ........ .
Linters produced (running
160,828
501,71 2
647,128
bales) ... .. .. ... . . .. .. . ... .
140,864
Stocks on hand January 31:
Orude oil (pounds) ........ . . . 34,587,685 19,5fi7,080 88,372,555 80,757,11 2
345,184
217,666
80,200
53,328
Cake and meal (tons) . . . .. . .. .
110,485
00,255
218,145
86,558
Hulls (tons) .. . .. , ... . . . . . .. .
341,361
308,725
97,751
85,789
Linters (running bales) .. . . .. . .
The consumption of cotton and the production of cloth at textile mills in Texas
reflected a decline in January due to the
closing down of some mills and the curtailment of operations on the part of others. The demand for finished products, as shown by orders on hand at the close of the month,
was above that a month earlier, reflecting in part orders
for spring merchandise. Shipments of goods during the
month were greater than production with the result that supplies of finished products held on January 31 were below
those a month earlier. Stocks were also considerably smaller
than a year ago. Due to the hesitancy on the part of buyers
to make future commitments, the manufacturers are curtailing production to as low a level as practicable.
The consumption of cotton at all United States mills
during January reflected an average seasonal advancement,
and was 1.2 per cent above the corresponding month of
1931. Total consumption during January amounted to 455,337 bales, as compared with 415,517 bales in December, and
450,117 bales in the initial month of 1931. During the first
half of the present season there were 2,631,272 bales of
raw cotton consumed by American mills, which reflects an
increase of 7 per cent as compared with the same period
of the preceding season. Stocks of raw cotton on hand on
January 31 at consuming establishments were approximately
the same as those held on December 31, but were above
those on hand on the same date last year.
Textile
Milling
Cotton
Movements
Following the heavy foreign shipments
of raw cotton in December, the January
exports showed a noticeably large sea·
sonal recession, but they were substantially above the loW
volume shipped in January, 1931, and compared favorablY
with the same month of earlier years. Receipts of cotton at
Houston during the initial month of 1932 were fractionaJly
smaller than those a month earlier, while at Galveston al1
unseasonable increase was recorded; receipts at both ports
reflected considerable increases over January a year agOj
Stocks of cotton held at these ports on January 31 reflecte
a substantial increase over those a month earlier and a
year ago.
Aggregate foreign exports of cotton from the Uni.ted
States also evidenced a perceptible seasonal decline dUrJ~g
the past month, but were again materially above those 111
the same month of the previous season, and were larger
than in any corresponding month since 1927. Total exports
for the month amounted to 919,338 bales, as against 1,181,
011 bales in December, and 532,821 bales in January, 1931'
During the first six months of the current season exportr
reflected an increase of 10.6 per cent over the first half 0.
the preceding season. Japan and China have taken ap pro
mately 4.0 per cent of this season's exports and Germany 1
per cent. As compared to the previous season, the takiJl~S
by Germany, France, and the United Kingdom were Stl •
stantially smaller.
"9
COTTON MOVEMENTS THROUGH THE POR1' OF GALVESTON
(Bales)
,January
Rcoeipta .. .. ... . ... . .. . .. .•..
Exports . . .. . . . . . ... . ... .•. ..
Stooks, January 31. ... ...... .
1032
358,7i5
266,717
Ju.nunry
103 1
.111,306
150,838
-
August 1 to ,Jonuary 31
This Season Lnst Season
1,870,755
1,2'13,684
1,015,572
1,309,065
829,83 4
661,483
~
-
COTTON-GALVESTON STOCK STATEMENT
(Bales)
Jan. 31,
For Orent Britain . .. ... .. .. .. ........... . . ..... .. ... .
For France . . . .... . .. .. ... . .......... . ..... . . . .. . ... .
For otbor foreign ports .. . . ... .. .. . . .... . .... . . .... . . .
For coastwise porta . . . .. .. ....... .. •. . .• , .. .. , . . ..... .
In oomprCBSes and depots . .... . . , ... . . •... . . . .. .•. ... ..
1932
9,000
5,500
71.000
2,000
028,072
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,015,572
Jan. 31,
1031
5,700
6 200
29:6~
-
2,0
620,083
004,483
.-od:'
COTTON MOVEMENTS THROUGH THE PORT OF HOUSTON
(Bales)
Januory
Reoeipta . . . . ..... .. ... .. .. . •.
.. .. ... . ... •.. .. ..
Stocks, January 31. .. .. ... . . .
E~porta . ..
January
1032
317,934
202,515
1931
156,191
215,060
Augnst 1 to January 31
This Senson Laot Seasoo
2, 757,849
1,802,024
1,65 1,304
2,628,802
1,557,7 ~
09
1,424,
~
COTTON CONSUMED AND ON HAND
(Bales)
January
1932
Cotton-growing states:
Cotton oonaumed... . . . . . . . .
On hand January 31 inConauming establishments.
Publio storage and oomprCBSes . . ... .. .. . ... . . .
United States:
Cotton oonsumed . ... . . . .. : .
On hand January 31 inConsuming establishments.
Publio storage and oomprosses ....... . . . ... . ,.
January
193 1
August 1 to January 31
This Benson Lnst Season
355,419
2,158,232
1,960,008
1,303,805
358,527
1,210,018
9,021,620
455,887
450,117
7,541,808
2,63 1,272
2,460,250
1,637,139
1,017,840
10,032,322
7,938,817
: SEASON'S RECEIPTS, EXPORTS, AND STOCKS OF COTTON AT ALL
UNI1'ED STATES POR'l'S-(Bnles)
.-'
August 1 to January 31
This Benson Last Seas°"
7,5 77,OI:!
Reooipts . ... ... .. ... ..... .. .. . . . . .. .... . .• . ...•. ..... 7,520,802
0,
710509
80 0
Exports: United Kingdom . .. .... , .. .. • .... .. .. . ......
200:116
718,03
Franoe . ..... . . . ... .. . .... . . ........ . .•.... .
~ 15,~~~
Italy . ... .. . ... .. .. . . .. . . , ... .. ..... . . .... • . 389,867
Gormany . ..... . . .. .. •.. . ... .............. . . 925 ,053
1'~g~'9 15
Other Europe . . ....... .. .... . . . , ...... . . . . . .
149,307
630' 405
Japan . ... .. . . .. . ...... .... .. ... .... .. . . ... . 1,299,294
402'701
All other oountries . .. . .. . . .. . ..... .. ... ..... .
970,588
' 17
Totol foreign ports ..... . . . . . ...... .. .. . ... . . 4,954,304
4,42i~'~80
Stocks ot all United States ports January 31. ... . .... . .. . 5,007,502
4' ~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------SP01' COTTON l'lUCE8-(Middling Bnsis)
(Cents por pound)
-
Fob. 15,
1032
6.85
6.67
0.25
0.65
6.70
Jllnuar.v, 1032
High
Low
0.85
0.25
0.08
0.08
6.20
6.00
6.60
6.05
6.65
6.10
I~~r"'......:·· •. .• •.• :.:.
compared with 919,698 barrels in December, and a daily
yield of 671,487 barrels in January, 1931. The declines from
December ranged from 3,715 barrels in South Texas (excluding the Gulf Coast) to 38,480 barrels in East-Central
Texas. The daily average production in New Mexico was
reduced from 43,521 barrels in December to 37,261 barrels
in the subsequent month, while North Louisiana recorded an
increase of 1,047 barrels in January.
Petroleum
For the third consecutive month, there
was a substantial decrease in the output
crude petroleum in the Eleventh District during January.
a e. month's production totaled 28,336,550 barrels, as
nst 30,722,400 barrels in December, and 23,349,000 bar~e s. in January a year ago. While the daily average yield
unng January was 76,963 barrels less than in the previous
rOnth, it was 160,889 barrels larger than in the same month
bast year. Drilling operations showed a gain over DecemTir, as evidenced by the larger number of completions.
le.re were 490 producing wells completed in January, as
~alnst 444 in the preceding month, and 203 in the same
990nth last year. The initial yield of new wells, of which
30ler cent was reported from East Texas, increased from
J' 9,498 barrels in December to 3,365,767 barrels in
anuary.
JANUARY DRILLING RESULTS
11
gt
North 1'oxns .... ...........
Contral West Tcxns .. .......
Enst Central 'rexns .........
South Texns ...... ... . . ....
TeIns Cons tnt.. ............
GlIB
Wells
6
588
1
18
482
1
7
15
Januarbt,totals, dislrict . .... .
Decem r totals, distriot .. . .
