View original document

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

business
•
rev.ew

november 1963

FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF DAL IL AS
This publication has been digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)

contents

southwestern farm real
estate developments . ...................... .

3

district highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

10

southwestel-'"
fal-m l-eal estate
developments
Farm real estate values in the five southwestern states reached a new high of almost $23 .8
billion early this year, a level about two-thirds
above a decade ago. The advance during the
past 10 years was a continuation of the generally upward movement characterizing rural
land values in not only the Southwest but also
the Nation since World War II. The continuation of the fairly persistent and pervasive rise
in the value of farm real estate reflects influences originating from both the agricultural industry and the nonfarm sector of the economy.
Owners and many nonowners of farm and
ranch property are affected by developments
in the farm real estate market. Farm and ranch
real estate not only provides current and potential income but may represent the accumulated savings and efforts of most of their lifetime. Ownership of land has been a traditional
means through which many people have sought
to build an estate, achieve security in their old
age, and provide for periods of ill health.
Changes in the value of the property could
significantly affect how well these goals are
being met.
Those desiring land for nonagricultural uses
are affected by developments in the farmland
market. Individuals seeking land for commercial, industrial, and resident ial subdivisions
usually satisfy their needs by acquiring open
land. Because of their responsibilities for planning and providing essential public services and
facilities, officials of governmental units are
interested in farm real estate values. Lenders
in the farm mortgage field - including insurance companies, banks, and individuals - also

have an important interest in rural land values
since most real estate mortgages typically are
made for relatively long periods.
To farmers and nonfarmers alike, the ownership of farmland has an attraction other than
just the income-producing potential. Rural
property is valued highly as a place to rear
children, hunt or fish, achieve privacy, or just
loaf. Such objectives add another dimension to
the interest in farm real estate prices.
Land and buildings comprise by far the
largest proportion of total farm and ranch capital. In the Southwest the share of total farm
and ranch capital accounted for by land and
buildings in 1961 varied from 78 percent in
the case of typical commercial cattle ranches
to as much as 86 percent for irrigated cotton
farms in the Texas High Plains. The relative
importance of farm real estate capital on these
kinds of farms and ranches, as well as many
other types of commercial farms, in the Southwest in 1961 was little changed from 1954.

rising land values
The average value of farm real estate per
acre (including both land and buildings)
reached a new record in July 1963 in each of
the Eleventh District states, according to data
compiled by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. As compared with July last year, farmland values ranged from 7 percent higher in
Oklahoma to 10 percent greater in Louisiana
and Texas. Land values within the Eleventh
Federal Reserve District (Texas and portions
of Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma) were 10 percent above July 1962.

business review/november 1963

3

PERCENTAGE AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE
OF INCREASE IN FARM REAL
ESTATE VALUES,' 1953-63
Area

Rate of increase
(Perc ent)

Arizona ..... . ....... . .. . ....•.. . .•.. . .
Louisi a na
....................
N ew Mexico . .
.................
Okl ahom a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Texa s .... ........ . . .............. .. .
Eleventh Federal Reserve District".. . . . . .
United States' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .

5.8
6.7
3.3
5.1
5.4
5.4
4 .6

1 Land and bui ldings as of July l.
• Te xas and portions of Ari zona, Louisiana, New Mexico,
and Okl ahoma.
, 48 states.
SOURCES: U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Nationally, farm real estate values rose 6 percent during the same 12-month period. Although the advance in the market value of
farm real estate in the Southwest during the 12
months ended in July was especially sharp,
land prices throughout the past decade rose at
a more rapid rate in the Southwest than in the
Nation,
Between July 1953 and July 1963, farm
real estate values in the Eleventh District increased at an average annual rate of 5.4 percent, compared with 4.6 percent in the United
States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii).
Among the individual states in the Southwest,
the annual increase in land values during this
10-year period varied from 3.3 percent in New
Mexico to as much as 6.7 percent in Louisiana.
Available data suggest that all types of southwestern farmland - irrigated land, dry-farming land, and grazing land - shared in the
upward movement in real estate values during
the period.

tions in rates of change in such land values
probably reflect differences in the strength of
the broad influences which have been common
in all the areas, as well as factors which may
be unique to land values in a particular region.
The relatively more rapid rate of growth in
southwestern farm real estate values may be
accounted for, in part, by the lower per acre
value of farmland in the region in comparison
with the Nation. Con'sequentIy, a dollar increase in land prices in the Southwest would
produce a larger percentage rise in land values
than would be ,the case for the Nation. The average value of land and buildings in March
this year varied from $28 an acre in New
Mexico to $189 an acre in Louisiana. Among
the five southwestern states, only the average
per acre value in Louisiana exceeded the 48state average of $130 per acre in the Nation.
Louisiana also was the only southwestern state
in which per acre values exceeded the national
average a decade earlier. In addition to the
relatively lower value of farm real estate in
the Southwest than in the Nation, the demands
for land generated by industrialization and
other nonagricultural uses in the region have
been important factors contributing to the subAVERAGE VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS
CAl or Motchl)

1

ARIZONA

4

••••
b
1

LOU ISIANA

Although the rates of increase for the areas
varied, the trends in farm real estate values in
the Nation, the Eleventh District, and the individual southwestern states all followed the same
general pattern during the past decade. This
similarity in the movement of farmland prices
suggests that the broad influences affecting the
rural real estate market have been somewhat
the same among geographical areas. The varia-

I

••••••••••
I

UNITED
STATES* ,.

~.iI~••• • • • •
I

•••
1

'~'~''"~
OKLAHOMA

TEXAS

1 ------'--.1
1
L
1

J

I

o

40

BO
120
DOLLARS PER ACRE

M48"OI •• .

SOURCf: US,Olporlmlnt of Agrlcullur •.

c:::J

19~4

_

1963

I
160

200

stantial rise in farmland prices during the past
decade.

agricultural influences
The trends in farm real estate values and
in farm and ranch income usually have been
somewhat similar. Following the declines in
farm commodity prices and net farm income
from the highs reached in 1951 as a result of
the Korean conflict, farmland prices in the
Southwest lost much of their buoyancy and
were little changed between 1952 and early
1954. In the latter part of 1954, however, land
prices began to renew their upward climb,
while the decline in net farm income continued
and was not reversed until 1957.
Land values for several years during the
midfifties were suppressed somewhat by the
widespread drought in the Southwest, which
ended with the return of more normal rainfall
conditions in 1957; even during the period
When the drought was most severe, however,
land values in the region were increasing, although at a slower pace than in parts of the
United States which had adequate moisture
supplies. Between July 1953 and July 1958,
a span encompassing the drought period, the
index of real estate values in the Eleventh District advanced 13 points, compared with 18
points in the 48 states. During the 1958-63
period, the District index rose 47 points and
the national index advanced 26 points.
Much of the strength in southwestern land
prices in recent years probably is the result of
the general improvement in total farm income
since the lows of the midfifties. Although about
one-fifth below the record total in 1951, the
$1.6 billion net farm income of southwestern
farmers and ranchers in 1962 is around 50 percent above that in 1956. Because of the fewer
number of farms, net income per farm rose an
even greater amount - almost 90 percentbetween 1956 and 1962. In the Nation the recovery in farm income was less in terms of both
total net income and net income per farm.

