The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
J
(
I
(
(
I
(
(
r
EI Paso· Houston· San Antonio
,I
October 1981
1
Houston Less Vulnerable Than Dallas-Fort Worth
to Impact of Recession
6
"Fed Quotes"
7
Regulatory Briefs and Announcements
8
Now Available from the Federal Reserve
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
lIouston Less Vulnerable
Than Dallas-Fort Worth
to Impact of Recession
By Bran wyn Brock
Du .
of ~In.g the 1970's, Texas acquired the reputation
c eIng one of the more prosperous states in the
e Ountry. Not only was growth in its income and
c:~~oyment high, but the state appeared less susp lbl e to the forces that produced the economic
t' ece .
'Iv SSlOns of the decade. Houston and Dallas-Fort
,.. orth, the largest metropolitan areas in Texas,
'vere major
.
gr
centers of the state's exceptiona1
c OWth. Between 1962 and 1980, employment inr:eased at an average annual rate of 5.4 percent in
ptuston and 4.8 percent in Dallas-Fort Worth. Em2.~yment growth in the nation as a whole averaged
percent over this period.
in I~ each of the past five years, industrial growth
[8M e two standard metropolitan statistical areas
Jre SA.s) has been about equaJ.1 Over the past 20
gr ars, however, such year-by-year matching of
in~Wth.rates has been unusual. For goods-producing
Fa Ustrles, larger employment declines in Dallas19;t, Worth during the major recessions of the
a\l 0 s accounted for much of the difference in the
erage growth rates of the two areas. In the 19691. A.s d .
Dall
eSlgnated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the
. Cou~~~Fort Worth SMSA includes Dallas and Tarrant
lllan ~es plus Collin, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, KaufS~s'A ~rker, Rockwall, and Wise Counties. The Houston
Libert Includes Harris County plus Brazoria, Fort Bend,
y, Montgomery, and Waller Counties.
October t08l/Voice
70 recession, employment in the goods-producing
industries dropped 5 percent in Dallas-Fort Worth
and 3 percent in Houston. The difference was even
more pronounced in the 1973-75 slump, when employment in these industries fell 6 percent in
Dallas-Fort Worth but rose 18 percent in Houston.
The distribution of employment across the durable goods manufacturing industries in these two
SMSAs explains much of the performance of their
economies in the recessions of the 1970's. In
Dallas-Fort Worth the electric and electronic
equipment industry and the transportation equipment industry are the two largest employers in
durable goods manufacturing. The decline in Federal purchases of defense goods produced by these
industries was a major factor in the steep fall in
employment in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in the
1969-70 recession. Most firms in Houston's two
largest durable goods manufacturing industries,
nonelectrical machinery and fabricated metal products, are suppliers to the oil and gas industries.
The drilling boom stimulated by rises in oil prices,
following the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries) embargo, supported employment growth in the Houston area in the economic
recession of 1973-75. The relatively large proportion of employment in mining, which includes oil
and gas exploration and production, also boosted
the Houston economy in this period.
t
Total Employment in Goods·Producing Industries
15PERCENTCHANGE------------~~--------~~~~--------------~~--
DALLAS· FORT WORTH SMSA
10 -
5-
o ----~---------------------
J
HOUSTON SMSA
-5 -
_10--,_--~--r---~,--~--,---~--',~~L,~~~~---';;;;,~~~~N~'=T:E~D~S~T~A~T~E~S~--;I::~Ir-1965
1970
1975
1980
NOTE: Shaded areas indicate economic recessions as dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
SOURCES: North Central Texas Council of Governments.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Defense industries in Dallas-Fort Worth
expanded in the 1960's ...
The national economy began and ended the
1960's in recession. The intervening years were
marked by high rates of growth for output and employment. In the last half of the decade, the stimulus of rising Federal expenditures for defense plus
high levels of capital investment by business led
to full utilization of the country's productive
capacity and labor resources.
