View original document

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

business
•
revIew

september 1968

FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OF DAllAS

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

contents

improvement 01 texas
industrial production index

. . , . , .' . . ' . .' .

growth in agricultural
credit in the southwest . . . . . . . . . . ,
district highlights

. , . , . . ' . .' .
.

'

.. ' .

3

8

12

i

"'P'·ovement of
te~as industrial

'J"OductioD index
pr~hl'de

Texas industrial production index, which
es an
.
O
UtPUt
estimated measure of the physical
S hof factories, mines, and utilities in the
tate
incor' as been revised beginning with 1958 to
hIe bPorate certain improvements made possi/)}ajo; the. ~Vailability of new data. Although a
W .reviSIon was made in the index in 1966
heQ
1963 ~ormation became available from the
Permit t~nsus .of Manufactures, the new data
/)}an-h e denvation and projection of industry
sound OUr P~Oductivity factors on a conceptually
er baSIS.

\VhU

the ind:xn~arlY 57 percent of the total weight of
6 broad . IS based upon the physical output of
roducti Industry groups, there are no physical
P
POSing ~n data ~o~ the 19 industry groups com~aQ-h e remammg 43 percent of the index.
there' OUr productivity in an industry for which
. IS nom
clallillk: .
easure of physical output is a crunUtnber lU the inference of total output from the
try. l'h of man-hours utilized by such an indusproduc~ore~ent revision of the Texas industrial
the ma n mdex stems from changes made in
U.S. Bun-hour productivity factors. Since the
Qew pro~:u .o~ the Census data from which the
tntly av . c1tVIty factors are derived are presthrough arlable only for the period from 1958
Years lh 1965, productivity factors for later
teChQical be proJected. (The accompanymg
"'Ust
.
.
groUQd' note contains some additional back'h
lUformation on man-hour productivity.)
. ~Otal'
IS
lUdu t .
QOW
s nal production in Texas for 1967
esti
Cent abo m.ated at slightly more than 53 perabOUt 3 Ve Its 1957-59 average. This gain is
percentage points lower than that shown

by the old index. Virtually all of the slower
growth in total production is due to a more
modest advance in the manufacture of durable
goods than was recorded in the old index. On
the revised basis, nondurable goods output in
1967 is estimated at 62 percent above its 195759 average, or about 2 percentage points higher
than in the old index.
The new man-hour productivity factors are
generally lower for most durable goods industries but are only moderately different from the
old productivity factors in the case of nondurable goods industries. As a result of the revision, the man-hour productivity factors for
about half of the nondurable goods industries
exceed the old factors in magnitude, while' the
remaining nondurable goods industries have
lower factors. The upward revision of nondurable goods output is due to the fact that
increases in the new man-hour productivity factors are centered in some of the more important
nondurable goods industries, notably those producing food and chemicals.
As of the census year 1963, these two industries together comprise a substantial part - 56
percent - of the total value of the output of all
nondurable goods industries in Texas. The petroleum refining and related products industry
accounts for another 25 percent of the value of
the output of nondurable goods. The output
estimate of this industry is derived from physical
input data and, consequently, is unaffected by
the revision of the man-hour productivity factors. Thus, these three industry groups dominate
the structure of the nondurable goods industries;

business review / september 1968

3

bY thiS

d indeX
erted upon the durable goo s
comparatively important industry.

and the moderate increases in the man-hour productivity levels in both the food and the chemical industries more than offset the slower
productivity growth in other nondurable goods
industries and lifted slightly the estimated output of all nondurables.
Among the durable goods industries, two industries have revised productivity factors which
are greater than the old factors; and these two
industries-lumber and electrical machinery~
together comprise only a small proportion (less
than 10 percent) of the total value of the output
of the State's durable goods industries. The revised factors of all but one of the other durable
goods industries are lower than the old factors.
There was no change in the productivity factor
for the nonelectrical machinery industry, a sector accounting for one-fifth of the total durable
goods index. Consequently, no impact was ex-

d
ntri bllte
Two industries, in particUla\isCeod dllrabl:
substantially to depressing t.he re
fabricate
goods index below the older iUd.ex~t. rhe fe~
t tion equIP
d meta
metals and transpor a
f bricate
,
vised productivity factor for the aoxirnatelY Olle
s
industry, which accounts for ap~~e goodS, shO~1
tenth of the total index of dU:~ for the 1958 '111
a much more moderate groW
Id indeX.
. h the 0
dus'
f r this ill
eriod than was true Wit
P
.'
tirnates 0
fof
the State productiVity es
I to tbO se \
ve
both le
try now 'correspond more close \
the United States with respect 0
and growth.