007
643
400
444
18
17
anuary was at the rate of 847,948 barrels per day, as
exD8 .. .... . ..... .... .
Initial
Produotion
2,632
1,407
3,320,380
6,835
14,408
91
3,354,747
5,800
6,220
·s
-9082
I
3,305,767
\ 3,040,408
Feb. 0,
1032
S .86
.86
.85
Feb.lO,
1031
$ .80'
.79
1.10"
(Oilstatisties compiled by Tho Oil Woekly, Houston, Toxns)
OIL PRODUCTION-(Barrels)
North 1'oxns
Contrnl WCI!' ~; ............. .
EnSt C
t 10XII8 .... ...... .
TexllS cutral 1'oxns .. . ....... .
South 'roastnl.. .... . ... . .... .
·s
1'CX88 Constal (40 gr. and ahove) ..... . ............... ..
North 1'exns (40 ~r. and above) ...................... ..
North Loui8iana (40 gr. and above) .. . ...... ......... .. .
'Priee paid for 'rexns Constal, grado "A".
"Prioe paid for oil, 44 gr. and above.
h.
Ja~uary, 1032
Daily Avg.
Total
100,744
3,123,050
6,l71,750
100,080
383,285
11,881,850
:1,492,000
11 2,045
52,185
1,617,750
2
8
Failurcs
18
10
8
30
25
CRUDE OIL PlUCES
Ul All. major producing areas in Texas registered curtail-
1norOl\8o or Deorcnso Over
Docombor, 1031
'1'o\al
Daily Avg.
- 181,050 - 5,840
- 472,050 - 15,246
- 1,1£2,850 -38,480
- 262,550 - 8,460
- U5,I50 - 3,715
Now M ~'olal Toxas. . . . . . ... 26,286,400
North LXI ~o... . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . l,l55,100
OUIBlann.. ... . . . . . .. . .
805,050
847,048
37,261
28,873
-2,224,250
- 104,060
+ 32,450
- 71,750
- 6,260
+ 1,047
'rotnl Distriot... . . . .. 28,330,560
014,082
-2,385,850
-76,063
-
Building
Total valuation of building permits issued
at fourteen principal centers in this district during January reflected a decline of 1.9 per cent from
the previous month, despite the fact that eight of the cities
reported substantial increases. The January volume amounted to $1,665,938, as against $1,698,781 in December, and
$3,301,082 in January, 1931. There were 1,257 construction
permits issued in January, as compared with a total of
1,023 in the previous month, and 1,690 in the same month
a year ago.
BllLDING PERMITS
--
January, 1032
No.
Amarillo
~~~i~~8t~~t;:: ... ~.............. ~: ............ ... ... .. ..
~: ~: ... ~: ~:
.......
: : : : : : :::
:: ::
:: : ::::
:::::::: :: : :
....... ... ....... ........... ......... ...... .....
....... ..... .......... .. .. .. .....................
.............. ............................... ... ...
:ti~:.::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ::: : : ::: :::::::::: :
Ichiia ·F~IL; .' .' .' .'.' .'.' .' .' .'.':.'.' .' .'.' .' ::.' .'.' .': .' .' .' : .' : .'.' .' .' ::.' .' .' .':.' .' : :
_ _ _ 'rotal. . ................ " ..............
'Over one thousand pcr oont.
11
01
67
18
233
28
115
137
187
28
167
128
36
11
1,257
Valuation
S· 22,585
116,818
45,148
2,815
278,810
10,602
118,732
60,877
360,003
18,255
112,584
20,870
66,011
434,700
-----$1,605,038
There were 338,000 barrels of portland
cement produced at Texas mills during
Ulonti?' as compared with 291,000 barrels in the previous
While' a~d 322,000 barrels in the same month a year ago.
shIpments totaled 241,000 barrels, as against 214,000
Janu
Produeors
21
13
308
34
16
Total Texns .......
New Mexico . .... .. .. ......
North Louisiana .... ..... ...
J ents In daily average output. The State's production during
-
Complotions
44
23
408
72
41
January, 1031
No.
66
66
103
44
287
66
200
116
308
67
200
132
24
14
1,600
Valuation
Pereonta~e
Chango
Valuation Over
Yenr
Deoember, 1031
No.
Valuation
Poreenta~e
Change
ValuatlOn Over
Month
610,610
136,871
68,720
33,218
661,284
86,248
408,600
30,661
1,026,742
64,006
213,140
125,801
28,383
- 05.7
-16.4
-34.3
-Ill. 5
-40.4
-77 .3
-70.0
+63.6
-66.0
-66.3
-47.2
-83.4
+07 .3
S 43,241
- 47.8
+ 36.7
+ 11.0
- 82.5
- 23.3
+ 12.4
- 54.1
+117 .1
+ 2.5
+198.7
-74 .7
- 32.4
+413.6
-----$3,301,082
21
60
68
34
183
24
02
78
149
23
163
105
13
10
-40.6
1,023
$1.098,781
-
8,710
•
86,361
40,650
16,056
363,057
17,425
268,413
28,036
360,490
6,112
446,741
30,870
10,006
1,816
•
1.0
barrels in December, they were 29.1 per cent below the
volume of January, 1931. Reflecting an increase of 13.4 per
cent during the month, stocks of cement on hand at the close
of January aggregated 823,000 barrels, as against 782,000
barrels a year ago.
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
8
------------------------~==~~~---------------PRODUCTION. SHIPMENTS. AND STOCKS OF PORTLAND CEMENT
(In thousands of barrels)
January. 1032
338
241
823
-
Percentage change from
December. 1031 January. 1031
+16 .2
+ 5.0
+12.6
-20.1
+13.4
+ 5 .2
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS
(Compiled by the Federnl Reserve Board
In January, production of manufactures increased by
about the usual seasonal amount, while output of minerals
and value of building contracts awarded continued to decline. Wholesale prices declined further during January
and early February, but more recently prices of certain
leading commodities showed an advance.
PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT
Volume of industrial production, which includes both
manufactures and minerals, increased from December to
January by an amount somewhat smaller than is usual at
this time of year, and the Board's seasonally adjusted index
declined from 71 per cent of the 1923-1925 average to 70
per cent. In the steel industry there was a seasonal increase in
activity during January, followed by a slight decline during
the first three weeks of February. Production of automobiles,
which usually increases considerably at this season, showed
little change in January, following an increase in December.
Activity at textile mills increased by more than the usual
seasonal amount, and at shoe factories there was a seasonal
increase in production. Output of coal and petroleum was
substantially reduced. Volume of factory employment declined by more than the usual seasonal amount between the
middle of December and the middle of January. Number
employed at foundries, carbuilding shops, clothing factories,
and establishments producing building materials declined
substantially, while employment in the tobacco industry decreased less than is usual at this season, and employment in
the woolen goods industry increased, contrary to seasonal
tendency. Total value of building contracts awarded in 37
Eastern states, as reported by the F. W. Dodge Corporation,
declined sharply in January, and for the three months'
period ending in that month was about one-half of the
amount awarded in the corresponding period a year ago.
Approximately one-fourth of the decrease was in residential
building, and three-fourths in other types of construction.
DISTRIBUTION
Total freight-car loadings decreased in January, contrary
88
of February 27. 1982)
to seasonal .tende~lCy, reflecting chiefly smaller shipments
of merchandIse, mIscellaneous freight, and coal. Department
store sales declined by about the usu.al seasonal amount.
WHOLESALE PRICES
The general l~vel of wholesale ' commodity prices,. as
measured by the Index of the Bureau of Labor StatistiCS,
declined 2 per cent further from December to January, al·
though prices of some important commodities such as
whe~t, showed little change and the price of cotton' advanced.
Dun.np ~arly ~ebruro:Y, prices of certain leading co~'
modI tIes IncludIng grams and cotton declined, but later In
the month there was some advance in the prices of theSe
commodities.
BANK CREDIT
Volume of reserve bank credit outstanding declined in
January and the first half of February. This decrease haS
reflected a return of currency from circulation, which haS
been smaller than usual this year, together with a continued
reduction in member bank balances, offset in part by d
demand for reserve bank credit caused by an outWar
movement of gold amounting to $100,000,000 since the turn
of the year. A decline in money in circulation after the first
few days in February reflected some return of hoarded cur'
rency accompanying a decrease in bank failures. At memo
bel' banks in leading cities, volume of credit continued to
decline during January and the first half of February. J3e'
twe'en January 13 and February 17, total loans and inve~t'
ments decreased by $550,000,000, representing declines In
loans on securities, in other loans, and in investments. D~'
posits of these banks also declined substantially during thIS
period. Money rates in the open market showed little change.
