The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Monthly Business Review
OF
THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF
DALLAS
•
(Compiled August 15,1936)
Volume 21, No.7
Dallas, Texas, September 1, 1936
This copy Is relea sed for pub·
Iication In aftemoon papers-
Sept 1
•
====================================================================
DISTRICT SUMMARY
THE SITUATION AT A GLANCE
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
Chong. from
June
July
1936
~ank debits to individual accounts (at 18 cities) . $757,001,000
ncparttnent store sales...............................................
.......... .
eseI've bank loans to tnetnber banks at end of
B ~onth ...................................................................... $
884,980
C u ding permit valuation at larger centers ........ $ 3,985,656
12
cOmtnercial flliJures (number) .................................
O?Ftnercial fllilures (liabilities) .............................. $
68,000
I production (bllrrels) .............................................
40,230,250
+
-
+
8.40/0
22.2%
-
$86,517
20.10/0
-
$85,000
8.00/0
5
+
-------------------------------------------
- Developments in business and industry in the Eleventh
~ederal Reserve District continued generally favorable durIn!? the past month. The sales of department stores in
pnncipal cities declined from June to July by less than the
Usual seasonal amount, and registered an increase of 23
per cent as compared with the same month last year. Wholesale distribution in most reporting lines of trade reflected
a further expansion in July, and business was maintained
at a considerably higher level than in July last year. While
retail collections declined seasonally, collections by wholesalers showed a noticeable increase. The volume of debits
Lo individual accounts at reporting banks was 3 per cent
above that in June and exceeded by 2 per cent the large
total in July last year.
. :rhe valuation of building permits issued at principal
CIhes, though rccording a seasonal decline from the June
volume, continued materially higher than in other recent
years. The July figure was nearly double that for a year
ago and the aggregate for the seven months was 130 per
cent larger than the total for the comparable period in 1935.
A general improvement in the condition of growing crops
occurred during the past month as a result of the rains
which fell over the major portion of the district in late
June and in July. The Department of Agriculture in its
August 1 report placed the condition of growing crops
above that of July 1, and in most instances production estimates were increased. The indicated production of cotton in
this district, on the basis of the August 1 estimate of the
Department of Agriculture, is considerably larger than the
1935 harvest due both to the increased acreage and the
higher prospective yield per acre. Range conditions improved in July and livestock were maintained in good condi·
tion. The generally favorable agricultural outlook on August
1, however, has been tempered by the unusually high
temperatures and hot winds prevailing over most of the
district since that date. Commercial reports indicate that
considerable crop deterioration has occurred.
The loans of reporting member banks in leading cities
increased $10,219,000 between July 8 and August 12, but
their investments were reduced $3,406,000 during the same
period. The combined total of loans and investments on
August 12 was $57,772,000 higher than a year earlier, the
increase being about equally divided between the two classifications. Member bank borrowings at the Federal Reserve
Bank increased further between July 15 and August 15,
and the relatively small volume outstanding on the latter
date was slightly larger than a year ago. Federal Reserve
notes in actual circulation amounted to $84,628,000 on
August 15 as compared with $85,602,000 on July 15.
BUSINESS
Wholesale
Trade
The movement of merchandise through
wholesale channels in this district was
generally favorable during the past
~onth, The July sales of dry goods, drugs, and groceries
Increased more than usual at this season, and in two lines
there was a widening of gains as compared with the cor·
responding month of the preceding year. While a greater
than seasonal decline occurred in the sales of farm imple.
Inents, business in this line was very active during the first
half of the year, Substantial increases over a year ago were
registered during July in the case of both farm implements
and hardware. Collections in July were considerably larger
than those in June.
An active demand for dry goods at wholesale was in
evidence during July. Sales of reporting firms reflected an
increase of 30,3 per cent over those in the corresponding
month last year, and the gain of 21.2 per cent over the
previous month was larger than the average for this seaSOll.