rioll
orta
. ' . the tranS P
t \0
Man-hour productiVity iU
28 percell ·S
'b t s almost
IsO I
industry which contn U e
. deX a
'
,
bl goods iU
the weight of the dura e

~

----------------------~
DIFFERENCES IN THE LEVELS OF PRODUCTION INDEXES FOR TEXSAS
DUE TO THE USE OF REVISED MAN.HOUR PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR
TOTAL MANU FA

TOTAL INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
PERCENT

PERCENT

...

200 ------------~---­

200 r--------~------Seas onally adju sted indelf

So u onally adlu s t e d Ind ex

1957 - 59 " 100

1957 - 59,,100

160

160

120

120

BO

1959

4

CTURING

1961

1963

1965

1967

L-1.__...L__1---1--:-:
1959

1961

eSij

tha~ated to have risen at a slower pace than
ind shoWn on the old basis. Within this broad
ust .
inat .nat aggregate, three subgroups predomand e lU Tex~s: (1) aircraft and parts, (2) ship
b
veh' Oat bUIlding and repairing, and (3) motor
the ~les .and equipment. the aircraft industry is
Oillmant industry in this group.

inf~ltho~gh there is a lack of further detailed
the ~Illatton permitting a definitive statement,
of ~ta Which are available in the 1963 Census
d ~nufactures suggest that man-hour prouct'
S IVlty for the motor vehicle industry in the
tat
On;h SUbstantially exceeds that in the Nation.
iug t e other hand, productivity for the remainto b \\10 transportation industries is estimated
e appr .
.
as a
OXtmately the same as in the NatlOn
ole. Nevertheless, the overall man-hour
Ptod\\lh
uct' .
equi IVlty level of the State's transportation
Plllent industry does not differ greatly from

the national level, reflecting the fact that the
prominence of the aircraft industry in Texas
relative to the motor vehicle industry tends to
weigh down the productivity level of the State's
transportation industry.
Moreover, because the product mix of the
transportation industry since 1965 has shifted in
favor of the aircraft industry, it is quite likely
that man-hour productivity in the transportation equipment sector has advanced at a more
modest pace than would have been the case if
such a shift had not taken place. Whether a
lessening in productivity has indeed eventuated
will not be known until census data for more
recent years become available.
The estimate of man-hour productivity in the
electrical machinery industry which was utilized
in the old index is significantly lower than the

"---------------------------------------------DURABLE MANUFACTURING

NONDURABLE MANUFACTURING
PERCENT

S.:-: ,.- :-:--------------,
o

200

r-------------------,
Sea s onally adjusted indoj(

19 57 nally .dju,lod Indo.
- 59 0 100

1957 - 59 ; 100

160

••
120

80

1959

1961

1963

1965

business review/september 1968

1967

5

~

------------------------Technical Note
Physical output for those industries for which
physical production data are not available is
estimated from information on employment and
man-hours, adjusted for changes in man-hour
productivity. The estimates of the man-hour
productivity levels must be derived from historical data. Once these historical estimates are obtained, the trend of the productivity factors for
an industry is projected for those years for
which data are not available.
Prior to the recent revision, man-hour productivity estimates were based upon derived
figures for the value of shipments, except for
census years. The value of shipments for each
industry was deflated by a relevant price index
to arrive at an estimate of the physical production of an industry. The industry's man-hour
productivity factor was then obtained by dividing this physical production estimate by the total
man-hours used.
Conceptually, past reliance upon the value of
shipments had two major defects. Prior to the
1963 Census of Manufactures, shipments data