The efforts of southwestern farmers and
ranchers to improve their net income undoubtedly have contributed to the almost consecutive annual gains in farm real estate values. The
development and application of new technology
and the widespread adoption of existing techniques are means through which farm operators have boosted efficiency and lowered unit
production costs.
FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES
AND NET FARM INCOME
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT ·
nEAL ESTATE: VALUES*
INDfX,IO&7·&D.IOO

NET FARM INCOME."
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

140

1. 8

120

1. 6

100

1. 4

80

1. 2

60

1.0

o ~~~~~~~~~~~~=-~~~ o
M Lend and build ing. o. of Jut,!.
# Fi wi . 0ulll... ",lIllolu.
SOURCE: U D.porfm,nl of Ag,h:ulhlr ••
.S.

Many of the improvements made by farmers
and ranchers during the past few years have
contributed to the overall productivity of their
property. A substantial number of these improvements have become essentially a part of
the farm or ranch itself and, as a result, have
boosted the value of the land. An example of
some importance in the Southwest is the continuing emphasis placed on irrigation development; between 1954 and 1959, irrigated land
in farms in the southwestern states increased
around one-fifth to a total of about 8 million
acres.
The most marked expansion in acreage irrigated in the Southwest during the period occurred in areas where it was feasible to drill
wells for subsurface water supplies, and some-

business review/ november 1963

5

what less acreage was brought under irrigation
in sections which received their water supplies
from reservoirs and other surface sources. Extensive irrigation development during the past
decade took place in Oklahoma, in the High
Plains and more humid areas of Texas, and in
various sections of New Mexico and Louisiana.
In addition to the investment involved in
drilling new wells, considerable costs have
been incurred in leveling or shaping the land,
constructing surface irrigation ditches and laterals, and otherwise preparing the land for irrigation. One especially costly practice has been
the establishment of underground irrigation
water distribution systems.

Improvements other than irrigation development tend to increase the value of rural land.
The construction of stock water structures and
water-spreading devices, the eradication of
brush and mesquite, and the employment of
various other measures have improved the production and utilization of forage and, hence,
the carrying capacity of ranges. In eastern sections of the District, many fields which had
been abandoned or were low in productivity
have been converted to improved pasture or
timber.
Besides the efforts made to improve efficiency and output on existing acreage, many
farmers have viewed the acquisition of additional land as an especially effective means of
improving their income. Although data are not
available on the proportion of farm and ranch
purchases made in order to enlarge existing
units in the Southwest, national data indicate
a rising proportion of farm real estate transfers
for this purpose. In 1962, 46 percent of the
farm purchases in the Nation were for farm
and ranch enlargement, compared with 29 percent in 1954. A larger acreage can provide an
opportunity to utilize existing machinery and
equipment and other facilities more efficiently
and may make the purchase of larger costsaving machines feasible.

6

Since the acreages of many of the more
profitable crops in the Southwest have been
under governmental quota and acreage allotment programs, there is a strong incentive to
obtain control over additional land with acreage allotments. The existence of a good "cotton
base" or "crop history" on a farm is a particularly desirable asset, one which is usually capitalized into the value of the property and
thereby boosts its selling price.
Farmers and ranchers have been the most
important group of buyers and sellers of farm
real estate. Among the farmers and ranchers
selling land, property sales by those still active
in farming have substantially exceeded sales by
retired farmers. Purchases of farm real estate
by owner-operators have far exceeded those by
tenants. As a group, tenants probably are in a
somewhat less favorable financial position than
farmers who already own some land. Often, the
purchase of additional land is facilitated by
using the equity in other property as collateral
for the transaction.
The process of land acquisition for farm enlargement contains some elements which could
produce very active bidding among farmers for
FARM TITLE TRANSFERS

FORCED SALES

ALL OTHER SALES

VOLUNTARY SALES
AND TRADES

MYt or endldMarchl.
SOURCE: U.S. Olporlmenl of Agrlcullurl.

the limited number of farms available for purchase in anyone year or during a short span of
years. If a farm or ranch operator wishes to
expand the volume of his operations through
the purchase of land, one of the more attractive
possibilities ordinarily lies in acquiring adjoining or nearby properties. Although most farm
equipment is highly mobile, diseconomies, including losses in the timeliness of operations,
are likely if the farming tracts are too widely
dispersed.
The problem of obtaining the piece of property "just next dqor" or "down the road" may
be compounded by the possibility that several
farmers may be interested in the same tract;
sales of farms generally are fairly infrequent,
and the sale of a particular farm may be quite
rare. In Texas, for example, the U. S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 53.1 farm
title transfers per 1,000 of all farms in the State
were made during the year ended March 15,
1963. This rate of transfer is above the 44.9
per 1,000 farms a decade earlier but, because
of the decline in the number of farms, the number of farm titles changing hands in the most
recent 12-month period was considerably fewer.
This decrease in the number of farms placed
upon the market has been a major factor in
characterizing farm real estate as being "tightly
held."
The tightness with which farm real estate is
held is partially reflected in the trend in the
types of title transfers of farm and ranch property. In Texas the rate of voluntary sales and
trades during the 12 months prior to March 15,
1963, was 30.6 per 1,000 farms in the State,
a rate slightly below a decade earlier. Forced
sales of farm property as a result of foreclosure
Or efforts to avoid foreclosure and sales because
of tax delinquency have been relatively few in
number. On the other hand, a rising proportion
of sales in the State have occurred through
transfers arising out of bequests, gifts, and administrators' and executors' sales of estates.

Such transfers occurred at the rate of 20.1 per
1,000 farms during the year ended in midMarch of 1963, compared with a rate of 10.5
during the comparable period 10 years earlier.
The relatively few voluntary transfers of
farmland probably reflect a variety of reasons.
Many owner-operators who feel that their existing units are below the optimum size are
retaining their present holdings in the hope of
purchasing suitable additional land. There are
perhaps many other owner-operators who need
to enlarge the size of their farms and ranches
but have been unable to do so, and they are
unwilling to sell their property because of lack
of suitable alternatives for making a living.
Undoubtedly, the inability of many farmers to
buy or sell land at prices and on terms which
appear to be reasonable has accounted for the
moderation in the number of voluntary transfers.
The governmental Conservation Reserve
land retirement program also has affected the
sale of farmland. The 1956-61 cumulative
acreage of land under the program totaled
about 6.2 million acres, an amount approximating one-tenth of the total cropland in the
five southwestern states in 1959. The annual
rental payments for diverting cropland, together with the eligibility of many farmers for
social security retirement benefits, have encouraged many individuals to place their farms
under long-term contracts and retire from
active farming. Some landowners have availed
themselves of the opportunity of receiving both
annual rental payments and payments for converting cropland to pasture or timber land.
Many owners of farm real estate are free
of mortgage indebtedness or have a substantial
equity in their property; consequently, the
burden of interest and principal repayments is
nonexistent or minimal. This strong equity
position permits the landowner to wait for
more attractive bids. In many instances, owners
may view current returns to farm real estate

business review/november 1963

7

adequate in relation to the price paid for the
land several years ago - a view which might
change if current returns were related to the
land's current value. An additional reluctance
to sell farm property purchased several years
ago may stem from the capital gains tax the
seller would have to pay on the appreciated
value of the farm or ranch. Although farm
people are considerably more sophisticated
than formerly with respect to alternative investment opportunities, the reinvestment of
proceeds from the sale of land may introduce
another element of uncertainty among some
prospective sellers.
While the appreciation in the value of farmland can be of significant benefit to owners of
rural property, current real estate values present an obstacle to many beginning farmers
and tenant farmers desiring to purchase a farm
or ranch. Individuals with modest financial resources ordinarily need to borrow substantial
amounts in order to purchase an economic-size
farm or ranch unit; in addition, allowance must
be made for the capital needed to equip and
operate the business. Unless assistance is provided by relatives or other interested persons,
many would-be purchasers of land are unable
to buy land at current prices.

