The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business • revIew november 1968 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org) contents credit restraint and large state and local governments .... . ... . ..... .. . 3 foreign exports of texas manufactures . .. ... . . .... . .... ...... . 8 district highlights ... . . . .... .. .... . . . ... . . . 13 la,-ge state and local governments fllld The effect of variations in the supply and Cost of credit upon specific sectors of the econOl11y is a subject of substantial importance. For the Federal Reserve, the formulation and execution of proper policy action require a knowledge of the magnitude and timing of the impact of monetary policy on the various economic S~ctors. In addition, an understanding of the dIfferential impact of monetary policy is central to any attempt to make the best use of scarce economic resources and to redesign the eXisting financial structure so as to equalize the disrupting effects of alternating periods of credit restraint and credit ease. bespite the importance of this subject, there are significant gaps in knowledge about it. One o~ these gaps, but by no means the only signIficant one, pertains to the effect of monetary cOUd"ItlOns upon the behavior of state and local g~vernments. Specifically, little has been known a OUt the impact (either timing or magnitude) Of monetary conditions, especiaUy credit reStraint, on long-term borrowings and capital expenditures of state and local governments. 110netary restraint may affect long-term borrow' I lUgs and capital expenditures of state and t~cal governments in a number of ways, two of e most important being the following; in (~) Monetary restraint, with high and risg Interest rates, may prevent borrowing by n1\1U' • a IClpal governments because eitl1er the rates o~ felt to be excessive by the municipal finance 01 cers or, perhaps more importantly, the rates b ay exceed the ceiling levels set for long-term orroWing. (2) Monetary restraint is usually associated with heavy loan demand, particularly from businesses, and reduced deposit inflows at commercial banks. In periods of restraint, commercial banks, which are an important segment of the market for municipals, often reduce their acquisition of these securities in order to use available funds to meet loan demand. By reducing the funds available for tlle purchase of municipal issues, the shift in the allocation of commercial bank funds contributes to increases in interest rates and may screen some state and local governments out of the market. While reasonable arguments may be put forward to support the significant impact of monetary restraint on municipal borrowing and capital expenditures, the data available to validate such a position have been scanty. To remedy this deficiency, the Federal Reserve System conducted two extensive surveys of the borrowing and capital expenditure experiences of state and local governments during 1966, a period of severe credit restraint. The first of these surveys covered about 1,000 large state and local governmental units throughout the Nation, while the second survey included nearly 13,000 small and medium-sized state and local units. In tlle Southwest, l more than 80 large governmental units and almost 1,000 small and medium-sized units were surveyed. The following article discusses tl1e results of the survey of the larger governmental units in 1 For the purposes of this article, the Southwest is considered to be the Eleventh Federal Reserve District, which includes all of Texas and parts of Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. business review/ november 1968 3 the Southwest. After a brief summary of the general conclusions derived from the survey, a more detailed analysis of its results will be provided. A separate article covering the results of the survey of smaller governmental units is planned. With the excellent cooperation of the officials of the large governmental units involved, the response ratio was exceedingly high: 80 of the 82 governments (98 percent) completed the survey questionnaire. A detailed analysis of the responses reveals the following. The monetary restraint during 1966 had a moderate impact on the long-term borrowing experiences of the large state and local governments in the Southwest. In total, long-term borrowings were reduced by about $44 million, or slightly in excess of 10 percent of planned borrowings, principally because of high interest rates. Also, southwestern governmental units postponed, but subsequently sold during 1966, issues amounting to $27 million, again basically because of monetary conditions. Despite the moderate restraining impact of the high and rising interest rates on borrowings by state and local governments in the Southwest, the impact on contract awards and capital expenditures was quite small. Only about $9 million in contract awards was postponed .or canceled as the result of borrowing difficulties in 1966. The major reason for the relatively small impact on contract awards was the )on~ lead time between tlle related bond issues an the expenditure of funds for the issues. ). h Of the 80 state and local governments w llC completed the survey questionnaire, 31 had no plans for long-term borrowing in 1966. Of th~ remaining 49 governmental units, 45 borrowe. long-term in 1966, although 9 altered thelf borrowing plans during the year. Four governmental units did not undertake long-term borrowing during 1966, despite the fact that the~ did have borrowing plans. Thus, 13 of the .8 units in the survey altered their plans durtng the year and did so primarily because of the monetary conditions. 'tS The 45 state and local gover~lent.al U~6 which undertook long-term borrowmg III 19 f raised about $368 million through the sale ~ 77 individual issues. Roughly two-thirds of.t ~ a funds raised were obtained by general oblig . .Issues. Te h tlon net'mterest cost f or such issueS '1 . art Y was 3.81 percent; for the other issues, pnnl 63 revenue bonds, the net interest cost was 4. ds percent. About one-third of the total fun bt raised through the issuance of long-term de PLANNED AND ACTUAL LONG-TERM BORROWING OF LARGE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BY TYPE OF EXPERIENCE AND BY PURPOSE, 1966 Eleventh Federal Reserve District Purpose of borrowing Hea lth a nd Educational fa ci lities Transportation we lfare Administrative o ther facilities .---:;.;-- Experience Total Uti lities Planned borrowing ........ Net change in planned borrowing ...... Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Increase . . ...... . .... Abandonment1 . . . . . . . . Actual borrowing ......... Ratio of actual to planned borrowing (Percent) . . .. . 411,891 127,557 126,337 81,057 17,575 38,380 43,710 2,000 2,500 44,210 368,181 32,310 0 0 32,310 95,247 4,300 2,000 2,500 4,800 122,037 3,300 0 0 3,300 77,757 0 0 0 0 17,575 3,50 0 0 0 3,500 34,880 89.4 74.7 96.6 95.9 100.0 90.9 . 1 4 . . Includes postpo nements beyond 1966. 20 g8 5 ' 30 0 0 0 30 0 20,6 85 --- g8. 6 VOLUME OF BOND OFFERINGS POSTPONED AND SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED BY LARGE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BY PRIMARY REASON AND BY PURPOSE OF OFFERING, 1966 Eleventh Federal Reserve District (In thousands of dollars) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Purpose of borrowing Reason for __ postponement Total Utilities Educational facilities Transportation Health and welfare Administrative facilities Other In terest rates over ceiling . ... .. ... . . Interest rates judged too high . . . . . . . . . . Other reasons . . . . . . . 