Full text of Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) : March 1965
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business
•
revIew
march 1965
FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF DALl.AS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
contents
industrial development
corporations in texas
(part 2) . . ..... . . . ........................
3
district highlights ... . .... . ..... . . . ......... 10
indust,-ial development
co"po,-ations in texas
(pa,.t 2)
~any
Texas
comm~nities
are placing major
r~hance upon industrial development corpora~Ions to improve the employment opportunities
In their trade areas. An article in the February
B
.
usmess Review presents some of the factors
prompting communities to establish local in?ustrial development corporations, the types of
lI1ducements which have been offered to priVate firms by Texas LIDC's, and the aid which
the ~IDC's indicate they would be willing to
~~~vlde in the future. Although a wide variety
f Inducements are used to attract industry, the
predominant types of aid offered on favorable
terms are the provision of industrial sites and
the construction and leasing of structures.
A survey of LIDC's by the Texas Industrial
~ommission in the summer of 1964 has provld~d information as to the types of industries
whIch have accepted aid and the employment
~fforded by these firms. In another Texas
ndustrial Commission survey, managers of
~;~s ,taking advantage of aid provided by
C s were contacted in order to obtain their
evalu .
.
atlon of the factors considered impontant
m the decision to locate their firms in a
particular area. The discussion to follow presents some of the results of these surveys.
types of industries aided
The LIDC's reported that they had been
successful .
.
.
i
.
10 attractmg a dIverse group of
~dustnes as a result of their promotional
~9 orts. Of the 172 LIDC's surveyed in midw ~4, 74 supplied information on 150 firms to
hlch they had provided assistance of some
kind during the 1948-63 period. The LIDC's
responding were generally those which had
been the most successful in attracting new
industry. Despite the wide range of industries
receiving aid, five broad categories of industries accounted for approximately 70 percent
of the estimated total employment of 18,500 in
1964 at the firms receiving some kind of aid
from the LIDC's.
As indicated in the accompanying table, 24
percent of the total employment of aided firms
was in the apparel industry group, and onefifth of the workers were in chemicals and
allied products industries. One major firm in
the chemicals and allied products category not
only weighed heavily in the employment at
aided firms in this industry group but also
accounted for a significant proportion of total
employment at all aided firms. Concerns manufacturing rubber and plastic products and furniture and fixtures vied closely for third ranking and provided 10 percent and 9 percent,
respectively, of the total employment at firms
receiving aid. Workers in the transportation
equipment group represented 7 percent of the
total. The remaining 30 percent of total empLoyment of aided firms was spread widely
among other types of concerns.
A review of the distribution of employment
of aided firms shows that certain industries
have been significantly more important as recipients of aid than others, and some of these
may represent "development industries" which
were encouraged by LIDC's in the State. However, the survey responses of the LIDC's do
business review/march 1965
3
not indicate whether or not (1) the inducements offered by LIDC's were effective in
encouraging the establishment of new industrial
concerns in Texas or (2) certain industries
took advantage of the inducements offered by
LIDC's even though other locational attractions were more important to the firms .
The distribution of employment of aided
firms also shows some interesting differences
among the various regions of Texas. The
LIDC's in east Texas, the Western Plains, and
north-central Texas granted aid to apparel
firms employing a relatively large part of total
LIDC-aided employment. However, employment in apparel firms was a small proportion
of the total employment of businesses aided by
LIDC's in south-central Texas. Most of the
apparel firms were either new firms or new
branch plants; very few of them represented
relocations.
East Texas was the center of most of the
employment afforded by chemicals and allied
products firms which received assistance from
LIDC's. Such industries accounted for 30 percent of the total employment at all aided firms
in the region. However, 10 percent of the total
employment at north-central Texas firms aided
by LIDC's was also in the chemical industry.
In addition, approximately 14 percent of the
employment of firms aided by east Texas
development corporations was concentrated in
EMPLOYMENT IN SELECTED INDUSTRY
GROUPS FOR 150 FIRMS AIDED BY
LlDC'S IN TEXAS, 1964
Industry group
Apparel and related products ..
Chemicals and allied products . .
Rubber and p lastics products . .
Furniture and fixtures .
Transoortation equipment .
All others
Total
..
Estimated
employment
4,400
3,800
1,800
1.700
1.200
~
18,500
As a
percentage
of total
employment
24
20
10
9
7
30
100
SOURCES: Bureau of Business Research, The University
of Texas .
Texas Employment Commission .
Texas Industrial Commission survey.
4
TEXAS
REGIONS
..
c::J
Eos' Texos Counties
Norlh· Centrol countl ..
South-Central Counliu
[::J
Wutern Plolns Counll ..
CJ'l]J
the rubber and plastics industries. In the other
regions, however, the proportion of total employment at LIDC-aided firms which was accounted for by this industry group was relatively small.
While only 4 percent of the total employment of aided industries in east Texas was in
the furniture and fixtures industrial category,
47 percent of the employment in plants aided
by LIDC's in south-central Texas was in such
firms. The furniture and fixtures industry also
has been important in north-central Texas; it
was reported that 8 percent of the employment
of aided firms was in this industry.
The Texas LIDC's indicated that about 3
percent of the employment of relocated firms
was in the furniture and fixtures industry. On
the other hand, close to one-fourth of the
employment in this industry in the south-central region of Texas was in relocated plants. In
fact, this region had the highest concentration
of relocated employment in the State, accounting for over one-half of such employment of all
firms aided by LIDC's.
locational factors
The success which development corporationS
may have in securing new fiFms for an area
depends largely upon the locational factors that
are important to prospective firms. Locationa l
factors that must be considered by a firm which
EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION FOR FIRMS AIDED BY 74 LOCAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, BY MAJOR INDUSTRY GROUPS
AND BY TEXAS REGIONS, 1964
Percentage of employment located in:
Industry group ing
of a ided firms
~~~~ I:n~i~inpdr~eddug{~ducts , , , , , , , , , , , , , _ , , , , , , , , , ,
Apparel a d
I
' "
. , , , , , .. ' , , , . ' . , , ,
LUmber n d re ated products " ' . " " . , '
,.•,,,,
Furniturean dWfod products
, , , •.. , , , •• , , , , •. , , .
Paper andan II' Ixtures, ,
, " " , ' , '.,'
Printing a da W,d products , " . " ' , . . , " " . " "
. .. , . .. . .. .
Chemica l n ~ le~ ondustroes "
.•
RUbber a~dan I al,l led products , , ' ,"" .. " " . ' "
. . .... ... .. . . .
Leather a d ~ as~cs products
,
Stone c l a~ eat er products, , , , , , • ,
... ......
