View original document

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

business

september 1967

FEDERAL RESERVE
.B A N K 0 FDA IL LAS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)

· ··c_·c·

..

.•.,--.. .----.- .-.. .',....,. .

contents

'.....

_ _ __

perspective on recent
corporate bond financing

3

cattle feeding in texas .. . ..... .. . . ...... .... .

6

district highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

.....

perspective on
recent corporate
bond financing
One of the most important financial developments of 1966 and 1967 has been the enormous demands made upon the capital market
by corporations. These demands were a contributing factor in the surge of interest rates
to record levels in 1966 and were a key reason
for the sharp upturn in capital market rates
in the spring of 1967, despite a relatively easy
monetary policy.
Net new funds raised by U.S. corporations
through bond offerings expanded from an annual average of $4.3 billion in the 1960-65
period to $10.2 billion in 1966 and to an estill1ated seasonally adjusted annual rate of $13.4
billion in the first half of 1967. 1 In addition,
throughout 1966 (but particularly in late 1966)
and in early 1967, corporations relied more
heaVily on public offerings of new securities
than on private placements. As a result of this
shift, new public offerings of corporate bonds
reached extraorclinarily high levels in 1966
and early 1967. In order to understand the
reasons for this large increase in the volume
of Corporate bond financing and the shift to
public offerings, it is necessary to place these
developments in their proper historical perspective.
From 1960 through 1966, capital expenditUres of nonfinancial corporations more than
dOubled. During the same 7-year period, gross

-1

ne These data are for corporate nonfinancial busia Ss. They are obtained from the flow of funds
published by the Board of Governors of
age Federal Reserve System and do not necessarily
ree with other data on corporate financing.

savings 2 of such firms expanded considerably,
spurred by rapid increases in net profits and in
depreciation allowances, but these cash :fl0ws
rose at a less rapid rate than capital expenditures. During the early part of the period, from
1960 to 1964, the firms were able to cover
the shortfall of internally generated funds by
drawing down their liquidity. However, by
1966, corporate liquidity had been depleted significantly, and the particularly heavy capital
expenditures in that year necessitated the use
of external funds, especially bond financing.
Moreover, since 1966 was a year of credit
squeeze and of depressed stock market levels,
an added burden was placed upon the capital
market by the diversion of demand from commercial bank term loans and the equity market
to the bond market.
Capital expenditures H of nonfinancial corporations more than doubled during 1960-66,
expanding from $36.7 billion to $75 .5 billion.
In contrast to this performance, in the prior
7 years (1953-59), capital expenditures of
these firms rose only $11.0 billion, or 46 percent. Most of the 1960-66 expansion in capital
expenditures - namely, $27.9 billion, or about
three-fourths of the total- occurred in plant
and equipment spending. This large increase
2 Gross savings cash flows - may be thought of
as the internal funds available to these corporations.
The amount is obtained by adding net profits after
taxes and depreciation (capital consumption allowances) and subtracting dividends.
8 As measured in the flow of funds accounts, capital expenditures include both fixed investment and
the net change in inventory levels.

business review/september 1967

3

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND SAVINGS OF
CORPORATE NONFINANCIAL BUSINESS
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

80

'Pro'lImlnary soasonally adju sted nllnual rate for first half of 1967.
SOURCE : Bo ard of Governors. Foderal Reserve Sy stom,

in expenditures for plant and equipment, which
stemmed, in part at least, from the stimulative
impact of the investment credit allowance and
accelerated depreciation provisions of Federal
income tax laws, was both one of the principal
MEASURES OF CORPORATE LIQUIDITY
PERCENT

1.9

causes of and one of the results of the rising
rate of growth in the Nation's economy during
the first 6 years of the 1960's. By increasing
the economy's rate of growth, the expansion
in investment, of course, raised the required
level of corporate working capital.
While internally generated funds, or corporate gross savings, rose quite rapidly, the
rate of increase was less than that for capital
expenditures. Gross savings of corporate nonfinancial business, moving from $34.4 billion
in 1960 to $60.3 billion in 1966, increased
$25.9 billion, or 75 percent. The rapid growth
in internally generated funds was fueled by the
expansion in corporate net savings (profits
after taxes minus dividends) and in depreciation allowances. Responding to widening profit
margins throughout most of the period, corporate net savings rose from $10.2 billion
in 1960 to $22.6 billion in 1966, showing a
gain of $12.4 billion, or 122 percent; similarlY,
depreciation allowances, reflecting the large
amount of investment and the rapid rate of
amortization, increased from $24.2 billion in
1960 to $37.7 billion in 1966, growing $13.5
billion, or 56 percent.
With both capital expenditures and internally generated funds expanding rapidly but
with capital expenditures rising more rapidlY
than internally generated funds, the shortfall
in gross savings became progressively greater,
and funds from outside sources were needed
to continue the ambitious expansion prograIll S
of the nonfinancial corporations. In the period
from 1960 through 1964, capital expenditures
of these businesses exceeded internally generated funds (gross savings) by an average of
$2.5 billion per year. The deficiency rose to
$7.9 billion in 1965 and to $15.2 billion ill
1966; it is estimated that, in the first half of
1967, the deficiency was at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $12.8 billion.

1960

1962

1964

SOURCE: Securities and Exch.nae Comminion.

4.

1966

Through 1965, corporations were able to
meet most of their financing needs above grOSS

savings by drawing down their liquidity. While
the reduction in liquidity was only slight when
measured by the "current ratio" (the ratio of
current assets to current liabilities), the decline
in liquidity was substantial on the basis of the
more discerning measures.
For example, the ratio of current assets to
CUrrent liabilities declined from 1.85 in 1960
to 1.80 in 1966 and to 1.79 in early 1967.
Bowever, the ratio of cash and U.S. Governll1ent securities to total current liabilities fell
from .36 in 1960 to .27 in 1966 and to .25
in March 1967. This decline was particularly
evident in the case of holdings of u .S. GovernInent securities, which were 13.4 percent of
cUrrent liabilities in 1960, 6.6 percent in 1966,
and 5.8 percent in early 1967. In contrast, the
ratio of notes and accounts receivable to total
current liabilities rose slightly from 1960
through early 1967. In other words, while the
current ratio of nonfinancial corporations deClined only slightly, there was a significant shift
toward less liquid items in the composition of
current assets.
. With capital expenditures rising very rapidly
late 1965 and 1966, with a large gap openIng between capital expenditures and internally
generated funds, and with corporate liquidity
already at extremely low levels, American corPorations turned heavily to the bond market.
a level of $5.4 billion in 1965, the net
in corporate debt grew to $10.2 billion
In 1966 - or almost double the 1965 figure
;- and, by the first half of 1967, had risen
Urther to a seasonally adjusted annual rate
of $13.4 billion.
In addition to the large increase in the total
Volume of corporate bonds, there was a much
greater volume of publicly offered securities
relative to privately placed issues in 1966 and
early 1967. From 1960 through 1965, the
rar.10 of publicly offered corporate bonds to
placed ones averaged .82; that is,
e volume of publicly offered bonds was 82