7,165 o 7,165 o o o o 17,660 2,000 200 0 8,500 2,000 600 0 2,000 0 6,160 0 200 0 --20tal 26,825 200 17.665 600 2,000 6,160 200 . . . .. . .... tatNOTE. - No long·term borrowings were postponed because of court proceedings, underwriting delays not due to interest es, referendum defeat, increase in project cost estimates, or revenue increases or expenditure decreases. Were for educational facilities, and about onefOUrth were for water, sewer, irrigation, gas, and electric facilities. During the year, eight issues, totaling about $27 million, were postponed and sold at a SUbsequent date in 1966. In terms of the dollar Volume of issues, almost three-fourths of the POstponements occurred in two months, March and May. The postponements varied considerably in length, although most were for 16 weeks ~ less and one-half were for 8 weeks or less. hen the postponed issues were finally sold, the amounts were not changed from the original al110unts desired except in one case, in which a $4 million issue was reduced to $2 million . The overwhelming proportion of the governn1eutal units which postponed a long-term borrOWing issue in 1966 indicated that the primary reason for the postponement was the high level of interest rates prevailing at tbe time. The g~verrunental responses showed that, for seven ~hethe e.ight postponed issues, interest rates were . rnalll reason for the postponement. Three lSSU es were postponed because interest rates ~Xceeded ceiling levels, and four were posth?ned because interest rates were felt to be too i 19b, even though they did not exceed the ceilgs . III terms of dollar volume, all but $2 mil:~~ of the $27 million in postponements was tr1buted to interest rate considerations. t The long-term debt issues which were postponed and subsequently sold in 1966 were affected, of course, only with respect to the tinting of their sale. More importantly, eight governmental units indicated that they had abandoned planned long-term borrowing during 1966 or postponed planned issues beyond 1966. The volume of abandonments by governmental units in the Southwest was about $44 million, or more than 10 percent of the total volume of long-term borrowing which had been planned during the year. The differential importance of abandonments, classified by the purpose of the longterm borrowing, is striking. Thus, abandonments of long-term borrowing for educational facilities (the purpose for which the largest amount of long-term debt was issued) amounted to only about 5 percent of the total of pla1l1led borrowings. However, long-term borrowing for water, sewer, irrigation, gas, and electric facilities (the purpose for which the second largest amowlt of long-term debt was issued) was reduced by about one-quarter of the planned amount. The striking difference between the abandonment experience of long-term borrowing for educational facilities, the largest category of borrowing, and for utilities, the second largest category of borrowing, apparently reflected a business review/november 1968 5 conscious decision to proceed with educational facilities despite the high interest rates and, thus, seems to indicate the ordering of priorities of the various governmental functions. In any case, the relatively small sensitivity of longterm borrowing for educational purposes is in line with the results of other studies. As with the postponed issues which were subsequently sold during 1966, the primary reason for tlle abandonment of issues or their postponement beyond 1966 was the high interest rates during the year. Thus, of the $44 million of long-term debt abandoned in 1966, $42 million was attributable to interest rate considerations. Although monetary restraint and high interest rates had a moderate impact on the longterm borrowing experience of governmental units in the Southwest in 1966, there was very little impact on capital expenditures. Of the 13 large units which reported difficulties in their long-term financing in 1966, only 3 postponed or abandoned a contract award during the year. In addi tion, none of th~ 13 ~overn~len.tal uni~ with long-term borrowlllg difficulties lfi 196 were forced to lower their spending for contracts which had already been awarded. Moreover, there seemed to be little impact on contract awards during the first half of 1967. The three governmental units which had long-term borrowing difficulties and postPone~ or canceled the awarding of contracts reduce their contract awards by about $9 million. Almost half of the contracts would have been f~r water, sewer, irrigation, gas, and electric faci li S ties, while contract awards were reduced $2. million for educational facilities . In view of the fact that credit conditions seemed to have a moderate impact on longterm borrowing by state and local governJ11 ents Technical Note The survey was conducted in tlle late summer and early fall of 1967, at which time the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas mailed survey questionnaires to 82 large state and local governmental units in the Southwest. The questionnaires were sent to governmental units in the Southwest which exceeded certain minimum size limits. The types of governmental units and the size limits are given in the accompanying table. An analysis of the results of tlle survey of large governmental units in the Nation as a whole, together with a reproduction of the survey questionnaire, appears in the July 1968 issue of the Federal Reserve Bulletin with the article entitled "Monetary Restraint and Bor- MINIMUM SIZE LIMITS FOR SURVEY 0G F BORROWING AND CAPITAL SPENDIN OF LARGE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS, 196 6 Eleventh Federal Reserve District____ Type of unit County .. ,' , . ,. , . , ., . • .. City .. , .,., ' .. . , . . , . .. . Local schoo l district. , .. . . Special loc al district , , , . , , State .,.," " , . ...... ' . State agencies, state and local institutions of higher education . . , . Size, limit, and nt unit of measur~ 250,000 population 50,000 population 25,000 enrollees ding $5,000,000 debt outstan All, regardless of size II ones All, except very s~ a rowing and Capital Spending by Large St ; and Local Governnlents in 1966," by Paul . McGouldrick and John E. Petersen. ~ ------------------------------------------~ 6 in the Southwest in 1966, the question could be raised as to why the postponements and abandonments had very little impact on contract aWards and capital expenditures. An evaluation of the replies of the respondents to a question as to why their financing difficulties did not affect their contract awards and capital expenditures reveals that, apparently, the basic reaSon is the structure of state and local finance. In tnost cases, state and local governments sell bond issues considerably in advance of any Plans to let contracts. As a result, any relatively Short delay in financing has a nominal effect on the contract awards and capital expenditures of sUch governments. This is not to say that, in some cases, the delays in financing would not affect contract aWards or capital expenditures. In fact, it was indicated that two governmental units were able to maintain their contract awards only through drawing down their liquid assets. The major finding of this survey is that the monetary stringency of 1966 had a significant impact on the long-term borrowing experiences of state and local governments in the Southwest. It did not, however, have much impact on their capital expenditures. To generalize these conclusions would be quite dangerous. It must be remembered that the monetary restraint of 1966 followed a number of years of relative ease in monetary policy. During these years, state and local government~ wer~ a?le to expand their liquid asset holdIngs slgruficantly. A prolonged period of monetary restraint would undoubtedly have more important effects on the capital spending of these governments. DONALD R. FRASER business review/ november 1968 7 fo,-eign expo,-ts of texas manufactures Texas is a major exporter of manufactured products; and with the steady industrial development of the State over