Pri m a~y m' ta d, glass products " " . " , . , . " " •. . '
Fabricated e a ondustries , , " " , ' , " .
Mach inery metal products , "
, ' .. ' . . , " .. ,'
Electrica l ' exc~.pt electrica l " " " , " , ' _ ,
Tra n sporta~ac one~y "
,
, " , ""
" " , . ," ,
Miscellane Ion eqU Ipment "
,,,,,,,,,' ,,,,
ous manufacturing industries " " ,', .. ,"
~ aided firms " , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ' , , ' , , , , , , ,
7
East
Texas
2
23
5
4
2
30
14
5
1
5
3
4
2
1
100
Northcentra l
Texas
Southcentral
Texas
1
3
33
14
8
6
47
10
5
7
7
1
4
3
8
1
7
1
100
2
Western
Plains
5
2
24
20
10
1
18
23
29
1
100
100
100
m:~t~udes
some firms beginning operation in 1964 but exc ludes firms no longer in operation. Estim at ed tota l employPlains ~odu1ted to 10,600 in east Texas, 5,400 in north-central Texas , 1,800 in south-centra l Texas, 700 in th e Western
NOTE n
8,500 in all the regions .
SO URC- ~etails may not add to tota ls because o,f rou,ndi ng,
ES_ BU reau of Bus i ness Research, The UnIversIty of Texas.
Texas Industrial Commission survey.
is going into business or is expanding its
ope .
. ratIOns are the fixed and variable cost
differentials that may exist between different
plant .
. SItes Or geographic areas as far as the
particular industry is concerned ' these locatioll~ factors do not refer to the ~bsolute cost to
~. e firm of a particular input. For instance,
Irect labor costs may constitute a very large
percentage of the total costs of all industrial
oper~tion; yet, this fact may not affect plant
OcatlOn deClSlons
"
unless an adequate and competent labor supply at lower wages is available
at an alternative location.
l
If t1 .
le Illducements being offered by the
developme t
.
n corporatIOns
would make no
appreciable
d'ff
.
va .
I erence III the overhead and
nable costs of a firm, the activities of the
developme t
.
.
n corporatIOns
may prove to be
Inefl'ect'·
.
th
lve III attractIng industry. When this is
e case, the aid granted by local industrial
developme t
.
..
n corporatIons
can result in "competItIve
subs'd'
.
"
. . of firms
f
I IzatlOn - the plratmg
rom one c
.
ommullIty to another in the same
general geographic area.
Locational factors generally fall into four
types: market orientation, raw material orientation, labor orientation, and community facilities orientation. Market orientation refers to
efficiencies gained in transportation and distribution that result from the location of production facilities near the product market. R aw
material orientation of production processes
occurs when the costs of transporting and
processing raw materials are a major factor in
the operation of an industry.
Labor-oriented industries, on the other
hand, seek out low-wage or labor-surplus areas
or supplies of specially skilled labor. Community facilities orientation is an important locational factor when firms find it necessary to
place special emphasis upon the availability
and adequacy of educational institutions, cultural activities, recreational facilities, and similar
considerations. Some so-called footloose industries are, in reality, community facilities-oriented. These industries usually seek out locations
that provide the amenities which will attract
and hold a mobile labor force . Such amenities
business review/march 1965
5
are particularly important when a firm employs
a large number of professional workers.
characteristics of major
aided industries
The inducements offered by LIDC's may not
be of equal importance to every industry because of the differences in operational characteristics and requirements of various industries.
The motivation of an industry to locate in a
particular area possibly reflects the presence of
necessary locational factors, as well as the
influence of inducements offered by an LIDe.
From the viewpoint of the LIDC's, of course,
some industries are more desirable than others,
depending upon the characteristics of an industry and the contribution the additional employment could make to the economic well-being of the community.
Firms in the apparel industry tend to be
strongly labor-oriented because of the industry's competitive market structure and labor-intensive production processes. Such firms
are sensitive to wage rate differentials and
often favor rural communities in their locational decisions. Since the garment trade is an
important employer of women, the female participation rate in the work force tends to
improve in regions where garment shops are
established. The female participation ratethe proportion of women who are part of the
work force - is usually lower in rural counties
than in urban areas. However, the apparel
industry is generally a relatively low-wage industry experiencing rather wide seasonal variations in demand and, consequently, seasonal
swings in employment.
One feature of the apparel industry that
makes it attractive to LIDC's is the low level of
investment needed per worker. In the Nation
as a whole, the industry operated with approximately $5,000 of assets per production worker
in fiscal 1962. ("Assets" as used here refers to
the book value of depreciable and depletable
6
assets plus the values for current assets and
land, as reported to the Internal Revenue
Service by industrial firms.) Another attribute
of the apparel industry which makes garment
firms eager clients of LIDC's is the importance
of rental arrangements to the industry. Garment shops traditionally have been renters of
plant and equipment. Industries with relatively
high rental expenses are exactly the type of
activities that LIDC's can influence, as a considerable part of the assets of industrial development corporations are tied up in industrial
property.
Firms producing chemicals and allied products are desirable industries because of their
employment characteristics. In this industry
group, the rate of seasonal fluctuation in wage
and salary employment is one of the lowest for
any industrial activity in Texas. Furthermore,
by averaging $140 in December 1964, weekly
earnings of production workers in the Texas
chemical industry were second only to those
paid by the petroleum refining industry. In
addition, .he chemical industry is a rapidly
growing national industry. Thus, the development of the industry in an area provides a link
between the region's economy and the expanding national economy.
However, the chemicals and chemical products industry in the United States has characteristics that would tend to make it difficult for
an LIDC to offer inducements which would
exert a primary influence on the locational
decision of such a firm . The industry is capitalintensive, with an assets-production worker
ratio of about $68,000 in the Nation as a
whole. In addition, rental expenditures are
relatively small, and the nature of the production process in the chemical industry makes the
rental of plants and equipment difficult or
impractical.
Because of the nature of chemical production, water and site requirements are exacting·
The large volume of water needed for process-
ing, cooling, and waste removal makes water
r~sources an important element in site selection. It is by this means - i.e., making satisfactory sites available - that LIDC's may be
effective in influencing locational decisions of
chemical producers However investment in
I
"
and constitutes a very small part of property
expenses in the chemical industry.
]ndustrial chemical. companies generally are
raw materials-oriented since chemical extracts
welg
' h less and take up less volume than the
ra:v . materials used in the production process.
Pncmg practices in the chemical industry are
b~sed on low markups and volume sales, and,
?Iven the extremely high overhead costs in the
IUdustry, profits depend on low transportation
costs - Which, in effect, mean transportation
by pIpe
. l'mes or by barge.
T~e rubber and plastics industry may be
~onsldered attractive since it is a rapidly growlUg
.
