View original document

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

business
•
review

october 1968

FEDERA l RESERVE
BANK OF. DA IL LAS

This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)

contents

recent financial
developments: is banking unique? ..... . . . ... .
district highlights . ... . . . ............. ... .

3

9

RECENT FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
Is Banking Unique?
An Address by
Dr. Philip E . Coldwell
President
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
at the
27th Texas Bankel's Conference
Sponsored and dhected by
Texas Bankers Association
The University of Texas
Austin, Texas
August 28, 1968

Over the past five years and, in fact, as almost
~ hallmark of the decade of the 60's, there has
een a major change of emphasis in structure
~nd organization of businesses in the United
ta~es. Perhaps reflecting prior emphasis upon
antitrust action to discourage monopolies, but
~lso the rapid growth of small firms during the
~ll1lhediate postwar period, the recent trend may
e a pendulum swing away from the small business and into the larger aggregation of capital
COntrol.
The forces bringing this about have been the
iressure to develop laborsaving and improved
eChnO!ogical equipment, the need to extend
~OdUction to utilize fully the new methods and
aChines, the heavy capital requirements for

both plant and equipment and working capital
purposes, and the desire to diversify companies
which found their principal product and principal line of endeavor tied to only one segment of
industry and, in a few cases, to a volatile defense connection. To some extent, the move
toward larger aggregates also reflects the difficulties of obtaining qualified management, the
need to innovate in an intensely competitive
environment, and the very American characteristic of growth for the sake of bigness and enlargement of corporate influence. Perhaps even
the emphasis of the United States tax laws,
the possibilities of deferring capital gains and
of growing without tax penalty by means of
merger with noncom parable product companies,
is a factor in the new move toward conglomerates. Some of the recent take-overs and
mergers were probably originated to obtain
new funds as an alternate to issuing corporate
debt instruments or borrowing from banks.
This impression is emphasized by the tendency
of some companies to reach into the banking
industry to obtain control of financial institutions for credit sources.
This quick overview of the recent changes in
business corporate structure and diversification
of product lines has obvious implications for
the banking industry. The question we face
today is one which we have faced many times,
but perhaps in a slightly different fashion: "Is
banking a business comparable to steelmaking,
aircraft manufacturing, or a host of other industries; or is banking unique and to be treated
in an entirely different way in the public inter-

business review/ october 1968

3

est?" Perhaps it would be well to begin our
discussion of this matter by reviewing some of
the same forces impacting upon banking structure that have developed in the business changes
referred to above.
Certainly, banking has seen a marked change
in its focus over the past 20 years. A large number of new units chartered into the banking
industry have brought additional competition
and intensified the hunt for capable leaders.
Management has become a major problem to
the banking industry, in both quantity and quality. The significant changes in methods of doing
business, the advent of data processing, and the
steady encroachment of internal and external
banking system competitors have 'brought demands for management talent far exceeding
those of banking even 20 years ago.
Concurrently, the customer mix has shifted
markedly with heavier capital requirements and
demands for materially longer and larger loans.
Broadened service requirements and enlarged
roles of banks in local financing needs, as well
as the recent change in deposit mix toward
larger proportions of time and savings deposits,
have had a real impact upon bank lending and
investing policies. These same factors, along
with many others, are spurring bank considerations of mergers, consolidations, holding companies, and even product or service diversification.
The changes in banking and its responses to
those changes focus our attention even more
sharply upon the character of tlris industry and
its relationship to the public interest which must
be served. The fundamentals of the question regarding the character of tllis industry can be
stated in a number of different ways. In the
traditional sense, are the stockholders and purchasers of corporate debt instruments in a different position from ilie capital ownership and
depositors of a commercial bank? Similarly,
are the sources of funds available to banks
markedly different from tllOse available to busi-

4

ness? Are the uses of these funds sufficiently
different to require a distinctly different publiC
policy? I submit that the changes over the postwar period have materially blurred some of ~e
distinctions formerly made between banking
and other types of business, though there :emains a fundamental credit creation by banking
which other industries cannot duplicate.
Banking today must draw upon funds fof
capital growth from markets which are ta~~e~
by otller businesses as well and, in competJ~!O
wiili those businesses, must provide a meaOlngful rate of return commensurate with risk suflicient to acquire the needed capital. In many
. es tways banks with funds to make loans or JUV
raments are not wholly different from the corpo
tions which use their funds in both the investment and working capital sense. Even tbe
repayment requirements of banking and other
industries are not materially different today~ a~
business must make a return on its capital JUs
as banks attempt to do for their stockholders,
and business must repay its short- and long;
term debt just as banks must be ready to rep a
uS
CD holders and investors in debentures. Tb ;
in some areas banking is comparable to o~be_
businesses, but in the basic depositor relatlO~_
ships there is still something unique to the ban
ing industry.
While the banking industry may have manY
ses
.
.
elements ill common With other bUSI'nes sl,
there are still elements of confidence and tr~e
required in handling ilie money supply of ' h
.
VIpIC
Nation and an element of credit creation
tS
distinguish this industry from its counte~P~a_
in other business pursuits. Demand depOSit :be
bilities of banks are the major share of, SS
Nation's money supply, and no other bUSI~eDg
has such liabilities. Moreover, only the baD , en
system can multiply iliese deposits on a glV
base of excess reserves.
b nl<In the use of the lendable funds and the \a s
ing industry's competitive position, there oW
been a shift of positions which perhapS n