RATIO OF PUBLICLY OFFERED TO
PRIVATELY PLACED CORPORATE BONDS
PERCENT

1.9r ; = = = = = = = = = : : ; ; ; ; ; ; = =

.9

.7

SOURCE: Securltl os and Exc han Go Commi ss ion.

percent as large as the volume of privately
offered bonds. However, the ratio of public to
private offerings was 1.06 in 1966 and 1.80 in
the first quarter of 1967. Thus, the volume of
publicly offered bonds was 106 percent of the
amount of privately placed ones in 1966 and
NET INCREASE IN BONDS OUTSTANDING
OF CORPORATE NONFINANCIAL BUSINESS
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

15

13

11

9

7

5

3

1960

1962

1964

I

1966

·Prolimin ar y lIuso nally adj us tod an no al ra te for Ilr •• half of 19 61.

S.OURCEl Boa rd of Gov ernors.. Fodora l Rou rv (l Sys tem.

business review/september 1967

5

was almost double the amount of private offerings in the first quarter of 1967. Among the
most important reasons for this shift were the
decline in liquidity at some of the institutions
which traditionally purchase corporate bonds
through private negotiation and, also, the attractive rates on publicly offered securities.
While much of the heavy corporate bond
financing in 1966 undoubtedly reflected the
inadequacy of corporate internal funds, two
new causal elements appeared in the early part
of 1967 - the desire of corporations to rebuild
liquidity (partially, at least, by repaying shortterm bank loans) and the fear of another credit
squeeze, similar to that experienced in 1966.
Thus, although the gap between capital expenditures and internally generated funds fell from

$15.2 billion in 1966 to $12.8 billion in the
first half of 1967, bond financing rose froIll
$10.2 billion to an annual rate of $13.4 billion.
In view of the continued high level of capital expenditures, the relative stability of internally generated funds, the desire to rebuild
corporate liquidity, and the fear of more costly
money in the second half of 1967, it is not
surprising that the large volume of corporate
offerings of bond issues has continued through
the late summer. In fact, the heavy volume of
new offerings, coupled with the increased eIllphasis on public placements, resulted in a volume of publicly offered corporate bonds in the
first half of 1967 almost as large as that for all
of 1966.
DONALD R. FRASER

cattle feeding
in texas
Texas has long been a leading producer of
beef cattle but is a relative newcomer to the
fed cattle industry. Despite the bountiful supply
of feeder cattle coming from its ranges and
pastures, which comprise about 75 percent of
all land in farms and ranches in Texas, only a
small percentage was fed commercially within
the State until about 1960. Since a substantial
part of the cattle produced have been sold to
operators of feedlots in other states to be fattened for slaughter markets, Texas has been
largely dependent upon out-of-State sources for
a supply of fed carcass beef. In fact, Texas
leads the Nation in the total number of cattle
produced, accounting for about 10 percent,
but ranks fourth in the number of cattle com-

6

mercially slaughtered. The tremendous growth
in feedlot operations since 1960 has helped
to reduce the deficit between consumption and
production of fed beef. Cattle feeding in Texas
has advanced faster than in other areas of the
country during the past 7 years.
Prior to the development of the cattle feeding industry in Texas to the point reached in
recent years, animals slaughtered in the State
consisted largely of grass-fat steers, veal calves,
and cows culled from dairy and beef breeding
herds. In recent years, a different type of beef
has been demanded by Texas consumers, as
well as consumers throughout the Nation. A
preference for cuts of beef from heavier car-

CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED IN TEXAS

1960
SOURCE: U.S. Dop artm e nt 0::..;
1

1962

1964
• •_ _ _ _ _. - ._ __

casses, grading high Good to Choice, has been
indicated by both consumers and retailers.
lIigher personal incomes, changing taste patterns, and dietary habits have all contributed
to a greater demand for beef.
Although a sizable volume of carcass beef
Continues to be derived from calves and grassfat cattle, the percentage of total marketings
originating from feedlots is increasing rapidly.
Marketings from feedlots rose from about 11
percent of the State's total in 1960 to almost
25 percent in 1966. There was a 165-percent
gain in the number of cattle fed during this
period. The number of cattle and calves on
feed in Texas increased from less than 1 million
head in 1960 to over 2 million head in 1966.
Growth was continuous for each of the interVening years, and the trend apparently has
COntinued since the number of cattle on feed
during the first 6 months of 1967 was about
20 percent larger than in the same period a
Year ago.

the first and fourth quarters of the year usually
account for a larger percentage of the total
number on feed than do the second and third
quarters. Part of the intrayear variation may be
explained by seasonal differences in the availability of feeder cattle.
The production of feeder cattle and calves
is not a continuous process. A large part of
the calf crop is born in the spring of each year
and is not the right size or age to be placed
in feedlots before the following fall or winter
months. The sale of calves for feeding in the
fall and winter months coincides with grain
harvest, and the animals are usually lower in
price because of the increased supply. A large
number of calves are kept on farms and ranches
following fall weaning, placed on small grains
in the winter, pastured on ranges in the spring
and summer, and sold as yearling feeders in
the fall months. Thus, feed supplies, the timing
of other farm activities, and the availability of
hay and grazing help to determine when feeders
are demanded and sold. Whether the feedlot
operator desires weaning calves or yearling
feeders, the supply availability is likely to be
DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF CATTLE
ON FEED IN TEXAS, BY CLASS
PERCENT

. bespite the consistent year-to-year increases

In cattle feeding, the number being fed during
year is not uniform. In fact, the numbers
ed often show sizable quarterly variations;