. natIOnal industry. In 1964 the output of
thiS industry group in the Nation was 40
p.ercent above its 1957-59 level' this gain is
Sl 'fi
'
gnl cantly greater than the 24-percent increase
in aggregate m
. dustna
. I pro d
'
d .
uctlOn
Uflng the same period. The expansion of the
rsubber and plastics industry in Texas ties the
.
tate di·lec tly to one of the more dynamIC
segments of the national economy. The rubber
and pI l' .
.
as ICS mdustry tends to be a fairly laborIUtensive . d
.
m ustry with a rather strong market
.
oflentation . L
'
. markets reocatmg
near major
.
duces. the d'IS t'b
n UtIon costs of rubber and
plastic
. the prompt
. . prod uct s an d makes possible
servlcmg of customers.
In the absence of other favorable locational
advantag . h
es m t e area, an LIDC may experience dim ult"
.
.
b
c les m attractmg such an mdustry
eca~se of its characteristics. The rubber and
.
p astlcs ind t '
us ry 10 the UUlted States employs
on the "a
'
verage, one production worker for
~very $22,000 in working assets. Also the
IUdUstry' h '
'
£
IS C aractenzed by relatively low levels
o expenditures for rentals.
l
The furniture and fixtures industry in Texas
has tended to have rather high seasonal variations in employment - about double the rate
for all nonagricultural industries. In addition to
showing marked seasonal variations in employment, furniture and fixtures firms typically pay
lower wages than many other types of firms.
Based on national averages, firms in the furniture and fixtures industry have required about
$9,600 in assets for every worker employed
and generally have incurred relatively large
rental expenses.
The furniture and fixtures industry tends to
be strongly market-oriented because its products are usually bulky and relatively inexpensive. Therefore, only quality furniture generally
can bear the cost of long-distance transportation. Upholstered furniture is greatly influenced by style, however, and this part of the
industry may gravitate toward styling centers.
The firms in the transportation equipment
industry which have been aided by Texas
LIDC's are primarily engaged in the fabrication of house trailers, truck trailers and bodies,
and light aircraft assemblies. Many of these
concerns are small and likely to be rather
labor-intensive. Thus, labor availability and
local wage structures are important factors in
their locational decisions. Such small firms
often are attracted to the site and rental inducements offered by LIDC's.
ranking of loeational factors
If it is to attract industry successfully, a local
action group must be able to offer cost savings
in the production and/or marketing of a firm's
products. In order to judge the effectiveness of
the industrial development corporation, it is
necessary to determine the types of locational
advantages that actually motivate an industrial
firm to locate in a particular area.
Some quantitative view of these factors has
been obtained from a Texas Industrial Com-
business review / march 1965
7
RANKING OF LOCATIONAL FACTORS BY 50 FIRMS
AIDED BY LOCAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATIONS IN TEXAS. 1964
Percentage of firms
ranking factor in:
Locational factor
First
place
Second
place
Third
place
Fourth
place
Market orientation .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Access to markets ................ "
Anticipated rna rket growth . . . . . . . . . . .
Favorable freight rates on products . . . .
Oil field machinery center . . . . . . . . . . . .
Labor orientation ....... . . . .. . . . _ . .
Availability of labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Favorable wage structure. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Labor relations and Texas labor law. . . .
Raw material orientation . . . . . . .
Access to raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quality and supply of water . . . . . . . . . .
Availability of low-cost power . . . . . .
Community facilities orientation . . . . . . . . .
Direct aid from L1DC's ............ . "
Community amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desirable plant site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Avail ability of capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Municipal and state tax structures . . . . .
Climate ...........................
Personal ............. . ... .... .... .
58
48
4
6
0
12
8
4
0
8
4
4
0
14
10
2
2
0
8
4
0
4
28
28
18
2
10
8
10
8
2
14
6
8
o
10
14
6
2
4
2
8
2
2
2
8
4
2
2
36
4
10
14
8
8
4
2
2
o
o
24
6
6
8
4
14
2
6
6
6
o
8
6
2
o
6
2
2
2
32
10
10
10
2
14
4
4
6
was placed on market orientation in locational decisions,
with 58 perceat of the responding firms ranking this as
the most important factor influencing their choice of a location. The importance of the
market factor centered around
access to existing markets,
rather than anticipated market
growth. Market orientation
seemed to be much more important as a primary locational
factor than raw material and
labor orientation, the existence
of desirable community facilities, or a diverse group of
other factors.
Market orientation was also
ranked in second and third
places by a relatively large
number of firms. However,
community facilities as a locational factor
became increasingly important to firms after
the primary requirement of market orientation
had been satisfied. The survey results indicate
that, for the State as a whole, direct aid from
LIDC's was ranked as a primary locational
factor by only 10 percent of the firms returning
questionnaires. The availability of a desirable
plant site began to emerge as an important consideration in the second rankings.
NOTE. - All 150 manufacturing firms reportedly aided by industrial development corporations in Texas and still in operation in 1964 Were mailed survey
questionnaires; 50 firms returned usable qUestionnaires.
SOURCE: Texas Industrial Commission survey.
mission survey designed to indicate the order
of importance of aid granted to private firms
by LIDC's. In 1964 the 150 firms which had
received aid from LIDC's in Texas were sent
questionnaires requesting the managers of these
firms to list, in order of importance, the four
Iocational factors that were most crucial in
determining the firm's present location. Usable
questionnaires were received from 50 firms .
Although a firm may shop for a "package"
of site attributes, certain locational factors are
of more importance than others in that they are
strategic factors. It appears that several steps
are involved in the screening of possible sites.
The primary step seems to involve the determination of the geographic region in which the
firm wishes to become established. Then, decisions must be made about alternative areas
within the region, and the last step involves the
selection of a particular site.
The questionnaires from firms aided by
Texas LIDC's show that the greatest emphasis
8
In the matter of labor orientation, firms
participating in the survey placed more emphasis upon labor availability than upon lower
wages although, it must be realized, the two a!:e
related. Few of the firms returning questionnaires gave high ratings to labor relations and
the Texas labor law as especially important
locational factors.
The fact that labor and raw material orientation generally received low rankings by firms
responding to the survey does not mean that
these factors were not considered but, rather,
that they were available over wide areas of the
Sta.te. Once the primary factor of market orientatIon was satisfied, the firms tended to look
for good sites. A concrete example of this
~rocess is the apparel industry. In the garment
Industry, market orientation is important where
styling and distribution are concerned, and
Dallas is a market and styling center for
recreational clothing.in the Southwest. Although favorable wage rates aJ.7e important in
the apparel industry, a favorable wage structure and available labor are found throughout
east Texas. Once the Dallas center is selected
in preference to a styling center on the West or
~ast Coast, the site characteristics then become
Important locational factors.
concluding comments
A diverse group of organizations in Texas
are
.