the years, reliance on overseas markets has grown. Nondurable goods lead durable goods by over twofold in exports of manufactured products. The strength of nondurable manufactures is understandable, considering the resources of the State. Chemicals are the major export from Texas, and petrochemicals are by far the most important products in this group. Both petrochemicals and refined petroleum products (which are the fourth-ranking export) are based on petroleum, and petroleum reserves are one of the State's principal natural resources. The second major export group, food and kindred products, has as its root the extensive land and water resources that gave impetus to farming and cattle raising in the early history of the State. The Survey of the Origin of Exports of Manufactured Products, from which many of the data in this artiele are derived, has been conducted three times by the Census Bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The survey provides estimates of exports of manufactures, by broad industry groups for individual states. The most recent survey was for 1966, and the two previous ones were for 1963 and 1960. pa.ttern of exports in ea.rly sixties Some noteworthy changes occurred in the pattern of exports between the 1960 and the 1963 surveys. Total manufactured exports from Texas rose 9 percent between 1960 and 1963 to attain a value of almost $900 million. Foreign shipments of nondurable goods increased 12 percent, but those of durable goods eased slightly between the two survey dates. 8 One of the most impressive changes recorded for an industry group was a decrease of 51 percent in the value of exports of primary metal industries. This occurred because there had been an unusually high foreign demand f~r zinc, copper, and aluminum in 1960, a year In which domestic demand was rather slack because of a mild recession in tlle United States. Moreover, prices of nonferrous metals de; elined. Aluminum ingot prices in 1963 weJje 1 . eS percent below those in 1960, and export pnc of other nonferrous metals were also lower. Thus, the value of nonferrous metal exports would have been lower even if no large changes in the tonnages exported had taken place. An increase in tlle exportation of petroleuJ11 products occurred between 1960 and 1963, but the large gain reflected the record demand fof heating oils as a result of the unusually sever~ winter weather in Europe. Besides the usua d sources of supply, such as the Middle East and North Africa, the United States contribute supplemental fuel oil, of which Texas was a major exporter. Another notable change between 1960 ~n~ 1963 was a decrease in exports of nonelectrlca machinery, resulting principally from a red~~~ tion in shipments of oil field equipment. .'1'. JIg hn reduction reflected the slower pace of dfll d activity in the latter year in Canada, Libya,. :.n g Argentina. Texas-based oil firms and dflltn contractors had been rather heavily i~volve 9~O oil activities in those countries dunng 1 f r and largely depended upon Texas suppliers 0 their drilling equipment. Noticeable gains were scored in exports .bY ulPTexas manufacturers of transportation eq ll1ent and electrical machinery. In the case of transportation equipment, the sharp rise between 1960 and 1963 was derived primarily from higher sales to Latin America of motor Vehicles, truck trailers, and helicopters. The Substantial gain for electrical machinery was accounted for by electronic devices, such as radar and microwave systems, system components, and solid state semiconductor devices. changes in exports in midsixties There were some shifts in the pattern of Texas manufactured exports between 1963 and 1966, but export markets continued to provide a strategic outlet for the State's goods. Total ~anufactured exports reached almost $1.2 biJho n in 1966 by increasing 30 percent, which is a considerably greater gain than in the previous period. Regional specialization in nondurable goods was evident from the fact that they conStituted 69 percent of Texas manufactured exPOrts in 1966, although the proportion slipped from the 77-percent level attained in 1963. COMPOSITION OF MANUFACTURES EXPORTED FROM TEXAS $1,174 MILLION 31 % DURABLE GOODS $889 MILLION $827 MILLION r.:==::"j 23 % 69% NONDURABLE GOODS ",~,~,2. sou 1960 1963 ReE : u.s. Dep artm ent of 1966 Comm erce . Nondurable goods exports advanced 16 percent between the second and the third surveys; however, durable goods exports showed a rise of 79 percent, in contrast to the small decline that occurred between 1960 and 1963. The more rapid growth in foreign shipments of durable goods, especially fabricated metal products and nonelectrical machinery, relative to the expansion in nondurable goods exports resulted in the decline of nondurable goods exports as a percentage of total manufactured exports from the State. In spite of the slower growth, overseas sales of nondurable goods manufactures rose from $695 million in 1963 to $806 million in 1966. Even though there were shifts in the pattern of Texas manufactured exports between 1963 and 1966, chemicals and allied products and food and kindred products maintained their first and second places in terms of the value of exports. Three industrial groups - chemicals and allied products, food and kindred products, and petroleum products - accounted for virtually all of the nondurable goods exports over the 3-year period. Among aU the industries, the"chemical industry in Texas showed the largest absolute increase in exports during the period, with its foreign shipments advancing $125 million (or 40 percent) to reach $439 million. Basic chemicals, fibers, plastics, and paints were exported to Western Europe, Canada, Japan, and Latin America. Petrochemicals, one of the most important exports, are produced in the State's petroleum refining centers, such as Houston, where the value of the chemical plants that line the Houston Ship Channel approximates $2 billion. Texas has become a world leader in this type of product. Chemicals were the third most important export from the United States in 1966, with a value of just under $3 billion. In the case of food and kindred products, foreign shipments from Texas eased slightly business review/november 1968 9 between 1963 and 1966, but there was a notable increase for the Nation as a whole. Exports of food and kindred products from the United States ranked fourth among all American manufactured exports during 1966 and amounted to over $2 billion. Food exports from Texas consist mainly of cereal products, cottonseed oil, meat products, and canned fruits and vegetables. Milled rice, which is produced along the Texas Gulf Coast, is an important cereal export, particularly from Houston. Processed citrus fruits from the Lower Rio Grande Valley also find their way into international trade. The San Antonio, Dallas, and Fort Worth areas have the greatest number of large meat-packers, although meat-processing facilities are located throughout the State. With the steady rise in cattle feeding in the western part of Texas, there has recently been an increase in meatpacking in that region. Of all Texas nondurable manufactured exports, leather and leather products and apparel and related products showed the largest percentage increases. The strengtll of apparel exports, tlle value of which rose from under $3 million to well over $5 million between 1963 and 1966, is attributed to the growth of the industry in such areas as Dallas (where virtually all of the women's apparel industry is located), San Antonio, EI Paso, and Del Rio. Among the articles produced by the Texas apparel industry are men's and boys' slacks, and the item termed "Texas pants" is reported to be a particularly well received import overseas. Exports of leather products, which showed a significant increase, encompass such colorful items as saddles and riding equipment. Footwear, however, probably earns more foreign exchange; moccasins, Wellington boots, and the legendary cowboy boots are exported from tlle State. Fort Worth is the major center for the manufacture of leather and leather products, followed by San Antonio and Yoakum. 