The growth of employment in Dallas-Fort Worth
in the 1960's was centered in manufacturing. The
number of workers in manufacturing in this SMSA
rose 61 percent in 1962·69. Federal purchases of
defense supplies stimulated much of this growth.
In 1967 the Federal Government purchased one·
third of the output of the manufacturing sector
in the North Central Texas region, which includes
the Dallas·Fort Worth SMSA. The industries most
affected were transportation equipment and elec2
tric and electronic equipment. During the 1960'S,
these two industries accounted for about 7 percent
and 5 percent, respectively, of total nonagricultural employment in Dallas·Fort Worth. Most of
the workers in the transportation equipment industry group in the area were employed in the
aircraft, aircraft engines, and ordnance industrieS.
The Federal Government purchased 99 percent of
the output of these industries and 21 percent of
the output of the electric-electronic equipment
industry.
The growth in manufacturing employment in t~e
Houston SMSA in 1962-69 was about half that ln
the Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA. The largest emploYment increases were in nonelectrical machiner~
and fabricated metals. Each industry employe
about 3 percent of the total nonagricultural work
force in Houston in the 1960's. The percentage increases in employment in the transportation equiPment and electric-electronic equipment industrieS
Federal Reserve Bank of DaJ\ss
Were large in the Houston area but have less sign'fi
I cance in light of the fact that the industries
accounted for less than one-half of 1 percent of
total nonagricultural employment.
The percentage increases in the number of
workers in contract construction in the Houston
~nd Dallas-Fort Worth SMSAs were comparable.
ut the growth of contract construction employ~ent was significantly more stable in Dallas-Fort
orth. Contract construction employment in this
area increased an average of almost 5 percent a
Year between 1962 and 1969 and declined only
once-less than 1 percent from 1964 to 1965. Contract construction in Houston was strong enough
for the industry to add workers at a rate averaging
~ver. 5 percent a year between 1962 and 1969,
eSplte significant declines in three years in the
Period. Between 1962 and 1969 Houston added
nalmost 9,000 more construction' workers than
aUas-Fort Worth.
: .. and contracted sharply
In the 1969-70 recession
~he early 1970's marked a turning point for the
.S. economy, characterized by a redirection of
~esources away from defense expenditures. Simultaneously, the Federal Government was attempting
th slow the inflation generated in the last half of
e 1960's. The 1969-70 period represented the
end of a long rise in business investment in plants
and equipment and the beginning of a period of
:trong growth in residential construction. ExpendiUres on consumer goods rose steadily through this
tece .
trib S~lOn, helping to dampen the decline and conUhng to the recovery.
t The decline in the proportion of Federal expendit~res all?cated to defense contributed heavily to
ne drop m the nation's manufacturing employment.
otcreases in the Federal Government's purchases
th armaments resulted in adjustments throughout
Wh nation in the local labor markets of many areas
P ere there was a concentration of defense-related
brOduction. Two-thirds of the employment affected
..: t~e Government's purchases of defense goods
~ m the aircraft and ordnance industries.
the all~s-Fort Worth was one of the areas in which
e adjustment was particularly large. In 1970-71,
elU~loYment fell 26 percent in the transportation
1) qUIPment industry in Dallas-Fort Worth and 14
trercent in the electric-electronic equipment industr/I: The declines in these two industry groups were
aJor factors in the 11-percent drop in manufacOctober 19811Voice
turing employment, and they produced significant
changes in the distribution of employment across
goods-producing industries. The proportion of employment in such industries that was accounted for
by workers in the transportation equipment industry fell from 24 percent in 1969 to 14 percent
in 1972. For the electric-electronic equipment industry the share of goods-producing employment
remained about the same in these two years, but
some of the workers shifted from military projects
to consumer and business applications.