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
2
The increase in business was general over the district. Reflecting the accumulation of merchandise for the fall market
season, stocks on hand on July 31 were 19.3 per cent greater
than on June 30, and were 4..5 per cent larger than a year
ago. July collections were 2.8 per cent larger than in June.
Following the steady expansion in the sales of reporting
wholesale hardware firms during the preceding five months,
July business was approximately the same as in the previous
month, and exceeded that of July last year by 28.6 per cent.
Collections showed a June to July gain of 11.1 per cent.
The demand for farm implements during July reflected
a further decline of 15.5 per cent as compared with the
previous month, but was 17.6 per cent better than in the
corresponding month last year. Buying in some sections
has been retarded by the dry weather. Collections during
the month reflected a noticeable increase.
A substantial increase in the buying of groceries at wholesale occurred during the past month. Sales of reporting
firms showed a further gain of 9.1 per cent as compared
with the previous month, and exceeded those in July last
year by 12.8 per cent. Inventories of wholesalers on July
31 were 5.1 per cent larger than on June 30, and 9.2 per cent
greater than at the end of July last year. There was an
CONDITION OF WHOLESALE TRADE DURING JULY, 1986
Percentage of increase or decrease inNet S. le.
July, 1936
compared with
July
June
19l5
1936
Groceries ........................... .
Dry goods............................
Farm implements ................
Hardware ........... _...............
Drugs ..................... _.......... .
+12.8
+80.8
+17.6
+28.6
+20.6
+ 9.1
+21.2
-16.5
+ 0.2
+ 7.6
Stock.
July 31,1936
compnred wi th
Jul y 31,
Ju ne 30,
19 36
1935
+
9.2
+ 4.5
+
5.1
+19.8
+16.6
5.2
+26.7
+ 8.6
.7
+ 4.0
+
Ratio of
collections
duri ng July
to accounts
and notes
ou ts tanding
on June 30
89.4
88.4
7.5
49.6
62.0
increase of 8.8 per cent m collections between June and
July.
After declining during the second quarter, the wholesale
drug business turned upward in July. Sales were 7.6 per
cent higher than in June and evidenced a gain of 20.6 per
cent over a year ago. Collections in July were 5.2 per cent
in excess of those in June.
Consumer buying at department stores
in larger cities of this district reflected a
smaller than usual mid-summer reces·
sion. The decline from June to July in the dollar volume
of business amounted to 22.2 per cent, and as compared
with a year ago, sales registered a gain of 22.8 per cen.t.
The index of department store sales as compiled by thIS
bank, which makes allowances for average seasonal changes,
rose to a new high level for the recovery period, the July
figure being 101.6 per cent of the 1923-25 average, as corn'
pared with 99.6 per cent in June, and 83.7 per cent in July,
1935. Sales during the first seven months of the year a~er'
aged 17.0 per cent higher than in the corresponding penod
last year.
Retail
Trade
Inventories at department stores on July 31 were 6.0
per cent less than on June 30, but were 8.0 per cent larger
than a year ago. The rate of stock turnover for the seven
months of the current year was 1.94., which compares with
1. 75 during the same period of 1935.
Collections on regular accounts reflected a seasonal de·
cline during the month. The ratio of July collections to
regular accounts outstanding on July 1 was 40.8 per cent,
as compared with 42.6 per cent in June, and 38.4 per cent
in July last year. There was an increase in collections on
installment accounts.
BUSINESS OF DEPARTMENT SrORES
+ 28.8
- 22.8
+ 18.8
+ 27.2
- 20.6
+ 20.1
+ 17.8
- 21.4
+ 12.0
+ 28.2
- 20.6
+ 19.8
Others
+ 18.8
- 25.8
+ 14.2
Total Dis't.