On February 26, the discount rate of the Federal Reser"d
Bank of New York was reduced from 3% to 3 per cent, a~
buying rates on bankers' acceptances of short maturitieS
were reduced from 2% to 2% per cent.
A SUPPLEMENT TO THE
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
of the
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
MARCH 1, 1932
Methods V sed in Computing Indexes of Sales and Stocks of
Dep~rtment Stores in the Eleventh Federal Reserve District
R The Division of Research and Statistics of the Federal
i ~serve Bank of Dallas has recently completed a group of
n
v ~xes which are intended to reflect the month-to-month
;l'lations in the sales and stocks of reporting department
~horE' One group of indexes covers all reporting stores in
c eleventh Federal Reserve District, and the other group
povers the reporting stores in each of the cities of Dallas,
in~t Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. In computing the
~xes, the years 1923-1925, inclusive, were used as a base
~~g~d, with the 36-month average for those years equalling
In the indexes.
UNADJUSTED INDEXES
tric The unadjusted index, covering the whole Eleventh DisB t, Was taken from figures compiled by the Federal Reserve
p °b~d. The computation of this index was described in the
c e IUary, 1928, issue of the Federal Reserve Bulletin. In
eOll1.P~ting the individual city indexes, the method used was
~Senhally the same. First, th~ city's total sales during each
ll1. onth Were divided by the number of business days in that
fi Onth, to get the daily average volume. Second, the base
thgu~e Was obtained by averaging the daily sales figures of
cte .6 months from January, 1923, to December, 1925, ininud~ve. In cases where a varying number of firms rep~rte~
Vidu fferent years, a ne~ base was co.mputed fo~ each mdIIn al group of reportmg stores. Thud, the ratIOS of each
b Olllh's daily average sales (beginning with 1919) to the
p~~e ;gure were computed. Each unadjusted index is comISe of a tabulation of these ratios.
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED INDEXES
all 1'he process of determining the direction and degree of
Ou owances to be made for fluctuations due to seasonal inserences Was based on the method used by the Federal ReApv~l Board, as set forth in the Federal Reserve Bulletin of
1"1 , 1928. The various steps are shown below:
ea ~1) A twelve-month moving average was constructed for
figC Index, by totaling each successive group of twelve
ures
aev , obtaining the average, and placing it opposite the
fore~th month in the series. (Examples: The average
1919 he period from January, 1919, through December,
the ' Was placed opposite the July index number, that of
IVa months from February, 1919, through January, 1920,
8 placed opposite the August figure, etc.)
Jul (2) Beginning with July, 1919, and extending thro~gh
y, 1930, the ratio of each month's index to the movmg
average for that month was obtained. These ratios, or relatives, were multiplied by 100 to remove decimals.
(3) The relatives (index to moving average) were then
arranged in monthly groups in order of size, the smallest
figure coming first under each month, with the others in
ascending order.
(4.) Averages of the three middle items of the respective
groups were calculated. (Only two items were averaged for
July, because of the even number of relatives.) These averages were then rounded off to even numbers, and made to
total 1200.
(5) The seasonal correctives thus obtained were checked
and in some instances altered, in order to depict more
accurately the changes and trends ordinarily attributable to
seasonal influences. A provisionally adjusted index was constructed by running the ratio of each monthly relative to its
appropriate seasonal corrective (and multiplying by 100).
In certain months, even with the adjustment made, there was
a definite tendency upward or downward, year after year.
It was in these cases that the seasonal corrective was raised
or lowered one or two points, thereby eliminating most of
the fixed error.
(6) A marked fluctuation due to the date of Easter was
found to exist in the indexes of March and April. After
some experimentation, a series of special adjustment factors
was worked out for the purpose of eliminating the high
peaks caused by the active retail buying which is generally
characteristic of the weeks preceding Easter. The preliminary seasonal correctives for March and April sales were
increased or decreased in accordance with the following
table:
Date of Easler
On or beroro April 1. .
April 2 to April 5. . . .
April 6 to April 8. ...
April 9 to April 11... .
March
April
+3
-3
+2
- 2
+1
- 1
Average
Date of Easter
March
April
April 12 to April 15. . .
April 16 to April 19 . . .
April 20 and artcr . . . .
-1
- 2
-3
+1
+2
+3
(7) On the basis of the finally selected adjustment
factors, adjusted indexes were constructed for both the district and the individual cities.
While seasonal changes do not occur with mathematical
precision or regularity, they do materialize in a fairly definite and determinable way. It is thought that these adjusted
indexes reflect adequately the business fluctuations which
are normally of a non-seasonal nature.
UNADJUSTED INDEX OF DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
1923-1925 Average
=-
= 100
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
--
1919
January .........................
Febru
Marchary .......... . ...... . ......
..... .... ... ........ . ....
~ril. ........ .... ..... .. ...... ..
....... ... .. ..... ...... ....
Ju~~' ... ........................
July '
AugU8 ..... ............. .......
~••.••.••...•••..••.•
Elcl1lcm
O
etob
l'lovom
Deoem
--
1920
1921
1922
90 .6
104.7
04 .5
103 .4
95 .7
71. 7
65 .4
01.8
109.8
105.3
144 .3
75 .8
75 .8
84 . 1
88 .2
93.8
85 .1
65.4
63. 0
103 . 1
100 .8
105. 6
150.3
1926
1927
1928
1929
93. 6
95 .7
101.2
101.5
114 .3
101. 3
74.8
85 .4
11 2. 1
125.4
123.7
175 .8
91.4
09 .5
107 .8
114 .8
98 .2
71.1
75.6
107 .3
123.2
123.2
185. 7
80.7
103 .0
104.6
113 .8
96 .9
73. 0
75 .6
110 .0
118.4
129. 0
188.8
90.6
113 .4
103 .7
113.2
00.8
73 .0
80 .2
117.6
122. 0
132.2
183.3
1931
- -.5 -101.4 - -.8 - - - -1923- -1924 - - 1925- - - - - -.0 - - - - -.6 - 19aO- --- - - 92 - 00.6
- 76
88
88
73.4
94.9
87.8
89.3
91.1
60 .9
71.6
105 .7
111.7
127 .8
173 .8
06 .3
124.6
114 .5
123 .7
114 .6
87 .8
86 .0
116 . 1
132.6
140 .3
171.8
=---
78 .6
76.1
92 .3
90 .8
103.2
80 .7
6S.4
64 .5
107 .4
114 .5
1l4 .2
157.2
83. 5
80.3
89 .7
97. 0
102.9
94 . 1
09 .3
66 .9
1l4 .6
115.4
118 .7
163 .0
89.6
03 .2
102. 0
102.5
107. 2
02 .5
60 .5
72 . 1
105 . 1
125.8
117 .2
170 .1
70 . 1
90.6
07 .3
103 .9
104 . 1
90.8
68.4
76.8
109.9
112.3
115 .0
156 .8
75.4
82.5
89 .6
94 .9
95 .6
80 .0
58 .2
65 . 6
70 .8
88 .5
01.3
128.2
CITY OF DALLAS
~~~==========~~====7=====~====~=====7====~======~====~=====7====~======~====7=====~=====
J;;;;--~------FMenrbrcuhr!ry .... .. ·.... .............
.......................
1919
1920
75 . 7
105 .2
~f;~l. .'·:::::::::::::::::::::::..
~~~o::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~n
~u
nu
un
Seplcmb'cr.. ...... ...............
lIU
l~n
122. 0
138.8
Augu ..t ........ ·.... .. . .. ..... ..
~Iobel;·::::: ...... ·.......... ·
D~:b~;:::::::::: : ::::::::::::
1921
1922
1923
1024
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
- - - - 107 .6 - - - - - - - -.4 - -.6 - - - -101.2 - -.2 - -.0 - -.5 - - - - - - - 93.9
- 84 - 91.5 - - 86 - 87 - 84 - 76.4
77.8
75.5
80
67.4
70.7
l~U
89 .4
l~U
95.5
l~t~
~u
77.8
~n
~u
68.7
63.6
I~U
l~U
I~U
1~~ : ~
64.0
1026
81.1
~U
~u
86 .0
97 .9
~U
~u
t~U
~~:~
I~U
I~U
125 .8
117 .5
IbU
133 .5
BU
67 .0
00 .3
63.0
m:b n.n
101.2
1~~J
I~U
08.8
87 .6
l~U
l~n
87.8
~U
~u
58.6
68 .5
I~n
un
87.0
88. 6
94.3
85 .5
59 .9
77 . 1
51.9
68 .6
I~U
1~~:~
I~U
~t~
I&U
~~ : ~
l~n
~u
Igt~
lIU
128.8
gg
62.7
120 .4
m:~
65 . 1
l~U
~U
~u
bU
- - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _~_ _- L_ _~_ _~_ _ _~_ _~_ _~_ _~_ _~_ _~_~L__~_ _~_ __
CITY OF FORT WORTH
----
1919
January ..... ...