nonagricultural factors
While the changes occurring within the agricultural industry and the responses of farmers
and ranchers to these changes are probably the
most important factors influencing southwestern land values, forces of nonagricultural origin
also have had an important bearing on rural
land values. The opportunity for off-farm employment of owner-operators and family members has permitted many southwestern farmers
to maintain their farming interests even though
their units are too small to provide full-time
employment for themselves and available family
labor.
The dual sources of income from nonfarm
occupations and from farming, including the

8

TYPES OF FARM REAL ESTATE
BUYERS AND SELLERS
OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS
IA... ,rog",lil59-62. V,or Illded March I)

ABSENTEE OWNER
AND OTHER

SOURCE: U Olportm,nl ot Agrlcultur • .
.S.

use of farm dwellings and home-produced
food, have resulted in higher incomes for many
rural families than would be possible if full
efforts were devoted to a single job. In 1962,
over one-third of the total income of farm
people in the Nation came from nonfarm
sources, and this proportion was somewhat
greater for low-volume farm operators. This
development has resulted in a closer relationship between farmland prices and the nonagricultural sectors of the economy.
Nonfarmer demand for land has been significant in increasing farmland values. During
1959-62 in Oklahoma and Texas, 37 percent
of farm real estate purchasers were nonfarmers,
and it appears that nonfarmer interest in farmland in this area was somewhat greater than in
the Nation. Many nonfarmers may have been
attracted to land as an investment because of
the appreciation in land values and the feeling
that such a purchase was a suitable hedge
against inflation.
The prestige which some persons attach to
the ownership of farm and r,anch property may
have encouraged a few nonfarmers to enter the
rural real estate market, while some individuals
in certain income levels viewed ownership of

farm property as a means of achieving tax
savings. The desire of nonfarmers to acquire
land for recreational purposes has also been
important, and the Conservation Reserve program encouraged some non farmers to buy
land, especially those who did not need an
immediate income return and hoped to take
advantage of possible land appreciation or tax
savings.
The production of minerals and the search
for new sources of supply have had an especially
important impact upon the southwestern land
market. Land values even some distance from
regions having proved reserves are often affected by the possibility that mineral deposits
may be present, and sometimes this possibility
may result in speculative activity. Since mineral
rights can be conveyed separately from the
other rights to the land, the sale price of a particular farm or ranch may be materially influenced by whether or not mineral rights are
included in the transaction.
Income from royalties and leases has made
a significant contribution to the total family
income of landowners, a contribution which
was quite important to owner-operators during
the drought of the midfifties. In areas where
the discovery of new reserves appears especially promising, bonuses for signing leases
have, in effect, provided landowners a noteWorthy proportion of the value of the property
prior to the influence of mineral activity. The
attraction of current and potential mineral income has perhaps increased the reluctance of
present landowners to sell their property and
has encouraged many farmers and nonfarmers
to seek land partly for speculative purposes.
Upward pressures also have been placed
Upon southwestern real estate values as a result
of industrialization, urbanization, and the use
of land for airports, superhighways, reservoirs,
and similar nonagricultural purposes. Rural
land located near rapidly growing towns and

cities often is valued in relation to its potential
for subdivision into residential, commercial,
and industrial sites, rather than for agricultural
uses. In addition to the effect of population
growth and concentration upon land prices in
the immediate fringe areas of towns and cities,
there has been a fingerlike extension of residences and' commercial establishments for quite
some distance along highways and roads radiating from various major employment centers.
Such convenient transportation arteries have
encouraged many non farmers to purchase small
rural tracts for residences.

concluding remarks
Among the various influences affecting the
upward trend in southwestern land values during the past decade, it appears that bidding by
farmers and ranchers for land held by somewhat reluctant sellers was one of the more important. Demand for land to enlarge the size
of existing units is likely to continue in the
future as farmers and ranchers adjust their operations to meet changing cost-price relationships. The trend in the value of land for agricultural production probably will depend, to a
considerable extent, upon expectations with regard to farm and ranch income. Such income,
in turn, is dependent upon many factors in both
the nonfarm and the agricultural sectors of the
economy, including governmental agricultural
policies.
The tempo of mineral activity, the expansion
of nonagricultural job opportunities, changes
in working, living, and social habits, and the
overall growth of the southwestern economy
will have a significant bearing on the demand
for rural property. The rather substantial uptrend that has characterized rural land values
for many years may have introduced the attitude that further advances are assured. Such an
attitude is fraught, of course, with the risks
associated with any acquisitions made principally for speculative purposes.

business review/november 1963

9

district highlights
Industrial production in Texas, seasonally
adjusted, rose in September to a record 123
percent of the 1957-59 average, which is up
from 120 percent in August and is 5 percent
over a year ago. All of the month-to-month advance occurred in manufacturing, as the mining
index declined fractionally because of reduced
crude petroleum output. Durable goods production increased more than 5 percent over
August, paced by gains in the output of primary metals, furniture and fixtures, lumber
and wood products, and machinery. The manufacture of nondurable goods, which was essentially unchanged in August from the July level,
rose 2 percent in September and was 4 percent
above a year earlier. The most notable monthto-month increases occurred in the output of
textiles, apparel, and leather and leather
products.
With all of the Eleventh District states sharing in the improvement, total nonagricultural
employment rose during September to 4,785,900 wage and salary workers, advancing nearly
1 percent over the August level and 2 percent
over a year ago. Small decreases in the number
of workers on manufacturing payrolls in Arizona and New Mexico were more than offset
by slight gains in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and
Texas, with the result that total manufacturing
employment rose fractionally during September. Nonmanufacturing employment advanced
almost entirely on the strength of government
hiring, as most other categories either were
unchanged or showed slight declines.
Calls for crude oil for November have been
reduced slightly in the District from the
amounts that prevailed in September and October, partly ~ecause of a rapid buildup of
heating oil inventories. Unusually mild weather
in early autumn, coupled with a continued