~~l;: ~~~~: ~~~~:~:~ ~i~~ ~~~~,1{98:6:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~~l;: i~~~: ~~~~:~:~ ~i~ ~~~~, W:6:::::::·.:::::::·.:::·.::::::::~::·.::::·.::::::·.::::'.:.:'.::::::::::.:::'.::::::::'.:'.::::::'.:::::::
+ 17.8
- 28.8
+ 19.4
+ 25.9
- 20.8
+ 18.9
+ 28.9
- 17.7
+ 15.5
+ 27.4
- 24.8
+ 20 .1
+ 12.2
- 29.8
+ 12.6
+ 20.S
_ 28.3
+ 17.7
+ 19.0
6.6
+
-
+
O.lla.
Total sales (percentage):
January 1 to July 81, 1986, compared with same period last year .......................................... .
Credib saies (percentage) :
January 1 to July 81, 1986, compared with same period last year ......................................... .
Stocke on hand at end of month (percentage) :
July, 1986, compared with July, 1985............................................................................................. .
July, 1986, compared with June, 1986.............................................................................................
Stock turnover (rate) :
Rate of stock turnover in July, 1935 ................................................................................................
Rate of stock turnover in July, 1986 .............................................................................................. ..
Rate of stock turnover January 1, to July 81. 1986 .....................................................................
Rate of stock turnover January 1, to July 81, 1986 .................................................................... .
Ratio of July collections to open accounts receivable and outstanding July 1. 1986...............
Retio of July collections to installment accounts receivable and outstanding July 1, 1986...
Indexes of department store sales:
Unadjusted-June. 1986..............................................................................._....................................
Unadjusted--July, 1986 ........................... _......_.............._................................................................ .
Adjusted-June, 1986 ..........................................................................................................................
Adjusted--July, 1986 ...................................................................................................._.................... .
Indexes of department store stocks:
Unadjusted-June, 1986 .....................................................................................................................
Unadjusted--July, 1986 ..................................................................................................................... .
Adjusted--June. 1985..........................................................................................................................
Adjusted-July, 1985 ...........................................................................................................................
The number and liabilities of commercial
failures in the Eleventh Federal Reserve
District reflected a decline in July and
reached the lowest level in several years. According to the
report of Dun and Bradstreet, Incorporated, there were 12
Commercial
Failures
.26
.27
2.02
2.15
42.2
15.6
Houston
Fort Worth
2.8
4.4
.19
.28
1.47
1.74
85.6
16.7
-
2.9
18.0
.21
.24
1.66
1.90
42.7
Sail AntonIo
4.2
2.9
.24
.28
1.96
2.15
45.1
14.6
+
8.6
4.5
.18
.21
1.47
1.68
86.8
24.7
+ 22.8
_ 22.2
+ 17.0
+
8.0
6.0
.22
.25
1.75
1.94
40.S
16.7
91.6
96.1
76.0
110.6
118.4
101.1
70.4
107.6
105.9
90.0
71.7
84.9
102.4
88.9
66.0
85.6
97.1
99.6
101.6
56.8
52.2
68.S
6S.1
65.1
62.2
68.6
67 .6
40.8
86.6
44.8
41.1
4S.0
44 .6
62.8
51.8
57.1
64.0
60.7
69.8
71.1
-
failures in July as compared with 17 defaults in June and
19 insolvencies in the corresponding month last year. ~he
indebtedness of defaulting firms amounted to $63,000 dunng
July as against $1.4.8,000 in the previous month and $197,000 in July last year.
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
s
AGRICULTURE
Growing crops in most sections of the
Eleventh District responded to the favorable weather conditions obtaining in
July, and the August 1 production estimates by the Departlllent of Agriculture for most crops were equal to or higher
~han those on July 1. The Department reported that the
Indicated yield per acre of 32 important crops combined,
August 1, 1936 (expressed as a percentage of the 1921-30
a~erage yield), was as follows for states attached to this
dIstrict; Texas-1l2; Louisiana-123; Arizona-1l7; New
Mexico-l08; and Oklahoma-63. The low figure for Oklahoma reflects the effects of the severe and prolonged
drought prevailing in that State. The effects of the drought
upon crops were also visible in those counties on the
eastern side of the Panhandle and in north central Texas
b?rdering on Oklahoma. Since early in August exceedingly
hIgh temperatures accompanied by hot winds have preyailed over much of the district and commercial reports
Indicate that crops have been affected adversely.