1960

1962

1964

1966

SOURCE: U.S. Dopa rtm ohl of Acrl cultur o.

business review/september 1967

7

larger in the fourth and first quarters of the
year.
Information on the types of cattle fed in the
State is available for three broad categories:
steers and steer calves; heifers and heifer calves;
and cows and others. The composition of the
number of cattle being fed has undergone a
considerable change. There has been a decided
shift in favor of the number of heifers, rather
than steers. In 1960 the proportion of steers
and heifers was 59 percent and 40 percent,
respectively. A gradual change in the numbers
of steers and heifers on feed in the period between 1960 and 1966 has placed heifers ahead
of steers, with heifers accounting for over 50
percent of the total number of cattle on feed
since 1963. During the past few years, the rate
of cattle herd expansion has slowed, and more
heifers have become available.
Although it is not likely that the number of
heifers will remain relatively larger than the
number of steers on feed , heifers may continue
to constitute more nearly half of all cattle on
feed. Dairy cattle numbers are declining; and,
as a result, there will be fewer veal calves, as
well as culled cows. Beef cattle numbers are
increasing and are large enough, under normal
conditions, to support herd replacements and
provide a larger number of heifers for feedlots.
During the past 7 years, data on cows fed were
often not reported because of the small numbers; but when such information was available,
at no time did the figure reach 2 percent of the
total.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports
quarterly, in units of 1,000 head, on the number of cattle on feed. The reports give data
by crop reporting district or by combinations
of two or more districts. Such geographic reporting permits discernible comparisons among
the various areas in Texas and provides some
perspective on the growing importance of the
cattle feeding industry within the State. With
the exception of Crop Reporting District 6 -

8

the Trans-Pecos area - all districts showed
growth in the number of cattle fed during
the past 7 years. While the numbers in other
districts were increasing, the number in District 6 was declining and, in 1966, represented slightly less than 3 percent of the State
total, in contrast to 13 percent in 1960. The
greatest year-to-year fluctuations in absolute
numbers have been accounted for in District 6,
with the number fed varying from a high of
110,000 head in 1963 to a low of 28,000 head
in 1965.
The greatest growth in actual numbers has
occurred in District 1-N, or the Panhandle (in
northwest Texas). Cattle numbers fed in the
Panhandle have increased each year since 1960.
The district ranked second in the number of
cattle on feed in 1960, gained first place in
1963, and still retained this position in 1966.
The area has increased its share of the State's
total from almost 19 percent to more than 40
percent. The Panhandle region has many favorable attributes that contribute to the growth
of cattle feeding. Climatic factors, such as temperature and the distribution of rainfall during the year, provide better than average conditions for animals on feed. The soil is of a
type which permits good drainage and requires
a minimum amount of animal energy for maneuvering when wet. Sorghum grain is produced in abundance, and cottonseed meal, used
as a protein supplement, is readily
from nearby processing facilities. Its geographical location places the area in a good position
relative to east-west and north-south transportation.
The Gulf Coast region, comprised of DiStricts 8 and 9, had the second largest nurober
of cattle on feed last year. Although
high in cattle numbers fed, the Gulf Coast dlStricts have shown a rate of increase equal
only about half that of the Panhandle area an,
accounted for around 18 percent of the State s
total in 1966.

CATTLE FEEDING IN TEXAS, BY CROP REPORTING DISTRICTS

CATTLE ON FEED
(thousands)

STATE

1960
1966

FEEDLOTS WITH
CAPACITY. OF 1,000
OR MORE HEAD

102
245

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

business review / september 1967

9

NUMBER OF CATTLE AND CALVES ON FEED IN TEXAS, BY CROP REPORTING DISTRICTS
(In

Date

thousands of head)

l·N

l·S

2,3,
and 7

4 and 5

6

8 and 9

10

State
tota!...

1960:

January 1 · . . . . . . . . .
April 1 ....... . . . . . .
July 1 . . . · . , . . . . . . ,
October 1 .. .

40
33
38
38

44
38
47
45

19
9
6
14

34
16
13
19

32
19
23
26

49
26
23
33

30
20
23
31

248
161
173
206

1961:

January 1 ., . .. .....
Apri l 1 .. .
. . . . .. . . . .
July 1
October 1 .. .. ......

43
49
44
48

48
54
50
53

24
17
12
17

31
17
16
20

32
21
15
19

47
36
32
36

29
24
14
26

254
218
183
219

1962:

January 1
April 1 ....... .• .. >.
July 1 .... . .. . .. . ..
October 1 · . . . . . . . . .

58
57
52
62

59
59
56
66

27
22
16
37

39
20
14
37

29
30
17
28

71
51
37
63

40
33
24
32

323
272
216
325

1963:

January 1
April 1 ...... . . .. ...
... . ... . .
July 1
October 1 · . . . . . . . .

83
79
58
90

78
75
59
78

48
32
17
32

65
43
29
62

37
31
21
21

97
61
60
84

42
37
24
35

450
358
268
402

... .. . . .. .
1964:
.. . .... . . .
... . .... . .
... .. .. .. .
1965: January 1 . . . .. .. . . .
April 1 ... · . . . . . . . . .
July 1 . . . ... ... . . . .
October 1 ... .. .. .. .

105
93
80
110

87
68
46
57

48
34
36
56

72
46
37
53

29
18
7
6

94
58
62

77

43
32
29
33

478
349
297
392

126
123
118
126

68
50
48
60

65
42
43
55

70
46
45
57

9
6
5
8

105
65
65
88

45
32
30
40

488
364
354
434

167
191
201
190

64
60
59
54

63
60
59
60

72
67
56
62

18
10
16
15

107
95
90
90

47
47
31
38

538
530
51 2
509

.

January 1
April 1 . ..
July 1 ..
October 1

1966:

January 1
April 1
Ju ly 1
October 1

·. . ..