10

high rate of crude runs to stills, helped to produce a record level of distillate stocks last
month. In New Mexico the October flow rates
of 39 barrels daily for the southeastern area of
the State (the Eleventh District section) and
70 barrels daily in the northwest have been
retained for November. However, because of
a reduced rate of new well completions in recent months and one less production day in
November, actual crude production in New
Mexico may decline about 3 percent.
The Texas allowable for November has been
set at 27.5 percent of maximum permissible
production, down from 28.0 percent in the previous 2 months and the lowest rate since
January. Actual crude oil output in the State
is expected to decline approximately 1 percent
from October. Louisiana has continued the
depth bracket allowable for November that
was in effect during September and Octobernamely, 31 percent of the March 1953 level.
At the District's weekly reporting member
banks, commercial and industrial loans registered an increase of 2 percent during the first
9 months of 1963. However, the increase recorded in the commercial and industrial loan
category this year is almost double that shown
for the comparable period last year.
Reflecting a high level of building activity
in the District, construction loans advanced
almost 17 percent between December 26, 1962,
and October 2, 1963, rising $43 million to a
level of $304 million. Loans to firms engaged in
services increased almost 3 percent, compared
with a 9-percent gain a year ago. These two
categories comprise about one-half of commercial and industrial loans. '
Borrowings by durable goods manufacturers,
which account for about 5 percent of total

commercial and industrial loans, rose approximately 3 percent during the first · 9 months of
this year. This rise primarily reflects increases
in loans to primary metal fabricators and machinery manufacturers. Producers of transportation equipment and "other fabricated metal
products" reduced their bank indebtedness.
Loans to nondurable goods manufacturers
registered little change as substantial repayments by food, liquor, and tobacco manufacturers and petroleum companies almost offset
credit extended to textile, apparel, and leather
producers. Loans to chemical and rubber producers were about unchanged.
Bank indebtedness of mining concerns, which
represents approximately 18 percent of the
total commercial and industrial category ip the
District, declined $5.6 million during the first
9 months of 1963, in contrast to a $17.6 million advance in the comparable period last
year. Loans to trade concerns receded $10.3
million, or over 3 percent, during the period
as borrowings by both wholesale and retail
businesses registered substantial declines. During the corresponding period in 1962, trade
concerns reduced their bank indebtedness by
19 percent.
The seasonally adjusted index of District
department store sales in September was 111
percent of the 1957-59 base, declining slightly
from the 112 percent recorded for August and
113 percent a year ago. Cumulative sales for
the first 9 months of 1963 were 4 percent
above the corresponding period of 1962. Sales
in the 4 weeks ended October 26 were 3 percent above the year-earlier figure.
Reflecting the continuation of the usual decline in sales toward the end of a model year,
registrations of new passenger automobiles in
four major Texas markets in September decreased 25 percent from August but were 15
percent higher than in September 1962. Registrations in both Dallas and San Antonio were

30 percent below August, while those in Fort
Worth and Houston were 21 percent and 19
percent lower, respectively. However, combined registrations in the four markets during
the first 9 months of this year were 12 percent
higher than in the comparable period of 1962.
During October, drought conditions continued to intensify over much of the District
and, in some sections, were the worst since
1956. In the latter part of the month, precipitation was received in some areas, but soaking
rains are needed to dispel the effects of the
prolonged moisture shortage. Range and pasture forage has progressively become more
limited, and widespread supplemental feeding
of livestock has been under way. The extremely poor condition of pastures, the short
supply of roughage, and the high cost of purchased feedstuffs have confronted some livestock producers with the difficult decision of
whether or not to sell their animals.
Despite the drought, crop prospects this year
are fairly good. The unseasonably warm, open
fall weather has been ideal for cotton harvesting and sorghum combining in western and
northwestern parts of the District. In areas
where 1963 crops have been either completely
or nearly harvested, rain is urgently needed for
the germination of fall-planted crops.
As of October 1, cotton production in the
District states is estimated at 6.5 million bales,
or 3 percent above the previous month's forecast but 4 percent less than the 1962 output.
Outturns are indicated to be below 1962 in all
of the District states except Louisiana, which
shows a 15-percent gain. The Texas cotton
crop estimate, at 4.5 million bales, is 150,000
bales above the September 1 indication but
is 5 percent less than last year. Prospective
cotton production in the Nation is placed at
14.8 million bales. A crop of this size would
be 4 percent above the month-earlier forecast and practically the same as the 1962
production.

business review/november 1963

11

The Commercial National Bank of Dallas, Dallas, Texas, a newly organized
institution located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business October 4, 1963, as a member of
the Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of $200,000,
surplus of $200,000, and undivided profits of $100,000. The officers are: Leonard
B. Brown, Chairman of the Board and President; Ken Tuck, Executive Vice
President; Thomas H. Means, Cashier; and Raymond Fields, Jr., Assistant
Cashier.

new
,neuJ,be,·
ban'~s

The Texoma National Bank of Sherman, Sherman, Texas, a newly organized
institution located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business October 7, 1963, as a member of
the Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of $150,000,
surplus of $100,000, and undivided profits of $50,000. The officers are: Paul N.
Brown, Chairman of the Board; Clyde E. Hale, President; Charles W. Burch,
Vice President and Cashier; James F. Chartrau, Assistant Vice President; and
Mrs. John C. Towles, Assistant Cashier.
The Nassau Bay National Bank of Clear Lake, Clear Lake, Texas (Post Office
Houston, Texas), a newly organized institution located in the territory served
by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business October 18, 1963, as a member of the Federal Reserve System. The new
member bank has capital of $200,000, surplus of $200,000, and undivided
profits of $100,000. The officers are: Jake Kamin, Chairman of the Board;
Ivan E. Brown, President; Curtis McKallip, Vice President; and Donald R. Cade,
Cashier.
The Citizens National Bank of Lufkin, Lufkin, Texas, a newly organized
institution located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business October 18, 1963, as a member of
the Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of $160,000,
surplus of $100,000, and undivided profits of $60,000. The officers are: B. H .
McVicker, President; Carter Waldrop, Executive Vice President and Cashier;
Parker McVicker, Vice President.; H . E. Lacey, Vice President; Murphy George,
Vice President; and William D. O'Quinn, Vice President.

new
pur
banks

12

The Post Oak Bank, Houston, Texas, a nonmember bank located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, was
added to the Par List on its opening date, October 30, 1963. The officers are:
George A. Butler, Chairman of the Board (Inactive); Robert L. West, President
(Inactive); J. R. Lyne, Jr., Senior Vice President and Cashier; and William T.
Keenan, Vice President.
The Citizens State Bank, Paris, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located in
the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
was added to the Par List on its opening date, October 31,1963. The officers are:
Jess B. Alford, Chairman of the Board; Harold T. Hyde, President; and William
C. Young, Executive Vice President and Cashier.

SliATISTICAL SUPPLEMENiIi
to the

BUSINESS REVIEW

November 1963

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS

..