Crop Conditions
The cotton crop made good progress during July in most
sections of this district. Production for the Eleventh District,
as compiled by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on the basis of estimates by states as of August
1 by the Department of Agriculture, was placed at 4,568,000
bales, which compares with an actual production of 3,569,000 bales in 1935. In all states, wholly or partially
attached to this district, except Oklahoma, prospects on
August 1 were for a better than average per acre yield. The
T~xas crop was estimated at 3,850,000 bales as compared
WIth an actual harvest of 2,956,000 bales in 1935. The per
a?re yield was placed at 155 pounds, which compares with
133 pounds in 1935. In the southern and southeastern parts
of the State, the crop showed the effects of excessive
~l1oisture, unusual vegetative growth and insect activity, but
In other sections insect damage was reported as below
average and prospective yield above the average. The per
acre yield in Louisiana was forecasted at 24.5 pounds, as
compared with 218 pounds in 1935, and 192 pounds for the
Len-year average. Total production was estimated at 678,000
bales as against an actual production of 556,000 bales last
~ear . Cotton in Arizona and New Mexico was in good conditIon and large yields were in prospect. The drought and
unusually high temperatures prevailing in Oklahoma have
greatly reduced prospects in that State, and the August 1
forecast of 4,65,000 bales was only about 38 per cent of the
ten-year average production.
. ~he corn crop in Texas, Louisiana, and Arizona reRected
Dn Improvement in July, but the production estimates by the
~partment of Agriculture as of August 1 were below the
1935 harvest due in part to the smaller acreage and in part
to lower per acre yields. The indicated production for Texas
ivas placed at 68,192,000 bushels, as compared with the Ju ly
estimate of 57,537,000 bushels, and a harvest of 89,368,000 bushels in 1935. The estimated production for
LOUisiana was increased from 16,244,,000 bushels on July 1
to 20,884,,000 bushels on August 1, and the latter fig ure
compares with an output of 27,676,000 bushels in 193r:.
I he forecast for Oklahoma remained unchanged at ] 2,52,000 bushels, which is approximately half the poor
harvest a year ago. The grain sorghums acreage in Texas
and Oklahoma was reduced considerably this year, which
will be reflected in a lower total production. The August 1
estimate for Texas was for a crop of 4.9,840,000 bushels
as against a production of 60,075,000 bushels in 1935. In
Oklahoma, production this year was forecasted at 10,360,000 bushels, as compared with last year's harvest of
13,160,000 bushels. The indicated production ill New Mexico was 4.,875,000 bushels, which is substantially larger
than last year's output due ill part to the larger acreage.
The August 1 forecast for tame hay in Texas and Louisiana
was for a crop larger than the July 1 estimates or the actual
production in 1935. There was no change during the month
in the indicated production for other staLes partially attached to this district.
The Texas rice crop was forecasted at 10,557,000 bushels
on August 1, as compared with 10,350,000 bushels on July
1, and a crop of 8,84,0,000 bushels in 1935. While sweet
potato prospects in Texas and Louisiana improved materially during July, the indicated production on August 1
was lower than the 1935 production. It was reported that
lhe August 1 prospects for the citrus crops in Texas were
much beLter than a year ago.
A betterment in the condition of ranges
during the past month occurred over a
major portion of the Eleventh District as a result of rains
in late June and in July. The Department of Agriculture
reported that on August 1 ranges in Texas were in very
good condition and had a good supply of feed for fall
grazing, except in the counties of north central and northwest Texas adjacent to Oklahoma. While ranges in most of
north, northwest, and west Texas carry a good supply of
matured grass, a general rain is needed to revive vegetation.