p..sa

5 years.
were available only once every alate for tbe
.
t interp
was
result It was necessary 0
.
defect
,
J1l
n d maJor
intervening years. A seco
"cluded fro
. was e"
an'
that the value of inventones . . n of Jll
th denvaUo S eS
'
consideration. Ide ally, e
equire all
hour productivity measurements ~ an induS
trY
timate of the total real output lY el of all ill'
.
tory ev
at
over the year. If the lllven . the saJIle as.
dustry at tbe end of a year IS alu e of sbJP'
ar the v
. ted
the be!!inning of th e ye,
. n assoCla
I:>
b
roducUo
. dIe
ments would reflect t e p
d durIng
bours use
. ell'
with the number of mantl at the 111v aI
ear It is unlikely, however, 1 r will eqU
Y .
d f the yea
tory level at the en 0
that at the beginning.
. veil'
r go into 111 .t'f
If goods produced in one ye~ d productiVl.
tory and are sold in another pe~~f' ShiPJllents;
estimates based upon the valu rstated. ~n teS
d
the initial year would be un e . 'ttI estiJll a d
ducuvh;
. pe
other band man-hour pro
ods shlP
e
would be biased upward if som ~~e inventorY
s
f
d
t ak enout. 0 pecio, rhu ,
in one year were
.
.
preVlous
which was bUllt up III a

--------------------------~
estimate used in the revised index. However,
since this industry constitutes only a relatively
small proportion of the total value of the overall durable goods index, the lower estimate
does not materially offset the index level. Productivity in the industry showed a rapid increase between 1958 and 1965, reflecting not
only rising man-bour productivity in each of
the constituent subindustries but also tbe accelerating shift in Texas, especially since the
early sixties, toward the somewhat more highly

6

rlIunica'
co JIl '"
d television

.
productive radIO an
tion equipment industry.

ductioll
. dustrial pro c\C to
Indexes of total Texas In
ding ba to
.
t rs exten
8 doe
and of tbe maJor sec? ' s since 195 . ateS,
1947 and including reVISIon
. 'ttI es tlJll tC\l
roducUvh;
ea
the change in man-hOUl' P
t to we :Res aUas,
may be obtained upon reques Bank of V
Department, Federal Reserve22
Station K, Dallas, Texas 752·
v VAvlS
C. BoWAR

~----------------------------------------------------\lih
en
tw the net inventory position changes beeen th
.
the
e base year and the termmal year,
dist productivity estimate for the industry is
Orted.
The
..
.
Vent pos Sl·b·li ty of distortion because 0 f mI
tive ory changes can be obviated by two alternathe ;etho~s. The method used in the case of
upo eXas mdustrial production index is based
indun the annual cost of materials to the broad
C1as s.~y ~roups (two-digit Standard Industrial
bac~1 cation categories). These data, extending
1958 , have recently been made available
fOr
lllerc ex as by the U.S. Department of Compara~i The alternative method, yielding comlllents : ~esults, would use the value of shipdJusted for inventory changes.
b ue t
C
OUrse 0 ~g~regation of data, there are, of
O ' perSiSting problems in the development
f
PrOdu t··
and s c Vlty factors for specific industries,
O th uch problems exist irrespective of the use
f
tials.e ~alue of shipments or the cost of mate~\irea oth types of data, according to the
u of the Census, "include extensive dupli-

;0

cation arising from shipments between establishments in the same industry classification."
Furthermore, because of the lack of sufficiently detailed information, the man-hour productivity factors are computed from man-hour
and output data aggregated by two-digit industry classifications, which are ratller broad industry groups. While the nature of the products
originating within each broad industry category
is similar, the differing manufacturing processes
for individual products may create sizable disparities in man-hour productivity among the
component subindustries. If such disparities do
exist, alteration in the structure of the broad
industry group may change tlle man-hour requirements even though there is no change in
the productivity of the specific subindustries.
Thus, projections of man-hour productivity
estimates are predicated upon the assumption
that the combined effect of change in man-hour
productivity in each subindustry and change in
product mix will be the same as it was in the
period on which the projections are based.