CONDITI O N STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
MEMBER BANKS IN LEADING CITIES

RESERVE POSITIONS O F MEMBER BANKS
Ele venth Fe dera l Re serve District

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

(Ave rag es of doil y fl gures. In thousa nds of do lla rs )

(In thousands of dolla rs )
4 weeks end e d

Oct. 23,
1963

Sept. 18,
1963

Oct. 24,
1962

Agricult ura l loans • ••••• • • • • • • • • • •• ••• • ••• ••

1,873,049
45,766

1,890,846
44,248

1,784,825
46,877

l oa ns to brokers and d e al ers for
purcha sing or ca rrying :
U. S. Gove rnm ent securities • • • . • •.• •••••• . •
Other secu ri ti es • •• • •• •• • . .• .• . • • • . .• •• • •

274
55,450

274
56,951

17,004
44,826

1,594
246,415
94,277
2,482

1,690
245,097
80,388
2, 175

2,061
178,264
82,994
6

All other loons ••••••••••••••• • •• • • •• • ••• ••

96,704
257,5 15
346,665
943,047

102,31 5
259,76 1
328,893
921,645

95,603
195,8 16
279, 180
821 ,565

G ross loans ••• • . •• ••.••• • • . • • . • •••. • • ••
Less rese rves and unallocated charge ·offs ••

3,963,238
68,734

3,934,283
69,575

3,549,021
61,68 1

Ne t loans • •• • ••••. •• • • • •• •• • • • • ••• • ••• •

3,894,504

3,864,708

3,487,340

Tre a sury bills • • • •• . •• • • • ••• . ••• • •• •• • • ••••
Tre a sury ce rtiflcates of ind e bte dn ess •.•••• • •• •
Tre a sury notes and U. S. G ove rnm ent bond s,
includ ing guaranteed obligations, maturing I
Within 1 y e ar • •• •• • •• •• . •• .. • ••.. • • ••••
After 1 but within 5 yea rs • •• • .•• • •• • • • • • . •

102,926
68,758

141,252
67,198

187,101
92,136

Other securities • • •• • • • •• • •• • • • • • • ••••• • • .•

134,598
726,887
436,71 1
648,397

147,90 1
7 18,1 47
435,875
627,698

229, 136
578,922
510,9 17
51 5,557

Total investm ents • •• • ••••• • •.• • ••••••••••

2,1 18,277

2,138,071

2, 113,769

Cosh ite ms in process of collection •••.•• • . • • • •
Balances with ban ks in th e Unite d States ••• . •••
Bala nc es wit h bon ks in fo re ign countries ••• • • .•
Curre ncy and coin . •• • • •• .• • • .. • • • • • ••• • •..
Rese rves with Fed e ral Rese rve Bank • • •• •••••••
Other a sse ts • • •••• . • • ••• ••• •• . ••••••• • ••••

629,853
450,7 16
2,953
64,769
543,666
260,329

668,639
547,5 18
2,646
62,230
574, 189
257,579

55 1,1 15
456,24 1
2,076
61, 176
610,2 45
202,966

Item
ASSETS
Com me rcial a nd industrial loans • . •••• • • ••••••

Other loans for purcha sing or carrying:

U. S. Governme nt securities • ••• •• ••• •••••• •
Other securities • •• •• . ••••• . . • • • •• • • • • • • •
loans to dom es tic comm ercia l banks ••• ••••••••
loans to foreig n banks ••• • ••. •. • • • • ••••••• •
loans to othe r fl nan cial institution s:
Sales flnance, p ersonal Anance , e tc.• • • . • •• •.
Savinos bonks, mtge. cos., ins. cos ., e tc . • • •• • •
Real estate loan s• ••• •• ••• • • • • • • • • •• • •• •• • •

After 5 yea rs .. .................... . ... .

TOTAL ASSETS, • , •• •• • • ••• • • • •• • • •• • •

7,965,067

8,115,580

4 wee ks e nd e d

Se pt . 4, 1963

Oct. 3, 1962

599,480
557,582
41,898
596,01 5
3,465
9,991
-6,526

586,903
545,732
4 1,17 1
582,445
4,458
2,554
1,904

605,08 1
561 ,2 81
43,800
599,856
5,225
1,2 15
4,010

535,324
412,661
122,663
492,118
43,206
3,5 20
39,686

529,070
4 10,298
118,772
484,893
44,1 77
5,679
38,498

537,576
426,4 14
111,162
478,385
59, 191
6,624
52,567

1,1 34,804
970,243
16 4,56 1
1,088,133
46,67 1
13,5 11
33,160

1,115,973
956,030
159,943
1,067,338
48,635
8,233
40,402

1,142,657
987,695
154,962
1,078,24 1
64,416
7,839
56,577

RESERVE CITY 8ANKS
Tota l rese rves he ld . • • ..•• . . •••
With Fe de ral Reserve Bank ....
Curre ncy and coin • • . • •• • .. ••
Re quire d reserves •••• •. .• • ..••
Excess rese rves • •. ••••. . •••.• •
Borrowings • .• •. .. • • . • •• .. • •. .
Free rese rves •••• . •• . .•• . . . • ••

CO UNTRY 8AN KS
Tota l rese rves he ld .• • .. •.•. .• .
W ith Fe deral Rese rve Bank .. . .
Currency and coin .•••••••• . •
Re quire d reserves •• . • • ...• .• .•
Excess rese rves •• . •.••• . • ••. . •
Borrowings • .• . . • • . ..••. .•••••
Free rese rves • • •. . • • . . . •. .. •••

ALL MEMBER 8ANKS
Total rese rves he ld . •• • • . .• ••••
With Fe d e ral Rese rve Bank.. . .
Currency and coin • •. . . • ••• ••
Re quire d reserves •• . ..•• . .. . • •
Excess rese rve s • .. . •• ... .• ..••
Borrowin gs • . . ••..•• . . . •• . ..••
Free reserves • • • .. .•. . ••••••.•

GRO SS DEM A N D AN D TI M E DEPOSI TS O F M EMBE R BANKS
Ele ve nt h Fede ra l Reserve Di strict
(Ave rag es of daJly flg ures . In mil lions of dolla rs )
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS

7,484,928

Date

Tota l

Rese rve
city ban ks

1961 : Septemb er.
1962 : Septemb er.
1963: April ......
Mo y .. .. ..

7,889
8,194
8,284
8,126
8,235
8,3 11
8,164
8,407

3,9 10
4,096
4,016
3,979
4,067
4,088
3,971
4,150

L1A8ILITI E AND CAPITAL ACCO UNTS
S
De mand de posits
Ind ividuals, partnerships, a nd corporations ••• •
Fore ign governm e nts a nd offlcial institutions,
ce ntra l banks, and inte rna tiona l Institutions ..
U. S. Gove rnm ent • • • • • •• • . •. • •• • • • •• •• ••
States and politica l subdivisions • •• • ••• • • • ••
Banks in th e Unite d States, including
mutual savin gs bonks • • • •• . . • • • •••• • • • ••
Banks in fo rei gn countries • • • •.• • • . •• • • • • ••
Ce rtifl e d and offlcers' checks, etc .. ... . .. .. .