should be recognized in the public mind and ill
governmental control and regulation of this indUstry. While banks provide a large share of
the working funds for business operations and
growth, the new world of business has found
Other sources and other techniques to meet
these same requirements. Banking today is not
the only source of funds and, in fact, in some
areas is a declining source. The growth of Federal credit sources for agriculture and business,
the growth of Euro-dollar financing, the substantial enlargement of the commercial paper
tnarket, and the heavy corporate financing
issues may all be symptoms of the multiplicity
of sources of funds competing with the traditional banking industry.
Even within the financial institutional structure there have been changes permitting savings
and loan associations, insurance companies,
~redit unions, factoring groups, and even private
InVestors to absorb larger and larger roles in
the provision of funds for routine lending transactions. To meet the profit impact of this intense competition for their traditional role as
lenders in the short run, banks have sought
both to merge into larger units and to expand
their influence into other industries by onebank holding company relationships, ownership
of equities through trust and investment acCOunts, and finally the creation of subsidiary
corporations largely devoted to nonbank and
eVen nonfinancial pursuits.
. One of the central questions of today, then,
IS "Should this trend be permitted, encouraged,
Or diScouraged in the public interest?" It has
~een a basic tenet of regulation in the banking
IndUstry that banks are supervised and regulated
because the public interest requires regulation
of an industry whose deposits serve as the
:oney supply or savings of the people and
ecause the depositor needs protection from
UnSOund banking practices, mismanagement,
~nd other similar problems of the past. Regulation 1
.
,.
las focused upon fostenng competltion

among financial institutions and within the
banking industry and yet preserving a protected
position for banks.
The merger cases of today are replete with
considerations of the competitive or anticompetitive factors impinging upon a particular situation. Public policy has encouraged new bank
formations in specific situations and has broadened the authority of nonbank financial competitors. We must also recognize though that regulation has, to some extent, protected the banking
industry, for entrance into this industry must be
by charter, approved by a public body, and
limits on the cost of the funds are similarly
regulated to protect against the banker who
seeks a quick profit despite the marginal cost of
the funds.
Regulation is thus a two-way street for the
banking industry, but probably few other industries are required to maintain as detailed
records and reports to reflect developments
which might impinge upon public policy requirements. Banking is unique in this respect and in
respect to national monetary policy, although
even here the events of the past 25 years now
seem to dictate a much wider scope for policies
to be set in the national interest to encompass
more of those industries which provide capital
and working funds, rather than just strictly the
commercial banking industry.
Some observers have suggested that the fulcrum upon which monetary policy operates
should be widened substantially to include all
basic financial institutions, whether of a bank
or nonbank character. Such a move, if ever accomplished, may be feasible only through the
extension of reserve requirements to all banking
institutions. The Nation expects an equitable
and efficient monetary policy, but that policy
must be effectuated in its primary impact only
through the member commercial banks. Other
observers have contended that in recent years,
because of the small base from which monetary
policy must be implemented, the actions of the

business review/ october 1968

5

monetary authorities have been accentuated
perhaps beyond the needs of the moment in
order to have the ramifying effects necessary in
other segments of the economy.
Recent publicized discussions seem to imply
that the nonmember bank responds to monetary
restraint in the same way as the member bank
and that extension of reserve requirements is,
therefore, not needed. In fact, reference was
made to the late summer of 1966 as an example
demonstrating the overall effectiveness of monetary policy, even with its limited base. In my
opinion, the heavy-handed restraint of that period demonstrates both the inequities and the
effectiveness of monetary policy. If a much
broader base were developed, policy moves
might be somewhat more moderate, but broadening the base of monetary action will by no
means guarantee perfect timing or results, nor
perfect equity in application. Whether a broader
base might moderate the excess, s of tightness
e
or ease in policy actions, the rapid and overcorrecting swings in policy, or provide for
quicker impact upon all elements has not yet
been proven or accepted.
The broadening of authority in nonbank
financial institutions, especially the savings and
loan associations through the recently passed
Housing Act, will further intensify direct competition with the banking industry by institutions which are not subject to the same rules and
regulations as banking and which do not have
the responsibilities in the field of basic monetary
policy implementation for the entire economy.
One could say some of the same things about
credit unions, insurance companies, mutual
savings banks, factoring companies, and even
some of tbe major corporations though the direct relationships to banking are much weaker.
If monetary policy is to continue to accept the
primary burden of stabilization control - and
it would appear that this is a logical conclusion
from the most recent difficulties of obtaining
fiscal action - then I submit that monetary

6

policy should be based as broadly as is needed
for effective control, with equitable impacts on
all elements of tlle economy and with as prompt
reflection of action in these elements as can be
achieved.
As can be seen by the matters heretofore
mentioned, I believe there remains a unique
character to the banking industry which requires more than usual public surveillance and
even regulation in the public interest. Perhaps
we should recapitulate the elements which set
this industry apart from other businesses.
First, the banking industry operates in. a
manner which creates credit with a multiplier
tbrough lending and deposit creation. No other
industry can achieve this, and the power to do
this warrants careful attention. Secondly, the
power of creation and the element of expans~on
tbrough credit are fundamental to the well- betng
of the Nation's economy and must be closely
controlled to avoid the excesses of expansion
and contraction which are inherent in the system. Thirdly, banking represents a part of th~
financial structure of the Nation which, throug 1
its efforts, must retain the confidence of the
people in the integrity and safety of their currency. Thus, it is in the public interest to regulate banking, supervise its operations, and ref
quire its adherence to bOtll basic principles :t
conduct and rules to set the aggregate of cr~ I
wtng
use in the best interests of a sound and gro
economy.
. n of
There still remains a debatable questi O h
how many restraints are required, ho,: ~u~ S
regulation is needed, and whether the pnnclP. e
g
and implementation of regulation are keepl~ I
pace with the changing economic and finan~lag
sln
.
envIronment. We could spend hours d'IS cus d
. . nan ,
the need for each regulation or restrl ctlo .. of
similarly, many hours debating the O1ell.ts 1
the present structure of regulatory agenCI~S. s
on
.
would rather dISCUSS the last of th ese qu estJ ts,
for I believe it contains most of the elemen
which can answer the first two questions.