The effect of this recession on Houston was mild
in comparison. Manufacturing employment declined only 1 percent, and durable goods employment declined 3 percent. The distribution of
employment across goods-producing industries
changed little over the 1969-72 period. 2
Houston boomed in the 1973-75 recession
The recession of 1973-75 followed the OPEC oil
embargo imposed from November 1973 to March
1974. Record-high interest rates, disintermediation
at thrift institutions, and the worst decline in residential con~truction in 30 years contributed to a
9-percent decline in industrial production between
1974 and 1975. The national unemployment rate
climbed from 4.9 percent in 1973 to 8.5 percent in
1975. Consumer price inflation rose sharply also,
increasing from 6.2 percent in 1973 to 11.0 percent
in 1974 before decreasing in 1975. Inventories as
a percentage of sales by manufacturers, retailers,
and wholesalers set record highs in 1974 after
demand dropped.
A major adjustment in the nation's use of energy also began at this time. Sharply higher prices
for imported oil, along with price controls and
mandatory allocation programs applied to domestic oil, ultimately reduced the amount of oil used.
Consumers, businesses, and governments decreased
purchases of energy and energy-related products
as real incomes declined. The impact on the nation's transportation equipment industry was par2. There are problems with the comparability of employment data for the SMSAs. The U.S. Department of Labor
did not collect employment data for the Dallas-Fort
Worth and Houston SMSAs until 1970. Employment data
before 1970 for the two areas have been estimated by the
North Central Texas Council of Governments. Moreover,
data on employment in individual manufacturing industries in Dallas-Fort Worth in 1970 and 1971 are not
available from the Department of Labor and have been
interpolated by the author for this article.
3
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT
IN GOODS·PRODUCING INDUSTRIES
Houston
SM SA
Dall as·Fort Worth
SMSA
Indu stry
1968
1980
1968
1980
17.0
Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2
5.8
12.6
Contract construction . . .. . . ... .... . . ..... ....
14.1
19.9
27.7
30.7
Manufacturing . . .. ....... .. ... .... .. . . . ... ..
82.7
74.3
59.7
52.4
Lumber and wood products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Furniture and fixtures ..... .. . ............ . .
Stone, clay, and glass products . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Primary metal industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fabricated metal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Machinery, except electrical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electric and elect ronic equipment. . . . . . . . . .. .
Transportation equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.6
1.8
1.9
1.3
4.6
7.3
16.1
23.5
1.8
1.3
2.4
1.3
6.3
9.9
14.5
11.6
1.1
.9
2.5
3.8
7.8
9.8
1.6
1.2
.6
.3
1.8
2.8
7.7
11 .8
3.4
1.4
Food and kindred products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Apparel and other textile products. . . . . . . . . . . .
Paper and allied products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Printing and publishi ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemicals and allied products. .. . . . . . . . . . . ..
Petroleum and coal products . ... ....... . ... .
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products. . .
7.1
4.8
2.2
3.7
1.7
5.1
3.9
2.0
5.2
2.5
1.4
2.5
5.4
.6
1.5
3.2
9.0
5.1
n.a.
2.8
.4
.9
3.2
7.5
3.4
1.4
Other manufacturing ... . .. ......... ... .. . '.'
4.5
4.0
6.1
3.1
• Less th an .05.
n.a.- Not available.
NOTE: Details may not add to totals because of rounding .
SOURCES: North Central Toxas Council of Governments.
U.S. Department o f Commerc e, Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
ticularly severe. Production in this industry, which
includes motor vehicles and parts, fell at an annual
rate of 38 percent from November 1973 to March
1974. Output of the electric and natural gas utilities fell at an annual rate of 13 percent in the
same period.
Other results of the OPEC oil embargo and the
sharp rise in oil prices included increased exploration for domestic energy supplies and investment in
energy-producing industries. (The tax-paid f.o.b.
cost per barrel of Saudi Arabian light crude oil, a
common reference for world crude oil prices, almost
doubled between January and October 1973 and
quadrupled by January 1974.) The number of oil
and gas wells drilled annually in the United
States- which reached a low of 26,077 in 1971,
after peaking at 58,418 in 1956-increased 28 percent from 1973 to 1974 to a total of 33,470.