4 wee ks e nd e d

Oct. 2, 1963

It em

3,195,886

3, 185,725

3,099,407

2,686
65,572
173,577

2,725
144,144
170,36 1

5,095
203,651
239,470

1,072,366
13,226
43,564

1,213,377
13,411
69,709

1,049,9 13
13,641
46,20 1

4,566,877

4,799,452

1,083,327
948,164

971,360
736,295

505
5,452
307,181

505
5,852
309,690

2,508
6,65 2
254,802

mutual saving s banks • •• •••.•• ••••.• •• ••
Bonks in fo reign countries • • • •• ••• ••• • •• • . •

12,061
2,400

14,001
2,400

5,083
2,350

Total time and savings deposit• •• •• '" • ••

2,344,438

2,363,939

1,979,050

Total deposits . . .. . . ......... . ... . . .
Capita l accounts • • • ••• • • . • • • • • •• .•• • • • ••• •

6,9 11,3 15
242,695
127,027
684,030

7, 163,39 1
146,720
127,446
678,023

6,636,428
97,400
104,467
646,633

TOTAL LIABILITIES AN D CAPITAL ACCOU NTS.

7,965,067

8,1 15,580

7,484,928

Rese rve

Countr y

Total

city banks

bonks

3,979
4,098
4,268
4, 147
4, 168
4,223
4,193
4,257

2,787
3,357
3,836
3,907
3,948
3,975
4,005
4,044

1,404
1,666
1,886
1,935
1,957
1,963
1,983
2,01 4

1,383
1,69 1
1,950
1,972
1,991
2,012
2,022
2,030

4,657,378

1,092,340
924,499

TI ME DEPOSITS

Countr y
b a nks

Tota l demand deposits • • • ..• • •• •••••• • •
Tim e and saving s d e posits
Ind ividua ls, partne rships, and corporations
Saving s d e posi ts ••• • ••• • ••••••• •• • • •. .
O the r tim e d e posits •• • • .. • .• • • • • • • • • .• •
Foreign gove rnm ents an d offlcial institutions,
ce ntral banks, and international institutions ..
U. S. Gove rnme nt, incl uding posto l saving s •• •
States and political subdivisions •.• • • • •• . •• •

J un e • ••• ..

July .. .. . . .
August. • • •
Se pte mb er.

CONDITIO N STATISTICS O F ALL M EM BER BAN KS
Eleve n th Fe d eral Reserve Di s trict
(In millions of dollars)
-:;:::.

Banks in the United Sta tes, including

Bills payable, re d iscounts, e tc ••••• • •• • . • • •• ••

All other lia bilities •• • •. • ••••• , ••• • ••• • • . •• •

COND ITI O N O F TH E FE DERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS

It e m

Sept. 25,
1963

Aug . 28,
1963

Sept. 26,
1962

ASSETS
Loans an d discounts ••. •• • • . • • •• . • • •.• •• •
U. S. Gove rnme nt obligations • • .••••. • " . • .
Othe r securities •• •••• . • • • • • • •• . ••••• •••
Reserves with Fed e ral Re se rve Bank • • •• . •• •
Cash in va ult e • • • • • ••••• •. .• •..• •• • . • • •
Balance s with banks in th e Unite d Sta tes • • . .
Balances with ba nks in fo re ign countries e ....
Cash ite ms in process of colle ction • ••.•••• .
O the r a sse ts e • •• •• • • • .•• •••• • • •. •• .• •• .

6,501
2,806
1,355
887
184
1,176
4
7 12
381

6,370
2,789
1,330
915
181
1,098
3
638
362

5,823
2,860
1,088
906
173
1,146
4
656
318

14,006

13,686

~

1,359
7,108
4,047

1,28 1
6,901
4,02 2

1,3 47
6,93 1
3,378

• •• ••• • •• • • • • • • • • •

12,514
146
176
1,170

12,204
163
147
1,172

11 ,656
73
144
1,101

TOTAL L1 A81L1TIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOU NTSe • • .. . • •• . • • .. . • ••• . .• •

14,006

13,686

!1J>74

TOTAL ASSETse . . . ... . ...... ... .. .. .
L1 A81L1T1ES AN D CAPITAL ACCOU NTS

(In thousands of doll a rs )

De ma nd de posits of banks • . . • • • .. • • • .•••

Other de mand deposits .. ... .... . . . ... ...
Time d e posits •• . .•• •• . • • • ••• •••• ••• • • ••

Item

Oct. 23,
1963

Se pt. 18,
1963

Oct. 24,
1962

Totol gold ce rtiflcate rese rves •• • •• .• •• •• • • .•
Disco unts for me mb er banks • ••••• •• •• • • • • • .
Other d iscounts and adva nces •••• . ••••••• ••
U. S. G o ve rnm ent securities •••••••• • . .• • • •• •
Tota l e a rning a sse ts •• • ••••. . .••.•••.. • ..• •
Me mb e r bank rese rve d e posits • •.• •• . • •• .. • •
Fe d e ra l Rese rve not es In actual ci rculatio n •• • • •

577,024
25,895
1,7 10
1,281,4 13
1,309,0 18
905,295
949,224

588,353
14,875
1,710
1,300,631
1,317,216
914,656
947,689

637,747
10,905
596
1,206,595
1,2 18,096
994,683
871,88 1

Tota l deposits ... . .. ... .. .. . . . ... .. ..
Borrowings e • .. • • . . . •• . •• •• . • •• .••• .. . •

O ther liabllities e • . . . .• •. • . •••••• •.. •• ..
Total capital accountsC

e-

2

Estima te d.

-

BANK DEBITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOSITS
AND ANNUAL RATE Of TURNOVER Of DEPOSITS

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
(Sea sonally adiust.d Indexes, 1957·59

= 100)

(Dollar amounts in thousands)
Sept em b er

Dema nd d e posits 1

de posit accoun ts l

Annual rate
of turnover

Percent

chang e from

S. pt.mb.r
1963

Aug .
1963

S. pt.
1962

S. pt.30,
1963

S. pt.
1963

Aug .
1963

S. pt.
1962

ARIZONA
Tucson ••••.. •• . . .. •• $
LOUISIANA

27 1,135

-10

- 13

$ 162,4 17

20.8

23.5

25.2

Monroe .. ...........
Shreveport •... .. ....

92,661
330,985

-2
-2

15
17

55,404
178,137

20.9
22.9

22.1
23.3

54,484

-1

9

35,020

18.8

19.3

15.7

3
8
1
14
-15
4
0
21
4
-13
8
5
- 7
13
8
-3
-2
7
10
- 9
14
-3
-4
-8
-3 -13
- 7
- 1
7
-2
10
-4
17
-2
15
-4
1
-3
17
0

70,807
125,393
165,351
106,760
119,084
22,167
1,320,558
174,135
409,518
63,484
1,516,601
25,875
125,535
41,201
51,283
421,399
18,726
69,470
72,883
103,851

17.6
23.2
19.8
22.8
20.8
11.6
30.0
23.9
23.8
19.3
25.9
15.2
19.8
17.4
13.6
20.4
18.6
17.2
20.3
14.2

17.3
23.3
24.0
22.9
24.1
11.3
32.6
24.4
24.4
21.8
27.1
16.8
20.9
18.4
13.9
21.4
19.2
17.9
21.1
14.2

15.7
21.4
20.8
19.7
21.5
11.8
27.1
21.1
23.2
17.0
24.1
16.4
18.5
16.9
13.6
19.1
15.2
16.6
20.2
13.2

$5,455,059

24.5

25.9

22.8

NEW MEXICO
Rosw. II .. .... .......
TEXAS
Abll. ne ...... ..... ..
Ama rillo ............