In a slightly different wording, then, I proPose to look at the question of whether regulation is keeping pace or is unduly restricting the
growth and diversification of banking. While I
Would insist upon the basic tenet that regulation is required, I am convinced that it need not
be repressive and, in fact, should encourage
SOUnd expansion and better service to a steadily
wider range of customers.
It seems to me tI1at a wider range of opportunities could be opened to the banking indust:y, in keeping with some of those opportunibes which other industries and corporations
have developed in diversifying their sources of
funds and possibilities for profit. The opportunities for diversification are apparent even in
bank-related activities.
The overseas or foreign investment, lending,
and servicing activities represent a broad field
?f endeavor which offers possibilities inherent
III the Euro-dollar, Euro-bond, and other Euro~Urrency transactions, opportunities in financ109 foreign manufacturing and trade outlets,
~lld increasing opportunities for export financIng. These would appear to be a natural concOmitant of domestic banking activities, and I
Would encourage the banks of this District to
lOok toward such foreign connections, especially
With Our neighbors to the South. At present,
of course, I must reserve my encouragement
to those who can enter these fields through
branches, Edge Act corporations, and equity
~Wnership of foreign banks within the guide;lles of the Voluntary Foreign Credit Restraint
rogram. Even within this program, however,
there are elements of opportunity which only a
few of you have started to explore.
Other opportunities in bank-related areas inClUde the computer servicing of customer acCOunts, insurance relationships for loan acCOunts, the entire range of computer handling
?f billings, and the resultant closer ties to such
I~dustries as utilities, department stores, and
011 companies. It does not seem unreasonable

to me to permit banks to utilize fully tlle potentials of their computer installations in any way
which retains an arm's-length dealing with customers. Even the on-line real-time applications
and rentals look like possibilities where bank
computer capacity exceeds that needed for
routine operations. Certainly, the concentrations of bookkeeping and check handling are
ideal uses for bank computers for both other
banks and even nonbank financial institutions.
In fact, I can visualize the central handling of
checks as a step in the direction of direct funds
transfers, either as an initial collecting point or
as ultimate checkless operations. So much progress has been made along these lines that the
mechanism for remittances has fallen out of
step and needs updating to a modern automatic
charge plan for all banks. We hope to introduce
such a plan for District-wide use by early 1969.
The remaining point in our discussion of
bank expansion and diversification concerns
bank ownership or participation in nonfinancial enterprises in a manner similar to conglomerates.
Some qualified observers of the banking industry argue that if nonbank holding companies can purchase banks, then banks should
be permitted equal rights in purchasing nonbank enterprises. This assumes that it is in the
public interest to permit bank ownership by
such holding companies. I suggest that there
are at least a few undesirable elements to such
ownership. If, as we contended previously, tlle
banking industry retains a unique flavor by
position, authorities, and operations, entry into
this field must be carefully controlled. We do
limit the establishment of new banks, but the
transfer of ownership of existing banks is almost unregulated.
I have previously spoken about the abuses I
see in the bank stock loan arrangements. There
are similar potential abuses in the holding company purchases of banks. Let me hasten to say
that I do not favor a legislative prohibition on

business review/ october 1968

7

such transfers, but merely regulation to limit
the abuses and to keep the most dedicated, competent bank management free from stockholder
pressures to accommodate loans which are
questionable credits. Of course, we cannot indict all holding company ownership nor all
owners who obtain bank stock loans, but there
are sufficient evidences of abuse which appear
to warrant some control.
Where does this leave us with regard to
bank diversification into nonbank-related activities? Can we establish a significant difference
between the bank as the parent versus the bank
as the subsidiary? I am hard pressed to draw
too fine a line of demarcation, but I believe
there is a gray area within which it would still
be in the public interest to permit bank expansion and diversification while limiting, in like
fashion, bank take-overs by nonfinancial holding companies.
Stated in another way, I can see possibilities
of bank investment and ownership of industries
related to banking and industries which require
the management talent and credit sources available at banking institutions; but I suggest that
there are sufficiently unique characteristics in
banking to limit the willingness of supervisors
and legislators, to permit only a smaller and
more restrictive range of acquisition of these
outside corporations.
The apparent trend toward a departmentstore concept of financial institution which could
offer the services of all present types suggests a
reconsideration of the separation of banking
and investment functions in our economy. In
my opinion, we have already come a long way
toward the blending of certain functions, though
I will readily admit that the deposit creation
powers of the banking system have not as yet
been passed to the other, nonbank financial institutions. I am prepared to agree to a restudy
of this relationship to see if the abuses and
dangers which brought separation in the 1930's

8

are still present in the environment of the
1960's. We have come a long way in modifying
our financial structure in tlle past 30 years, and
perhaps this separation is one of those carryover restraints which need no longer exist. I do
not know the answer but suggest that a reappraisal after 30 years is not unreasonable.
Another area in which change has outdated
regulation is in the Federal Reserve discount
window. Fortunately, a study has been made of
this regulation, and the suggested changes are
in your hands. I hope you will study them ca~~­
fully and send to us your comments and c[1tJcisms. We want to make the discount mechanism as useful and helpful a tool as possib)~
within the requirements of maintaining ove~al
monetary control. I think the new mechaDlS01
will do just that, but we need your thoughts
about it.
. to
A part of the new discount approach IS d
help the banks meet short-run adjustments an
enable them to devote most of their lendable
funds to helping their communities. Certainly,
the banking community needs to grow with the
commercial community, for if units of the ban)c~
ing industry do not keep pace with the size 0
thei r customers, then the servicing of these
. to
customers must be steadily concentrated In .
the hands of only a few very large banks. ThIS
would represent to me a greater hazard f~r
competition and be farther away from the pu lic interest than if banking were permitted to
ex~and into other fields or, certainly, groW bY
mergers and holding companies.
'f the
It would seem unfortunate to me 1 VI
banks of the Eleventh District could not gr~e
to meet their customers' needs and handle h'J1
credit requirements of these customers wit I
.
.
future,
thiS regIOn. In terms of the near-term
. n
. '
'd ex pan slOte
this must obvlOusly mean some rapl
u
of a sizable number of banks by whatever ro
he
is determined feasible and will best serve t
public interest.