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The largest percentage gain in numbers has
occurred in Districts 2, 3, and 7 -located in
the Northern Low Plains, Cross Timbers, and
Edwards Plateau areas of the State. As a result of the combined growth in these districts,
their share of the number of cattle fed in Texas
between 1960 and 1966 almost doubled. Cattle
feeding in the Blacklands and east Texas has
grown over 200 percent, and Districts 4 and 5
accounted for 12 percent of the State's total
in 1966. Cattle feeding in the southern area
of the State has increased at a more moderate
rate. Although the number of cattle fed has
risen in the southern part of Texas, the region'S
proportion of the State's total declined from
about 13 percent in 1960 to under 8 percent
in 1966.
The growing importance of cattle feeding
in the State is closely associated with the expansion in the number of large commercial feedlots, which usually operate on a year-round

10

-

basis. Feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or
more head of cattle increased from 102 as of
January 1, 1960, to 278 as of January 1, 1967.
There have been gains in the number of feeding
facilities throughout Texas, but the number of
lots has risen considerably faster in some areas
than in others. In 1960 the Panhandle, TransPecos, and east Texas areas accounted for almost 60 percent of the large feedlots in the
State. During the past 7 years, the Panhandle
and east Texas areas added 36 and 2,3 of these
large-capacity lots, respectively. Although the
number of lots in operation in the Trans-Pecos
area was on an uptrend until 1963, the region
operated the same number in 1967 as in 1960.
The greatest percentage gain in the number
of feedlots has occurred in Districts 2, 3, and
7, where the absolute number of lots with a
capacity of 1,000 or more head increased from
6 to 34. Districts 8 and 9 (the Gulf Coast
region) ranked second to District 1-N (the

Panhandle) in the number of large lots and,
with 29 additions, had almost tripled the
number 7 years earlier. Although District 10,
in the southern part of the State, has more than
doubled its large feedlots, growth has been
slower than in most other areas - a development which parallels the moderate expansion
in the number of cattle fed.
The Texas cattle industry in general, and
cattle feeding in particular, is undergoing considerable change. Shifts in production areas
and the expansion and development of feeding
and slaughtering facilities are part of the response of the beef industry to the growing
market for fed beef. The affluent consumer
demands quality in the beef purchased for
at home, as well as that eaten
In other locations. To satisfy the requirements
of the consumer market, cattle are fed to produce cuts of meat that have eye appeal and
SUffiCient fat to be juicy and tender when prePared. The consumer demands meat cuts that
are mature but are not excessively large or

fat. The cattle feeder meets these standards
by feeding cattle to weights of 900 to 1,000
pounds in order to obtain Choice or Good
grade carcasses.
The housewife has given direction to production through the selections made at the
retail counter. Communication between consumer and cattle feeder is not direct but is
passed through the market channels. The information relayed through the various levels
of the market structure enables the meat industry to cooperate in supplying the quantity
and quality of beef demanded by the consumer.
Feedlot capacities have grown rapidly during the past 7 years. Large commercial lots
supply over 90 percent of the fed beef produced in the State. Further expansion in large
facilities likely will occur because of the economies, technical knowledge, and substantial
capital outlays required by modern feeding
operations.
J. C. GRADY, JR.

dist,.ict highlights
The Texas industrial production index, seaadjusted, made its strongest showing
c Us far this year in July. Rising to 158.6 perof the 1957-59 base, the index was more
f an 2 percent above the upward revised level
June. The increase over June derived its
inrength primarily from the 10-percent gain
indcrude petroleum mining. Virtually all other
categories performed very moderately,
gains and losses about evenly divided
Cat
the output levels of nearly all the
ego nes holding within a narrow range of

the levels of the previous month. The industrial
production index for the State in July was
nearly 8 percent above July 1966.
At a level of 5,696,600, total nonagricultural
employment in the five southwestern states in
July ran counter to the usual seasonal decline
by remaining practically unchanged from June.
Employment in both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing was seasonally strong. Construction was the only sector evidencing weakness,
which was predominantly due to work stop-

business review/ september 1967

11

pages in Louisiana. In comparison with the
same month last year, nonagricultural employment in the five states in July was 4.4 percent
higher.
The production of crude oil has steadily advanced in the Eleventh District since the advent
of the Mideast crisis in June, and the Texas
allowable has been revised upward appreciably.
Daily average production of crude oil in the
District rose 8.0 percent during July and was
10.5 percent higher than in the same month
last year. East Texas, with a monthly increase
of almost 20 percent and a year-to-year advance of 27 percent, showed the largest percentage gains of all areas within the District;
west Texas also showed large percentage gains.
Northern Louisiana and southeastern New
Mexico posted only nominal percentage increases over June.
The oil allowable for Texas was set at a
record-breaking 54 percent of permissible production in August and will be held at this level
in September. The allowable for southeastern
New Mexico has been increased, whereas that
for Louisiana will be lower in September.
months of 1967, negotiable
In the first
time certificates of deposit issued in denominations of $100,000 or more increased quite
rapidly at the weekly reporting commercial
banks in the Eleventh District. For example,
from December 28, 1966, to August 16, 1967,
these large CD's rose from $1.02 billion to
$1.22 billion, or at a seasonally unadjusted
annual rate of 19 percent.
The rate of growth of these money market
instruments, however, was not steady over the
period. In the first quarter of the year, the
large CD's at the District's weekly reporting
commercial banks rose very rapidly, chiefly
reflecting declines in open market rates and
the resultant attractiveness of CD offering rates.
In the second quarter, on the other hand, the

12

amount of large CD's outstanding declined
slightly, as banks with relatively modest loan
demands became less aggressive in seeking
funds through large-denomination certificates of
deposit. Since early July, despite higher open
market rates, weekly reporting banks in the
District have again attracted considerable funds
through the large CD's, apparently in anticipation of an expansion in loan demand in the
coming months.
New passenger car registrations for July in
four major Texas markets were 14 percent
higher than those for the same month in 1966
but were 4 percent lower than in June 1967.
Declines in Houston and Dallas were responsible for the month-to-month dip; registrations
advanced in Fort Worth but were unchanged
in San Antonio. Cumulative registrations
through July this year were 1 percent beloW
the January-July 1966 total for the four
markets.
During the 4 weeks ended August 19, department store sales in the Eleventh District
were 7 percent higher than in the corresponding period in 1966. Cumulative sales thus far
in 1967 were 4 percent more than those for
the same period a year ago.
Despite a shortage of soil moisture in some
areas of the Eleventh District, crops generallY
have made good progress. Harvesting of major
crops is ahead of a year ago, and the earlier
than usual first cutting of rice is virtually complete. U.S. Department of Agriculture estitrlates
of rice and sorghum grain production in the
five southwestern states, as of August 1, place
output at 11 percent and 23 percent, respectively, above last year. Cotton production, on
the other hand, is indicated to be 9 percent
lower. The condition of livestock in the District
varies from fair to good. Prolonged periodS
without measurable rain in some areas have
resulted in reduced supplies of forage and have
necessitated supplemental feeding.