A significant proportion of the domestic drilling
sparked by the rise in oil prices occurred in Texas,
which supplies one-third of the crude oil and natural gas produced in the United States and contains one-third of all oil and gas wells drilled. The
number of drilling applications received by the
Texas Railroad Commission rose 43 percent from
4
1973 to 1974 to 15,490. The number of active rigs
in Texas increased almost 300 percent to 590.
Houston is an international center for the pro'
duction of equipment used in oil and gas drilling,
and economic activity in the area expanded while
the rest of the country was undergoing a contraCtion. Mainly because of the demand for oil field
equipment, manufacturing employment- particUlarly in the fabricated metals, nonelectrical machinery, and transportation equipment industriesincreased in Houston during the 1973-75 recession.
(Most of the transportation equipment made there
is manufactured to meet the needs of the oil and
gas industries for special hauling and handling
equipment and specially designed vessels to service
offshore drilling rigs.) Other sectors of Houston's
economy benefited from the growth of employment
in mining and manufacturing. In contract construction, for example, employment increased 30
percent.
The experience of the Dallas-Fort Worth area,
where employment declined, was more like that
of the rest of the nation. Contract construction was
hardest hit, and employment in this industry feIl
far more in Dallas-Fort Worth than nationwide.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
The decline in total manufacturing employment
Was moderate compared with the decline in the
1969-70 recession. On the other hand, employment
in the transportation equipment industry increased
for the first time since the end of the Vietnam War.
Mining employment rose almost as much proportionally as in Houston, but the national drilling
boom had much less impact on Dallas-Fort Worth,
where mining employed only 1 percent of the
nonagricultural workers.
Looking ahead
Production of military hardware remains an imPortant source of income in Dallas-Fort Worth,
but the dependence of area manufacturers on contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense has
not returned to the level re ached in the late 1960's.
The transportation equipment industry now employs a smaller share of workers in the area's
goods-producing sector, and most local firms in
the transportation equipment and electric-electronic equipment industries have diversified their
product lines to include substantial proportions
of goods for private industry. But the United States
is in the early stages of rebuilding its Armed
Forces, and this could push the area's defense suppliers into greater prominence again. The projected
increaser, in U.S. defense spending have not yet
led local manufacturers to plan major additions
Lo capacity, but the possibility that some will ultimately do so cannot be dismissed.
While the Dallas-Fort Worth economy has been
diversifying, the Houston economy has become
more closely tied to oil and gas activities. The
mining, fabricated metals, and nonelectrical machinery industry groups now employ a much
larger proportion of workers in Houston's goodsproducing sector. Thus, the growth in the Houston
economy is likely to continue to display a relatively high degree of independence from some
forces that have produced fluctu ations in economic
activity nationally. This is not to imply, however,
that Houston will be unaffected by these forces,
for its growth in employment in goods-producin r
industries has been slowing along with the nation's
since 1978.
Predicting how individual areas will fare in the
economic fluctuations of the future must be done
cautiously, even when all sectors of the local
economies have been investigated fully. This
article has provided only a brief look at segments
of the complex economies of Houston and DallasFort Worth. The most that can safely be said at
this point, then, is that the growth paths of these
two areas are likely to diverge again in the future,
and suppliers to the defense and petroleum industries will play major roles.
New Member Bank
Citizens National Bank of Killeen, Killeen, Texas, a newly organized institution located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business September 3, 1981, as u member
of the Federal Reserve System. The new member bank opened with capital
of $1,250,000 and surplus of $1,250,000. The officers are: Roy J. Smith, President and Interim Chairman of the Board; W. L. Smith, Executive Vice
President ; E. P. Hardaway, Vice President and Cashier; Murl H. Hennigan,
Vice President and Compliance Officer; Roy Van Sickle, Officer and Security
Guard; James Bales, Assistant Cashier; Tanya Gibson, Assistant Cashier;
Jann Secrest, Assistant Cashier; and Nancy Mather, Assistant Cashier.
October 1981/Voice
5
•• Ped Quotes ~~
Brief Excerpts from Recent Federal Reserve Speeches, Statements, Publications, Etc.