10 EXPORTS OF TEXAS MANUFACTURES, BY INDUSTRY GROUPS, 1966 PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS CHEMICALS AN DALLIED PRODUCTS DURABLE GOODS OTHER FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS ELECTRICAL MACHINERY PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES SOURCE : U. S. Depar tm ent of COnlmerce. Durable goods exports made a noteWorM advance during the 3-year interval. The ~a~u~ rose from $205 million in 1963 to $367 m~o .. . . d earlie), III 1966, or 79 percent, as mentJOne d and more durable goods industries registe~e ra large percentage increases than did nondu .0goods industries. The largest percentage 1 d crease was for fabricated metal products; and from this industrial grouping, the State export~e various forms of equipment, including. stor~d tanks and pressure vessels for oil, che~T1Ic~l, f ba paper manufacture. The significant nse JU d to ricated metal products was probably relate the worldwide economic boom in 1966. 963 and Another strong advance between 1 n1966 occurred in foreign shipments of. n~he electrical machinery. Oil field equipment lS io leading component in this · industry groUP te f Texas, and Houston is by far the largest cen for its production and is a major center for shipping the equipment. Drilling rigs and bits and oil field tools and machinery are all exPorted. Other nonelectrical machinery products are manufactured in the State, such as farm, construction, food-processing, refrigeration, and air-conditioning equipment. The manufacture of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipl11ent is heavily concentrated in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but there are other Texas centers which are important producers of this equipl11ent. The advance in exports of nonelectrical l11achinery reflected a high worldwide demand for drilling equipment in 1966, in contrast to the reduced demand for oil field equipment in 1963. Exports of electrical machinery also rose between 1963 and 1966. In Texas, this industry is highly concentrated in electronics and ;~s sh~wn vigorous growth in the Dallas area. U'ms m the area have been active in installing communications systems in foreign countries. ?ther forms of electrical equipment - includIn . g lndustrial controls, carbon electrodes, and Storage batteries - are manufactured in various parts of the State. Exports of transportation equlpment . posted an advance, with perhaps 111uch of it being attributable to the overseas sh' Ipment of helicopters from the Fort Worth area. Another Texas industry showing very rapid grOWth has been instruments and related produ.cts; the industry surged ahead with an export rISe. 0 f 9 2 percent, after recordtng . a very large ~aln between 1960 and 1963. Various measurIng d . t. eVlces, such as seismographs, and indust~~al. process instruments are exported. Within f IS Industrial group, hospital instruments (parJ~CUlarly smgical and suture needles) and . ealth care instruments are other important Iten 1S produced in the State. ex Prllnary metals are another major foreign ro POrt from Texas, and exports of such goods Se 0 Vel' 60 percent between 1963 and 1966. Copper, aluminum, lead, and zinc are the principal nonferrous metals exported from Texas; but antimony, magnesium, and tin have also found outside markets. Copper is both smelted and refined at El Paso, with the smelter having an annual capacity approaching half a million tons. The copper refinery located in the city is the largest in the world. The annual capacity of this plant for both the electrolytic refinery and the fire refinery is 345,000 tons. Aluminum, another large Texas export historically, is processed in plants in the Corpus Christi, Point Comfort, and Rockdale areas. The United States is the world's leading producer and consumer of sulfur, with Texas and Louisiana producing virtually all of the domestic supply of the mineral. Exports of sulfur from Texas were very high until the midsixties, when steadily rising imports from Mexico and Canada cut net exports. For about three decades before the midfifties, the United States had dominated the international market in sulfur. Sulfur is mined by the Frasch process from salt domes located along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. The sour gas recovery method in Texas also has yielded substantial amounts of sulfur, and production by this method is concentrated in the Midland-Odessa region of west Texas. Sulfur is categorized as a nonmetallic mineral within the stone, clay, and glass products industrial classification. Between 1963 and 1966, Texas exports of products within tIlis classification eased considerably, and a major part of the explanation lies in the fact that boom conditions in the United States led to domestic consumption of virtually all sulfur produced by the Nation. A comparison between changes in Texas exports and changes in the Texas index of industrial production between 1963 and 1966 shows, as one might assume, tIlat many industries making strong percentage advances in foreign exports during the period also made business review/november 1968 11 VALUE OF MANUFACTURES EXPORTED BY SELECTED STATES, 1966 ILLINOIS NEW YORK CALIFORNIA OHIO MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA TEXAS NEW JERSEY WASHINGTON WISCONSIN o 1,000 2,000 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SOURCE : U . S. Department of Comm er ce. noteworthy gains in industrial output. Nevertheless, consideration must be given to the fact that export data are based on dollar values, which are heavily influenced by changes in prices, whereas the production index is based on man-hour and output data, The most important export, chem.icals and allied products, registered advances of about 36 percent in both production and exports. The increase in Te~as exports of leather and leather products, WhICh rose from $200,000 in 1963 to $500,000 in 1966, was accompanied by an increase of 33 percent in the production index. Exports of both fabricated metal products and nonelectrical machinery more than doubled between 1963 and 1966, and the production of these manufactures expanded 34 percent and 39 percent, respectively. As might be expected, changes in industrial output and exports for some types of products were not always similar. The strong domestic consumption associated with the boom year 1966 was largely responsible for the output 12 increases in some industrial groups. For instance, electrical machinery, exports of which expanded 45 percent between 1963 and 1966, showed a far more substantial increase of 84 percent in production; the reason is that electroni.cs constitutes the major portion of thiS industry, with military products predominatin~. A greater demand for military goods arose )n 1966 because of an acceleration in the VietNam war. Food and kindred products, which had an output advance of 11 percent between 1963 and 1966, actually registered a slight decline in exports. The position of Texas relative to other states with respect to the value of manufactures eXported showed no change between 1963 and 1966, with Texas ranking seventh in both years. Yet, some shifts occurred in the relative eXport positions of some of the other states. ~J1 1963, California, New York, and IllinoiS, )n that order, led in exports; but 3 years later, th.e rankings were Illinois, New York, and Cabfornia. Among the top 10 states in foreign eXports, only Michigan and Washington had gaiJ1~ exceeding the 30-percent advance register e by Texas between 1963 and 1966. . IllinoiS, thet leading export