S'JiATISTICAI! SUPPLEMENT
to the

BIJSINESS REVIEW

September 1967

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS

RESERVE POSITIONS OF .MEMBER BANKS

CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS

Eleventh Federa l Reserve District

Eleventh Federal Re serve District

(Averag es of daily figures. In thou sands of dollars)

=

(In thousands of dollars)
Aug. 30,
1967

Item

July 26,
1967

Item

Aug . 31,
1966

4 weeks end e d
Aug. 2, 1967

4 weeks end ed
July 5, 1967

4 weeks ended
Aug . 3, 1966

649,520
601,975
47,545
644,760
4,760
0
4,760

642,204
595,825
46,379
638,464
3,740
0
3,740

6 18,075
572,683
45,392
607,112
10,963
24,547
_ 13,584

643,09 1
481,825
161,266
603,623
39,468
3,775
35,693

632,219
475,775
156,444
595,182
37,037
3,828
33,209

625,842
475,166
150,676
591,786
34,056
11,407
22,649

1,292,611
1,083,800
208,811
1,248,383
44,228
3,775
40,453

1,274,423
1,07 1,600
202,823
1,233,646
40,777
3,8 28
36,949

1,243,9 17
1,047,849
196,068
1,198,898
45,019
35,954
9,065

RESERVE CITY BANKS
Total re serves held . • . .........

ASSETS

With Federal Reserve Bank • • ..
5,101,411
92,578
5,193,989

5,125,639
95,736
5,221,375

4,987,790
92,059
5,079,849

Commercial and industrial loans. ............ .
Ag ricultural loan s, e xcluding

2,442,310

2,494,310

2,474,624r

ce rtiflcates of inte rest ........... . ....... .
loan s to brokers and dealers for

103,819

103,493

85,982

U.S. Gove rnm e nt se curiti es .. . ............ .
Oth e r secu riti es .... . .. . ... . ........... . .
O ther loans for purcha sing or carrying :

11,752
56,860

18,761
42,189

38,789

U.S. Gove rnm e nt securiti es .... .. . . . .. . ... .

872
324,522

871
320,625

1,065
320,470

167,613
268,362
502,956
172,619
5,596
537,038

172,036
278,776
492,171
156,395
4,153
530,199

148,225
265,327
470,810
160,224
6,532
521,987r

o

o

Net loans and discounts ......... , .. .. . . .. . . . . .
Valuation reserves . . . . ............. .. . . ... .. .
Gross loan s and discounts ......... . . . ........ .

cee

pu rchasing or carr ying:

Othe r se curitie s ..... . . . . .. . . ..........•.
Loans to nonbank financial institution s:
Sal es flnonc e, p ersonal flnance, factors,
and oth er busin ess cre dit compani es .. . •.. .

Other .••..•.••.•••••.••••••.•.•••••• • •
Real estate loon s. •........ .. . . ............
loans to dom estic comm ercial bank s..••.. .• •..
loan s to foreign banks ..... . .... . . . ....... .
Con sum er instalm ent loans ••• . . .. .• . • •. .• ....
loons to foreign governm ents, official
institutions, central bonks, international
in stitutions• •• • ...•........... • ...• ••• .•.

4

Currency and coin .......• . . .
Re quire d rese rves • . . .. . .... •..
Exce ss re serv es ... . . . ...•• . .. .
Borrowings . ... . .... . ....•• . ..
Free re serves • . • .. ..• ........ •

COUNTRY BANKS
Total rese rves held .........••.
With Fe dera l Reserve Bonk .. ..
Currency and coin ....... • .. .
Required reserves . ...• ... .....
Excess rese rves . . .. .. .. . ......
Borrowing s•......• . ....... •.•
Free rese rves •.. . . .... •• .• . ...

ALL MEMBER BANKS
Total re se rves held ... . ..... . . •
With Fed eral Rese rv e Bank . . ..
Curr ency and coin .. . .. .. .. . .
Re quire d re serves •... . . ..•.. • .
Excess rese rves .. .• . . .....•...
Borrowing s•....... •.• .... . ...
Fre e rese rves . •• . • .. .. .. . •....

-

---

Other loans .............. . ............ .. .

599,670

607,396

99
585,71 1r

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

2,518,045

2,397,411

2,202,739

Total U.S. Governm ent securities • • •....... . ...
Tr ea sur y bill s. ... • . • ..• .. . . .... . . . .. . ...
Trea sury certiflcates of ind e btedn ess ... •. ...
Trea sury notes and U.S. Gove rnm ent
bond s maturing :

1,203,241
83,216

o

1,104,780
69,192
13,872

1,095,390
53,453
17,843

220,830
657,437
241,758

140,702
625,560
255,454

142,666
569,590
3 11,838

30,658
1,050,506

27,778
1,035,075

14,287
942,325

Total gold certificate reserves .............. .
Discounts for memb er banks . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Other discounts and advanc es . . ... . . . ..... .

0

0

97

U.S. Government securities . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • •
Total earning assets....... . . .. . .. .. . ......
Member bank reserve deposits.... .. .. .. . . ..
Federal Reserve notes in actual circulation.....

1,905,597
1,910,767
1,049,350
1,330,402

1,828,588
1,832,055
1,078,236
1,314,801

I
1,79 1'766
9 17'825
I 246,

Within I year ....................... .
1 ye ar to 5 years ..... . .... •. ...•..•.•
After 5 y e ars .. • •.. • . ••• . • ....•.• • ....
Obligations of states and political subdivisions:
Ta x warrants and short· term not es and bill s ••

All other .. ..... . .. . ... ....... ...... .. ..
Other bond s, corpora te stocks, and securiti es:
Participation certiflcates in Fe d eral
ag enc y loans. •• ............ .... . . . •. .