district highlights
Industrial production in Texas during August
is estimated at 170.0 percent of its 1957-59
base, up fractionally from the July level but
about the same as in June. In manufacturing,
tbe production of both durable and nondurable
goods held slightly above the respective July
levels. Most of the month-to-month changes in
output of the manufacturing industries were
Stnall and largely offsetting. Mining output rose
about 1 percent, with strength especially evident in the metal, stone, and earth minerals
industry.
As compared witll August 1967, total industrial production in the State was up 4.5 percent.
Tbe output of durable manufactures was 11
percent larger; and nondurables, nearly 8 perCent higher. The strong performance in manufacturing was partially offset by a year-to-year
decrease of 5 percent in mining output, due
entirely to the lower level of crude petroleum
Production. Crude petroleum output last year
Was quite high as a result of the demands steml11ing from the Middle East oil crisis.
In August, nonagricultural wage and salary
el11ployment in the five soutllwestern states
tOtaled 5,958,000, down fractionally from the
previous month. The month-to-month easing
~as about as seasonally expected. ManufacturIng employment also decreased seasonally in
AUgust, but nonmanufacturing employment declined slightly more than is usual for this time
of the year. Within the nonmanufacturing sectOr, construction and government employment
each showed a little less than the usual strength.
Total southwestern nonagricultural employl11ent in August was 3.8 percent above a year
earlier, with the manufacturing work force
ShoWing a gain of nearly 5 percent. The number
o£ Workers in nonmanufacturing industries ex-

ceeded a year ago by 3.5 percent; mining and
services posted the largest increases among the
non manufacturing categories.
In the Eleventh District, daily average production of crude oil declined 1 percent during
August and was almost 8 percent below output
in the same month last year. Texas posted a
larger monthly decrease than the District as a
whole, with east Texas having a decrease of
2.4 percent. Southeastern New Mexico and
northern Louisiana showed very little change
for the month. Production in virtually every
area in the District declined on a year-to-year
basis. As was true during July, comparison of
August output with a year earlier reflected the
extraordinarily high levels of output last year
stemming from the Middle East crisis. The
Texas allowable was set at 44.8 percent and
41.3 percent of the Maximum Efficient Rate of
production for August and September, respectively. For October, tlle Texas allowable is unchanged, and iliere is a small reduction in the
Louisiana allowable.
Capline, the Nation's largest crude oil pipeline, has begun to deliver oil from southern and
offshore Louisiana to ilie Middle West; and
throughput at the end of September is estimated at 300,000 barrels per day. Eventually,
the pipeline is expected to deliver 1 million barrels per day. Many connecting pipelines need to
be completed before Capline can reach full
capacity. Yet to be resolved is the problem of
the allocation of the middle western crude oil
market between Canadian and southwestern
crude oil suppliers.
August registrations of new passenger automobiles in the major market areas of Dallas,
Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio were

business review/ october 1968

9

6 percent lower than in the previous month but
18 percent higher than in the same month a
year ago. Cumulative registrations were up in
each of the markets, and the total for the four
areas was 18 percent above the January-August
period last year.
Department store sales in the Eleventh District in the 4 weeks ended September 21 were
15 percent more than in the corresponding period in 1967; both periods included the Labor
Day holiday. Cumulative sales were 13 percent stronger than in the comparable period
last year.
Cotton conditions in the five Eleventh District
states have improved; and, as of September 1,
production in 1968 is expected to be around
5 million bales, or 1 million bales greater than
the 1967 crop. Estimates of sorghum grain
production and rice output have been reduced
slightly, but outturns for both crops are indicated to be higher than their respective 1967
figures . Much of the increased production of
these two crops can be attributed to the abovenormal moisture conditions that have prevailed
over most of the District.
Range and livestock conditions are about
normal; the eastern section has been receiving
adequate rainfall, while the western half of the
District is experiencing dry weather and deteriorating grazing conditions. On September 1,
there were 855,000 head of cattle and calves on
feed in Texas for slaughter market, which is 39
percent above the number on feed a year ago.
Placements during August totaled 215,000
head.
Prices received by Texas farmers and ranchers for all farm products during January-August
averaged 2 percent above the corresponding
period last year. Prices for crops were up 1
percent, and those for livestock and livestock
products were 4 percent higher. In August, the
monthly index of prices received by Texas
farmers and ranchers for all farm products ad-

10

vanced 9 percent over the previous month. A
sharp increase in the price for cotton was the
primary reason for the August gain.
Cash receipts from farm marketings in the
District states during the first 7 months of 1~68
were about unchanged from the corresponding
period in 1967. The increase in livestock receipts offset the decline in crop receipts.
Changes in the major balance sheet ite~S
were mixed at the District's weekly reportIng
commercial banks in the 4 weeks ended September 11 . Total investments and total delnan~
deposits advanced, but loans adjusted and tata
time and savings deposits declined. In mo.s~
cases the changes suggest less strength than 1
,
. b~
the comparable year-earlier period. NegotJ~
time certificates of deposit issued in denominations of $100,000 or more decreased nOOlinall~
- in sharp contrast to the previous 4-~ee
period, when they rose sharply, $103 million .
Loans adjusted declined $39 million during
the 4 weeks ended September 11, or. almost
. d
double the reduction in the comparable peno
in 1967, as loans to nonbank financial institu~
tions and business loans fell $29 million an
$26 million, respectively. A year ago, loans ;~
nonbank financial institutions advanced $ iImillion, while business loans decreased $4 m I
lion. In contrast to the decline in loans, t?t;.
investments showed a sharp rise of $91 milli o ;
a $110 million increase in U.S. Governmen
s
security holdings, attributable entirely to n~te
and bonds, more than offset a slight reduCtiOn
in non-Government holdings.
Among the liability items, total demand d;~
posits rose $112 million as increases of $1
million and $48 million, respectively, in int~r­
bank deposits and in deposits of individua;~
partnerships, and corporations more th~n 0 d
set declines in U.S. Government depoSl~S. aus
in deposits of states and political subdiVIS1:~
The rise in IPC demand deposits was less. t d a
one-half the gain in the comparable peno

year ago. Total time and savings deposits declined slightly, $21 million, primarily because
of a $15 million dip in time deposits of states
and political subdivisions. The nominal decrease
in negotiable time certificates of deposit issued

in denominations of $100,000 or more indicated tl1at tl1e large banks in tl1e District apparently had built tl1eir CD position up to a
satisfactory level, given tl1e state of current and
expected loan demand.

ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT

OKLAHOMA

NEW MEXICO

DALLAS HEAD OFFICE TERRITORY
HOUSTON BRANCH TERRITORY
SAN ANTONIO BRANCH TERRITORY
EL PASO BRANCH TERRITORY

business review/october 1968

11

STATISTICAL SUPPI!EMENT
to the

BUSINESS REVIEW

October 1968

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS

CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS

RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

(Averages of da ily flgures. In thousands of doliars)

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

==-

(In thou sands of doliars)

5 weeks ended
Aug.7,1968

5 weeks ended

Sept. 4, 1968
720,918
670,071
50,847
715,179
5,739
10,286
-4,547

711,608
660,633
50,975
707,397
4,211
18,497
-14,286

661,632
616,140
45,492
658,437
3,19~

708,047
535,1 10
172,937
674,339
33,708
17,339
16,369

703,935
532,203
171,732
670,432
33,503
9,862
23,641

646,906
488,321
158,585
608,925
37,98 1
2785
35:196

1,428,965
1,205,181
223,784
1,389,518
39,447
27,625
11,822

1,415,543
1,192,836
222,707
1,377,829
37,714
28,359
9,355

4 weeks en ded

Sept. 25,
1968

It em

Aug. 28,
1968

Sept. 27,
1967

ASSETS
Net loans and discounts ...... ............ ....
Valuation resorves . ........... ..... ....... ...
Gross loon s and di scoun ts ... . . ........ . •. .....

5,917,128
105,52 1
6,022,649

5,830,024
105,491
5,935,515

5,195,267
93,935
5,289,202

2,757,522

2,715,407

2,523,7 43

89,824

95,893

100,334

36,107
21,478

8,639
23,746

15,01 2
59,832

573
351,963

592
337,647

604
324,555

142,152
340,211
581,487
473,224
5,917
606,941

138,659
338,450
572,602
495,72 2
5,478
604,226

188,524
266,952
504,505
186,346
5,686
537,527

0
615,250

0
598,454

ecc

U.S. Government securities ... .... .........
Oth er securities .........................
Other loans for purchasing or carry ing:

U.S. Government sec urities ... ...... ...... .
Oth er securities ........•..... . ..........
loan s to nonbank financial institutions:
Sales flnance, p ersonal flnance, factors,
and other business credit companies •••....

Other .•...... ··••·•••• •··•• · ··•·• ·· •• .

Real estate loans ... .... ......... ..........
loans to dom estic commercial banks....... ....
Loans to foreign banks .•.. •... . ... ... ..... .
Consumer instalment loans •.•................
loans to foreign governments, offlcial
institutions, central banks, international
institutions..•.. ........ . ·· ··· ··•·· ·· •• · .
Other loans ..............................

Sept. ~

RESERVE CITY 8ANKS
Total reserves held .. .. .. .. ....
With Federal Reserve Bank ... .
Currency and coin ...........
Require d reserves .............
El(cess reserves ...............
Borrowings . ..........• . ......
Free res erves ............ . ....

0
575,582

----

Comm ercia l and industrial loan s•.............
Agricultural loon s, excluding
certificates of interest ....................
Loons to brokers and d ealers for
purcha sing or carrying:

Item

Total investments ..................•.........

2,683,273

2,495,899

1,260,63 1
30,490
0

1,107,134
20,650
0

1,249,736
190,322
0

Total re se rves held ... .... ... ..
With Fed eral Res erve Bank .• ..
Currency and coin ....... .. ..
Require d reserves .. .... .......
El(cess reserves ••...•......•..
Borrowings .... ... .. ..........
Free reserves ....•............

ALL MEMBER 8ANKS
Tota l reser ves hel d .. ..... .....
With Federal Rese rve Bank . ...
Curr ency and coin ..... ......
Required reserves •. ...... .....
Excess reserves .........•...•.
Borrowings •................•.
Free reServes . •.. .. . .. ....•...

1 308,53 8
1'104,46 1
'204,077
1 267,36 2
, 41,176
2,785
38,391

-------

2,565,390

Total U.S. Governm ent securitie s...•..........
Treasury bills .. .. .......•.........•.....
Trea sury certiflcates of indebtedness •.. .....
Treasury note s and U.S. Government
bond s maturing:
Within 1 year ..•..••.................
1 year to 5 years .......... ..... ......

3,195

COUNTRY 8ANKS

Afte r 5 years •••.• •••.••. •..••••......

Obligation s of states and political su bdivisions:
Tax warrants and s hort~term notes and bills • •

All ather • •• •.•••••. ••••••••..• • •.••... .
Other bonds, corporote stocks, and sec uriti es:
Participation certiflcat es in Federal
agency loans ....•...• . . ............. .

353,547
597,761
278,833

205,538
582,809
298,137

162,675
658,423
238,316

29,762
1,200,339

26,362
1,168,660

35,280
1,057,728

124,471
69,272
883,350
736,260
84,550
420,065
5,307
355,749

TOTAL ASSETS •..••. •••••.... .• •• .• •• • • 11 ,308,086

10,811,204

Cash items in proc ess of collection ..............
Reserves with Fed eral Reserve Bank ... . .. •......
Currency and coin ............•••......••....
Balanc es with banks in the United States •...... ..
Balanc es with bonks in foreign countries .........
Other a sse ts. . .. . ..... . ........ •.• '" ... ....

(In thousands of doliars)

~

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Sept. 27,
Aug. 28,
967
Sept. 25,
Item
1968
1968
~
- - -a-I-g-a-dc-er-ti-fl--t-e-r-e-s-er--e-s.- .-.-.- .- .- .-.-.-.-.-. - • -3-8-6-,7-1-5 -- 3 ,9
To t
Ica
v
.
•-5-4--0-8- -

127,221
65,320
968,782
787,908
85,384
502,282
4,845
358,484

All other (including corporate stocks) ••.•••••

CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS

----

151,479
71,167
863,915
723,540
78,923
470,887
6,318
337,589

---10,241,829

Disco unts for member banks.. .... .. ... .....

29,010

16,859

Oth er discounts and advance s. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0

2,198,030
2,227,040
1,228,837

2,189,030
21,2106~'m
1',480',757

Federal Reserve notos in actual circulation.... .

' 0
1 967033
1:968:32f~
1,118'63
1,343, 1

0

U.S. Government securities. • • . • . . . • . . • • • • • •
Total earn ing assets......... . ....... . . .. ..
Member bank reserve de posits... ......... ..