state, also posted a 30-perce~ . )t advance. Despite the strong Texas shoWJl1g, fell well below the national increase of 47 percent. In terms of the broad categories, Texa~ ran ked first among the states in the value 0 t both chemical and refined petroleum pro duc exports in 1966. In the case of food productS, the State ranked second to California. . ue d Since the 1966 survey, Texas has conon arthe trend toward greater sales to foreign m. I stfla kets, if changes in the Texas index of indu production serve as a criterion. The ov~rall p~~~ duction index rose nearly 7 percent }n 19 ' 9 efdurable goods manufactures gained about p 1 re thai cent, and nondurable goods, slightly mO 68 4 percent. Through the first 9 months of 19 r~ total industrial production averaged 8.7 pe [' cent higher than in the same period last yea , and the production index reached 169.7 percent of the 1957-59 base in September. With the Continued industrialization of the State, export ll1arkets for a wider range of Texas products are likely in the future, but it is probable that chemicals and food products will remain the leading exports for some time to come. RAYNAL HAMMELToN district highlights The seasonally adjusted Texas industrial prodUction index decreased 0.6 percent in September to 169.7 percent of the 1957-59 base but ~as 6.6 percent more than in the same month In 1967. Total output of durable goods rose 1 P~rcent during September; however, activity WIthin the group varied. For instance, furniture and fixtures increased over 2 percent, but transPortation equipment declined by about the same percentage. Nondurable goods manufacturing rose 0.4 percent; leather and leather pr~ducts - as well as printing, publishjng, and a~led industries - showed a strong gain. The Il1lld decrease in Texas industrial production ?CCUl'red principally as a result of the reduction In '. 1111 n 111 g, as crude petroleum output eased noticeably. Compared with September last year, output ~~ durable goods in Texas was 11 percent 19her, and nondurables, 8 percent hjgher. e ea.ther and leather products, transportation . qUlpment, and petroleum refining and related IndUstries showed the largest gains. Textile mill PrOdUcts registered a decrease; and mining outPUt Was below the year-earlier level, with crude ~etroleum production being especially low. The oUtput of metal, stone, and earth minerals was vel' 8 percent above a year ago. n NonagricultW'al wage and salary employ~ent advanced 0.3 percent in the five southestern states during September to a total of 5,985,200. The change is slightly better than the normal seasonal performance for the month and arises mainly from a 2.5-percent increase in government employment. Although buoyed by the beginning of the school term, government employment rose somewhat less than usual. Mining employment posted about the normal seasonal decrease for the month. In contrast to the expected seasonal decline, there was little change in construction employment, reflecting strength in residential construction activity. The work force in manufacturing showed no change from the previous month. During September, nonagricultural employment in the five states was 3.7 percent over the same month last year. Manufacturing employment was 4.8 percent higher, and the number of workers in nonmanufacturing industries was 3.5 percent higher. Each of the nonmanufacturing employment categories registered a year-toyear increase, with both mining and services gaining over 5 percent. Trade employment showed the smallest advance by rising less than 3 percent. Registrations of new passenger automobiles in the major market areas of Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio were typically lower in September as compared with the previous month, Witll the decreases ranging from 19 percent in Fort Worth to 24 percent in Dallas. On the other hand, registrations in Sep- business review/ november 1968 13 tember were 23 percent above the same month last year. Cumulative registrations through September of this year were 18 percent higher than in the like period in 1967. Department store sales in the Eleventh District during the 4 weeks ended October 26 were 10 percent above the corresponding period a year ago. Among the metropolitan areas, Dallas registered the largest increase - 16 percent. Beginning in the third quarter of 1968, the year-to-year sales gains have narrowed somewhat as compared with those in the late spring and early summer. CumuiJ.:ative sales for the District thus far this year were up 12 percent over the same period last year. Daily average production of crude oil in the Eleventh District eased 2.8 percent during September and was 5.5 percent below a year earlier. Each of the major areas in the District experienced a monthly decrease except southeastern New Mexico, where there was virtually no change. East Texas showed a decline of almost 5 percent, but production in most areas of Texas eased about 3 percent. Output in northern Louisiana decreased slightly from August. The decline in the District is correlated with a lower oil allowable for September in Texas and in Louisiana. Texas established a rate of 41.3 percent of the Maximum Efficient Rate of production for September, as compared with the August figure of 44.8 percent. In October, the Texas allowable was maintained at the previous month's pace, but the Louisiana allowable was reduced. For November, the allowables in Texas and southeastern New Mexico are being held steady; the Louisiana allowable has been lowered again. Additional sales of Federal offshore oil leases in Louisiana areas will take place on November 19 of this year and on January 14 and February 25 of 1969. Most of the acreage to be offered is subject to drainage by adjoining productive leases, but many development tracts are 14, also available. The sales will include 92 tracts totaling 237,400 acres, with most of the leas~S being located between West Cameron and Main Pass. According to the Secretary of the Interior, the sales offer "great potential" in revenues fof the Federal Government, as $1 .7 billion was obtained between June 1967 and May 196 8 from sales of offshore leases in Gulf and West Coast areas. Total farm production in the Eleventh District states in 1968 currently is indicated to be approximately 13 percent greater than last year's output. Total crop production, based on latest reports, is expected to be one-fifth gfeate~ than the total 1967 crop output, and lives toC d production may be up about 5 percent. Record outturns of wheat, sorghum grain, rice, an hay are in prospect; and marketings of cattle likely will reach a new high. Harvesting of cotton in the eastern half of the District has been slowed temporarily bY recent rainfall. Seeding of small winter grai~S is making good progress, and soil moistuli e 15 adequate for germination. The 1968-69 Te)(a~ citrus crop is forecast at 11.1 million boxeS, .~; 141 percent more than the total ·a year earU and one-third above output two seasons ago. In the eastern half of the District, most pas~ tures are providing ample grazing, with clover beginning to grow in some areas. Ranges remain dry and are short of grass in the western onsection. The number of screwworm cases. c a zon tinues to mount; and by early October, An . 