148,467
85, 173

146,019
83,759

80,357
70,380

Balanc es with ban ks in for eign countri es •..• • . . ••
Othe r a sse ts..•....... •• .... • ..............•

758,165
666,144
76,777
425,881
5,416
330,924

829,367
678,224
79,132
472,840
4,952
316,239

749,474
531,347
72,086
429,977
4, 173
314,153

TOTAL ASSETS . ... . .... ... .............

9,882,763

9,903,804

9,291,739

Total de posits . • • • • • •• ••• • • • • •• . . • • • • • • •• • ••

8,466,903

8,460,209

8,028,684

Total de mand deposits ............ .. ...... .

5,074,275
3,520,418
293,012
80,615
1,096,283

5,106,287
3,536,382
276,169
136,138
1,059,130

4,807,596
3,300,200
326,543
113,664
983,740

All othe r (including corporate stocks) • •••• • ••
Ca sh ite ms in process of coll ection .. .. . .•• .. • ..•
Reserves with Fed e ral Reserve Bank •••• • . •.. •• ••
Currency and coin ....... •. . • .... ••.••• . . .. . .

Balances with banks in the Unite d States ••••••• .•

CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
(In thousands of dollars)

Banks in the United States ..... . . . ...... . . .
Foreign:
Governm ents, offlcial institution s, central
banks, international in stitutions . . .. . • •. .
Comm ercial ban ks . . .. . ... . . . . " . . " •. .
Cer tifl e d and offlc ers' ch ecks, etc •.. . ... " ..
Total tim e and saving s d e posits . • . . . . ... . ... .
Individual s, partn ership s, and corporations:
Saving s d eposits ... . •.. .• ........ . .. . .
Oth er tim e d eposits ••... .... . ..........
States and political subdi visions •. .. ....•...

U.S. Gove rnm ent (including postal savings) • ••
Banks in the Unite d States • ••..• • •.•. ••• •• •
Foreig n:
Governm ents, offlcial in stitution s, central
ban ks, internat ional institutions .• .•... . .
Comm ercial banks...• .... ... . . . .......
Bill s pa yabl e, red iscoun ts, and oth er
lia bili ties for borrow e d mon ey • .......••.. • ••

Other liabilities .. .. ....... .. . ... .. .. .... .. . .

3,155
20,593
60,199

3,221
21 ,854
73,393

2,555
20,760
60,134

3,392,628

3,353,922

3,221,088

1,115,517
1,703,346
536,23 2
12,915
23,118

1,114,147
1,646,665
555,703
12,929
22,978

1,201,183
1,414,626
579,428
5,837
17,174

800
700

800
700

1,300
1,540

345,462
181,712

408,425
154,679

247,951
172,861

888,686

880,491

842,243

TOT AL lIA8Il1T1ES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS

9,882,763

9,903,804

9,291,739

2

Rev ised.

5, 170

3,467

11

--------------------------------------------------'------

CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federa l Reserve District

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS .. ........ ....... ...... .

r -

Aug. 31,

July 26,
1967

----------------------------------------451,654
519, 117

lIA81LITIES

Individual s, partn erships, and corporations ••••
States and political subdivision s ......•....•
U.S. Governm ent • .. .. ..... . .....• • ..... •

Aug. 30,
1967

Item

(In millions of dollars)

Ite m
ASSETS

July 26,
1967

Jun e 2B,

1967

loans and discounts• •. • ... •• ....•.. • .• • .
U.S. Gove rnment obligations • • • ........ • ..
Other securiti es .. . ... .•• •.. . .. ... . . .•.•
Rese rves with Fe deral Reserve Bank . . ••. .. •
Ca sh in vault • .. . .. . ...•........•.•. . •.
Balances with banks in the United Stat es• •.•
Balances with banks in foreign countri es e .•.•
Ca sh it ems in proc ess of coll ection •• . . •• •••
Other a ss ets e . . •.....• • .. •• •• • •.. . .. • ••

8,979
2,310
2,509
1,078
232
1,120
7
945
462

9,096
2,237
2,421
994
229
1,063
7
963
501

TOTAL ASSETse ..... ... .............

17,642

17,511

D emand d eposits of bonks . .. .. ••••• ..•• •
Other d emand d e posits.. . .... . . .. .. . . . . .
Tim e d eposits.• • •. • • • ..••. ..•• • . •. . • • ..

1,3 19
7,799
6,39 1

1,374
7,608
6,354

Total de posits ... . . .. . ... ....... ... ..
Other liabllities e . . ...... .. .. .. ....... . .

Tota l capital accounts e • . ... •.•. .. . ...•. .

15,509
414
211
1,508

15,336
372
299
1,504

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe •. • ••. •• . . •.•••• • ...••

17,642

17,51 1

lIA81l1T1ES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS

Borrowings •.. . . • .....•. . .. . . . ......• • •

e-

Estimated.

July 27,
1966

;;.--8505
2'289
2' 166
'955
224
99 5
7
868
476

---

I 178
7'5 46
5:80 4

213
1,426

BANK DEBITS, END-OF-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts in thousands, seasonally adiusted)

=-

DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change

-

1967

July
1966

4,598,160
2,533,188
5,740,572
716,472
1,847,436
4,622,244
5,236,272
5,551,116
1,418,496
4,245,660
393,720
75,435,108
5,166,216
15,628,656
2,071,332
71,289,396
646,596
3,727,896
1,323,888
1,678,116
1,139,664
993,552
12,932,232
1,275,756
1,895,100
2,214,648
2,03 1,612

11
26
-3
17
6
7
12
0
4
9
7
7
-2
6
-8
2
-2
4
0
6
-9
9
10
-2
19
-5
10

16
31
4
6
-2
7
21
2
17
8
17
11
7
9
8
13
17
4
11
1
-4
8
11
24
13
10
-2

10
8
12
-1
0
1
13
5
3
6
9
11
9
7
10
11
14
-2
13
-1
-5
2
3
21
3
6
-7

$236,353,104

5

11

9

Standard metropolitan

statistica l area

ARIZONA: Tucson •••...••••.••..• • ••.•••. . •• •••• ••.•
LOUISIANA: Monroe ........ ..... ................. ..
Shreveport . ........ ... ...... . ..• .. ••. . ..

NEW MEXICO: Roswell ' ••• ••..••• ..• ••..••••.. •••• •.
TEXAS: Abilene • •. • •••••.. .•••• • _• .... ••••. • •••..•••
Amarillo ...... .. .... ... •.......•.. .. •. .. • ·· .