"----------------------------------------

business review / september 1968

7

g,-owth in
ogricultu,eol c,-edit
in the southwest
At the beginning of 1967, agricultural loans
outstanding in the Southwest (Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)
totaled over $4% billion, or 130 percent more
than a decade earlier. Incomplete data suggest
that such debt rose further to reach a new high
at the beginning of the current year. The increase in the indebtedness of southwestern farmers and ranchers during the 1958-67 decade
exceeded the substantial rise which had occurred
during the preceding 10-year period. The fact
that there has been no slackening in the rapid
uptrend in the utilization of credit indicates that
the changes under way in southwestern agriculture for many years have shown little evidence
of abating.
Faced with a persistent upcreep in costs and
a less than commensurate rise in the prices received for their products, farmers and ranchers
have relied upon an ever-increasing amount of
credit to boost the efficiency of their operations.
This effort has led farmers and ranchers to expand their use of resources.
As in the past, farm and ranch operators have
enlarged the physical size of their units, increased the amount and qUality of inputs on
existing acreages, or employed both of these
methods to achieve a larger volume of sales and
to reduce unit costs. In their attempt to increase
both the quantity and the quality of inputs,
farmers have turned more and more to off-farm
suppliers for items used in the production of
crops and livestock. On the national level, the
volume of purchased inputs in 1967 was almost
a fourth greater than in 1958. Over the same

8

de.
period, the volume of nonpurchased lllpUts Ilt
creased approximately one-fifth. Farm outp t
per unit of input in 1967 was about 8 perc: e
larger than in 1958. For the most part, J11
greater use of plant nutrients, hybrids, and fa~ s
machines has accounted for the significant gal~t
in output per unit of input and in farm outp
per man-hour.
.
. eviThe increased use of resources IS q~te Tbe
dent in the trend in the average farm SIze. VI
e
average size of farms in the Southwest grd
d ca e·
about 4 percent yearly over the 1958-67 e cThe gain in the average farm size has been a j_
complished through the consolidation or acqllte
sition of farms primarily managed as separ;as
farm units, since the number of farmS d io
declined steadily and the amount of Ian
farms has decreased slightly.
. groSS
The changes that have occurred III IsO
income, production costs, and net returnS ~ors
point out the increasing need of farm ~perabart
for additional credit. The accompanyIllg. c the
depicts the trend in income of farmers
pefive soutllwestern states over the 195~-6 these
riod. Although realized gross income In
ot
Eleventh District states increased 29 perc~y
over the decade, realized net income rose ~t1C14 percent, due mainly to the weight of pro ertion expenses, which expanded almost 4~ P.he
· III I)'
cent. Nevertheless, because of the dec1
Ille
ill
c
number of farms and the slight advan : rJ11
total net income, realized net income per a
climbed substantially over the period.

1;

'zillg

Buying additional acreage and mechaJ1l1ogY
o
operations to take advantage of new tecbll

reqUire additional credit. The growth of the
a .

grlcultural credit market, both farm mortgage
~ebt and non-real-estate loans, in the five states
IS d'
Iscussed below.

farm mortgage debt
f The farm mortgage debt of southwestern

afIl1ers and ranchers experienced exceptional
grOWth over the past decade. Total farm mort~age debt outstanding, as of January 1, in the
b?~thwest increased from approximately $1.3
Illion in 1958 to about $3.1 billion in 1967,
Or 133 percent. In addition to farm size and resource Use, there are several other factors which
hav .
f e Influenced the farmer's dependence upon
\~r~ mortgage credit. One such factor is his
~iIling~ess to borrow and obligate a portion of
\ .ture IUCome to the repayment of debt. LikeV a lender must be convinced of the soundise,
ne ss of the credit in order to make borrowing a
rear
Ity for the farmer.
\! The growing dependence of farm operators
:on the supply of loanable funds in the farm
Ortgage market is indicated by the trend in

INCOME OF FARM OPERATORS
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES

BI

7

LLIONS OF DOLLARS

PRODUCTION EXPENSES

o
Il ' Pr
f"

1961

1963

1965

1967p

credit-assisted transfers of farmland. The proportion of sales of farm real estate in the Southwest that was credit-financed increased to 77
percent in 1967 from 67 percent of the total in
1958; this trend is in line with that for the
United States, where the proportion reached 80
percent in 1967. Over the same period, the
ratio of debt to purchase price in the Southwest
advanced from 65 percent in 1958 to 73 percent in 1967. The fact that, today, almost four
out of five farmland transfers involve credit has
greatly influenced the demand for farm mortgage loans.
Furthermore, there is a tendency for farm
mortgage credit to be used for purposes other
than purchasing land. The 1966 farm credit
survey by the Federal Reserve System showed
that 11 percent of the loans secured by farm
real estate at commercial banks in the Eleventh
Federal Reserve District were used for the purpose of securing intermediate- or short-term
credit.
In the southwestern states, all lender groups
reported increases in the amount of farm mortgage debt financed over the past decade, but
trends were not similar. Farm mortgage debt
held by commercial banks and by individuals
and other noninstitutional lenders showed the
largest percentage gains during the 1958-67
period. As a consequence, these two lender
groups raised their shares of the total mortgage
debt outstanding to 9 percent and 36 percent,
respectively. The proportion held by Federal
land banks was little different in 1967 as compared with 10 years earlier, while the shares
accounted for by life insurance companies and
the Farmers Home Administration declined
slightly. The holdings of life insurance companies, the most important type of institutional
lender, dipped from about 37 percent of the
total farm mortgage debt in 1958 to 32 percent
by the beginning of 1967.