.actlve in trying to attract industry to a
pa.r~lcular region or community. Railroads,
UtilIty Companies, banks, local chambers of
commerce, and many other companies and
groups have been among the forerunners in
prOmoting industrial development. Particularly
after the Korean War, the local industrial
development corporation has gained in importance as the focal point of the efforts of many
com m "
'. UnItIes to boost employment opportunit .
les III their trade areas.
It is not possible to measure with precision
the degree to which industrial development
~orporations have been effective in attracting
Industrial concerns to a geographic area strictly
as a result of the inducements the LIDC's
~ffer. However, it is probable that the promotional efforts of the LIDC's and the inducements offered have resulted in a wider geograpAic distribution of industries in smaller
com m "
h
Ullltles than would have been the case if
t lese communities had not established industria development corporations.
Many strategic locational factors - such as
access to markets, raw materials, and labor
supplies - are of dominant importance to
entrepreneurs in determining the general geographic region in which to locate a plant. In
such a situation, the most intense competition
to attract a particular industry may arise
among communities within a broad region
having the necessary strategic locational factors. The locational characteristics desired by a
firm, for example, might be found in east
Texas, as well as in the contiguous areas of
Oklahoma, Louisiana, and north-central
Texas. Thus, the inducements offered by various LIDC's within this broad region are likely
to have great influence on the selection of a
specific site by a prospective firm. If several
LIDC's within an area are vying for the same
firm, competitive subsidization could become a
problem.
The establishment and maintenance of widespread contacts with firms interested in expanding and those with the potential for establishing new branches may be significant factors
in the success of a local group's development
efforts. It is within the framework of communications between a local development corporation and the prospective firm that the inducements offered by the LIDC may be able to
create a receptive attitude toward the community in which the LIDC is located. This aspect
of development strategy has not been emphasized by most LIDC's. However, advertising
and contingent promotional expenses are tending to become more important for a number of
development corporations. Currently, site and
other industrial information is largely provided
by the Texas Industrial Commission, major
public utilities, and similar groups because of
the economies of scale resulting from the operation of centralized information gathering and
distribution systems.
CARL W. HALE
Industrial Economist
business review / march 1965
9
dist,.ict higl.'igl,ts
Loan demand at the weekly reporting
member banks in the Eleventh District has
acceler ted sharply thus far this year, after
turning in an unimpressive performance in the
final quarter of 1964. During the first 7 weeks
of the current year, loans (excluding interbank
loans) rose almost $19 million, contrasted with
decreases of $77 million and $138 rrliJlion in
the comparable periods of 1963 and 1964,
respectively. With the exception of consumertype loans, all major types of loans have
displayed considerable buoyancy .this year, but
the strength in commercial and industrial loans
has been especially notable.
Borrowing by commercial and industrial
concerns rose almost $73 million during the
period from December 30, 1964, to February
17, 1965, compared with declines of about $38
million and $71 million in the corresponding
periods of 1963 and 1964. This increase largely
reflects the expanded borrowings of servicetype businesses and manufacturers of both
durable and nondurable goods. The sharp rise
in loans to service-type industries is in contrast
to the relatively moderate expansion in these
loans in the final quarter of 1964. The strength
in the durable goods area was broadly based,
with especial strength evident in loans to producers of primary metals, fabricated metal
products, and a miscellaneous group of other
durable goods.
The seasonally adjusted index of industrial
production in Texas declined fractionally during January to a level 01: 129 .9 percent of the
1957-59 base, compared with 122.6 percent a
year earlier. All of the durable goods industries
showed gains over December or remained firm
except the primary metal industry, with the
sharp decrease in this industry partly reflecting
10
a work stoppage. In the nondurable goods sector, all industries maintained about the same
levels of activity as in December except petroleum refining, which registered a marked decline
in January. Activity in the mining sector showed
little change from December.
Total nonagricultural wage and salary employment in the five southwestern states declined 2 percent from December to January
1965, reaching a level of 4,961,900 persons.
This broadly based seasonal downturn reflected
a decrease of ab0ut 1 percent in manufacturing employment, as well as the usual postDecember decline in trade employment. Despite the month-to-month weakness, a comparison with January 1964 shows that January
nonagricultural employment in the current year
registered a 4-percent increase in the five stateS.
Daily average crude oil production in the
District in February is estimated to have risen
1 percent over the previous month - the sixth
consecutive monthly gain - and 4 percent
above a year earlier. All of the increase over
January occurred in Texas and southeastern
New Mexico, as the pace of crude oil output in
northern Louisiana was unchanged. At midFebruary, stocks of crude oil stored aboveground in the District were about 5 percent
below the year-earlier level.
The seasonally adjusted index of . Eleventh
District department store sales in January, at a
record level of 132 percent of the 1957-59
base, was 2 percent above December and 13
percent above January 1964. Sales during the
first 3 weeks of February were 2 percent above
the comparable period last year.
Registrations of new automobiles in fou f
major Texas markets in January declined sea-
s~nally from December but were 11 percent
higher than in January 1964. A significant
\Year-to-year gain was posted in each of the
~our markets; registrations were up 16 percent
~n Dallas, 15 percent in Fort Worth, 11 percent
IU San Antonio, and 7 percent in Houston.
High winds damaged over 1.6 million acres
of crop and range land in the western areas of
the District during January. The U. S. Department of Agriculture indicates that over a million acres of cropland were affected in the
Texas High Plains. Although much of the
damage occurred on unprotected land, several
thousand acres of small grains , alfalfa , and
~over crops were destroyed. Eastern New MexICO and western Oklahoma also experienced
conSI'derable damage. The January storm was
reported to be the worst in a decade. Much of
the Southern High Plains had received only
about 5 inches of rainfall in the preceding 15
months and, thus, was quite barren and unprotected. Where possible, farmers have taken
steps to reduce wind erosion damage through
crop resl'd ue management practices and emergency tillage.
The January 1, 1965, inventory of all cattle
and calves on farms and ranches in the five
SOuthwe t
.
s ern states shows mIxed trends ac~Ording to the USDA. There were declin~s in
exas and New Mexico but increases in Ari-
zona and Oklahoma; numbers in Louisiana
were unchanged. However, the number of beef
cattle for the District states was fractionally
above a year ago. Dry weather condition$
caused deterioration of pastures and rangesl
resulting in some severe culling of livestock in
Texas and New Mexico in 1964. The milk cow
population continues its 12-year decline. In~
creased production per cow has made it possible to reduce numbers but, yet, maintain
relative stability of total milk production.