In most other sections of the State, feed supplies are generally ample. Rain is also needed in southeastern Arizona
and southern New Mexico to provide winter feed. Except
in the very dry areas, caLtle and sheep are in good condition
generally and the large lamb and calf crops are making
good gains.
Livestock
The Department of Agriculture reported that Texas ranges
improved 3 points in July, whereas a decline usually occurs.
Cattle ranges were rated at 85 per cent of normal on August
1, which was 1 point lower than a year earlier, but 5 points
higher than the ten-year average. The 88 per cent condition
of sheep and goat ranges on August 1 was the same as on
that date in 1935, and 6 points above the average. The
August 1 condition of cattle was 88 per cent of normal, as
compared with 85 per cent on July 1, and 86 per cent on
August 1, 1935. Sheep remained unchanged during July
at 85 per cent, which is 2 points lower than the condition
figure on August 1 last year. The condition of goats showed
an improvement of 2 points during the month. In New
Mexico, range and livestock conditions declined in July, but
the August 1 condition was better than a year earlier. While
ranges in Arizona improved during the month, livestock
showed little change.
Record Lamb
Crop in Texas
The Department of Agriculture in its
July 1 report estimated that the 1936
lamb crop in Texas is the largest on
record . The number of lambs docked was placed at 3,726,000 head, which is 69 per cent larger than in 1935, 4.5
per cent greater than in 1934" and slightly above the 1933
4
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
crop. While the increase was due in part to the larger
number of breeding ewes, the major portion of the gain
resulted from the larger number of lambs saved per hundred ewes, which amounted to 76 per cent in 1936, as
compared with 4.6 per cent in 1935, and 48 per cent in 1934..
The crop in New Mexico is 15 per cent larger than in 1935,
and it is about the same in Arizona.
Wool ProducThe preliminary report on wool production in 1936
tion for 1936 by the Department of Agriculture placed the Texas crop at 63,167,000 pounds, which is 3,94.7,000 pounds larger than the
1935 crop and the second largest crop on record. The increase is accounted for both by the greater number of sheep
shorn and the heavier average weight per fleece. Production
in other states partially attached to this district showed a
decline.
Movements
The receipts of livestock at the Fort
and Prices
Worth market reflected a sharp decline
during July. The arrivals of cattle,
calves, and sheep were materially smaller than in either
the previous month or the corresponding month last year,
with the largest decline occurring in the sheep division.
While the receipts of hogs were considerably below those
in June, they exceeded by a substantial margin the small
volume of July, 1935.
The cattle market during the last half of July and the
first week of August was slow and prices were uneven to
lower, but in the second week of August trading was more
active and prices on practically all classes showed an ad·
vance of twenty-five cents. The decline in hog prices around
the middle of July was soon regained and the best offerings
at mid-August were bringing $10.75, which was the highest
level reached since last September. The trend of the sheep
and lamb market was toward a lower level.
FORT WORTH LIVESTOOK REOEIPTS
(Number)
July
Oattle ........................
Oalves.......................
Hogs.........................
Sheep ........................
1936
42,496
21,182
18,004
87,122
July
1935
70,048
28,042
11,785
63,286
Change over
year
-27,547
- 6,860
6,269
-26,164
+
Change over
June
1936
53,927
25,068
24,778
87,705
month
- 11,481
- 8,886
- 6,774
- 50,583
OOMPARATIVE TOP LIVESTOOK PRICES
(Dollars per hundredweight)
July
July
1936
Beef steers. ................................................................... $ 7.75
Stocker steers................................................................
7.00
1935
$ 9.75
~~~~he~ ~~~~.e.~.~~.~~~.~::::::::::. :::. :::::. ::::. :. :. . ::. ::::::::. ::::::: ~:~~
10.65
6.50
8.00
10.60
4.00
7.50
Oalves..............................................................................