Austin .. .. ... ... ... .
Be aumont • ... ....•. .

Corpus Christi ••••.•.•
Corsicana ......... . .

Dallas • •••. .. •.•....
EI Paso .. ...•..•.•..
Fort Worth ... .......
Galveston .. . .... . ; . .
Houston •••. ....••..

lare do .... . ....... .
LUbbock ....... . ....
Port Arthur •....... ..

San Ang olo ... " .. ..

San Antonio • .... .. ..
Tex arkana :! •.... ....

Tyler ....... .. ......
Waco . ... .. ... . ... .
Wichita Falls •.. . . .••

103,321
23 6,835
266,566
199,76 1
203,419
20,880
3,292,619
337,358
802,783
97,115
3,249,620
32,779
200,308
60,324
57,729
709,320
29, 180
99,187
120,934
120,802

Total_24 citl.s •• . •.. . . $ 10,990,105
1

11

- 5

1963

July
1963

Se ptember

123
135
132
137
106

120
131
126
135
107

121
133
129
135
107

11 7
130
126
132
100

126
126
125
127
110
144

126
126
125
127
111
144

127
127
127r
126
111
145r

120
120
11 9
122
106
133

TEXAS
Total industrial production • •• . ••••
Manufacturing ... .. .... .. . •..

Durabl •• •. •.•••••.•••.•.•
Nondurabl ••••••.•.•... .. •
Mining .. ...................
UNITED STATES

19.7
20.2

Area

Aug ust

1963p

Area and typ e of index

Debits to de mand

Deposits of individual s, partnerships, and corporations and of states and po litical

SUbdi visions.
b • Th.se figures include only two banks in Texarkana, Texa s. Total debits for all

Total industrial production •••..•..
Manufacturing . . . ..... . .. ....

Durabl •• • •..••••• . •••••••
Nondurable • ••••. . .... .•• •
Mining .. ..... ..............
Utilitie s. ..... . .... . ..... ... .
p r -

Pre liminary.
Revise d .
Boord of Governors of th e Federal Reserve System.

SOURCES ,

Federal Rese rve Bank of Dallas.

NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
five Southwestern States"
Percent chang e

S. pt. 1963 from

Number of p ersons

1963p

August
1963

Sept. mb.r
1962r

Aug.
1963

4,785,900
828,000
3,957,900
237,600
341,900

4,752,600
825,000
3,927,600
240,500
343,700

4,676,900
8 12,100
3,864,800
243,000
313,800

0.7
.4
.8
-1.2
-.5

2.3
2.0
2.4
-2.2
9.0

395,700
1,140,400
240,400
670,500
931 ,400

395,600
1,136,900
242,500
674,200
894,200

397,000
1,124,800
232,400
650,900
902,900

.0
.3
- .9
-.5
4.2

- .3

Septemb er
Type of employment
Total nonagricultural
wag e and salary workers • •
Manufacturing • .. .• •.....
Nonmanufacturin g .... .. . .

Mining .. ...... ... . . ..
Construction .. . ... .... .
Transportation ond

anks in Texarkana, Toxa s.A rkan sa s, includin g on e bank located in th e Eighth Di strict,

amounted to $66, 620,000 for the month of Septem ber 1963 .

public utilltle, •••• .. .•
Trado ... ......... . .. .
Financ e ••..... .• ...•..
Service •. ..... . .•. . •••
Governm ent • . ... .. . ...
1

DEPARTMENT STORE SALES

1962

Sept.
1962

1.4

3.4
3.0
3.2

Arizona , Lou isi ana, N ew M ex i co, O klahoma, and Texa s.
Pre liminary.
Revised.

p -

r -

SOURCE, Statc employment ag encies.

(Pe rcentag e change in retail value)
S. pt. mb. r 1963 from
Augu, t
1963

Area
Total Eleventh Di strict. . ... .. . .

~orpus Christi ............... .

~:~~~~n:.:.:::::::::::::: ::: : :

San Antonio .. . . .. . . ....•....
~re veportl La ..... ....... .. .

Oth~~'citi~;:: : : :::: ::::: :: ::

Septem b er

1962

9 months,
1963 from
1962

BU ILDING PERM ITS

4
2
3

-2

-16
-26
- 15
-22
-14
-17
-1 4
- 14
-1 8

- 6

1
- 9

o

VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousands)

5
4
7
2
2

1

-2

7

- 1

-7

Percent chang e

Sept. 1963

NUMBER
Sept.
1963

9 mos .

689
290

from

Sept.
1963

9 mos .

6,385
2,590

123
263
342
232
305
1,968
365
631
140
1,705
180
105
69
112
1,139
282
111

Total-19 cltl.s •• 9,051

Are a

9 months,

1963

Aug.
1963

S. pt.
1962

$ 2,220

$ 24,888

-25

19

-22

2,674

22,389

16

1,027
2,517
3,170
2,382
2,875
19,661
3,784
5,5 11
1,432
17,345
1,752
906
642
1,085
10,550
2,258
994

1,204
2,677
8,955
701
1,116
11,724
2,365
3,93 9
341
25,669
1,772
626
755
433
5,559
807
2,166

12,309
33,776
65,776
10,759
20,037
183,452
34,954
39,342
10,916
259,139
32,192
9,922
6,381
3,790
45,381
13,42 1
11 ,369

18
-29
14
-41
- 63
-47
-13
60
-49
3
-47
-41
-34
73
38
-39
189

-10
17
76
-17
-62
-25
67
88
-37
13
-59
-54
106
-8
0
-7
37

-24
22
36
-17
lB
-5
9
15
-37
-2
2
-24
-16
-26
-7
16
28

86,866

$75,703

$840,193

-13

4

0

1963

1963 from
1962

AR IZONA
Tucson •• •.. ...

LOUISIANA
Shrev. port ••.•
TEXAS
Abilene .•• ••••
Amarillo .....•
Austin ........

INDEXES Of DEPARTMENT STORE SJliLES AND STOCKS
Eleventh federal Reserve District
(1957-59

= 100)

SALES (Daily av.rag o)
Date

Unadju, t. d

Sea sonally
adlusted

1962. S. ptember. • • • •
1963. April..........
May.. ........
June..........
July..... .. .. ..
August. .......
S.ptemb.r. • • . .

109
108
106
103
103
113
107

113
110
110
115
114
112
111

Beaumont •. ...

STOCKS (End of month)
Unadlusted
117
117
116
111
115
119
120p

Seasonally
adjusted
110
114
118
118
120
117
113p

--------------------------------------------------------P-

Corpus Christl ..
Dallas .. . .....
EI Paso ... ....
Fort Worth .. ..
Ga lveston •• • • •
Houston • • . . . .

Lubbock • •••••
Midland • • ••••
Odessa .... ...
Port Arthur ....
San Antonio •.•
Waco ••. • . •. .