The decline in sheep numbers also continues
a longtime trend; a 7-percent reduction in the
five District states and a 5-percent decrease
nationally place the January 1, 1965, inventory
at the lowest of record. The hog and pig
population was one-fifth below a year ago;
which represents the largest adjustment of an1,
species. Moreover, numbers of farm chickens
and turkeys were 3 percent and 9 percent,
respectively, below last year.
Cash receipts from farm marketings in the
District states in 1964 were 7 percent less than
in 1963 . All of the states recorded decreases,
ranging from 12 percent in Arizona to 2
percent in Oklahoma. Crop receipts contributed heavily to the overall decline, reflecting a
9-percent decrease; there was a 4-percent decline in livestock and livestock product receipts.
The Downtown Bank, Houston, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located
in the territory served by the HOllston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dall as, was added to the Par List 00 its opening date, February 25, 1965.
The officers are: R. E. Armstrong, President; Hollis L. Walters, Vice President;
and W. T. Edwards, Cashier.
business review/march 1965
11
REVISION OF BANK DEBITS AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER SERIES
The March 1965 issue of the Statistical
Supplement to the Business Review presents the Eleventh District monthly bank
debits series in a substantially revised
form. Major revisions - the first since
March 1953 - have been made in order
to increase the usefulness of debits data as
an economic indicator.
Generally, the geographic coverage of
the series has been expanded from city
centers to Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas. The debits data for these areas will
be reported at annual rates adjusted for
seasonal variations and differences in trading days each month.
Debits data for 1964, by months, have
been compiled on both the old and the
revised basis. Also, those wishing to have
the monthly debits figures as soon as they
become available can have their names
added to the mailing list to receive the
information before it is published in the
Statistical Supplement. Either of these
reports may be obtained upon request to:
RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
STATION
DALLAS, TEXAS
12
K
75222
STAliISTICAl! SUPPLEMENT
to the
BUSINESS REVIEW
March 1965
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS
CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
MEMBER BANKS IN LEADING CITIES
RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federa l Reserve District
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Averog .s of dally figures. In thou sands of dollars)
(In thousands of dollars)
~
Feb. 24,
1965
Jan. 27,
1965
Feb. 26,
1964
4,528,818
82,026
4,610,844
4,502,808
82,086
4,584,894
4, 170,463
76,630
4,247,093
Commercial and industrial loans •.....•.......
Agricultural loans•• • •.. . .................•.
Loans to brokers and dealers for
purchasing or carrying:
2, 156,015
60,835
2,124,901
59,324
2,002,768
47,352
U. S. Governm ent securities ................
Other securities ••............... . .......
20,303
39,036
558
39,368
20,274
50,384
2,396
282,280
2,433
277,565
3,469
257,340
119.858
259,840
106,3 28
6,431
378,234
1,179,288
2,098,795
108,604
265,650
175,725
4,289
379,324
1,147,153
2,124, 128
89,388
258,001
107,410
2,636
344,788
1,063,283
2,098,595
1,327,570
109,553
0
1,383,695
154,480
0
1,412,415
113,089
7,052
Cash item s in process of collection •• ••. .........
Balances with banks in the United States •....... .
Balances with banks in foreign countries ••.•...•.
Currency and coin ..........•....... . .....•••
Reserves with federal Reserve Bank •. . •••.. • ....
Other assets . •............••................
180,323
608,678
429,016
771,225
594,623
451,503
3,193
65,776
539,345
282,385
178,518
589,974
460,723
740,433
646,681
458,669
3,603
66,08 6
575,221
297,983
113,290
769,097
409,887
686,180
642,850
522,990
3,763
63,847
552,244
224,760
TOTAL ASSETS . .. ......................
8,564,438
8,675,179
8,279,512
It e m
ASSETS
Net loons ••.••• • ••••••••••••.••••.•.•••.•••
Valuation reserves . . .............. ...........
Gross loan s ..•................ ........ . ....
Other loons for purchasing or carrying:
U. S. Government securities ....... . ........
Other securities ..... ... ........... . .... .
Loans to nonbank financial institutions:
Sales Anance, personal Anance, e tc ..........
Other .•••••••••••••••.•••..•. . ••.••• • •
Loans to domestic commercial banks •• •• ••....
loans to foreign banks •...... . ....• . .......
Real estate loans ••. •. ... ..•... ...... . .. . ..
Other loons • • ••.•••... •••••• •.•• •••• .••• •
Total Investments ..... . .• . •......•..•. . . •....
Total U. S. Government securities .•.....• .....
Treasury bills •• • •• •••• • •••••••.•••••••.•
Trea sury certiAcate s of indebtedness •• .. •. ..
Treasury notes and bonds maturing:
Within 1 year .. .................. · .. •
1 to 5 y.ors ..........................
Aft.r 5 years ••• •• ••• • ••••..••••••••••
Other securities •.. . •.•.....•....•. .•......
LlA81LITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Total deposits • •••. • ••• • •. ••• • •• ••• ••• ••••••
7,517,231
7,591,186
7,283,799
4,644,121
3,152,292
4,758,088
3,264,383
4,644,843
3,220,634
5,747
146,902
282,104
2,900
119,439
274,888
3,411
116,561
238,055
966,102
25,518
65,456
2,873,110
1,0 19,765
16,394
60,319
2,833,098
992,804
15,712
57,666
2,638,956
1,256,512
1,207,789
1,244,269
1,207,004
1,124,580
1,131,896
500
3,594
393,625
500
3,594
367,338
500
4,132
366,652
Capital accounts ••• .•. ..•.. . ................
8,790
2,300
168,680
150,351
728,176
8,093
2,300
194,630
165,457
723,906
8,771
2,425
157,175
137,711
700,827
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
8,564,438
8,675,179
8,279,512
Total demand deposits •••••.•• •••.•••••.••.
Individuals, partnership s, and corporations . . ..
Foreign governments and official institutions,
central banks, and international institutions ..
U. S. Government .••........ •.•• ........
States and political subdivisions ......... . ..
Banks in the United States, including
mutual savings banks•••.......••.... . •.
Banks in foreign countries .....•.•..... . .•.
Certifled and ofAcers' checks, etc ...........
Total time and savings deposits •.....•..• . .••
Individuals, partnerships, and corporation s
Savings deposits • .. ......•..... . . .....
Other time deposi ts ...•.... • .•... •.. ...
foreign governments and offlcial institutions,
central banks, and international institutions ..
U. S. Government, including postal savings ..•
States and political subdivisions •...........
Banks in the United States, including
mutual savings banks.•. ... .... •. . .. . . ..
Banks In foreign countries ...... . ••...•....
Bills payable, rediscounts, etc ... .. •.•........•.