7.25
l~~~:.:.:..:. ~:.:::~:~:.:~~.:~~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:::~.:.:~~:~~:::.:.: .:.: :.: .~ ~ .: :. : . :.:~~:.:. ~.: ~:~~
1
Junt:
1936
$ 8.00
7.00
8.50
5.50
8.00
10.20
6.00
10.00
FINANCE
Condition of
Member Banks
in Leading
Cities
The loans of reporting member banks in
leading cities of this district rose to
$203,601,000 on August 12, which was
the highest figure reported since early
in 1934.. The total was $10,219,000 above
that on July 8, and $27,775,000 greater than loans on
August 14, 1935. During the five-week period ending August
12, loans on securities declined $724,000, while "all other"
loans (agricultural, commercial, and industrial loans) increased $10,943,000. While the investments of these banks
in the direct and fully guaranteed obligations of the United
States Government were reduced $3,154.,000 between July
8 and August 12, holdings on the latter date were $23,.
167,000 larger than on the corresponding date in 1935.
Investments in other securities declined $252,000 during the
five-week period, but were $6,830,000 higher than a year
earlier. Their demand deposits-adjusted on August 12
totaled $361,562,000, which represents an increase of $9,OONDITION STATISTICS OF MEMB'E R BANKS IN LEADING OITIES
(In thousands of dollars)
Aug. 12,
Aug. 14,
July 8,
1936
1935
1936
United States securities (owned) ...................... $189,914
$154,956
$195,080
Securities fully guaranteed by United
States Government (owned) ...........................
81,363
43,154
29,851
All other stocks, bonds, and securities
(owned) .............................................................. .
48,669
41,889
48,921
Loans on securities ...............................................
42.882
42,471
48,606
All other loans ..................................................... ..
133,355
160,719
149,776
Total loans ..............................................................
175,826
203,601
193,882
Demand deposit&-adjusted O......... . ........ .. .......... .
361,562
823,185
851,991
Time deposits ..........................................................
120,155
121,805
120,828
United States Government deposits................ ..
87,174
19,607
88,847
Interbank deposits............................................ ....
180.816
136.933
192,161
Balances with domestic banks ...........................
179,981
152,975
184,301
Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank .............
88,748
78,418
95,377
Bills payable and rediscounts with F ederal
Resel've Bank.................................................... .
None
None
None
·Demand deposits other than interbank and United States Government,
less cash items reported as on hand or in process of collection.
571,000 during the five· week period, and $38,377,000 o~er
those a year ago. Time deposits, however, showed a dechn e
from both comparative dates. The reserve deposits of these
banks with the Federal Reserve Bank amounted to $88,748,000 on August 12, as compared with $95,377,000 Oil
July 8, and $73,418,000 on August 14" 1935.
Operations of
Federal Reserve Bank loans to member
the Federal Rebanks reflected a further increase beserve BanI.
tween July 15 and August 15. Total
loans on the latter date amounted to
$597,000 as compared with $379,000 a month earlier, and
$577,000 on August 15, 1935. Outstanding industrial ad·
vances stood at $1,560,000 on August 15, which represents
a decline of $63,000 from the total on July 15, and $285.,000 from that on the corresponding date last year.
bank's investments in United States Government secuntles
remained unchanged at $93,570,000. The reserve deposits
of member banks amounted to $144,110,000 on August 15,
as compared with $138,662,000 on July 15, and $121,088,000 on August 15, 1935. Federal Reserve notes in actual
circulation totaled $84,628,000 on August 15, which was
$974.,000 lower than a month earlier. The cash reserves
of this bank, which declined sharply during the last haH of
'P!IS
OONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
(In thousands of dollars)
Total cash reserves..... ............ ....................... ..
Discounts for member banks ............................. .
Other bills discounted ...........................................
Industrial advances .............................................. .
Oommitments to make Industriul advances .. .
Bills bought in the open market.................. ..
United States Government securities owned ..
All other investments.......................................... .
Total earning assets. ......................................
Member bank reserve deposits ........... ............ .
Federal Reserve notes In actual circulation.. ..