...... ... ... ..
\lMebruary ....... ..... .......... ....
areb
...
~;i1 '" ... .... ........ ... ....
........ .............
..'.
Jun~" . " ....... ... .............
July ... " ... ... ....... ... .... ...
A '" '" ............... ... ....
~gU8t .
oelober ··r·.:::::::: ::: ::: :::: ::::
Plcmbe
~ovemb~~::: ~:
CCembe
---r.
:: :::::::::::: ::::
.... .. ............ , .. .
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
90 .9
88 .6
114 .1
104 .0
103.5
105 .4
86. 3
83. 1
11 5.2
129.8
160.6 .
211.0
lOS.8
116 .8
145.3
140 .0
138.6
133.2
108.7
97.6
125.2
152 . 1
165.5
202.8
88. 7
95.5
110.1
102.0
104.7
06 .7
82.8
05 .0
84 .9
113 .6
109. 0
162.6
63 .3
72 .2
88.3
92 .4
95 .3
88.0
74 .2
62.6
05 .7
105.3
114 .0
167.3
67 .2
74 .2
94 .6
94 .0
101.0
93 .8
76.1
63 .5
oS.O
113 .7
108.7
172 . 1
70.8
78. 1
88 .5
101 . 1
05. 1
97 .4
71.9
65 .0
100 .6
109 .5
120.6
176 .5
------------------
1925
1927
- -- -- ---- -1926- --- -1928.9 1020- -1930.4 -1931.1
73 .5
84.7
84 .3
87
86.1
76
78
90.3
97.1
103.6
94 .0
101.9
77 .5
73. 6
98 .6
130.7
127 .3
106 .6
95 .9
107 .3
107 .2
120. 1
109.0
87 .4
91.6
117 .4
138 .8
146 .3
216.9
1925
1926
103 .4
113 .3
128. 0
U9 .7
106.0
87.7
87 .0
115.7
141.1
146.8
231.6
103.5
121.6
124 .3
125. 0
108.9
92.6
88 .3
123 .6
130.3
145 .8
221.9
97 . 1
125 .0
113 .9
126 .2
116. 1
85.9
86 .4
115 .9
133 .3
14 6. 1
209.7
91.5
98.9
105 .0
106 .3
93.7
74.4
81. 1
102 .0
120 .8
114 .6
179 .0
107 .9
92 .2
69 .0
67.6
83 .2
95.3
98 .8
155 . 1
88 .2
97 .8
105 . ~
CITY OF HOUSTON
1919
1920
192 1
1922
1923
1924
- US. 7 - .. .... ... ...... .. .. - - - - - - - -.8 - - - - - - - -.8 - - - - 101.6
81.1
87
U2.2
87
80.4
.. ... .... ........ ..... 64.0
96 .2
95 .9
77 .4
75 .5
78 .4
62 .3
82.5
77.4
.. .. ....... .......
109.9
87 .5
01.0
107 .9
81.8
87.9
93 .0
73. 0
.........................
.
114 .6
90 .7
102.7
111.5
87 .2
74 .3
98 .5
79 .0
'"
74 .3
71i .5
(10 .3
58 .9
S1.5
85.3
113.5
148 .8
97 .6
127.8
71 . 1
66 .7
87.7
104 .5
121.4
152. 1
82 .6
101.2
59. 1
54 .7
72.1
88 .6
05 .3
129.5
82 .0
94 .7
57.3
55.3
74 .4
S7 .2
96.6
143.2
96 .8
102.3
64.0
62.4
88.8
104.3
10'1.5
159 .2
96 .4
\05 .4
66 .2
63.8
99.2
104 .4
113 .3
159 .7
1928
1929
1030
1931
109.1
100.5
110 .8
110 .5
124.2
11 9.9
87 . 1
70 .8
139.6
116 .4
138.2
105 .2
109 .0
107.6
135.7
119 .5
122.8
126. 1
87 . 1
98 .5
135. 6
123.2
155.4
208.7
95.8
104 .2
110 .3
124 .0
115 .7
110 .7
80.6
78 .5
139. 1
120 .5
133. 4
177 . 1
84.8
85 .4
98 .0
109. 0
107 .0
94 .4
65.0
69 .8
90 .3
06 .0
109 .4
141 .5
113.3
111.0
76.4
74 .8
108 .0
124. 0
122. 4
175 . 1
122.8
125.1
80 .4
82 .8
110 . 1
120 .7
138. 0
199 .2
,
,
" ........... ...... ....
...... ........... .. ....
.. .. ........ ..... ... ..
" ......... ............
.......................
" ..... ..... ......... ..
.... ......
"
.. ..... ...................
.. .... ..
1927
--------------108.6
104 .6
107.4
125. 0
124.7
120. 1
85 .3
83 .1
123.7
126 .2
133. 0
211.8
,
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
1919
.... ... .......... ...
......... ...... ......
....... .. ............
.. ... ......... .......
......... .... ........
.... ............... ..
...... .. .... .. ...... ..
... .... ........ .......
.......
'" ....
...... ........... ........
...
..
" . ........ .... .. .... .
"" ........ ..... .....
1020
1921
1022
1023
1924
1025
1926
1927
1928
1920
1930
1931
73 .1
95 .5
94.3
85.2
105 .4
71.4
69 .6
99.4
111.5
118.2
167.5
8<1.3
123. 0
119.4
141 .6
109.8
82. 0
84 .7
11 6. 0
133 .9
145.8
170 .0
05. 4
121. 8
112 .4
116 .0
118. 4
79 .0
76.8
107.1
127. 0
118.4
157.4
73. 1
85. 1
96 . 1
90 .5
96 .5
61.4
64.7
98.5
99.5
103.0
143.8
74 .4
92 .3
96.0
105.8
88 .5
65 .3
64.9
90 .0
97 .7
11 G.3
146 .7
8l.4
91.6
101.1
113 .5
97 .2
70 . 1
75 .0
117 .5
124.8
121. 7
151.9
93.6
104 .7
108 .6
113.4
86 .6
64 .0
70 .8
101 . 1
125 .5
112 .5
153.5
96.4
104 .7
106 .8
115.2
108 .5
71.6
81.3
111.2
130.0
128.3
167. 7
97 .2
103 .3
115 .2
117. 1
108 .4
72 . 1
76.9
104 .8
122 . 1
118 .5
170 . 1
89.4
109.2
103.9
1H .2
116 .7
69 .6
74 .6
115 .7
118 .7
117 .3
173 .8
90 .3
107 .3
102.4
107 .7
107 .9
69 .7
73 .2
105 .2
109.2
127. 1
173. 7
82.8
92 .0
109 .7
104 .8
91.1
77 .9
81.8
110 .6
106 .3
126.2
162. 4
81.0
97 .9
97.2
95.0
82.9
58 .8
57 .9
79 .5
7l.4
85.2
111 .0
- 97.8
- 82.2
-- -.0 -10S.8 -107 .8 - - - - -.4 - - - - - - -100 .5 - -.0 --- - -.7 - -.3 - - - - - - - 91.0
- 91.1
92
09
84
91 3
83
87
ADJUSTED INDEX OF DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
1923·1925 Average
= 100
·
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESBRVE DISTRICT
1919
January .......... . . . ...... ......
February ... .....................
March . .. ..... . .... ... ........ . .
u;~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June ....... ..... ... . ..... . .. ....
July ... . .......... . . . ...........
~t~:j,cr:::::: :: :::::: :: :::::::
October .......... . ..............
November ............ . ..........
Deocmber .......... .. . .. . ...... .
1920
1921
91.1
87.4
101.0
87.8
85.9
99 .0
00.0
09.4
00 .7
97 . 1
110.2
106 .6
120 .7
114.6
125.9
120.5
118.9
124.6
125.4
120.7
109.5
115 .3
120.9
105.4
110 .5
107 .9
104.7
100.5
99.4
104.0
102 .4
90.8
86.0
95.5
00 .8
88.5
1922
1923
1924
1925
93 .6
90.6
92.3
06.6
99.2
97.5
07 .7
89.6
101.3
09.6
98.4
06.'1
99.4
95.6
95.4
97.0
08.9
102.3
09. 0
02.0
108.1
100.3
102.3
100.0
lOG.?