60 cases, had reported 279 cases, New MeXICO, f and Texas, over 4,000 cases since the first De the season. Ranchers in east Texas als~ r::,va reported several cases of anaplasmOSIs blood disease of cattle. nch Prices received by Texas farmers an d ra 9ers for all farm products during the filiSt above months of this year averaged 3 percent . eS pn c the January-September period last year. th se for crops averaged 2 percent higher, and a for livestock and livestock products were up 4 percent. In September, prices for all farm prodUcts declined 2 percent from a month earlier. A.s compared with a year ago, September 1968 prices for food and feed grains were down, but prices for cotton, oilseed crops, potatoes, fruits, and vegetables were higher. Total investments were up $70 million in the 5 weeks ended October 16, but this was less than the advance of the previous 4 weeks and was considerably below the rise of $127 million in the 1967 period. Most of the increase was in non-U.S. Government holdings, which expanded $55 million . .Cash receipts from farm marketings in the blstrict states during January-August of this Year totaled nearly 4 percent above the corresponding 8 months in 1967. Cash receipts from ~IVestock were up almost 5 percent, double the Increase for cash receipts from all crops. On the liability side of the balance sheet, total demand deposits showed a sharp increase of $150 million. This is in marked contrast to a year ago, when these deposits declined $47 million. Deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations (up $146 million) were primarily responsible for the increase in total demand deposits this year and also played a major role in the decline last year. Demand deposits of states and political subdivisions fell $41 million, but U.S. Government demand deposits rose $66 million. AU of the major balance sheet items inCreased at the District's weekly reporting comll1ercial banks in the 5 weeks ended October 16. Moreover, each of the major items except total investments showed strength relative to the comparable year-earlier period. Total time and savings deposits advanced S Loans adjusted rose $156 million during the $75 million, with "other" time deposits of in- Weeks, a substantial increase in view of the rain of only $68 million in the comparable 967 period. Indicative of the large holdings of dealers, loans to brokers and dealers for purC~asing or carrying securities expanded $58 ~Illion to a $183 million total. Commercial and IndUstrial loans increased $60 million, or aln10st 60 percent more than a year earlier. dividuals, partnerships, and corporations accounting for most of the increase ($56 million). Negotiable time certificates of deposit issued in denominations of $100,000 or more rose $32 million in the 5 weeks ended October 16, indicating that the District banks were again building up their funds position. In contrast, CD's declined a year ago. The Citizens State Bank of Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, located in the territory served by the San Antonio Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, became a member of the Federal Reserve System on October 18, 1968. The new member bank, which was organized in 1928, has capital of $700,000, surplus of $1,200,000, undivided profits of $246,180, and total resources of $22,663,205. The officers are: John A. Mobley, President and Chairman of the Board; John T. Wright, Jr., Executive Vice President; Verlyn A. Nolen, Vice President; Roscoe M. Smith, Vice President; R. C. Rodriguez, Assistant Vice' President; J. P. Hill, Assistant Vice President; Burt Burkett, Assistant Vice President; Philip E. Brickley, Cashier; Audrey F. Sanders, Assistant Cashier; Edward J. Neubauer, Assistant Cashier; and James C. Roberts, Assistant Cashier. business review/ november 1968 15 STATISTICAL SUPPLEMEN1i to the BUSINESS REVIEW November 1968 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING COMMERCIAL BANKS Eleventh Federal Reserve District Eleventh Federal Reserve District (Averages of daily flgures. In thou sands of dollars' ~ (In thousands of dollars' Item Oct. 30, 1968 S.pt.25, 1968 Net loans and discounts • •••••••••••••••••••••• Valuation reserve •••••••••••••••••••••••• • ••• Gross loans and di scounts ••••••••••• . •• •••••• • 5,960,081 106,53 1 6,066,612 Commercial and industrial loans •••.••••••••.• Agricultural loons, excluding ecc certificates of interest ••••••••••.•• •. ••• •• Loans to brokers and dealers for 2,793,167 purcha sing or carrying: U.S. Government securities ••••••••••.•••.• Other securities •• •• • • ••••••••••••••••••• Other loans for purchasing or carrying: U.S. Government securities •••••••••••••••• Other s.curltl.s ................... .... .. 6,067,128r 105,521 6,172,649r 5,242,120 93,558 5,335,678 ------2,757,522 2,514,466 88,032 89,824 99,993 108,678 109,139 186,107r 21,478 7,012 60,384 334 358,683 573 351,963 676 328,473 126,546 351,047 591,592 312,054 5,837 617,511 142,152 340,211 581,487 473,224 5,917 606,941 222,321 274,226 502,955 192,888 5,584 540,896 0 603,992 0 615,250 0 585,804 Loans to nonbank flnencial Institutions: Sales finance, personal finance, factors, and other business credit companies ••• ••. • Other .. .. .............. . ... . • • •••••••• Real estate loans •••••••••.••••••••••••• ••• loons to domestic commercial banks ••••••••••• loons to foreign banks •••••••••••••• ••• •••• Consumer Instalment loans •••••••••••••• •• ••• loans to foreign governments, official institutions, central banks, international Institutions •••• • •••• • ••••••• ••• • •• •• •••• • Other loans ...... ... ..................... Totallnvestm.nts ............................ Total U.S. Government securities • •••••••• ••• •• Treasury bills ...... . .............. •••••• Treasury certlflcates of indebtedness •••••• • • Treasury notes and U.S. Government bonds maturingl Within 1 year ..................... ••• 1 year to 5 years ••••••• • • • •••••• • •••• After 5 years ....................... .. Obligations of states and political subdivision .. Tax warrants and short·term notes and bills •• All other ................... • • .. •• .. •••• Other bonds, corporate stocks, and securities: Participation certificates in Federal agency loans •• •• ••• • ••• •• • •• • ••••.••• All other (including corporate stocks' ••. ••• •• Cash items in process of collection •••••••••••••• Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank ••••••••••• •• Currency and coin • • ••••••••• • •••••• • •••• • ••• 8alances with banks in the Unlt.d States •••• , •••• Balances with banks in foreign countries •• • •••••• Other assets •••••• • ••••••••••••• •••• • ••••• •• 2,638,843 2,533,273r ------1,158,731 1,110,631r 53,068 0 30,490 0 241,455 584,448 279,760 203,547r 597,761 278,833 Item Noy.1, 1967 ASSETS 4 woeks ended Oct. 2, 1968 RESERVE CITY 8ANKS Total rese rves he ld •••••.•••. . • With Federal Re s.rve 8ank • • .. Currency and coin .•••••••••• Required reserves •••••••• ••.•• Excess reserves •• •• •• •••••••• . Borrowings •.••••.••• •••••• . •• free reserve s •••• ••• ••••• • • ••• COUNTRY BANKS Total rese rves he ld ••••••• ••••• With federal Reserve Bank • • .• Currency and coin •••. •• ••••• Required reserYes •• • •••. •••••• Excess reserYes •.••..•••..•••• Borrowings ••.••..• ••.• •••• ••• Free reserves •• •• •..•••••••••• ALL MEM8ER 8ANKS Total reserves held ••••.••...• • With Federa l Reserve 8ank •••• Curre ncy and coin • •.• • • • ••• • ReqUired reserves ••••••••••••• Excess reserYes • •••• • ..••••••• Borrowings •••••.• " •.••...• • • Free reserves ••••••••••• •• •••• 1,183,015 122,295 0 161,712 684,903 214,105 720,918 670,071 50,847 715,179 5,739 10.286 -4,547 674,736 627,125 47,6 i1 671,285 3,45 1 214 3,237 720,090 542.129 177,961 686,086 34,004 14.374 19,630 708,047 535.110 172,937 674.339 33,708 17,33 9 16,369 656,5 17 492,725 163,792 619,519 36,998 3,17 4 33,824 1,444,407 1,214,554 229,853 1,422,864 21,543 23,731 -2,188 1,428,965 1,205,181 223,784 1,389,518 39,447 27,625 11,822 I 331,253 1'119,85 0 '211,403 1 290,80 4 ' 40,4 49 3,38 8 37,061 ------ ==============================~~ Nov. l, Item Oct. 30, 1968 S.pt. 25, 1968 9,449 0 2,299,864 2,309,313 1,255,991 29,010 0 2,198,030 2,227,040 1,228,837 196~ ~ --3-2-7~,-54-5---3-8~6~'7-1-5-- 437,~~~ -T-o-ta-I-g-o-Id-c-.-rt-ifl-c-a-te-re-s-e-rv-e-s.-.-.-.-. -. .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. 