All other liabilities •••••.•••••.•••.• • •.•.•..••
CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
tt.m
Feb. 24,
1965
Total gold certificate reserves . •••....... , ...
Discounts for member banks •. . .............
Other discounts and advances •.............
U. S. Government securities •••............ . .
Total earning assets ••••• ••• •. •...•.•..•...
Member bank reserve deposits ... . .. .. ..... .
federal Reserve notes in actual circulation . . .. .
546,321
1,645
2,610
1,446,760
1,451,015
933.288
1,069,106
F.b. 3, 1965
Jan. 6, 1965
614,626
571,122
43,504
609,822
4,804
7,929
-3,125
624,302
579,437
44,865
620,730
3,572
14,343
-10,771
597,248
553,999
43,249
592,117
5,131
41,223
-36,092
600,778
460,320
140,458
556,674
44,104
266
43,838
586,682
450,752
135,930
549,739
36,943
1,225
35,718
575,878
447, 189
128,689
528,859
47,0 19
428
46,591
1,215,404
1,031,442
183,962
1,166,496
48,908
8,195
40,713
1,210,984
1,030,189
180,795
1,170,469
40,515
15,568
24,947
1,173,126
1,001,188
171,938
1,120,976
52,150
41,651
10,499
Item
RESERVE CITY BANKS
Total reserves held ............
With Federal Rese rve Bank ...
Currency and coin • .. . .......
Required reserves •............
Excess reserves • ...... ... . .. ...
Borrowing s...................
Free reserves ...... ... . . •.....
COUNTRY 8ANKS
Total reserves hel d ..........•.
With Federal Reserve Bank .•.
Currency and coin ...........
Requi re d reserve s .. .. . . ...... .
Excess reserves ........•......
Borrowing s•...... . ..... . ..•..
Free reserves ........••..... .•
ALL MEM8ER 8ANKS
Total rese rves held ..•.........
With F.d.ral Res.rv. 8ank •••
Currency and coin ... .... ....
Required reserves .............
Exc ess rese rve s ............. . .
Borrowings •....•.. .. .•...•...
Free reserves . ........ . ..•....
Jan . 27,
1965
F.b .26,
1964
684,366
538,021
16,353
2,610
1,361,731
1,364,341
976,394
1,071,627
1,301,949
1,318,302
915,903
953,199
o
o
-
GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleven th Federal Reserve District
(Averag es of daily figures. In millions of dollars)
.:;:::::
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
-
TIME DEPOSITS
-
Tota l
Reserve
city banks
Country
banks
Total
Res erve
city banks
Country
Date
1963, January .••
1964, January • . •
August. .• •
8,711
8,744
8,313
8,530
8,582
8,683
8,852
9,042
4,234
4.120
3,957
4,090
4,098
4,120
4,213
4,271
4,477
4,624
4,356
4,440
4,484
4,563
4,639
4,771
3,602
4,321
4,585
4,689
4,627
4,655
4,713
4,88 1
1.771
2,141
2,262
2,354
2,274
2,269
2,288
2,399
1,831
2,180
2,323
2,335
2,353
2,386
2,425
2,482
September.
Octob er ...
November .•
Decemb er . .
1965, Ja nuary •• •
banks
CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(In millions of dollars)
l'
;:::;:
Jon. 27,
1965
D.c. 30,
1964
Jan. 29,
1964___
loans and discounts.•. .. .•....•••..•. . ..
U. S. Government obligations . . ...... . ....
Other securities •..... .. ... ... ... .. .... .
Reserves with Federa l Reserve Bank • • ••••..
Cash in vault e . .............•.......• . .
Balances with banks in the United States • .. •
Balances with banks in foreig n countries e .. ..
Cash items in process of collection .•.. .. ••.
Other ass ets e ..•........ •• • ••• . • . •...••
7,654
2,65 1
1,566
976
199
1,064
6
725
464
7,735
2,623
1,567
920
210
1,213
5
905
448
6,882
2,735
1,428
915
187
1,11 4 I
11
655
446
TOTAL ASSETSo . . ...................
15,305
15,626
De mand deposits of banks ........ ... ...•
Other d emand deposits . ••• . .. .. .. ......
Time deposits . ....•... . . . •.......• . ..• .
1,276
7,421
4,927
1,483
7,688
4,783
Total d eposits ...... . ................
Borrowing se •............••.....•....•.
Other liobilitie se .. ......• . . ••. ....... •.
Total capital accountse ........••..•.....
13,624
197
207
1,277
13,954
153
237
1,282
TOTAL LlA81L1T1ES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe .. •• ... . • . ... ••..•. .• •
15,305
15,626
Item
ASSETS
e-
2
5 weeks ended
LlA81l1T1ES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
(In thousands of dollars)
5 w.eks .nded
Fob. 5, 1964_
4 weeks end e d
Estimated.
-
ll..371.
=1,295
7,145
4,353
-
12,793
196
173
1,21 1
~
~
BANK DEBITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOSITS
AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
-
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
(In thousonds of borrels)
(Dolla r am ounts in thou sand s, sea sonal ly adiu sted)
Percent change from
Debits to d e mand
d e posit accounts l
Decembe r
Janua ry
Decem b er
January
Area
1965p
1964 p
1964
1964
1964
Annual rate
of turnove r
elEVENTH DlsTRICT. .......
Jan .
De c.
Gulf Coa st. ...... . ... .
1965
1964
3,27 1.3
2,786. 5
537.5
1,237.2
11 3.1
103.3
795.4
294.5
190.3
4,562.7
7,834.0
3,256.7
2,780.4
537.7
1,229.8
11 2.2
103.2
797.5
290.0
186.3
4,525.3
7,782.0
3,141.6
2,706 .5
525.1
1,2 12.5
121.8
105.5
741.6
276.6
158.5
4,538.5
7,680.1
0.4
.2
.0
.6
.8
.1
- .3
1.6
2.1
.8
.7
4.1
3.0
2.4
2.0
-7.2
-2.1
7.3
6.5
20.1
.5
2.0
De mand d e posits I
Pe rce nt
chang e from
January
Janu ary
1965
Standard metropolitan
___ statistical a re a
(Annual- rate
Dec.