O minary ,
li

- OUReE.

. u.s. Dc partm e nt of Agrlculturo.

The portions of farm mortgage debt held
by principal institutional lenders differ widely

business review/september 1968

9

among the five states in the Southwest, and there
was no noticeable change in the shares over the
1958-67 decade. In 1967 the proportion of total
farm mortgage debt financed by the Federal
land banks ranged from 24 percent of the total
mortgage debt in Texas to 12 percent in Arizona. Life insurance companies continued to be
the most important type of institutional lender
in each of the five states. The share of total farm
mortgage debt held by commercial banks was
the highest in Louisiana.
The amount of mortgage loans outstanding
on January 1, 1967, partly reflected the dip in
the amount of new loans made during 1966,
which reduced the rate of growth in total farm
mortgage debt outstanding. During that year, it

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES
MI LLIONS OF DOLLARS

3,500
FARMERS HOME

U1l ADMINISTRATION
~ ALL OPERATING

tlllliI

BANKS

~ FEDERAL
2,500

~

.

ID-

made, on the national level, by the majOr
stitutional lenders declined approximately o:~
fourth in the last 6 months of 1966 fro~ the
same period a year earlier. The decrease In _
amount of loans made by life insurance eO~a
panies was particularly large. Limited .d:te
available for the southwestern states indte de
that the amount of farm mortgage loans O1aZ5
by the Federal land banks declined about d
percent between the second half of 1965 aD
tlle last half of 1966.
t of
As a result of the reduction in ·the a010u~ a1
loanable funds made available by institutl~be
lenders, farmers turned to other sourc.es . 96 6
most noticeable shift in the Southwest In: 1 of
was a significant decline in the proportl~n a1
farm transfers financed by major institu tlon _
o
lenders and a considerable increase in the pf
portion of farm transfers financed by sellers.

FARM MORTGAGE DEBT, BY TYPES
OF LENDERS, JANUARY 1

3,000

appears that the availability of mortgage money
from institutional lenders declined, and SOJ1l.~
l
shifting in the sources of farm mortgage cred
occurred. Institutional lenders became more sed
lective in the allocation of loanable funds, aD
rates on farm mortgages rose significantly. AIU
though holding within a narrow range of W~7
below 6 percent during most of the 1958- 6
period, interest rates increased sharply in 19 6 ·
Rates on new farm mortgage loans made by
insurance companies jumped from an average
of 5.82 percent in the second half of 1965 to a~
average of 6.55 percent in the second half °d
1966, and rates charged by all Federal JaD
banks reached 6 percent by the year-end.
The amount of new farm mortgage JoaDS
.

LAND BANKS

D

LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANIES
OTHE.1S

2 .000

1.500

non-real-estate loans
500

o
1959

1961

1963

p ~ P rc lilllln ar }' .

SOURCE ; U,S. Dopartm ont 01 All ri cultur c.

10

1965

1967p

f nollOver the 1958-67 period, the amount 0 bY
real-estate loans held, as of January 1, efsouthwestern farmers increased abo~t 12 !eif
cent yearly. Commercial banks cO~llnued and
historical dominance of this credit field tate
accounted for 68 percent of total non:rea1;Sper_
farm loans in 1967, as compared With 6

NON-REAL-ESTATE lOANS TO FARMERS,
BY TYPES OF lENDERS, JANUARY 1
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES

M

illiO NS OF DOLLARS

2.100
1.800

1.500

r---------------,

I
I
-

OTHER
INSTITUTIONS
FARMERS

Unlike the trend in farm real estate loans,
non-real-estate loans showed little tendency to
moderate their rate of growth during the 195867 period. The fact that there was little abatement in the use of non-real-estate credit, even
when interest rates were high, clearly demonstrates the growing dependence of area farmers
and ranchers upon this type of credit.