42,246 1,233,619 29,762 1,200,339 33,556 1,097,822 136,269 67,978 1,038,103 781,442 82,225 473,611 5,283 363,944 127,221 65,320 968,782 787,908 85,384 502,282 4,845 358,484 155,161 70,926 874,377 719,108 72,255 466,506 5,366 343,186 Discounts for m.mb. r banks............ .. .. Oth.r discounts and advoncos..... ...... ... U.S. Government sec urilies . . ............... Total earning asse ts.... • • • . . • • • • • • • . • . • • . . M.mber bank r.serve deposlls.. . . .. ... . .... federal Reserve not es in actual circulation.... . 1,507,135 1,502,818 0 2013,105 2'013,493 '149889 11,'354:515 .. _______ -----------------------------~ ---- ------11,308,086 10,263,398 CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS Eleventh Federal Reserve District 9,536,986 9,489,707 8,763,833 Total d.mand deposits ....... .. ............ Individuals, partnerships, and corporations •••• States and political subdiyisions • • •• • ••••••• U.S. Gov.rnm.nt ................ .. ...... Banks in th. United States ................. fore ign l Governments, ofAcial institutions, central banks, international institutions • •••• • ••• Commercial banks •••••••••••••••• • •••• Certifled and ofAcers' checks, etc ••••••••••• Total time and savings deposits ••••••••• • ••• • Individuals, partnerships, and corporations: Savings d e posits ••••••••• • • . •••••••.•• Oth.r time d.poslts ..... .. ...... . ...... States and political subdivisions •••••••••• •• U.S. Gov.rnment (Including postal savings' ••• 8anks in th. Unit.d Stat.s ....... . ......... Foreign: Governments, ofAcial institutions, central banks, international institutions •• • • •• • • • Commercial banks ••••••• • ••••••••••• • • Dills payable, rediscounts, and other liabilities for borrowed money • •.••••••••• ••• Oth.r lioblliti.s ............................. 5,677,000 3,938,240 290,947 91,414 1,243,641 5,710,935 3,899,020 240,859 267,740 1,200,053 5,391,151 3,620,394 322,818 127,132 1,209,186 7,431 25,203 80,124 3,859,986 9,374 21,431 72,458 3,778,772 2,332 20,426 88,863 3,372,682 1,044,734 2,131,667 641,050 12,835 22,900 1,045,983 2,057,084 635,631 12,835 22,539 1,117,369 1,699,047 507,704 11,718 33,344 6,500 300 4,500 200 2,800 700 636,109 229,721 651,949 240,394 421,296 184,213 926,036 894,056 940,716 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 11,343,532 2 724,317 672,425 51,892 736,778 -12,461 9,357 -21,818 (In thousands of dollars' Total deposits ....... . .................... •• Revi sed . Oct.4,~ CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DA LLAS LIABILITIES r- 4 weeks .nded 2,540,480 TOTAL ASSETS ............ . ............ 11 ,343,532 CAPITAL ACCOUNTS ................ . ....... 4 weeks ended Sept. 4, 1968 =====================(=In==m=II=II=on=s=o=f=d=o=lla=r=s,==========~~ lIem S.pt. 25, 1968 sept. 27, Aug. 28, 196:'-'1968 _____ ----------------------~----~-ASSETS loons and discounts ••• • ••• •• • • •••••••••• U.S. Government obligations ••• •••• ••.•• •• Other securities •• • •••••• . ••• ••• • ••••••. Reserves with federal Reserve Bonk •• • • •••• Cosh in voult •••. • ••••••••• • •••••• ••• •• Balances with banks in the United Stotes •••. Balances with bonks in foreign countrles c .... Cash items In process of collection ••••••••• Other assets c •••• . • • •• ••• •••••••••••••• 10,468 2,410 2,862 1,229 258 1,204 6 1,093 494 TOTAL ASSETse ••••.•• • •••• ••• •• •.•• 20,024 LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS Demond d.po sits of banks • •••.• ••• •• •••• Other d e mand d e posits ................. . Time deposits .. . ........... . ........ . . . 1,502 8,608 7,280 1,419 8'024 8,282 7,233 8 Total. dopasits ••••••••••••.•••••.•.•• orrOwlngs •• ••• • • ••••••••.•••••••••••. Other liabilities ••• • • •• .•••••••• •• • ••. •• Total capital aC'counts c ••••• •• ••••••••.•• 17,390 670 355 1,609 16,934 527 329 1,613 6:436 _15 8594 ' 43 266 1 523 ~... .- TOTAL LlA81L1TIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS· ..................... . 2Q~ -- 18 082 ------11,308,086 10,263,398 10,191 2,380 2,814 1,165 252 1,12~ 1,002 463 Esll mated. '521 2'562 2, 18 1'~36 1,14~ 972 430 --- 18 082 ~ I 39 9 .!.W.~ --------------------~~~----e - 9086 BANK DEBITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOS ITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER (Dollar amount, In tho u,and" ,ea,onally adlu,ted) ~~~~~============================================================================================= DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOStT ACCOUNTS! DEMAND DEPOSITS! Percent change --- September 1968 (Annual.rate basis) Standard me tropolitan statistical area ~RIZONA' Tucson • • •••• • ••• ••••. .. . .••. . ........•••. OUISIANA. Monroe •••••••• ••.•• . ••••..... . •••••••. N Shreveport ... . .. .. ......... .. ... ..... . . . nEW MEX ICO. Roswell ' •••••••• •••• ........••• ••• •• • XAS. Abilene ........ . . .. ..... . . .. . ............... Amarillo . ..•• •. ...• . ........ . ..... .... ...... Austin ............. ............... . .... . .... Beaumont· Port Arthur·Orange ••••.• ... • . . ...... Brownsville .. Harlingen-Son Benito •• ••... ... .. . . .. Corpus Christl . ........ ' ........ . .............. f~~~~:~> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rib~~~:':: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::: :::: : f~~~go~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Galvestan·Texas City ......... . ... ...... . ... .. McAllen. Pharr· Edinburg ............ ........ .. . . ; ;; ;;;;;; ; Therman-Denison ••••• •• ••••• .•••. ..•.• • •.•• •• exorkana (Texes-Arkansas) ••• ••... ..•.. .. •• • . . ~~e:~: : :::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ichlla Falls •• ••• ••• ••••• •••••• • . ...• •. .••• • lOTAL ---..:: 28 centers •••••• . .• .. . •.•• ••••• • • . •• . •.• • •• $ Annual rate of turnover September 1968 from August 1968 September 1967 14 -1 1 11 7 11 14 9 32 57 6 62 25 5 22 14 23 11 19 26 19 47 10 7 19 17 14 22 12 14 5 20 5,004,348 2,175,504 6,301,224 731,124 1,900,416 5,462,052 7,713,516 5,928,432 1,686,828 4,367,592 346,788 92,095,944 5,9 12,376 19,946,880 2,553,564 83,247,000 770,304 4,513,980 1,661.688 1,80 1,596 1,386,504 1,068,732 14,469,876 980,820 1,560,792 1,899,348 2,485,032 2,1 54,468 1 5 13 3 55 2 -6 4 0 4 8 4 I 10 29 4 0 - I 1 4 8 4 4 -5 0 $280, 126,728 9 months, 1968 from 1967 September 30, 1968 September 1968 August 1968 September 1967 - 1 15 29 4 14 13 8 19 7 18 13 15 15 5 10 7 6 II 16 10 13 9 12 6 $ 193,619 85,543 243,874 32,759 10 1,152 148,339 257,619 238,403 73,285 195,108 27,349 2,074,551 213,364 592,575 106,504 2,303,460 36,250 165,870 86,008 130,587 69,161 65,530 610,866 58,594 66,324 96,615 119,325 115,770 26.3 25.6 26.4 22.0 19.5 36.7 30.5 25.0 24.3 22.5 12.4 45.7 27.4 34.1 23.5 35.9 21.4 28.6 20.3 13.6 20.2 16.5 24.2 17.3 23.7 20.4 20.9 18.5 23.5 26.3 27. 1 21.5 20.0 35.2 27.1 24.3 16.5 22.2 13.6 45.3 28.1 33.5 22.0 34.5 20.4 27.5 15.9 13.0 20. 1 16.9 24.1 17.1 21.9 20.6 20.3 19.6 27.7 26.6 25.4 18.9 18.9 30.1 23.6 25.2 16.4 18.5 11.2 42.0 26.0 30.8 23.7 32.6 19.1 24.7 13.2 13.4 20.4 15.6 23.2 16.0 21.6 20.2 19.5 18.3 15 $8,508,404 33.3 32 .4 30.4 5 5 8 !goposits of individuals , partnerships, and corporations and of states and political subdivis ions. OU nty ba.I • . GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPO SITS Of MEMBER. BANKS Eleventh federa l Reserve Di strict (Averages of da ily Agu res. In million. of dollars ) TIME DEPOSITS GR OSS DEMAN D DEPOSITS BUI LDIN G PERM ITS ~ Date VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousands) Percent change Sept. 1968 from NUMBER 9 mos. 1968 Aug. 1968 Sept. 1967 9 mon ths, 1968 from 1967 1,464 $ 25,538 -23 -30 34 645 3,562 824 1,896 16, 187 19,709 -68 -45 80 -18 9 -19 407 1,041 3,62 1 1,353 923 3,662 15,966 4,089 4,832 7 12 20,035 315 1,032 638 582 753 595 10,478 352 2,301 640 1,170 1,613 10.496 882 357 3,399 38,405 3,886 6, 184 210 38,673 402 1,809 418 907 318 38 1 8,630 146 1,765 527 442 6,937 52 15,930 95,059 -17 18 12,404 140 4,115 -38 34,295 33 222,362 -8 48,765 66,642 -27 8,570 -28 9 30 1,567 47 2, 143 -6 25,266 9,863 -23 5,500 -4 1 4,424 -8 1 -2 7,380 13 95,952 -57 12,510 23 13,762 9,2 10 -46 93 185 77 - 14 181 -44 -37 -5 3 -37 51 19 61 -42 81 51 II 23 -38 -55 -7 1 _ 18 -4 6 -II 49 26 I 13 -6 - II -8 -4 1 6 - 12 9 59 -13 16 306 - 5 -49 -6 0 Sept. 1968 9 mos . 