Jan .
basis)
1964
1964
Jan . 3l,
1965
3,580,584
-2
-3
$ 166,762
21.4
22.0
1,593,840
4,307,352
- 11
- 8
15
-4
69,068
195,486
22.4
21.7
24.2
23.5
569,928
-5
- 14
31,930
17.7
18.6
1,716,708
3,815,772
3,376,680
4,268,004
0
- 13
- 6
7
2
8
0
4
91 ,738
136,490
177,403
200,740
18.7
27.9
19.0
21.5
18.6
31.5
20.2
20.4
1,292,280
2,899, 11 6
281,424
48,785,340
4,363,380
10,973,544
1,695,264
48,358,092
464,184
3,744,324
1,737,264
973,896
739,128
9,351 ,672
947,628
1,412,796
1,791,744
1,747,068
-8
-4
- 5
- 1
-5
- 10
-5
- 1
-2
17
9
-9
-4
-7
1
2
-2
- 8
2
-2
15
13
-7
-4
-5
13
11
-2
5
-4
-2
2
0
5
5
I
51,414
138,885
27,22 5
1,5 36,950
203,437
477,931
86,513
1,724,732
27,635
139,018
120,111
57,236
50,387
469,354
51,048
82,083
100,252
117,143
24.4
20.9
10.1
31.8
22.0
23 .1
19.2
28.2
16.3
26.1
14.8
17.0
14.5
19.8
19.2
17.8
18.4
14.8
26.7
21.5
10.4
31.7
23.2
25.3
19.9
28.4
16.6
22.3
13.9
18.1
15.1
21.4
19.4
17.8
19.1
16.0
........... . $ 164,787,012
- 3
7
$6,530,971
25.3
25.8
Texa s . .. . .....•... . ....
W es t Te xa s .. .••......
Ea st Texa s (pro per)•••..
Panhand le • .... ..•••. .
Rost of State ......... .
ARIZONA
LOT~I~I:~~ •..• ••• .. ••.•• •••
~~:~~~'drt ••••••• ••. • •••••
$
NEW MEXiCO .. ·· .. •· ..... ..
RosW. II '
TEXAS
Abilen.
Amarlll · · ···· ••••.. • ••• • •
... .. ...... ..... ..
Aust'
p-
0 •••••••• •• • ••••• ••
BQa~"n;dn·t=P~rt· •• • •.• •••.. •
Srowns III H ~rthur •••••••
S
v e- a rhng e n_
Cor~~ BCh'I!o • ••• ••. ••• ..• •
Corslc~na l lsti •• •
Dallas.
EI Pas .......... . ........
Fort W~;ti,"" " """""
~alv.stan.i ;~ ~ ; 'eli; .. •• •••
....... .... .....
0
l:r~~~n., • • •• ,.
•
•
•••
'0
. ',
••
•
:: ::
•
•
::
Lubbock' • •• • •••• • ••••.•• •
Midland········ · · ··· · ··· •
Odessa···· · ··· ,····· · ·· •
San An ' ·1 · ·· ...... .... .. •
San An~ · .0 •• • • • ••••• •• •• •
Texark onIO •••••• " . . .• • , .
TYler ana (Texa s.Arkansa s)..
Wac~""" " "" " "'" •
Wichit~' F' il ' • .. •• .• • • • •• • •
--
a s .• •••
Tatal_26 centers
1
Deposit
f '
0
••••
•
•
•
Southea stern New Mexico . •
North e rn Loui siana . •• .•...
OUTSIDE ELEVENTH DISTRICT.
UNITED STATES ............
•
.
S U~dlvi s ion ss. 0 indiV idual s, partnerships, and corporations and of stat es and po litica l
- COunty basis.
Pre limina ry.
SOURCES , American Petrol eum Institute.
U. S. Bure au of Min es.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
NATIONAL PETROLEUM ACTIVITY INDICATORS
(Sea sonally adjust.d indexes, 1957·59
= 100)
January
De ce mb e r
January
Indicator
1965p
1964p
1964
CRUDE OIL RUNS TO REFINERY
STILLS (Daily average).. .•.. • . . .•...•
DEMAND (Daily av.rage)
110
116
109
116
130
105
106
11 2
118
131
100
105
112
118
133
107
108
114
11 4
143
121
70
112
114
131
114
70
109
108
134
116
85
109
Gasoline • • • •••••... . ..••• . ...••.•. .
Kerosene • . •.. .••• .... • ..... .•.....
Distillate fu el oil •••••••... . .. ..• .....
Residual fuel ail .... . ..... .. .. . ... . . .
Four re fln ed products • . ••....•.....
STOCKS (End of month)
Gasoline • ••• • • ••••••• . • . ..• •...... .
Kerosene • ••. .. •• • •••• • •...••• .. . . .
Distlllat. fu . 1 011 .......... .. ... .... ..
Residual fu . 1 all .... . . .... .... . .... ..
Four reflned products •••.. . ........
p-
Pre liminary.
SOURCES , Am erican Petrol eum Institute .
U. S. Bure au of Min es .
INDEXES Of DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
Federal Reserve Ban k of Dallas.
Eleventh federa l Reserve District
(Daily a verage sales, 1957· 59
=100)
~~~~~~===================================
DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
Sea sonally
_
Date
adjust. d
Unadjusted
1964 ' Ja~n:u:a:ry~----------~-----~::~----~~::::~---
f?~;i
1965. Ja
H
er .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
~ary . .... . . .. .. ...... . . ... .. .
r p-
(Prelimi nary perce ntage change in retail value)
January 1965 from
ii
ill
129
132p
223r
103p
Decem b er
January
Area
1964
1964
Total Eleventh District . ... ... . .......... .
-56
- 61
-56
- 59
-55
-54
-53
-58
-56
8
4
12
Co rpus Christi ••••.•• •.•. . .•
ReV ised.
Pre liminary.
0
•••
••••
0
•••
Dalla s ........ .. ............. .. ... .. . .
EI Pa so •..•• •. ....••••••... ...• ...• .. .
Ho uJ ton .. • •. . . ••• .. " ••.• .. ..........
San Anton io • ......•••.•• .... .. • ...••..
Shreve port, la ••.• • •.• •.....•.•.• . .....
Waco . •. .•. ••• .• ••• ... .... . ........ . .
Other cities .••.••... . . ..... . .• . ...••..
LIVESTOCK ON fARMS AND RANCHES, JANUARY 1
1
13
9
5
o
7
(I n thou sands)
~~~~~=================================
Five southwestern
stat cs t
Te xa s
~s
Cattte
Mllk~~iti~' .
S.ef cattt ~"
She.p.... ..
Stock sh ~~ ~ •
Feeders
•
H
....
ogs .•• ••
--
Chickens' ••• •
Turk.ys .. :: :::
~
United Sta tes
1965
1964
1965
1964
1965
1964
10,239
781
9,458
4,790
4,662
128
702
15,459
390
10,342
848
9,494
5,185
5,013
172
924
16,010
424
18,565
1,633
16,932
6,601
6,311
290
1,2 18
24,188
490
18,618
1,734
16,884
7,08 2
6,761
321
1,515
24,811
539
107,152
26,841
80,311
26,668
23,34 1
3,327
53,os2
376,714
6,471
106,7 43
27,639
79,104
28,021
24,348
3,673
58,119
369,959
6,243
AriZona, Louisiana
.