Aug. IS,
Aug. IS,
1936
$168,905
597
None
1,560
536
87
98,570
None
95,814
144.110
84,628
1935
$110,887
577
None
1,845
448
122
81,475
None
84.019
121,088
61,044
July
IS,
1936
$178,255
879
None
1,628
588
86
98,570
None
95,658
138,662
85,602
6
MONTHLY BUSINESS REVIEW
Iu.ly, rose steadily in the two succeeding weeks and at the
mlddle of August amounted to $168,905,000. While this
figure was $41,350,000 lower than a month earlier, it was
$58,068,000 higher than a year ago.
Deposits 0/
Member Banles
There is presented a table showing the
demand deposits-adjusted and time de.
posits of member banks in the Eleventh
DIstrict as of each "call" date from June 30, 1933, to March
4" 1936, inclusive, segregated according to reserve city and
COuntry banks.
DEPOSITS OF MEMB'ER BANKS
(In thousands of dollRrs)
Combined Tot:tl
Reserve City Bnnks
Demand
Dem:md
Country B'IOks (2)
Demand
Call d
deposits
Tillie
deposits
Tllne
deposits
Time
J
ates:
ndjnSled (1) Deposits ndjusted (1) Deposits nrljusted (1) Deposits
Ou~e SO. 1988 (3) .. $879,662 $189,863 $176,729 $114,301 $202,938 $76,662
DC' 26, 1988........... 406,974
189,949
181.897
108.783
224.077
81,216
80. 1938........... 444,206
190,000
194,914
107,497
249.291
82,608
Jar. 5. 1934 .......... 489.624
198.799
216,647
108.256
272,877
85,643
e 80, 1984 .......... 496,620 197.280 232.911
111.854
262,609
86,426
DC 17,1984 ........ 542.021
195,992
246,486
109,410
295.585
86, 582
~ec. 81, 1984 ......... 551,276
196.066
242,422
112,117
308.854
88 ,949
Juar • 4. 1986 .... ........ 572,576
195,066
269,032
111.861
318.644
88,196
»ne 29, 1986......... 588,644
195,210
276,556
113,421
307,088
81.789
D ov. I, 1985 .......... 628,988
194.362
294,456
111, 378
384,582
82.989
~cc. 81, 1985 ......... 642,167
198,495
292,629
111,851
349.688
86 ,644
ar. 4, 1986 ......
662,216
196,626
300,624
109,285
361,692
87,34 1
(1) Demand deposits ot her than Interbank and United States Government,
les8 cash items in process of collection and. pt'ior to December 81,
1986, less cash items r eported on band but not in proceS8 of collection.
(2) Outlying banks in reserve cities which bave been authorized to carl'y
country bunk reserves Ill'e included witb country banks.
(a) Beginning June, 1988, figures reiate to licensed banks only.
'ltr'
r
oUt
--------------------------------------------------------Debits to
IndiVidual
Accounts
(
Debits to individual accounts at banks in
eighteen reporting cities of this district
in July reflecLed a further increase of
3.4 per cent as compared with the previous month, and 1.9 per cent as compared with the correSPonding month last year. While the increase over a year
ago was considerably smaller than in earlier months of the
year, it will be recalled that debits at one city were exceptionally large in July, 1935, as a result of transactions
incident to the transfer of ownership of a large corporation.
DEBITS TO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
(In thousands of dollars)
June Petg. change
July
July Petg. eh.nge
1936 over month
over year
1936
19J5
$
7,147
+ 4.5
Abilene .......................... .. $ 7.466
+66.1
$ 4.815
Austin ....................... ..... .
+14.4
21.871
- 6.1
26.661
26.024
21,759
-.3
Beaumont....... _..............
20,181
21.688
7.4
2.617
+ 7.7
Corsicana ...................... .
+14.6
2.460
2.818
206.948
+ 6.1
Dallas.. .......................... ..
+29.6
168.570
218.477
28.626
- 1.7
+14.4
El Paso........................... .