"We must not lose sight of the fundamental cause of our current predicament: the
buildup of inflation and inflationary pressures over many years. A lasting resolution
of our economic problems generally, and the interest rate problem in particular, will
be found only in success in the battle against inflation. Should we be diverted from
that objective, our economic and financial problems will only be aggravated.
"The fact is we can now begin to see significant signs of progress in the fight on
inflation. The various measures of prices this year have all shown somewhat slower
rates of increase than in the preceding two years. While some sectors of the economy
are indeed under heavy pressure, the overall level of economic activity is higher, and
the rate of price increases lower, than almost all economic forecasters thought
probable at the beginning of the year.
"Under the circumstances, it may be frustrating to observe the skepticism and
doubts reflected in the recent performance of many financial markets. I believe that
skepticism will be proved unwarranted. But what is important in that connection
is not my belief or yours, but whether we persevere in policies and actions to
justify confidence."
Paul A. Volcker, Chairman, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Before the Committee on
the Budget, U.S. Senate, September 16, 1981)
"What can be done- and done consistent with our short and longer-run objectives-is to provide assurance that the Federal fiscal position is indeed clearly on the
track toward balance. On the spending side of the fiscal equation, the Congress and
the Administration have begun an effort unprecedented in my Washington experience
to scale back the growth of Federal outlays. At the same time, it is evident that,
given the size of the tax reduction, the spending cuts made so far- large as they may
be in historical perspective-have been only a 'downpayment' on those needed to
bring expenditures into alignment with the receipts side of the budget. ...
"Failure to carry through on efforts to slow the growth of Federal expenditures in
amounts commensurate with the need would leave us with the reality and prospect of
large deficits in relation to our savings potential, with its inevitable implications for
financial markets and for sectors of the economy dependent on credit."
Paul A. Volcker, Chairman, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Before the Committee on
the Budget, U.S. Senate, September 16, 1981)
6
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
rw.egulatory~riefs
and c/fnnouncements
Examination Council Proposes
Uniform Accounting Guideline
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council is proposing a uniform accounting guideline for adoption by the three Federal bank superVisory agencies (the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency). The guideline
would require the use of accrual accounting by all
insured commercial banks and state-chartered
lllutual savings banks for the maintenance of their
accounts and for the preparation of the reports
of condition and income they file with the agencies.
The proposed guideline, if adopted, would be
illlplemented in two stages. Banks with assets of
$10 million or more would be required to institute
accrual accounting prior to January 1,1983, and
banks with assets of less than $10 million would
be required to institute accrual accounting prior to
January I, 1985. However, banks choosing to
report Trust Department income on a cash basis
could do so.
Board Issues Interpretation
on Interest Rate Futures Contracts
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System has issued an interpretation that affects
state member banks and bank holding companies
choosing to engage in transactions in futures contracts involving domestic bank certificates of
deposit (CDs).
The interpretation states that state member
banks and bank holding companies intending to
take positions in interest rate futures contracts
specifying delivery of CDs issued by domestic
banks should do so in accordance with requirements of relevant Board policy statements
governing futures and forward contracts on U.S.
Government and agency securities.
Questions relating to interest rate futures contracts involving state member banks may be
directed to Marvin C. McCoy, (214) 651-6657. For
bank holding companies, questions may be
directed to Robert D. Hankins, (214) 651-6120.
New Nonmember Bank
First Bank of Natchitoches and Trust Co., Natchitoches, Louisiana, a newly
organized nonmember bank located in the territory served by the Head
Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business September
1,1981.
October 19811Voice
7
(}VowcJlvailable
Recentl~
issued Fedcra.l Reserve circulars, speeches, statements to Congress, publications, etc., may
be obtamed by contactmg the Department of Communications, Financial and Community Affairs,
Fede.ral Reserve Bank of Dallas, Station K, Dallas, Texas 75222, unless indicated otherwise. Requests
for cIrculars should specify the circular numbers.