43 ~,m

1,502,818

CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS

Eleventh Federal Reserve District
LIABILITIES
Total deposits .•••••..••••...••.•.•..•...•••

(In miliions of dollars)
9,155,083

8,732,800

3,899,020
240,859
267,740
1,200,053

3,750,581
267,282
114,903
1,139,343

5,317,770
3,657,638
273,971
173,616
1,124,938

9,374
21,431
72,458
3,778,772

5,676
20,759
79,318
3,777,221

2,461
22,342
62,804
3,415,030

1,045,983
2,057,084
635,631
12,835
22,539

1,043,301
2,049,270
646,098
10,206
22,646

1,121,636
1,749,345
505,512
12,340
24,197

LIA81LITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Demand deposits of banks .. •. . ••. •.•..••

4,500
200

5,500
200

800
1,200

Tota l deposits ...••..• • •..•• •.• ...•..

Other 110 bilities •.•.•.•..•••••••..•.•••••...•

651,949
240,394

506,614
222,446

424,917
195,050

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS ••••....••....•........•

926,036

---10,811 ,204

Total demand deposits •••••...•••••.•...•.•
Individuals, partnorshlps, and corporations . ...
State s and political subdivi sion s . •.... .... ..
U.S. Gov ernm ent ......••............
Banks in the United Stat es ........... .. . :::
Foreign:
Governments, offlcial institutions, central
banks, international institutions .........
Commercial banks......... ••.. ... ... ..
CertiA e d and ofAc ers' checks, etc ....•. .....
Total time and saving s d epo sits ........... ...
Individual s, pa rtn erships, and corporation s:
Saving s d e posits ....... ....... ........
Oth er tim e d eposits •...................
States and political subdivisions ..............
U.S . Governm ent (including po stal savings) .....
Banks in the Unitod States ...............•...
Foreign:
Governm ents, offlcial in stitutions, central
banks, int ernational institution s ......... . .
Commercial banks........ •..... . •.. .....
Bills payabl e, re discounts, and other
liabiliti es for borrowed mon ey •... ...........

---- ---5,710,935
5,377,862

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 11,308,086

2

927,061

889,062

---10,24 1,829

~

======================
AUg· 30,
Aug. 28,
Ju ly 31,
1967
1968
1968 ~
Item

9,489,707

------------------------------------ASSETS
Loans and discounts...... " ....... •.. ...
U.S. Governm ent obligations.....•.•......
Other securities ••....•.•.... . ....••....
Reserves with Federal Rese rve Bank ....... .
Ca sh in vault .. .. .. .. ... . . ............ .
Balances with bank s in th e United States . .. .
Balances with banks in foreign countri es e ... .
Cash items in proc ess of coll ection ........ .
Other a ssets e •. •. .. . ... .. .. .•. ... .....•

10,191
2,380
2,814
1,165
252
1,129
7
1,002
463

TOTAL ASSETse •••••.•.•....••...•.•

19,403

Other demand deposits.. . . . . ........... .
Time de po sits.•.....................•.•

Borrowings ........................... .
Oth er liabilities e .........•.............
Totol capital accounts 8 •.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

TOTAL lIA81L1TIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe ..•...••••••...•......

1,419
8,282
7,233
16,934
527
329
1,613

10,029
2,366
2,810
1,104
247
1,12~

1,063
477

-

~
1,410
8,305
7,160

-

16,875
453
300
1,596

-

89 91
2'439
2'55 1
1'0 49
'23 4

1 , 10~

-861
383

~
I 36 6
7'7 30
6:3 91

---:
7
15,48
359
248
1,5 21

--17 615

~~

-----------------------------e - Estimated.

BANK DEBITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
IDoliar amounts in thousands, seasonally adiusted)

~~~====================================================================================
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'

DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change

1968
(Annual-rate
basis)

Standard metropolitan
'-----

statistical area

I.RllONA'. Tucson...................................
IOUI
SlANA, Monroe . • • • . . • • . . . . • . . • . • . . . . • . • • • • • • • •
NEW
Shreveport.. ............... .............
lEXA MEXICO. Roswell ' . • . . • • • . • . . • • • • • • . . . • . • • • . • • •

S,

$

4,399,020
2,188,356
6,252,480
726,072

~~~~~~:':':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:m:m

8eoumont-Port Arthur-Orange. • • . . • • • . • • • . . . . • •
c'0wnsville-Harling en-San Benito. • . • • • . • . • • • . • • •

~~$:T . . . · .· ·.· . .·· .· . ·· ·.
.

H alvoston-Texa s City. • • .. . . . • . • . . . . . .. • • • .. . .