111.0
100.3
104.0
103.1
100.5
99.3
100. 1
00.2
109 .4
101.0
104.4
1930
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1926- -1927- -1928- -1029- - - 90.2
90.2
88 .5
89. 1
90.2
92.5
03.4
87.5
07.3
87.7
91.0
02 .2
111. 4
113.9
102.2
106 .8
109.9
110 . 1
106 .9
Jl8 .0
105.8
109.0
100.0
107.9
105.8
108.8
104 .7
108.9
110 .4
101.3
101.0
105. 0
101.2
107.1
106.2
113.0
107 .0
106.8
106 .0
109 .0
109.4
105.3
104 .3
105 .0
112.3
103 .0
111. 2
115.8
94.2
107 .9
103.5
103.9
109. 1
68.7
97 .7
106. 7
103 .7
07 .7
09.1
90.2
105.5
107.9
113 .4
110.3
108 .8
108.5
104 .3
111 .4
110 .9
100. 1
114 .0
112 .5
CITY OF DALLAS
1919
January ........ .. .... . ......... .
February ............... . .. . . ... .
Maroh .... ......................
~;~l:: ::::: ::::: :::: :::: :: : :::::
June ..... .. .................. . ..
July .. ........... ....... ....... .
~tt':~iiC;.::::::::::::::::::::: :
Ootober ..... .... ... ... . .. . .... . .
November .......................
December . . .. .. ...... ..... .. ....
1920
1921
80.0
106.7
89. 1
01.3
105.4
105.5
105 .0
104.8
100.0
111.5
112.9
119 .5
127.3
123. 1
121. 3
128 .9
133 .4
129.0
111.0
113.8
119.2
105.4
108 .5
102 . 1
99.4
102.2
102.0
102.5
88.3
84 .8
92.6
89. 1
87.2
1924
- - - -125 . - -109.2 -1922- -1923- --- -1025- -1920- -1927- -1923- -1929-1 -- 90.5
87.8
88.4
02.4
84 .7
91.5
93.0
05. 5
90.6
100.5
84. 1
91.3
93 .8
93. 5
92.2
95.0
00.0
100 .0
98.2
100.9
90.4
109.7
103.1
98 .8
97.4
98.4
97.7
90.3
94 .5
98.5
101.3
99.0
87 .8
111 .2
96 .3
100.4
102. 0
100.4
111 .3
104.3
102. 1
101.0
99.4
94 .0
90.0
97.9
109.4
99.9
107.0
117 .7
115.0
98.9
104.5
105.4
103.7
102.7
121. 7
100.9
100 .0
90.0
102.3
100.2
9U.8
90.4
90. 5
100.4
80.8
87.5
95. 1
87.3
99.3
IOU
105 .8
101 .2
98.9
90.0
105.3
07 .5
94. 1
93 .0
96.7
90.0
98.7
100.0
105.8
88 .8
107.2
103.3
09.2
97.1
95 .5
89.4
107 . 1
Y5.8
90.8
94.2
90.8
CITY OF FORT WORTH
1919
January ........... ..............
February ........ ....... .........
March ...... . ... ... ..... ........
~;~l:::::: : ::::: :::: :: : : ::::::::
Junc ... . ...... . .. . . . .. .. •...... .
July ...... . .. . ...... . .. .. .......
~~tl:iiC;. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Ootober .........................
November .. . ......... . ..........
December ........ ... .... ........
1920
1921
1922
106.7
121.4
103. 0
103.5
112 . 1
115. 1
117 .0
118.8
113.9
133.8
119 .2
140.7
140.8
145.8
138 .6
' 141.7
144.9
137.5
129. 1
133.4
137.0
114 .0
85.5
87.0
92.9
92 .4
95.3
93 .0
98.9
88.2
98.7
92.4
95. 0
94 .5
1024
1925
00.8
89.4
94 .6
90 .0
101. 9
90 .8
101.5
89.4
102. 0
99 .7
90 .0
97.2
95.7
94 . 1
94 . 1
100. 1
95 . 1
103.0
05 .9
91.5
103. 7
00 . 1
100.5
99.7
00 .3
108 .8
101.1
104.0
9'1.9
108.4
103 .3
103.7
101. 6
11 4.0
106.1
111.1
114 .5
115.5
10S .4
111.7
120. 1
11 6.0
11 6.5
129. 0
121.0
121. 8
121. 0
122 .5
113.9
124.6
119.3
128.0
119.7
11 2.8
11 6.9
122.5
119 .3
123 .8
122.3
130.8
118.8
124.7
124. 1
128. 1
125. 0
115 .9
123 .5
124.4
127.4
114 .3
121.5
125 .4
116.4
11 7.0
126.0
110 .9
126.2
123.5
1H .5
121.7
110.5
110 .9
121.8
118 .5
-
January .........................
February ........................
March . .......... .... .. .........
~~~l::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
June ....... ..... . . ........ . ... ..
July ..... . ............. ... ..... .
~"t:~iiCr·. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
October .........................
November .......... .. ......... ..
December .. ....... .......... ... .
1920
1921
73 .3
88.0
72.8
74 .3
71.2
86 . 1
85.4
80 .8
82.0
07 .0
90.7
97.1
95.5
101.5
97 .0
120. 0
101.0
96 .7
86.8
100.5
103 .8
92.7
90.3
91.1
77.7
80.3
82 .0
80.3
81.9
80. 1
73.7
83.8
82.6
87 .3
91.1
88 .8
88 .4
94 .5
96 .8
96 .5
91.4
90 .4
87 .9
109.3
89 .3
97.1
98 .7
02 .2
97.8
100 .7
96.4
99.4
94 .6
92.5
98.2
100.4
96 .8
97.4
103.2
110 .2
105 .2
104.0
106.3
00.7
99.2
114 .2
105.2
106 .0
95 .5
101.1
January .... .. .. . .... .... ........
February ........... ...... .......
Maroh ....................... .. .
~:~l::::::::::::::: : ::::::::::::
June .. .•...................... ..
July ........ ....................
~~~~::::::::: :::::::::::: ::
November ...... .. .......... . ....
December .......................
1920
1921
1022
1923
105.3
113 .2
113.0
111 .5
113 .3
104 .7
109. 1
108.4
106.9
110.2
104.0
107 .0
114 .2
112.8
11 2. 1
118. 1
122.8
118.0
114 .0
120.0
109.0
11 0. 1
117 .9
121.5
101.G
123 .0
120. 0
133. 0
112 .0
120 .6
119.3
113.7
119 .6
126.8
115 .5
100.0
88.1
88.6
983
91.0
98 .5
90 .3
01.1
90.6
88 .8
80.0
92 .8
90. 0
89 0
91.4
98 .0
90.8
90.3
90 .0
91.4
97 . 1
87 .2
101.1
94 .6
100 . 1
98.1
96 .4
97.2
107 . 1 .