20.806
28.221
+12.1
71,892
Fort Worth ................... _
80,016
66.746
+19.9
25,286
- 1.7
24,860
+20.4
20.651
~~~se~~~:..:....:::~.::..::::..::..:: 180,601 266.089 -82.1 181 ,966 - .7
7.456
+ 8.2
+88.1
6.061
8.066
Port Arthur ..................
8.148
-14.0
2,783
- 2.7
2,708
RoswelL ...................... ..
62,921
- 1.0
58,299
62.818
6.9
San Antonio ................. ..
89,445
+ 2.9
29,408
88.0
40,583
Sbreveport.................... ..
10.1
- 6.8
6.782
5,784
6.312
Texarkana· .................. ..
88.9
10.612
6.8
9,954
7.486
Tucson........................... ..
18.499
+18.0
10,957
+89.2
15,254
Tyler ............................. ..
12.428
+
2.5
12,737
+15.7
11,010
Waco ............................ ·14.802
+ 4.2
14,903
14.691
+ 1.4
Wicblta Falls ............... ..
$782.084
+ 8.4
$742.808
1.9
TotnL ........ . $767.001
"Includes the figm'cs of two banks in Texarkana, Arkansas, located in
the Eighth District.
+
+
i
+
Outstanding bankers' acceptances executed by accepting banks in this district
amounted to $600,116 on July 31 as
compared with $501,759 on June 30, and $1,013,064 on
July 31, 1935. Acceptances executed against import and export transactions reflected a slight decline during July,
while those based on the domestic shipment and storage of
goods were increased.
Acceptance
Market
The savings deposits at 125 banks in this
district which operate savings departments showed little change between June
30 and July 31, but the total on the latter date was 2.9
per cent larger than a year ago. There was a further increase in the number of savings depositors.
Savings
Deposits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SAVINGS DEPOSITS
July 3 I, 1936
Number
of fe- Number of
porting
savings
bAnks
depositors
3
8.943
July 3 t. t 9JS
Juno 10,1916
Amount of
Number of
Amount of
Percentnge change Number of
Amount of Percentage change
snvings
snvings
savings
over year in
savings
savings
over month in
deposits
savings deposits
depositors
deposi ts
snvings deposits
depositors
deposits
Beaumont ........................ ............... ..
$ 8,556,707
.n
9,029
8,598,689
- 1.2
8.888
$ 8,574,800
9"
80.116
26,881,620
77,126
25,514.649
+ 1.2
79,865
26,788.886
.2
2
18,041
6,782.3 69
12,299
6.685.394
+19.8
12,909
6.764.862
.4
8
36 ,118
12.188.454
84.868
11.176,668
+ 9.1
86,668
12.180,241
.5
4
17,889
10,693.044
16,985
10,829.040
+ 8.5
17,218
10,600.627
.9
11"
68,054
80,157,766
- 1.1
66.584
81.780,799
- 5.1
67.698
80.602,742
2
6.210
2,287,605
6.848
2.107.116
+ 8.6
6,177
2,248,421
1.7
19,619
17.866,517
6"
17,658
16,818.980
+ 9.5
19,520
17,880,885
.1
10.837.15 6
8
23 ,599
22,255
10.670,274
+ 2.5
28.208
10,676.076
+ 1.5
3
9,629
5,481.846
9.846
6,846.880
-18.6
9,499
6,662,969
- 8.2
8
6,462
8.427.077
6.077
8.104,651
+10.4
6.440
8,429,964
.1
76'
52.393
27,493.618
60.752
25.659,261
+ 7.1
61,661
27,419,468
.8
Total..... .. ................ .... ..
ill,
340,428
$156.602,262
• + 2.9
887.241
$156.661 ,870
-=-:03
828.767
$152,185,751
·Only 8 banks in Dallas, 10 ill Houston, 5 San A ntollio. and 68 banks in "All othel's" l'eported tbe numbel' of savings depositors.
il;.
@FedFRASER