5,766,060
1,086,036

2,365,368

~~~~~~':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 7::w:m
Mf~~~n-Phorr-Edinburg.... . • . . • • . . . • • • • • • • • • . .

1,286,700

r:1]~;{SU ••••.• ·•· ••• ·•·•·•••••••••.• .l.m.!!!

T"jarkana (Texas-Arkansas).... • • . • . • • • • • • • . • . •

~;~~::::::::::::::::: ::: ::: :::::: ::::: :: ::

1
'1'1

Ichita Falls. • • • • • • • • . • • . • . • . • • • • • . • . • • . . • • •

~nt"rs •••••.• ••••. .••...•••....•• ••• •....
'0

2 C:poslts

July
1968

-9
-7

1,447,776

W~:m

2,274,480
----$268,464,408

August
1967

8 months,
1968 from
1967

2

4
1
8
18
10
18
45
2
-8
10
-2
15
6
17
10
15
13
-8
-6
6
3
17
13
12
10
9
2
3

-2

13

August 31,
1968

14

-3
4
1
9

-4
-23

o

-3
-2
6
-1
-1

-8
-7

-12

-8

1
5

-4
-5
-2
-5
-4

4
5
7

August
1968

July
1968

August
1967

$ 186,257
84,655
232,794
33,656
94,159
149,199
247,735
235,271
65,608
193,265
28,395
1,956,692
217,490
578,172
110,467
2,334,696
35,904
149,659
77,972
133,676
68,052
63,762
584,413
55,018
65,475
89,494
117,978
117,157

-2
13
25
4
9
11
9
19
6
17
13
14
13
3
6
7
6
10
16
10
11
9
12
6

-I

-12

:i:lililll

Annual rate
of turnover

August 1968 from

August

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

26.1
28.7
26.7
22.1
19.5
35.5
25.5
25.6
21.0
22.4
15.8
46.6
30.1
31.7
23.2
34.6
22.4
29.3
17.5
14.4
20.1
15.8
25.1
17.8
22.7
22.0
21.3
20.2

25.8
27.9
26.2
18.1
18.6
32.1
22 .8
25.1
18.6
20.6
12.9
42.8
27.9
31.2
22.1
32.8
20.0
30.5
16.8
13.3
20.7
16.4
23.2
15.8
21.6
19.6
21.1
20.0

32.4

33.0

30.9

$8,307,071

of individuals, partners hips, and corporations and of states and political subdivisions.

Unly ba.ls .

GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS Of MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Averages of daily flgures. In millions of dollars)
TIME DEPOSITS

GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
BUILDING PERMITS

~

Date

Total

cily banks

Counlry
banks

1966, August. •• •
1967, August •• • •
1968. March .....
April ......
May ••••••

8,637
9,178
9,510
9,655
9,460
9,548
9,742
9,732

3,982
4,26B
4,388
4,486
4,382
4,453
4,554
4,523

4,655
4,910
5,122
5,169
5,078
5,095
5,188
5,209

Reserve

VALUATION (Dollar amounls in thousands)
Percent change

Aug. 1968
NUMBER

~
~lONA

t \Jeso n
OUIS ........
1.\ IANA

I

~rO.-West
°nro

1 Sh,.........
EXAS Port ....
Abilene
A~orill .... •· .
~Uslin

0 ••••••

8~Q\J~~n·t: : • ••

~~r~~"iII •• : : :

0'" 0 s Christl ..
EI Po:~''''

~O'I W··· ....

~ 'Ives~rlh ....
l OUston on . ....
l'redo • '. ' "
~b bock' ••..•
Oidl ond ' ...••

pdeha '" " .
S·'I Arlh· .. •••
Qn A.n ur ....
S" A 9.lo •.•
le_ nlOOio
WOrkan ..•
W
Oco a . ...
IChll~'

F·· ...

from

1968

July
1968

Aug.
1967

8 months,
1968 from
1967

1,895

$ 24,074

-59

-22

2,570
3,452

15,363
17,813

81
61

101
25

216
1,059
12,633
747
149
5,443
28,911
4,219
8,508
292
35,401
273
1,920
543
1,545
1,695
388
7,641
340
1,440
976

5,767
14,317
84,563
11,522
3,758
30,896
183,957
44,879
60,458
8,360
262,894
1,741
23,457
9,445
4,593
4,106
6,999
87,322
12,364
11,997
8,683

-63
-61
59
-49
-88
18
7
-12
-5
6
35
279
-79
-83
487
148
-25
43
-96
38
- 14

-27
-64
91
-67
-85
174
-29
-7
-26
-93
-47
-72
-62
-32
279
514
-39
-46
19
-44
-70

-27
- 11
1
-10
43
47
16
14
-7
-10
-13
-47
3
- 10
1
60
- 14
15
334
13
-46

73,963

$122,256

$939,328

-1

-31

Aug.
1968

8 mos.
1968

683

4,134

69
459
45
113
419
124
93
413
1,804
367
570
81
2,117
41
102
39
61
103
61
1,201
37
262
75

1'1 I
ails • •
Q....... 24 c:itj
as . . 9,339

Country
banks

5,764
6,394
6,935
6,973
6,950
6,964
7,059
7,208

2,670
2,742
2,863
2,869
2,840
2,847
2,921
3,049

3,094
3,652
4,072
4,104
4,110
4,117
4,138
4,159

Reserve

6
-19

362
928
3,208
1,110
858
3,258
14,232
3,668
4,311
655
17,767
284
922
547
529
666
522
9,458
326
2,014
571

city banks

42

562
3,071

Total

Aug.
1968

$

8 mos.

June ••••• •

July .. .. ...
August ••••

VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
(In millions of dollars)
January-August

Area and Iype

August
1968

July
1968

June
1968

1968

1967

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' ................
Residentia l building ..• ••••
Nonresidential building ... .
Nonbuilding construction . ..
UNITED STATES ............
Residential building •••....
Nonresidential building . ...
Nonbuilding construction . ..

806
240
175
392
6,318
2,295
2,128
1,895

636
253
186
196
5,956
2,287
2,414
1,255

563
233
185
146
5,589
2,243
2,030
1,316

4,444
1,849
1,283
1,313
41,347
16,660
14,631
10,056

3,966r
1,559r
1,390
1,017
36,223r
13,915r
13,472
8,837

Arizona, lou is iana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Revised.
NOTE. - Details may nol add to totals becauso of rounding .
SOURCE, F. W. Dodge, McGraw-HIli, Inc.

1

r-

3

DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

(In thousands 01 barrels)

(Seasonally adiusted indexes, 1957-59
Percent change from

August
1968p

Area
ELEVEN~H

DiSTRiCT •••. ••.•
Texas ........ . .. . .. ··· .
Gull Coast ••••••.•••.•
West Texas .......... .
East Texas (prope r) •••••
Panhandle ••..••.•••.•
Rest 01 Stat •••••• ••• ••
Southeastern New Mexico ..
Northern Louisiana ••• • .•••

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

July
1968p

August
1967

Jul y
1968