1968 404 4,538 83 491 45 11 3 413 8ro~~~m ·· ·· • 243 65 Corp e .... Do ll us Christi .. 404 EI p~:~: ••. • •• 1,734 421 Fort W ...... 521 GOI.es~~~h • • •. 57 Houston ••• • • Lored • ••••• 2,268 31 LUbbo~k"" .. 110 Mid i ...... 91 Ode~s:d .•• ••• 53 Part A · .. •••• Son /thu r • ••• 87 Son Angelo ••• 73 1fl>t.Q rk!~nlo . •• 1,020 26 Waco a •••• 287 Wlchlt'" •••• 1 a Falls • • 69 Otol ~s .. 9,1 09 ~a Sept. 1968 Total 8,797 1966, September. 9,426 1967, September. 9,655 1968. April •• ••• 9,460 May ...... 9,548 June • .. •.. 9,742 July . .. .. .. 9,732 August . ••• September. 10,066 Reserve city ba nks Country bonks Tota l Reserve city banks Country ba nks 4,080 4,408 4,486 4,382 4,453 4.554 4,523 4,722 4,7 17 5,018 5,169 5,078 5,095 5,188 5,209 5,344 5,736 6,398 6,973 6,950 6,964 7,059 7,208 7,255 2,634 2,743 2,869 2,840 2,847 2,92 1 3,049 3,058 3, 102 3,655 4,104 4, 11 0 4,117 4,138 4, 159 4,197 ~RIZONA lucson lO~ISIAN~"" • $ onroe·Wast Sh~onroe ••••• leXA~·eport •• • • Abll en A",arllf~ " " " AUSII .. . ... Sea n • ••••• • • 83,072 ------$ 124,762 $ 1,064,090 VALU E Of CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (I n millio ns of dollars) Ja nuary-September Area and type September 1968 August 1968 July 1968 FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES! • • .• •••• • • • •• ••• Residential b uilding • • .•••• Nonresidentia l building ••.. Nonbulldlng construction •• • UNITED STAT ES ....... . ... . Residentia l b uil ding • • ••... Nonreside ntia l b uilding ••.• Nonbulldlng construction •• • 626 206 221 198 5,170 2,1 25 1,8 15 1,230 806 240 175 392 6,318 2,295 2,128 1,895 636 253 186 196 5,956 2,287 2,414 1,255 --------1968 1967 5,060 2,054 1,496 1,510 46,42 1 18,734 16,416 11,271 4,434r 1,7 46r 1,52 1 1,167 41,015r 15,789r 15,235 9,99 1 Arizo na , l o uisiana, New Mexico , O klah oma, a nd Texas. r - Revised. NOTE. - Details may not add to tota l. because of rou nding. SO URCE. F. W. Dodge, McGraw· HIII, Inc. 1 3 INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (Seasonally adiusted indexes, 1957-59 August 196B September 1968p Area and type of index DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE O IL = 100) (In thousands of barrels) July 1968r ~ Area "EXAS Total industrial production •.••. . Manufacturing •... . .••••. . .. ... Durable ........... ... ....... Nondurable .... . •• • •.•••.•••• Mining ...••.......••• . ....•.• Utilities . . .. . . ... .... .. .. .. ... . NITED STATES Total industrial production . . . •.. Manufacturing ..••. . . .. ..• . ... . Durable .............. . ...... Nondurable ........ .. .. . .. . .. Mining • . ..••... . . . • •••• ...•.. Utilities •...•..••••••. . .. . to • • • p r - 169.7 194.2 208.7 184.5 123.6 224.8 170.7 193.0 206.9 183.7 127.6 227.1 168.9 193.7 207.4 184.5 124.7 209.9 159.3 177.5 187.9 ELEVENTH DiSTRICT •• • ••.•• 170,6 Gulf Coast .......... .. 163.4 164.7 166.6 162.3 126.4 200.2 163.9 165.0 167.0 162.4 129.4 199.B 165.6 166.7 170.3 162.2 130.7 199.0 156.B 158.1 161 .1 154.2 124.3 185.6 Oct. 1 Flaxseed ••••• • • Hay· .......... . Peanuts6 ••• •• • • • Irish potatoes 6 •• • ~:c~e~s~~t.a.t~~~ ~.: 1 1968p September 1967 August 1968 Septem bor 1967 3.491.1 3,036.4 604.6 1,419.9 142.9 88.4 780.5 316.3 138.4 5,556.0 9,047.1 3,591.0 3,135.1 623.0 1,462.4 150.2 91.0 808.5 315.9 140.0 5,635.8 9,226.8 3,694.4 3,189.5 605.2 1,491.8 146.3 94 .7 B51 .5 321.8 183.2 5,535.4 9,229.8 -2.8 -3.2 -3.0 -2.9 -4 .9 -2.9 -3.5 .1 -1.2 -1.4 -2.0 _5.5 _4.8 _ .1 _4.8 _2.3 _6.7 _8.3 _1.7 _24.5 U.S . Bureau of Mines. 3,475 24,232 85,806 20,876 3,584 475 28,060 354,536 744 4,566 378,300 4,382 960 50,000 Federal Roserve Bank of Dallas. NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT Five Southwestern States1 FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES' ==================================~~ 1967 Average estimated 1962-66 Oct. 1 5,075 33,955 222,015 26,754 26,15B 1,240 55,180 41 B,805 744 10,382 623,700 7,816 5,547 Bl,OOO 4,223 23,729 60,621 17,2 17 3,497 417 19,394 253,013 741 3,093 262,33B 3,082 842 39,400 2,767 18,658 53,216 6,615 1,350 350 25,908 343,485 150 3,774 333,450 4,329 810 34,000 Average 1967 4,000 27,515 150,903 11,533 18,007 909 47,943 409,267 150 9,568 558,470 7,892 5,008 11 1,400 1962-66 6,11 0 33,434 162,145 23,946 22,249 1,267 37,094 294,492 74 1 8,128 455,310 6,069 4,B07 94,000 " In thousands of bales. 3 In thousands of bags containing 100 pounds each. " I n thousands of tons. li In thousands of pounds. Type of employment -------------September August September 1968p 196B 1967r Total nonagricultura l wage and salary workers .. Manufacturing ........ . . . Nonr:n~nufacturing ••••••• • Mining . ... .......... . Construction ... ....... . Transportation and public ulilities • •....•• Trade ••••..•• • •. • ••.• Finance ...... .. . ..... . Service .... . .. ... . ... . Government ....... ... . 5,985,200 1,11 5,000 4,B70,200 236,500 392,900 5,967,900 1,114,800 4,853,100 239,400 395,500 5,770,100 1,063,800 4,706,300 224,400 3BO,300 447,400 1,360,200 289,700 920,000 1,223,500 447,500 1,358,100 29 1,700 927,600 1,193,300 436,400 1,321,600 280,900 B74,800 1,187,900 SOURCE, State employment agencies . COTTON PRODUCTION 500 pounds gross weight ) 1968, indicated October 1 1967 1966 9 - Coastal Prairies . • • • .• ... . • • .• 10-N - Soulh Texas Plains ••• • • • •• • •• 10-S - Lower Rio Grande Valley ..... . 250 1,375 260 360 20 400 25 40 160 50 70 100 80 25 260 258 937 218 234 12 264 19 39 158 23 54 98 117 20 3 16 260 1,085 177 338 18 4B4 29 42 127 27 95 134 82 33 25 1 97 147 119 154 167 152 132 103 101 217 130 102 6B 125 82 Slate ................ .. ........ 3,475 2,767 3,182 126 - Northern Southern Red 8ed Red Bed High Plains• • .••••••• Hig h Plains •• • ••• •• • • Plains ••••••.•• •• • • • Plains • • • •• • . . •••••• - W estern Cross Timbers ...•... . - Black and Grand Prairies •• •••• - East Texas Timbered Plains •• • • - East Texas Timbered Plains ••• , - Trons· Pecos . . • . .. • .. .. .... .. - Edwards Plateau ........... . . 8&N - Southern TeXes Prairies •••••.. 8 .. 5 - Southern Texas Prairies . • .. ••. SOURCE, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 4 Aug. 1967 196!..---- 0.3 .0 .4 _1.2 _.7 .0 1968 as percent of 1967 CROP REPORT ING DI STRICTS OF TEXAS 3.7 4.8 3.5 5.4 3.3 2.~ _.7 t2 .2 2'1 2=--- _.8 ~~--~~----------------------1 Arizo na, Lo uisiana, New Mexico, O klahoma, and Texas . p Preliminary. r - Revised. Texas Crop Reporting Districts Area ~ Sopt. ----------------~---------------- a In thousands of hundredweight. SOURCE. U.S. Dopartment of Agriculture . (In thousands of bales - percen,t9tsafr~~ Number of persons 1968, Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. l-N 1-S 2-N 2-S 3 4 5-N 5-S 6 7 .4 _2.0 Preliminary. CROP PRODUCTION estimated Rice s . •. . ... . .. . Sorghum groin .. • OUTSIDE ELEVENTH DISTRICT UNITED STATES .. ......... . August (In thousands of bushels) TEXAS Oals .......... . Barley ........ . Rye .... . ...... . Southeastern New Mexico . . Northern Louisiana .. . .... . p - 1968, Corn ......•.... Winte r wheat ... . West Texas . .... • ... . . East Texas (proper) ..... Panhandle • ••••• •• ••• . Relt of State ••••• ••••• - September 1968p SOURCES, Amoricon Petroloum Institute. SOURCES, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Federal Relerve Bank of Dallas. Cotton' ........ . Texas ................. . 126.3 191.7 Prel imi nary, Revisod . Crop -= Percent change ~ September 1967r 3.0
@FedFRASER