Austin .•.... . ... ... . ......••.. . . .......... . .
Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange •. ...... .•. .• • ... .
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito . ..... . ..•••..••

:

Dallas •••• • . ..••..• • ••••.••.•.•••• .•..• •••.•
EI Paso •..••••.•••••••••..• •••...•••.••• ••..
Fort Worth ..... . . .. ....... .... ....... ..... ..

Galveston-Texas City .. ... .......... ... ..... ..
Houston •.••..• ••• .. ••••• .•• ••.••• •• . .•••..•

laredo ............ . .............. .... ......
Lubbock •....•••..••..•••••..•••••.•••..•• ••
McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg .. . .....................
Midland •••..• • • . ••••...••••.. •• ••.• ••••. • · •

:
TOKorka na (Texas- Arkansas) .. . ..... .... .. .. .. . .
.' .'
Wichita Falls ••••.•••.•••.•.•••...•••••••• • ••
Total_27
__________ cenlers . .......... . .... . ..... .. ... . . .. .. . .

Annual rate
of turnovor

July 1967 from

July
1967
(Annual-ro te
basis)
$

7 months,
June

1967 from
1966

July 31,
1967

July
1967

1967

July
1966

$ 165,73 2
77,983
217,513
34,539
92,750
137,139
209,809
228,431
64,778
190,598
28,734
1,800,375
198,339
530,658
97,835
2,089,638
34,451
143,152
80,575
123,919
66,332
55,592
560,778
61,514
86,891
112,275
108,625

28.1
33.8
26.4
19.8
19.7
33.8
24.9
24.9
22.3
21.7
13.5
42.5
26.6
30.0
21.6
34.4
19.5
25.9
16.5
13.7
17.6
17.8
23.8
21.5
22.3
20.0
19.0

25.5
27.1
27.0
16.9
18.2
31.3
22.3
25.6
22.0
20.0
12.7
40.4
27.2
29.2
24.0
34.4
20.6
25.0
17.1
13.1
19.8
16.2
22.5
22.2
19.2
21.0
17.2

24.4
25.6
25.8
19.9
20.8
30.7
22.5
25.6
22.7
22.4
12.2
41.3
24.5
28.8
21.8
32.3
18.7
24.3
16.5
14.3
18.5
16.6
23.4
19.0
20.0
19.3
18.8

31.5

30.5

30.0

---$7,598,955

June

DOPosits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations and of states and political subdivisions.
NCOunty basis.
OTE. _ Figures for 1966 have been revised due to th e use of new seasonal adiustment lactors.

GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
El e venth Federal Reserve District
(Averages of dolly flgures. In millions of dollars)
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS

BUI LD ING PERMITS

"'==-

VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousands)
Percent change

July 1967
from

NUMBER

Jun e
1967

Jul y
1966

1,982

$ 14,553

-27

-36

-13

528
2,482

346
5,081

13, 163
19,333

-86
5

-80
22

31
5

359
995
2,647
1,027
432
2,662
13,295
3,276
4,386
700
14,538
223
937
583
685
546
490
8,554
299
2,111
5 12

289
1,063
8,73 1
2,963
560
1,883
15,673
3,367
19,341
606
52,606
218
1,353
3,686
747
117
1,283
6,075
396
1,148
3,524

7,588
13,075
77,486
10,580
1,671
19,095
117,106
34,699
53,632
5,280
233,098
2,317
17,66 1
9,746
4,122
2,298
7,506
6 1,773
2,562
7,982
12,880

8
-36
17
12 1
235
-65
-38
-41
376
-8
36
-31
-33
248
34
-40
-64
-36
-1 1
21
25

-28
-59
-8
41
206
-15
-4
-40
55
89
113
112
-87
302
64
-49
321
-7
345
98
156

- 14
-41
48
-3
-30
-8
-5
- 1
32
16
16
65
-56
-16
-53
- 32
57
4
-50
13
45

66,155

$133,038

$749,206

9

25

4

7 mos.
1967

536

3,888

77
377

39
•
123
......
.• .. •• • •
366
8ro rnont. . ...
154
Co wnsville ....
55
DaiFau. Christi ..
393
Elp s........ 1,683
411
ForloW·······
G
orth ..
57 1
••• : :
89
•.• ' " 2,010
28
L•.bbock: : . . •.
116
M'dland ••••
Od o........
80
88
Port A\.. ••··
SOn Art ur . ...
64
63
Son
IO){.orko 0 . . . 1,238
Waco n0 . . . .
45
366
Wichit'a'
.
65
T
•.
Olal
9,037

ARIZONA
TUCson
•
onroe· West
Sh Mo nroo •• • ••
••.•
Abilono
A.'I"

..

7 months,
1967 from
1966

7 mos.
1967

July
1967

Jul y
1967
$

Dote

Total

Reserve
city banks

1965: J uly .... . ..
1966: July .... . ..
1967: February .. .
March • •• ••
April ......
May ......
Jun e ... .. ,
July .. .... .

8,645
8,912
8,902
8,951
9,140
8,833
8,968
9,195

4,129
4,165
4,020
4,106
4,245
4,089
4,197
4,302

TIME DEPOSITS

Country
bonks

Tota l

Reserve
city banks

Country
bonks

4,516
4,747
4,882
4,845
4,895
4,744
4,771
4,893

5,233
5,734
6,091
6,183
6,231
6,261
6,282
6,285

2,552
2,660
2,721
2,738
2,723
2,716
2,707
2,670

2,681
3,074
3,370
3,445
3,508
3,545
3,575
3,615

VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
(In millions of dollars)
January-July
Area and type

July
1967

Jun e
1967

May
1967

1967

1966

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

441
172
144
124
4,879
1,829
1,749
1,302

583
198
219
166
5,414
2,000
2,070
1,344

519
208
138
171
5,095
2,002
1,808
1,285

3,261
1,163
1,193
904
30,136
10,979
11,659
7,498

3,080
1,268
982
830
31,427r
12,0 16r
11,625
7,785

Arizona, Lou isia na , New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Revised.
NOTE. - Detail s may not odd to lotals because of rounding.
SOURCE : F. W. Dodgo Company.