Doos not incl d
' New ~ex lCo, O klahoma, and Texa s.
CASH RECEIPTS fROM fARM MARKETINGS
(Do ll ar amounts in thou sand s)
1963
Percent
change
549,401
490,463
272,628
658,276
2,537,790
- 12
-6
-10
-2
- 7
$ 4,508,558
$36,925,327
- 7
0
1964
Area
Arizona . ••• •••••••..••• •. • •
Louisiana .•. • . ..• . • ...•• .• .•
New Mexico .••••...•.•.
0
•••
Oklahoma • •• •.••• . ...••....
Texa s • ••• .. • . ••••• .•••••• ••
Tota l.. ....... ........ .. . .
Unite d States •. .. ...••• ...•
$
484,878
46 1,665
245,879
643 ,581
2,369,343
---$ 4,205,346
$36,748,307
$
SOURCE , US ' comm . rc lol broilers.
.
. Department of Agric ulture.
SOURCE , U. S. Departm ent of Agriculture.
3
VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
(In mill ions of dolla rs )
= 100)
(S easonally adiu sted ind exes, 1957· 59
-::::::
January
Dec emb er
January
Area and type
1965
1964
1964
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES' ..... . . . . .
Resid ential building •••• . •.• • •..• • . •• •
Nonreside ntial building • . .•• •••• . • ••.•
Nonbuilding construction .. .. . ... .. ... .
UNITED STATES •• • . •• •.• ••. •. . .•• •••••
453
164
187
102
3,127
1,273
1,155
700
504
140
161
202
3,598
1,306
1,298
994
428
186
136
107
3,346
1,372
1,1 58
8 16
Resid ential building ... . ... ..•. . . .....
Nonresid ential buil ding .......... . . .• .
Nonbuilding construction .••• .. . ... . . . .
1
Nov.
1964r
Jan.
1964r
Area and typ e of index
129.9
150.3
148.4
151.6
103.1
130.0
150.5
148.2
152.1
103.2
128.7
147.6
143.6
150.4
103.8
122.6
140.1
132.4
145.7
99.7
137.7
139.1
140.8
137.0
112.0
153.0
137.0
138.5
140.1
136.4
11 2.0
152.0
134.8
135.8
136.5
134.9
112.8
152 .1
127.7
128.5
128.1
128.9
108.8
144.5
TEXAS
Total industrial production • .. . . • ..
Manufacturing • ... • . . .. • • ....
Durable •• • •...•••...••..•
Nondurable • ••• •• • .• •• .•••
Min ing •••••..• • • ••..•..••.•
UNITED STATES
Total Industrial production • • ••..••
Manufacturing ..... • • • ... .. ..
Durabl e .. . . . . . .. . .. .. ....
Ari zona, loui siana , Ne w Mexi co , Oklahoma, and Texa s.
NOTE . -
1965p
Dec.
1964
Jan .
Nondurable • • •••.... •••• ••
Mining • • • • •...•• • ••.••••..•
Utilities •• ••• •• .• • • • • • • . .• • • •
De tail s ma y not odd to total s becau se of rounding .
SOURCE : F. W. Dodge Corporation .
p -
r-
Preliminary.
Rev ised.
SOURCES : Boord of Gove rno rs of the Fede ral Reserve Syste m.
Fede ral Reservo 8ank of Dallas.
BUILDING PERMITS
VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousand s)
Perc ent chang e
Janua ry 1965 from
NUMBER
Area
ARIZONA
Tucson • • • •• • •••• .••• ••• •• •
LOUISIANA
Shreveport • •• •••• • • •• • • • . .
TEXAS
Abilene ••••• • •• • • ••• ••••••
Amarillo .•• ••• •••••••• ••• •
Austin .... . . • .............
January
January
Decemb er
January
1965
1965
1964
1964
529
$ 1,069
321
1,769
-:;:;::::;
Lubbock ••••• •• •••.••• • •• •
Midland • ••••••••• • • •••• ••
Odessa • • •• ••• • ••• • • • • ••••
Port Arthur ••••• • ••••••• • ••
San Antonio •• • • • • • • • • •• •••
Waco •••• •• ••••• • .••• •• ••
W ichita Falls ••••••••••••••
-21
-24
- 51
93
- 42
-23
215
- 19
-12
- 32
-8
1
26
- 70
-48
68
179
Total-19 cities • ••••• •••••• ••
8,147
$72,025
6
-20
Houston •••• •••• ••••.•••• •
4
Jon. 1965 fro'"
94
0
119
1
719
17
12
55
56
-93
- 10
- 50
305
90
122
-2 5
58
168
----
Perc ent chong e
Numb er of persons
23
723
3,918
3,761
2,956
2,079
10,794
7,336
4,563
349
19,08B
2,B69
2,523
558
319
3,769
1,896
1,686
Corpus Christi ••• • •• • • ••• ••
Dallas • ••••• ••• • • • ••••• • ••
EI Paso •••• • • • ••• ••• • .••••
Fort Worth ••• • • ••••• • • • • • •
Galveston . ....... . . .. .....
Five Southwestern Stotes l
-66
74
160
307
175
355
1,660
355
563
100
1,778
185
86
99
92
1,008
197
103
Beaumont ••• •••• . • •••••• ••
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
Typ e of employment
Total nonagricultural
wag e and salary wo rkers • .
Manufacturing . .. .. ..••..
Nonmanufacturing ... . •. . .
Mining .. ..• ....•.•.. •
Con struction .. . .. ••. ..•
Transportation and
public utilities .• . . . , . .
Trade •• •••.••••• ••• .•
Finance ••• • • . .... .•.. .
Service • •• ...... ••• . .•
Governm ent .... .•• ... .
1
Jon.
196A
Jon.
Dec.
1965p
1964
Jon.
1964r
4,961 ,900
872,100
4,089,800
233,900
336,000
5,059,100
879,100
4,180,000
233,500
337,400
4,766,600
835,500
3,931,100
230,300
290,200
- 1.9
-.8
-2 .2
.2
- .4
4.1
4.A
4.0
1.6
15.8
370,200
1,184,400
253,000
724,500
987,800
396,000
1,245,200
252,200
725,100
990,600
389,600
1,138,400
242,800
689,300
950,500
-6.5
-4.9
.3
-.1
-.3
_5.0
4.0
Ari z.ona, louisiana, N ew Mex ico, Oklahoma, and Texas .
p - Preliminary.
r - Revised.
SOURCE : State e mployme nt ag e nci es.
Dec .
1964
4.2
5.1
3.9
----
@FedFRASER