Circulars
Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions (Regulation D): Reminder of Change in Transitional Adjustment Percentage for Reserve Requirement Computations
(Member Banks and Selected Former Member Banks).
1 p. Circular No. 81-177 (September 1, 1981).
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council: Proposed Accounting Guidelines. 8 pp. Circular No. 81-178
(September 2,1981).
Amendments to Regulation J [Collection of Checks and
Other Items and Transfer of Funds]. 7 pp. Circular No.
81-179 (September 2, 1981).
All Savers Certificate. 28 pp. Circular No. 81-181 (September 15, 1981).
Bulletin 15: Net Settlement Arrangements. 11 pp. Circular
No. 81-183 (September 17, 1981) .
Iranian Assets Control Regulations: Amendment. 3 pp.
Circular No. 81-185 (September 17, 1981).
Regulation Q-Interest on Deposits: Final NOW Account
Eligibility Rules. 8 pp. Circular No. 81-186 (September
24,1981) .
Regulation E Official Staff Commentary: Electronic Fund
Transfers. 6 pp. Circular No. 81 -188 (September 25,
1981).
All Savers Certificates: Questions and Answers. 9 pp. Circular No. 81-189 (September 28, 1981).
Information Directories for Securities and Noncash Collection Pricing. 6 pp. Circular No. 81-190 (September 28,
1981).
Election of Directors: Report of Nominations-Voting Procedures. 14 pp. Circular No. 81-191 (September 30,
1981).
Policy Statement: Forward Placement or Delayed Delivery
Contracts and Interest Rate Futures Contracts. 4 pp.
Circular No. 81-192 (September 30, 1981).
Speeches and Statements
Statement by Paul A. Volcker before the Committee on the
Budget, U.S. Senate. 11 pp., including tables. September 16, 1981.
Statement by Frederick H. Schultz before the Committee
on Small Business, U.S. Senate. 6 pp. September 23,
1981.
Statement by Henry C. Wallich before the Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of
Representatives. 24 pp., including statistical annex and
tables. September 23, 1981.
Remarks by Henry C. Wallich ("International Lending and
8
the Role of Bank Supervisory Cooperation") at the
International Conference of Banking Supervisors,
Washington, D.C. 12 pp. September 24, 1981.
Remarks by Paul A. Volcker ("No Time for Backsliding")
before th e National Press Club, Washington, D.C. 12
pp. September 25, 1981.
Statement by Frederick H. Schultz before the Domestic
Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, U.S. House of
Representatives. 3 pp. September 29, 1981.
Pamphlets, Brochures, and Reports
Series on services available from the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas and its branches. Published by the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas. (Each booklet, other than the
first, explains a service and how the service may be
used by depository institutions. All booklets list individuals a t the four offices to contact for additional
information.)
• Pricing nnd Billing of Services. (Describes the pricing principles and determinants used by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, billing
options and procedures, and clearing balance administration) 7 pp. June 1981.
• Loan. (Describes the types of borrowing available to
depository institutions, the discount window loan
process, and the criteria for appropriate borrowing)
8 pp. June 1981.
• Wire Transfer of Funds. (Describes the history of
the wire transfer service and the methods used to
initiate wire transfer transactions) 8 pp. June 1981.
• Net Settlement. (Describes the net settlement process
and the procedures involved in net settlement transactions) 5 pp. June 1981.
• Checks. (Describes check clearing systems, Federal
Reserve check processing, and sorting options available to depositing institutions) 16 pp. June 1981.
IJ Automated Clearinghouse. (Describes ACH operations and the processing of ACH deposits) 8 pp.
June 1981.
The Monetary Control Act of 1980. Published by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (A pamph let summarizing the principal provisions and requirements of the legislation. Fifth in a series on the
structure of the Federal Reserve System) 7 pp. June
1981.
The Arithmetic of Interest Rates. Published by the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York. (A booklet explaining hoW
consumers can calculate interest rates, with specific
reference to Treasury securities, home mortgages. and
installment loans) 33 pp. 1981.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
@FedFRASER