99.2
103. 1
105.6
115.2
111.4
- - - -119.6 - - - - - - --- --- -1921)- -1926-91.2
88 . 1
100 .5
90.7
80.4
107.0
105 .0
98.0
97.5
99.6
102.8
108.1
105.8
98.0
--105. 6
100. 3
U8. 8
109. 8
107.9
93 .1
OU. 2
05. 2
85. 8
88. 0
82.3
87.6
----
122.0
123. 1
11 4.3
123.8
124.7
11 3.3
121.9
120.4
122.5
121.3
113.7
129. 1
122.6
118.2
11 4.2
11 2.8
124 .2
113. 1
12·\.4
115.7
1~8 .2
111.0
118. 1
119. 0
123 .5
120.6
137. 1
124.5
122.8
110.0
12,1.4
142.8
134.3
118.5
132. 8
127. 3
-
107 .0
122 .0
118 .6
121.0
116 .7
104 .4
115 .1
113.8
137 .7
115.9
114 .0
108 .0
--95. 3
100. 6
100.0
)1 2. 4
107 .0
80. 1
93 .1
101 .2
98 .3
02 .3
93. 6
86. 3
J---'
~
1924
118 .5
114 .9
120.0
114 .7
109 .4
120 .8
116.2
108.2
105 .0
113.4
103. 0
101.5
M.O
88. 0
81.0
77 .5
95. 3
71.6
70.3
72.0
74.0
1931
1930
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
1919
78 . 4
07.2
79.0
~
1922
- - - - 103.0 - - - - - - -1023 - -1924- -1925- -1926--1927- -1928- -1929-71.9
9S .7
91.1
88.8
82 .3
82.6
95.5
84.4
79 .3
71.4
85.2
81.5
79.0
--1931
1030
CITY OF HOUSTON
1910
--
~
1923
- 122.8 -140 .3 - - - --- - - - - - - --- - 1926- -1927- -1923- -1929-- -119 .9
116 . 1
110 . 1
107 .4
104 .7
102. 9
110.4
92.8
87.5
90.0
90 .8
91.9
89.8
98.2
90.5
99.0
01 .9
87.0
83. 1
91 .1
75.3
77.0
78.7
78.7
1931
1930
98.3
100 .7
108.4
107 . 1
90.4
101.0
97.2
104 .7
107.2
105.0
100.2
100.8
-
193 1
103 .0
112.8
107.9
106.5
107 .0
88.4
94. 1
99 .7
99. 1
112.1
07.8
99.0
110 .4
11 6.1
104.7
107 .0
108.7
110 .7
105 .3
114 .5
109.0
116 . 1
111.6
108 .2
1927
108.8
117 .1
107 .6
111.8
110 .5
110 .0
106.0
108.3
102.7
109.0
103. 0
113.6
1928
1029
107 .7
110 .3
103. 0
107 .7
119 .1
102 .4
105. 1
113.4
100 .0
102.0
112. 1
108.8
100 .2
104 .5
101.6
110.1
102.5
103.1
103 .1
97.5
110 .5
112. 1
-107 .5 -101.9
-- --
-
1931
1930
92.6
99 .8
96.8
105 .5
98.9
93.0
114 .0
115 .2
108.4
94 .9
109.1
104.8
~
07.6
97.9
98. 2
80. 0
84.6
80. 6
81.5
77. 9
03. 8
74.1
72.0
~
I
r
UNADJUSTED INDEX OF DEPARTMENT STORE STOCKS
1923-1925 Average
= 100
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTIUCT
---
1010
:
..
Ju~~' ....... .... ............... .
July ' ...... ........ .... .........
I~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::
Augu8
80lltc
O
etcb
:
~::::::::::::::::::::::::
-Neve
Decol
1920
1921
1922
1023
1924
1925
1920
89 .1
96.7
96.1
93 .8
85 .1
82.7
91.3
97.1
100.2
99 .5
79.7
79 .9
80.6
96.9
90.5
97.4
91.5
90.5
101.3
107 .1
109.4
108.1
88.7
88 .7
98.6
105.8
108.3
103.1
96.3
94.2
103 .8
109 .8
11 3.8
112 .2
89.0
97 .6
104 .8
106 .9
104.2
93.3
98.4
103.2
112.3
112 .6
111 .9
88 .4
95.4
102 .5
104 .1
99.0
80.8
86.5
93.2
100 .2
102.7
100 .1
79.0
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.3
- 63.3
-- -.0 --74.7
77.0
74.9
83.2
88.0
71
72
91.3
84.8
87.9
January .........................
Ji'e bru
Mareha~:::::::::: : ::: ::: :::: : ::
~pril .......... ........ ... .....
79 .2
87.5
85.0
90.7
86.4
80.0
91.3
98.5
104 .6
101. 7
87.8
101.0
108 .8
111.4
120.4
119 .7
122.9
139 .5
151.1
148.9
134 .9
91.4
92.0
96 .9
98.0
94.1
91. 7
89.2
102 .8
1l0 .2
110.4
1l0 .0
82.8
85.3
92.3
92.8
90 .3
83.4
78.6
87.7
95.8
97.4
98.2
74.4
83.2
86.3
86.7
83.1
75.9
71.9
82.6
87 .9
92.4
91.5
70.3
79.1
82.9
84.4
81.4
71.5
69.8
80.8
89·.4
93.5
93.2
72.8
77.2
81.9
82.2
78 .5
71.8
65 .6
69.8
77.7
86.1
87.2
64.2
67.8
72.9
72.3
68.4
64.0
59.3
66.2
72.0
74.6
72.7
54.9
CITY OF DALLAS
1919
1920
1021
85.2
93.1
97.4
122.9
123. 8
132 .4
149 .7
157.3
154 .8
140 .5
95.8
91. 5
94.8
98. 1
90.7
93.0
89 .6
99.7
105.2
103 .1
101.1
78.1
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
90 .0
92 .5
95 .2
97.9
93.4
01.2
102 .8
103.4
105.6
106 .8
88·t
97.1
100.4
110 .4
105 .0
90.5
96.5
109 .1
109 .8
112.9
111.3
87.7
99 .2
105.4
107.0
106.0
93.6
96 .3
107 .0
11 0.4
109.1
109 .0
00.2
98.1
103 .0
103 .8
98.2
90.5
84.1
88.3
94.3
95.7
91.8
75.8
1927
1928
1929
1980
1931
- 68.3
~ . ..................... - - - - -.1 - - - - - - - - -- - - - -.0 - - - - -.5 - - - - - - - - - - - 89.0
72.1
70
65.8
85.7
73
82.9
90
69.4
56.1
84.4
78.4
Februay ...
M ry ........ . .... ............
arch ... ....... .......... . ...
~ril. . '" ........... .. .... ......
J .y .. ........ .......... .. ....
J~~e .. ........... .. .... .. .... ..
..
August......... .... .. ...........
..
~?:: ::::.~:::::::.
80Plem
OClellO
~evem
occm
----
77.0
88.1
80.2
93.8
8S .6
81.0
92.8
95.7
99.0
96.2
85 .0
81.1
86.0
87.3
82.3
77.4
70 .8
79.4
86 .3
86.8
88.1
69.6
70.1
74.6
75.3
71.5
66 .5
60.3
69 .6
73.8
78.2
79.8
62.6
71.8
73.4
75.0
70 .6
63.2
60.9
72 .9
77.9
82.3
83.5
69.8
73.1
75 .7
76.2
70 .6
63 .5
59.4
62.3
69.9
79 .9
79.2
60.6
60.0
64.8
62.6
57.5
· 04.0
50 .2
56.6
62 .8
64 .7
62.4
48.7
CITY OF FORT WORTH
1919
.......................
........ ....... .........
.... ... .. ..... .... ... ...
...... ....... ..... ......
.... ....... ..... .. ......
... ... .. ..... ...... ... ..
..... ........ ...... .. ..
..................... ...
r .. .. ..... ...... ........
.......... ... .. .........
r ...... . ... . .•.........•
r.
85.5
91.2
91.4
94.4
84.9
81.0
89.0
92.8
95.1
98.2
75 .5
..... ................ .
1920
1921
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1927
1928
1929
1930
11 6.2
130 .0
137.2
131.4
134.3
137.6
152 .8
162.7
153.8
120 .1
88.7
06.3
103 .0
101. 9
98.5
06.0
04.4
105 .2
11 2.8
115 .6
11 4.2
70 .3
02 .6
99.3
99.4
94 .5
80.9
85 .6
04.2
102.3
105.1
105.8
78 .7
03.9
108 .5
105.3
99.9
94 .2
92.3
103.2
111.0
112 .3
108 .4
83.2
101.4
105 .6
105 .1
102 .6
97.4
95.5
102 .2
11 0.3
113 .8
113.2
84.7
95.0
102 .5
102.2
103 .9
90.3
82 .5
85.2
11 2.2
114 .5
11 0.0
86.2
100.8
108 .0
JOU .5
104.2
100 .8
07.0
102 .0
108 .5
110 .6
109.3
78.8
93.5
96.6
99.1
97.6
92.5
87.6
96.3
106. 0
108.0
11 2.2
76.2
94.2
98.7
100.3
96.0
89.0
86 .1
98.2
105.7
111.9
111 .9
76 .7
00.7
93.1
94.4
93.1
86.9
83.7
94.8
103 .4
111 .3
112 .7
80.0
02.1
92.4
92.3
88.7
82.0
75 .9
78.7
92 .6
100.7
107 .9
76.9
1930
1931
- 81.4
- -.8 -113 .8 - - - - -.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.4 - - - - - - - - 00.0
81.2
79.7
70
56
85.4
91.1
85.2
84
86.0
90.9
60.7
69.5
68.0
74.0
69 .0
61.0
79.1
82. 1
94.8
80.5
67 .5
94 .0
U6.6
96. 1
94 .2
89.2
84 .7
90 .1
93.9
06.7
99.1
68.6
CITY OF HOUSTON
1010
...... ... .. .. .... ..... .