Wichita Fall, ••

37

Pre liminary .

3

MARKETED PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS

VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
(In millions of dollars)

Seasonally adJust.d ind.x
(1957-59=100) _

In millions of cubic feet

January-Sep tember

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' •••••• • •• • ••••••
Residential building • ••• •••
Nonresidential building • • ••
Public works and utilities •••
UNITED STATES ............
Residential building •• • • •••
Nonresidential building ••••
Public works and utilities ...
1

August

1963

1962

1963p

Second

First

Second

444
212
136
97
4,06 1
1,883
1,322
857

359
140
107
113
3,273
1,519
1,019
735

3,643
1,675
1,023
944
34, 181
15,662
10,929
7,590

3,320
1,428
1,009
883
31,614
13,944
9,997
7,672

813,100
183,700
215,800
1,422,600

179
109
130
11 4

166
110
136
111

162
107
126
109

2,635,200

130

127

123

First

Second

quarter

quarter

1963

i963

1962

Louisiana ... .. . ....
New Mexico ...... ..
Texas . ...... ......

898,000
186,800
222,900
1,490,300

. 1,032,900
218,200
251,000
1,587,300

Total .... .. ... . ..

2,798,000

~,089,400

1962

390
185
92
11 2
3;707
1,789
1,154
764

Second

September

1963p

quarter
Area

September

Area and type

Oklahoma ••••• •• ••

t
qr96·;r qr96·;r qr96 ;r

SOURCES. U. S. Bu roa u of Mines.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico , Oklahoma, and Texas.

p -

Preliminary.

NOTE. - Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE : F. W. Dodge Corporation.

NATIONAL PE'J1ROLEUM ACTIVITY INDICATORS
(Seasonally adjusted indexes, 1957-59

Percent change from
Area

1963p

1963p

1962

August
1963

elEVENTH DiSTRiCT ••• ••• ••
Texas . ............ ... ..
Gulf Coast ••••• • • • •• ••
West Texas ....... ... .
East Texas (praper) •• • ••
Panhandle .. . ... .. . ...
Rest of State .. ........

3,102.0
2,679.8
502.3
1,227.3
106.0
106.0
738.2
272.3
149.9
4,478.9
7,580 .9

3,134.5
2,710.5
512.6
1,253.6
112.8
105.7
725.8
271 .5
152.5
4,509.5
7,644.0

2,950.6
2,541.1
476.3
1, 130.0
116.8
104.3
713.7
269.1
140.4
4,390.2
7,340.8

- 1.0
-1.1
-2.0
-2.1
-6.0
.3
1.7
.3
-1.7
-.7
-.8

Southeastern New Mexico ..
Northern louisiana .•.....•

OUTSIDE ELEVENTH DISTRICT.
UNITED STATES ............

August

September
1962

Indicator

S.ptember
1963p

CRUDE OIL RUNS TO REFINERY
STILLS (Dally average). • • • • • • • • • • • .. •
DEMAND (Dally av.rage)
Gasolln..... .. ....... . .............

111

109

108

112

107
165
114
96
108
107
113
104
87
104

(In thousands of barrels)

September

= 100)
=

DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL

Se ptember

September
1962
5.1
5.5
5.5
8.6
-9.3
1.6
3.4
1.2
6.8
2.0
3.3

August

1963p

Kerosene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • •

184

Distillate fuol oil..... • ••• •• ••• ••• . .. .
Residual fu.1 ail.. • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • .. •
Four reflned prod ucts. • • • • • • • • • • .. •
STOCKS (End of month)
Gasoline......... .... ....... . .. ....
K.rosene. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. .. •
Distillate fuel oil..... . .... . ... ... ....
Residua l fuel oil.. • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
four reflned products. • • • • • • • • • • • • •

129
93
11 4

110
156
119
91
110

110
109
106
84
105

109
117
107
90
106

p -

Pre liminary .

SOURCES . Amorican Petroleum Institute.
U. S. Bureau of Mines .

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

p - Preliminary.
SOURCES: American Petroleum Institute .
U. S. Bureau of Mines.
Federa l Reserve Bank of Dallas.

CROP PRODUCTION
(In thousands of bushe ls)

COTTON PRODUCTION

Texas Crap Reporting Districts
(In thousands of bales -

500 pounds gross weight)
Crap

1963,
indicated
Oct. 1

1962

1961

9 - Coastal Prairies • . • .. .•....•. .
10-N - South T.xa s Plains •••• • .••• ••
10-S -Lower Rio Grande Valley ......

500
1,620
300
360
15
500
40
80
280
45
125
100
220
50
265

584
1,730
287
320
17
444
29
63
251
35
123
157
212
61
413

522
1,839
379
429
23
410
31
66
287
71
82
161
102
54
330

86
94
105
113
88
11 3
138
127
112
129
102
64
104
82
64

State ..........................

4,500

4,726

4,786

95

Area

l-N
l-S
2-N
2-S
3
4

-

Northern
Southern
Red Bed
Red Bed

High Plains .. .. ......
High Plains ••••••• •• •
Plains ••••••••• ••• ••
Plains ... ...........

- Western Cross Timbers .•..... .

- Black and Grand Prairies •••• • •

S-N - East Texas Timbered Plains • ...
5-5 - East Texes Timbered Plains • .. •

6
7

- Trans-Pecos .... .... .... .....

- Edwards Plateau ...... . . .... .

8-N - Southern Texes Prairies ••.••..

8-5 - Southern Texas Prairies . ..... .

SOURCE, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

4

.;::::::.
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'

TEXAS

1963
as percent of
1962

Cotton l ••

•• ••• ••

Corn •••• ••• ••• •
Winter wheat ••••
Oats . •... ......

Barley .........
Rye ............
Rice' .. ... .. . . . .
Sorghum grain .. •

Flaxseed •• • ••••
Hay· •••• •••..••

Peanuts 5 ••••• •• •

Irish potatoes ' .. •

~:ceae:s~~~~t.o.e.s~ :
1

2
3

1963,
estlmatod
Oct. 1

1962

4,500
25,032
37,406
14,576
4,200
375
16,946
226,760
635
1,915
2 12,160
2,646
975
40,000

4,726
32,612
43,696
15,932
3,859
253
15,801
201,006
188
2,278
222,400
2,524
1,530
14,000

1963,
Average

Average

estimated

1957-61

Oct. 1

1962

1957-61

4,298
35,820
64,329
30,406
8,564
314
12,135
248,304
729
2, 177
204,783
2,36 1
1,173
32,860

6,530
37,010
118,277
21,286
22,822
1,215
33,456
262,661
635
6,169
382,740
6,004
5,457
96,000

6,794
43,654
121,577
23,787
22,387
775
31,295
237,074
188
6,968
401,025
5,429
5,738
33,500

6,146
53,674
168,296
48,408
33,989
973
24,309
281 ,808
729
6,440
348,442
5,260
5,299
80,340

Arizona, louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
In thousands of bales.

In thousands of bags containing 100 pounds each.

, In thousands of tons.
G In thousands of pounds.
o In thousands of hundredweight.
SOURCE. U. S. Department of Agriculture.

---

---