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

3,627.6
3,171.9
633.2
1,475.2
153.8
91.5
818.2
315.4
140.3
5,607.4
9,235.0

3,893.3
3,397.4
629.0
1,610.6
157.3
99.7
900.8
315.2
180.7
5,514.7
9,408.0

-1.0
-1.2
-1.6
-.9
-2.4
- .6
-1.2
.2
-.2
.5
-.1

August
1967
-7.8
-7.7
- 1.0
-9.2
-4.5
-8.7
- 10.3
.2
-22.5
2.2
-1.9

Pre liminary,
SOURCES I American Petrol eum In stitute .
U.S. Bureau of Mines.

p _

= 100)

========================================~~
~

August
July
Jun e
August
_____A_r_e_a_a_n_d_t_y~p_e_o_f_in_d_e_x________ ~p______l 9~6_8________6~8____---~
l_96_8
_
19
TEXAS'

.N.0ndurable .... .... ......... .
MInIng ... . . ....... . ........ . .
Utilities •.........•........... .

170.0
193.9
208.2
184.4
127.3
210.0

169.2
193.4
207.5
184.0
126.0
210.0

170.1r
191.3
206.7
181.0
129.1 r
224.9r

162.7r
177. 6r
187.6r
171. 0r
133.9 r
201.3

UNITED STATES
M Total I industrial production......
anu acturing. . . . . . • • • . • . . • . • .
Durab/. ... ..................
.~ondurablo.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M,ning. • • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . .
Utilities ... . .. .. . ...... . . ......

164.0
165.1
168.1
161.4
130.3
197.7

165.6
166.9
17 1.2
161.5
130.5
198.2

165.2
166.7
170.7
161.6
128.9
197.7

163.6
154.0
127.8
165.4

Total industrial pro duction ... . . .
Manufacturing . . . . . .... . ...... .

Durobl• .... .• ...... .. .... ...

l~~:l

~

Reflecting th e use of improved mon-hour productivity factors a s of May 1968, the
Texas industri al production index ha s been revi sed slightly bock through 1958.
p Preliminary.
rRevised .
1

Fede ral Reserve Bank 01 Dallas.

SOURCES, Soard 01 Governors 01 th e Fede ral Reserve System.
Federal Reserve 8ank 01 Dallas.

CROP PRODUCTION
NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT

(In thousands 01 bushels)
TEXAS

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'

1968,
Average

estimated

1967

S.pt.l

Crop

3,450
24,232
Corn •. • •... ••. .
85,806
Winter wh ea t .. ••
20,876
Oats • • ••• •• •••.
3,584
Barl.y •• •.•••••
475
Ry •••••••.. • •••
29,280
Rice' .... ... ... .
Sorghum grain ... 367,198
744
Flaxseed •. . .•. .
4,362
Hay· ••• . .••••••
Peanuts5 • ••• •••• 378,300
4,382
Irish potatoes!) . ..
960
Sweet rotatooso ..
50,000
Pecans ... • ... ..
Cotton' • • •••••••

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

1962-66
4,223
23,729
60,621
17,217
3,497
417
19,394
253,013
741
3,Q93
262,338
3,082
842
39,400

1968,
estimated
Sept. 1
5,040
34,460
222,015
26,754
26,158
1,240
56,400
432,327
744
10,076
617,500
7,616
5,546
84,000

Average

1967
4,000
27,5 15
150,903
11,533
18,007
909
47,943
409,267
150
9,568
558,470
7,892
5,008
111,400

Five Southwestern States'

==============================~
hangPercent 66 Ira m

6,110
33,434
162,145
23,946
22,249
1,267
37,094
294,492
741
8,128
455,310
6,069
4,807
94,000

Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
In thou sands of bales.
n In thousands of bags contoining 100 pounds each.
1

Total nonagricultural
wage and salary workers ..
Manufacturing . . ..•. .....
Nonmanufacturing . ..•....
Mining ..... ..... . ... .
Cons truction . ..........
Transportation and
public utilities .. . .....
Trad e ........ . .. . . . . .
Finance .... ...........
Service . .. . ... ...... . .
Government • ..........

5,740,500
1,062,100
4,678,400
226,500
380,600

_0.1
_.1
.4
.3

3. 5

447,200
1,357,900
290,900
925,100
1,189,600

446,700
1,354,200
290,700
922,700
1,202,200

438,100
1,319,500
282,500
880,400
1,150,800

.1
.3
.1
.3

2.1
2.9
3.0
5.1
3.4

Arizona, louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas .
Prelimi nary.
Revised.

SOURCE, State employment agencies.

COTTON PRODUCTION

Texas Crop Reporting Districts
(In thousands 01 bales -- 500 pounds gross weight)
1968,

1968
a s perc ent of

S. pt.l

1967

1966

10·N - South Texas Plains • •••.••••• •
10·S - Lower Ria Grande VaHey ••••..

270
1,375
260
360
20
370
25
40
160
50
70
95
85
30
240

258
937
218
234
12
264
19
39
158
23
54
98
117
20
316

260
1,085
177
338
18
484
29
42
127
27
95
134
82
33
251

105
147
119
154
167
140
132
103
101
217
130
97
73
150
76

State ••• •.• ••..•••• ••• •••. • .•..

3,450

2,767

3,182

125

l-N
l-S
2-N
2-S
3
4
5-N
5·S
6
7

-

North.rn
Southern
R. d Sed
Red Sed

Hig h Pla ins •• ••..• •••
High Plains •.•••••••.
Plains ••.•••..••••••
Plains •••.•• •• .••••.

- Western Cross Timbers •.. . , ...

- 81ack and Grand Prairi.s • •• •••
- East Te xa s Timbered Plains. •• •
- East Texas Timb e re d Plains ••• ,
- Tran s· Pecos•.. . .... .••.. ....

- Edwards Plateau • • • . ••• ••••. •

8·N - Southern Texa s Prairie s •••.•.•
8·5 - Southern Texa s Prairies . •• . • . •
9 - Coa stal Prairies ••• . ..........

SOURCE, U.S. Department 01 Agriculture.

4

_.4

4.9

3. 5

S.7

~
-------------------------------------p -

indicated

3. 8

5,965,700
1,118,000
4,847,700
238,400
392,800

6 In thousands 01 hundredweight.
SOURCE , U. S. Department 01 Agriculture.

Area

t;ti

5,958,000
1,113,900
4,844, 100
239,300
394,100

r-

In thousands of ton s.
G In thousand s of pounds.
4

9

july
August
July
August
Type 01 em plo ymen t
__~____~~________~___________________
1968p
1968
1967r
1~

1

!l

~

Number of persons

1962-66

1967

CROP REPORTING
DISTRICTS OF TEXAS