..... ... .. ......... .. ..
............. ........ .
............ ....... ....
.. ... ... ... ...... .. ....
......................
........ ..... ... .......
.. .... ...... ... .. ......
.......... .............
.. .. ... .. ....... ... ... .
........
.. ...... ...... .. .. .....
.......... .....
1920
1921
78.2
86.6
84.5
90.0
85.9
80 .2
90.0
104 .7
100 .1
09.S
98.5
111.8
108.1
108.0
114 .3
106 .3
100 .5
122.7
145 .3
102.7
143 .1
00.3
92.8
04.8
95.9
96.7
83 .7
84.0
90 .3
IOS.4
111. 8
113.0
04.4
1022
1923
1924
1025
1026
1927
1928
1929
84.4
01.2
07 .2
97.6
85.2
84.3
98.1
105.9
112 .6
11 6.7
97.3
04 .7
104 .6
100.5
106 .7
93.5
90.5
90.2
107 .6
11 3.3
115.3
98.7
95.7
99 .9
106 .9
103 .7
00.3
93.9
106 .3
114.1
115 .2
115 .7
96.4
90.4
103 .2
106 .7
102 .6
89.4
86.9
103 .2
112 .0
112 .1
111 .3
89.9
90.7
98 .9
102. 8
104 .6
94. 1
90.9
102 .9
110 .4
111.1
116 .3
80.1
88.8
100 .0
96.9
98.3
89.0
84.3
100 .3
102 .0
107.9
100. 8
82.1
82 .8
90 .3
94.1
95.2
67.9
75 .7
92.5
106.1
110 .6
107.7
82.4
1028
1929
1931
- 56 .2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.4 --87.1
84.1
72.7
91.7
88.2
73.4
93.7
67
77.5
88.7
80. 6
86.6
93 .6
97 .2
90 .6
97 .2
80.7
82.2
01.1
05.7
98.1
98.5
82.3
75.1
84 .2
81.4
81.6
74.1
66.4
76 .8
80 .8
90.9
96 .4
67.7
60 .4
67.5
68 .3
70 .3
64.6
55.0
64.4
73.0
77 .0
77 .0
60 .0
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
10lO
-........ ... ... ... ..... -105 .1
..
........ ..... .. ... ..
... .......... ........
...... ... ..... ..... ...
.. ...... .... .... ..... .
"
"
..... ...............
............... .....
..... .....
.... .... ........... ... ..
...........
.... . ..... ....... .. ...
.. ...... ........ .. .. ..
.... ...... ...........
\
1
10S.3
110 .2
104 .0
106 .3
102 .9
100 .4
11 2.3
128.S
135.9
138.4
120.9
1020
--134.4
142.8
102. 1
140.4
128.5
127.5
122 .1
143.1
159 .1
161.1
144. 1
101. 3
102 1
1922
1023
1924
1025
1026
1027
118.3
122. 7
133 .4
113 .0
105 .3
100 .6
127.7
13l.5
128 .2
131.6
103.1
108 .1
109 .6
103 .2
89.0
83.8
81. 4
95 .1
104 .5
106.7
104.8
87. 1
07.6
106.6
108.5
08 .0
85.5
00.5
102 .6
11 3.0
113.8
11 3.3
97 .7
106.8
110 .2
107 .3
07.0
87.9
80.0
98.5
108 .7
116 .6
100.8
88.2
97.2
105 .0
IN.3
£4.9
84.8
86 .4
102 .0
109.5
111 .0
106.2
87.2
97.3
101. 7
103.1
99.2
77 .9
79.3
91.1
101.2
108.5
109.l
89.4
100 .0
108 .1
102 .6
101.9
85.0
83.2
92.6
102.9
104 .0
103.1
77.4
1030
1031
-103 .5 - - - -. - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 97.8
80.2
67.2
61. 1
85.6
52.2
87.9
77.7
86 7
97.6
87.6
89.1
90.7
87.5
60.8
68 .6
76.1
83 .5
89.3
80.5
67.3
78.7
79.3
80.1
79.3
69.1
67.1
71.2
83 .2
85 .0
85.7
68.4
60.5
67.6
69.7
66.8
61.9
52 .3
55.3
61.8
72.2
77 .3
57.6
53.4
58.4
63.4
52 .8
49.9
46.7
53.1
52 .3
56.6
02.0
39.8
ADJUSTED INDEX OF DEPARTMENT STORE STOCKS
1923-1925 Average
= 100
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
1910
Junu.ry ...... . ............... ...
Febru.ry .... .. ...... . .. . ........
March .. ... ... . . .. ... .. ..... . ...
April ................. ... .. . .....
M.y .. . .............. . ........ . .
1020
1921
85.9
82.5
85 .0
81.7
89 .8
91.9
87 .9
89.5
89. 5
02 .0
00 .8
100 .0
104 .0
105 .2
105.0
107. 1
119 .2
127 .3
1 ~5 . 1
130.8
137.4
131.8
120.4
10:;. 1
95.0
95.8
94. 1
94.2
93.2
97 .6
98 .0
100.8
100 .2
97.7
08 .2
95.2
1022
JUIlC . .. ...... .•. . ' . . . . . . . ' .••. ' .
July ... . .... . ..... . ... .. ....... .
~~~~~iie'r::::: ::::::: :::: ::: ::::
October .... .. . .... .. . . ..........
November .. .......... . . . ....... .
Deeomber .... . .• . . ...•..... .....
07.5
92 .8
93.9
92 .4
92 .9
90 .5
90 .9
89.5
88.3
88.7
88. 8
01.6
1023
1024
03.3
94 . 1
95 .7
96.4
07.3
99.5
09 .3
07 .4
00 .8
00 .5
102 .0
------------
102.7
102. 7
104 . 1
102. 1
102.4
103 .5
101.8
00 .8
100 .7
100 .2
102 .3
- - - -102.0 - 102J- - 1020- - 1027- -1028- -1020- -1030-- 01.8
101.0
101.7
101.7
102.8
103 .2
99.3
102 .0
101 .2
102. 1
90 .0
00 .0
101.0
101.1
00.4
99 .5
100. 1
98 .0
05.5
95 . 1
01.4
01.1
00 .0
80.4
90 .8
88.5
88 .9
89.6
80 .2
80 .4
88.7
80.1
86. 0
87. 1
80 .2
87.7
85 .5
86 .1
80 .7
83 .8
83.4
82.3
80 .7
79. 0
81.0
79 .0
81.8
81.7
80 .8
82 .8
80.4
79 .5
79.0
77.7
76.4
72 . 1
68. 4
70 .0
70 .2
77 .0
73.8
82. 0
82 .4
80.5
81.2
80 .0
76. 1
70 .7
79 .2
81.3
82 .7
83 .2
83. 7
CITY OF DALLAS
1019
J.nuary ..... . . .. . .. .. ...... . . ...
Jl obrunry .... . ........... . . ......
Murch ....... . .. . · .· ··· .. ···· · · .
1020
1021
80.2
87.2
83. 7
92.0
92 .3
87 . 1
88.8
87 .8
88.4
88 .3
90 .0
tl~~l.::::::::: : :::::: ::::: :: ::::
~:~~bc';. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Ootober . ........ .. ..... ..... . . · .
November .......................
Deeomber ........ . ....... . ... .. .
1910
88.8
92.2
94 .0
120.5
120. 0
142 .4
143 .9
144 .3
138 .2
128. 9
108.9
US .3
93.9
90.4
88.9
96 .0
90 .3
05 .9
00 .5
02.1
92.8
88 .8
97 .0
89.1
90 .3
88 .7
92.5
88 .4
87. 1
85.6
84.7
84 .9
85. 5
85 .8
90.1
03.8
01.6
02 .4
90.0
07.3
08 . 1
08 .8
94 .9
94.3
98 .0
100. 1
98 .5
101.1
104 .4
107 .2
103 .5
103.0
103.8
104 .9
100 .7
103 .8
102.1
90.7
103 .4
103.3
104. 4
103 .9
103 .0
97 .5
103. 5
102.9
101.3
97.'1
100 .0
102.5
102.3
102 .2
102. 0
100.8
90.3
04 .3
00.4
84 .9
80.5
85 .4
84.2
86.1
81.0
84.5
85. 1
84 .8
80.7
80 .0
76 .1
76 .3
79 .2
77.5
80 .8
70 . 1
78 .5
79 .3
73 .9
73 . 1
70 .1
60 .3
64 .8
00 .9
07.7
69.8
73.2
71.1
79 .8
76. 1
75 .0
74 .0
60.2
00. 1
03 .9
59 .0
64 .1
71 .3
72 .7
08 .9
75 .6
74 .8
72 .7
72.8
69.2
65.8
65.5
70 .1
71.6
73.5
76.0
79 .3
1020
1021
- -.0 -132.3 -104.7 - 1922- -1023 - -1024- -1926- -1926- -1027- -1928- -1029- -- -- 00
63 .2
07 .5
OS.4
73 .3
73 .0
00.3
77 .5
74 .0
82 .4
79 .2
82.3
t:t~~bc'r·. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
October ...... .. . .... . .. . .. . .... .