1

r -

3

CROP PRODUCTION

COTTON PROD UCTION

(In thousands of bushels)

Texas Crop Reporting Districls

TEXAS

(In thausands of bales -

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'

1967,

1967,

estimated

Average

estima ted

500 pounds gross weight)

1967,

Average

-=

1967

Crop

Aug. I

1966

1961-65

Aug. I

1966

1961-65

Area

Aug. I

1966

1965

Cotton :! • • .••. • •.
Corn .....•.....
Winter wheat •.. .

2,775
19,188
53,2 16
6,644
1,178
350
24,892
377,160
150
3,119
370,500
4,329
756
35,000

3,182
19,008
72,652
17,640
2,750
544
21,210
311,696
712
3,585
403,200
4,451
780
26,000

4,544
26,305
63,065
19, 488
4,968
386
17,524
236,601
921
2,878
221,994
2,755
840
38,200

4,125
27,480
153,8 12
11,461
17,706
909
46,927
447,498
150
8,593
604,500
7,766
5,110
106,500

4,54 1
26,593
178,516
24,368
20,984
1,342
42,398
362,428
7 12
8,844
624,606
7,977
4,87 1
71,300

6,555
37,720
167,575
28,523
26,390
1,234
33,722
274,468
921
7,808
400,034
5,704
4,760
94,190

I-N - Northern High Plains ..••••.•.•

9
10-N - South Texas Plains ••••..•.•..
10-S - Lower Rio Grande Valley • • • . ..

220
950
170
240
15
390
30
40
125
25
65
100
90
25
290

260
1,085
177
338
18
484
29
42
127
27
95
134
82
33
25 1

558
1,693
281
402
21
469
34
58
194
57
108
168
201
35
389

85
88
96
71
83
81
103
95
98
93
68
75
110
76
116

State .•••..••.....•.••.....•..•

2,775

3,182

4,668

87

Oats ...........
8arley ••••....•
Rye ............
Rice ' ...........
Sorghum groin .. .

Flaxseed .......
Hay 4 • • •••••••• •
Peanuts 5 ••••• .• •
Irish potatoes G •••

1-5 - Southern High Plains . . ........

2-N
2-S
3
4
5-N
5·S

6
7
8·N
8-S

- Red 8ed Plains ••.... . •.•..•.
- Red 8ed Plains .. •. . .•...••.•
- Western Cro ss Timbers ........
- Block and Grand Prairies ......
- East Texas Timbered Plains . . ..
- East Texas Timbered Plains ....
- Trans·Pecos ... . ........... . .
- Edwards Plateau ... ...... ... .
- Southern Texas Prairies ...... .
- Southern Tex a s Prairies ... . ...
- Coastal Prairios ......... . .. ..

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

1
!!

In thousands of bales.

In thousands of bogs containing 100 pounds each.
, In thousands of tons.
f\ In thousands of pounds.
3

SO URCE, U . S. Dep artm ent of Agriculture.

o In thousands of hundredweight.

1966

.-

---

SOURCE, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
(In thousands of barre ls)

CASH RECEIPTS FROM FARM MARKETINGS

Percent

(Dollar amounts in thousands)
Area

July
1967p
3,781.5
3,294.3
613.1
1,555.5
155.4
99.3
870.9
313.5
173.6
5,321.3
9,102.7

1967p

July
1966

1967

3,500.6
3,022.0
566.8
1,391.9
129.9
96.7
836.7
309.9
168.7
5,032.0
8,532.6

3,420.7
2,955.6
546.2
1,348.8
122.4
97.7
840.5
292 .2
172.9
4,845.2
8,265.9

8.0
9.0
8.2
11.8
19.6
2.7
4.1
1.2
2.9
5.7
6.7

June

June

January-June

1967

Area

New Mexico ................ .
Oklahama •• ••. • ••••••••••••
Texas .... . ................ .

252,800
169,928
88,018
396,366
1,006,548

Total................. . . ..
United States. . . • • . • • • • • • • •

$ 1,913,660
$18,151,411

Arizona ....•...............

Louisiana ..•....•. ... • ... . . .

$

Percent
change

1966

$

266,054
160,178
90,457
430,425
1,194,466

-5
6
-3
-8
-16

$ 2,141,580
$ 18,433,195

-II
-2

ELEVENTH DiSTRiCT ••••..••
Texas ..................

Gulf Coast ............
West Texas ......... . .
East Texas (proper) ••••.
Panhandle .......... ..
Rest of State ••..•.•...
Southeastern New Mexico ..
North ern louisiana .. . .....

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

SOURCE, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

p -

Preliminary.

SOURCES, Am erican Petroleum Institute.
U.S. Bureau af Mines .
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

July
10.5
11.5
12.2
15.3
27.0
1.6
3.6
7.3

.4

--9.8
10.1

NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
IND USTR IA L PRODUCTION

Five Southweslern Slates'

(Seasonally adjusted indexes, 1957·59

= 100 )

Percent change

July 1967 from

Numb er of persons

Type of employment
Total nonagricultural
wage and salary workers .•

Manufacturing ...........

Nonmanufacturing ........

Mining ...............
Construction •.•..•. . ..•
Transportation and

public utilities . ... . . ..
Trade ••••.••.•..•.•••
Finance .. .......... . ..
Service .. .... ..... .. ..
Government •.•....•. . .
1

Jul y
1967p

1967

5,700,600
1,042,300
4,658,300
236,100
374,600

5,699,600
1,039,900
4,659,700
235,100
382,500

5,457,000
1,013,500
4,443,500
239,700
371,600

0.0
.2
.0
.4
-2. 1

4.5
2.8
4.8
-1.5
.8

440,900
1,330,100
283,200
859,100
1,134,300

440,600
1,324,400
28 1,700
850,400
1,145,000

423,600
1,276,100
271,600
809,100
1,051,800

.1
.4
.5
1.0
-.9

4.1
4.2
4.3
6.2
7.8

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

June

1967

July
196 6

J uly
1966
147. lr
163.2r
175.4<
155. l r
11 5.7
189.6
157. 2
I 59.4r
166. l r
151.3 r
122.0
175.7r

------------------------------------p -

Preliminary.
Revised.

p-

Preliminary .

r-

r -

Revised .

SOURCES, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

SOURCE , Statu emp loym ent agencies.

4

July
1966r

Jun e

Foderal Reservo Bank of Dalla s.

f

as percent 0

indicated