November ............ ...... .. . ..
December ................ . .. . ...
121.0
127.1
131. 9
130.1
141.4
149 .0
140 .8
140 .0
133 .7
114.2
IOS .2
100 .3
100 .0
98 .0
97 .5
101.1
102 .0
103. 1
101.0
100 .5
101.1
00 .7
97.7
96 .5
90.4
95 .6
93. 6
04 .0
93 .0
92. 4
92.2
01.4
93 .6
00 .0
100 .0
07 .8
105 .3
101.3
98 .9
90 .2
100 .3
101. 2
100 .0
97 .7
95 .9
101.5
IOS .7
105. 6
102.5
101.1
101.0
102 .5
103.8
100 .2
00.4
90 .0
100 .2
103.3
09.3
09.0
90 .5
98.3
102 .9
95. 1
89.7
83.5
101.1
99 .0
106.3
105. 1
IOS .0
105.0
104. 0
105 .3
103 .2
106.1
105 .4
100.0
97.7
96 .2
00 .7
00. 1
04 .4
07.4
03 .8
05 .3
96.0
07 .4
05 .2
94 .4
95 .5
9'1. 7
90 .3
92 .9
02. 7
98. 1
05 .S
90 .4
95.0
94 .0
93 .6
90 .3
05 .2
97.3
9il .0
03 .5
02 .3
01 .5
00 .4
90.8
02 .2
01.5
91.0
92.9
03 .2
90 .8
99 .7
97 .0
-
1919
1020
1021
1922
91.7
05.9
8U .7
88. 8
87 .S
87 .3
82 .5
77 .2
83.4
87. 0
95 .5
03.8
120.2
108.1
104 .0
112 . 1
118.1
119 .7
120 .3
130 .9
131.0
124 .4
100.8
93 .7
90 .8
94 .8
93 . 1
04 .8
93.0
94 .4
94.4
07 .7
00 .4
9S .3
101.5
100.7
100 .6
97 .2
93 .8
95.3
80.7
92.4
89 .3
86 .2
84.6
85.7
88.5
90 . 1
00 .8
01.2
94 .4
95 .7
04 .7
94 .7
00 .2
95 .4
97 . 1
101.5
104 .0
84 .1
80 .0
82 .0
88.2
95.4
90 .1
88 .2
94 .3
94 . 1
86 .8
100 .5
103 . 1
101.8
104.6
100 .3
104 .6
103.0
101. 7
97.3
90 .9
97.7
100 .3
106 . 1
100.0
102 .0
00 .9
103.8
101. 7
100 .3
105 .5
104 .2
102 .8
99.3
100 .0
103 .7
102.0
97 .2
103 .2
103 .6
100 .6
99 .3
07 .0
101. 2
100 .9
90 .6
96 .8
00.7
101 .3
97 .5
98 .9
90 .8
102.5
104.0
102 . 1
100 .9
90.5
95 .8
101 . 1
05 .8
97 .8
95 .5
100.0
04 .1
06.4
98 .0
94 .7
98 .3
91.9
93 .0
87 .7
8S .3
8'1.5
80. 0
00 .3
91.4
93.3
75.4
85 .1
90 .7
95 .6
95 .3
93 .7
88.0
-
Juno . ... ... . .. .. ... .... . . ... ....
July .......... . .. .... .... .... ...
~=~r::::: : :::::::::::::: : ::
Novomber .. ........ ..... ... .... .
Deoomber ............. . . . ... ... .
/
1920
1021
1922
1023
1924
1925
107 .2
104. 0
08 . 1
107.4
110 .0
115.4
113 .4
118 .2
120.3
124 .7
141.4
143 .5
132 .5
120 .8
144 .9
140 .3
144 .5
146 .0
142 .0
120 .8
112.5
11 7. 1
115.8
125.8
114. 1
119.7
115 .0
120.0
120 .6
113 .5
118 .6
115.8
106 .3
107 .0
103.4
07.4
90.8
05.2
03.6
96 . 1
05.9
04 .4
04.4
97 .9
94 .2
96.0
100 .0
102.4
00 .0
97 .2
104 .0
103 .6
103 .7
100 .7
102.1
100 .8
100 . 1
105 .7
104 .0
101.2
08.0 .
09.9
102.3
09 .5
00.7
103 .2
98 .9
90 . 1
84 .5
00 .2
09 . 1
98 .4
05 .0
90 .4
09 .3
103. 9
100.5
90 .0
05 .7
08 .0
-114.2 -140 .- - - - - - - --- --- --- -1026- -1927- -1928- -1920 -- -1
-
135 .8
113 .8
02 .6
00
OU .8
50. 4
60. 3
64 .0
54.4
57. 6
67.8
57.2
55.3
----
---no .1
97 .0
03. 7
92 .4
93 .3
03 .9
92 .1
88 .3
84 .0
-84.1
87. 7
83. 7
78 .4
80.8
84.2
79 .0
80 .0
82 .3
74.0
75.3
72.8
78.4
83 .8
72.8
----;;
01 .9
07 .6
06. 3
08 .9
7).8
02 .8
03 . 1
66 .8
00. 4
Or.!
OJ,O
J----
~
1919
tl';~I::::: ::: : ::::::: : : :: ::: : : :: :
---
19BI
1030
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
January ... . ...... .. ..... . .......
February ...... .. ..... .. ..... ....
March .......... . . ....... .. .. ...
00.0
64.9
03. 1
~
1023
- - - - 109.0 - - - - - - - - - -1924 - -1925 -- 1920- -1027- -1928- - 1029-85.3
:
Decomber ......... ... .... . . . . . ..
05. 5
1931
1930
CITY OF HOUSTON
~!~~~::: ::: : ...::::::::::::: .
:: ............
November .......
05 . 2
04.9
93 1
1022
CITY OF FORT WORTH
Janu.ry .... . ... . ... .. ........ . . .
February .. . . .. .... .. ... .... .. ...
March ......... . ........ ... .. . ..
April ........ . . . ... ... ..... . .. ...
May ... . .... . . . . . ... ... ...... . . .
Juno... . ...... ... ........ .. · ....
July . . ......... ..... ... . ........
72.8
70.0
70.8
0.5
U
07.7
08. I
I
1023
1930
- -.0 - - - - -.3 - - - --- -1024- -1025 - -1926- -1927- - 1928- -1020- --- ----;;- 84.0
82
05
June ... . ........... ··· .... ··· ...
July . . . . .... . ......... · .. ···· ...
J. nuary ....... . . . ....... . · . . · ...
~' ebrllary .. ..... .. .............. .
Morch . . ........... . . .. .... .. ...
April ................. . .. · ...... ·
May ... . .. . .. . ... .. · .. ··· · .... · .
June ....... . . . . .. ······ ···· ···· .
July . ...................... .. ...
-
1031
03 .0
90 .3
05.9
97.3
100 .2
88.5
01.1
02 .0
02 .8
00.0
98 .3
100.4
05.5
99.0
102 .0
06 .8
102 .0
00 .0
95.0
93.5
94 .4
92 .0
02 .9
87 .0
87.2
86 .7
84.1
85 . 6
88 .4
70 .3
78.9
76 .9
70.0
79.0
80 .6
75 .6
73. 0
73 .0
74.8
75.0
80 .1
78 .5
77 .1
71.0
70 .3
75 .2
77 .2
76 .9
-
1931
1930
00 .4
50.9
63 .8
65 .8
67 .5
70.3
60 .1
55 .9
50 .7
63.9
60 .6
04 .0
~
50 .7
52 .9
56.1
69 .8
53. 3
50. 1
63 .7
53 . 0
48. 0
60 . 1
40 . 8
44.1
~
•
@FedFRASER