HOME ADM INISTRATION
PRODUCTION CRED IT
ASSOCIATIONS

11111 ALL
_

OPERATING
BANKS

900

600

300

a
1959
D~P,r Ulim i n a r y

1961

SOURC E.
•
. u.s. D C!, 8 1\IIIQ l\t

0'

1963

continued considerably lower than that of the
production credit associations. In mid-1966, the
average amount of PCA loans outstanding per
member in the five states reached approximately
$15,000, as compared with an average commercial bank loan outstanding of about $7,500
per farm borrower.

1965

1967p

Agri cult ure,

Cent .
. . In 1958. Similarly, the second largest
ill.stltUtional lender of non-real-estate credit increas ed'Its share of the market, and outstand'mg
non-real-estate credit at production credit asS f
Oci
.
19 a Ions comprised 20 percent of the total m
67, as compared with 17 percent a decade
earli
.
.
of er. Durmg the same period, the proportion
ltti t~e market held by the Farmers Home AdOlstl'ation dropped from 15 percent to 8

Percent.

la Although conunercial banks remained the
f rgest institutional lender of non-real-estate
n:;llJ. .credit in the Southwest, the average origisIZe of loans made by commercial banks

Since most non-real-estate farm credit is used
for production items - seeds, fertilizers, labor,
pesticides, feeder livestock, repairs, and numerous other production purposes - production
credit is becoming increasingly important. With
the trend toward larger farms and the use of
a greater quantity of purchased inputs, production credit more and more will be a necessity as
farmers increase their dependence upon borrowed money to operate their farms.

This brief presentation of the development of
agricultural credit in the five states of the Eleventh Federal Reserve District over tlle 1958-67
period can best be summarized by saying that
tlle agricultural credit market in the Southwest
has experienced tremendous growth. Farming
practices which favor increasing use of credit such as larger unit size, greater use of purchased inputs, higher production costs, and a
larger volume of output - have paralleled the
trend in credit.
CHARLES M. WILSON

business review/september 1968

l!l

district highlights
Showing a slight counterseasonal increase,
total nonagricultural wage and salary employment in the five southwestern states attained a
level of 5,966,800 in July. Manufacturing employment rose fractionally - instead of dropping, as is usual for this time of the year. The
total number of persons employed in nonmanufacturing activities remained virtually unchanged, rather than posting a seasonal decline.
All nonmanufacturing industries shared in the
stronger than usual showing in employment,
particularly construction.
As compared with a year earlier, the gain of
5.2 percent in southwestern manufacturing employment in July outpaced the overall nonagricultural employment advance of 3.8 percent.
The increases in the number of employees in
three nonmanufacturing industries - construction, services, and government - were more
than the 3.5-percent advance posted for all nonmanufacturing employment.
On a daily average basis, the production of
crude oil showed little change in July in the
Eleventh District, although output in northern
Louisiana and southeastern New Mexico decreased 2.5 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively. Compared with July last year, production in the District declined 4 percent, with
output in northern Louisiana decreasing almost
20 percent. The year-to-year decline reflected
the extremely high production that occurred
last summer as a result of the Middle East
crisis. In July 1967, District crude oil production was 10.5 percent ahead of the year-earlier
figure.
The oil allowable in Texas during July was
46.4 percent of the Maximum Efficient Rate of
production, reflecting a small increase over the
June figure; however, allowables for August, at

12

44.8 percent, and September, at 41.3. perc:::
are noticeably lower. The allow abIes m so
temeastern New Mexico for August and Sep ble
ber are unchanged from July, but the allowa d
for Louisiana for September has been decrea;:_
modestly. Reasons for the reductions in all do
abIes include large inventories of refined pr
elS
ucts, especially distillates and residual fu s~
Furthermore, crude oil stocks, especially ~o d
.
b
deSIre
east of the Rocky Mountams, are a ove
I VI
o
levels. Imports, which were considerably be. d
. durmg the January-M ay peno ,
,
a year earlier
bigb
climbed rapidly in June and continued at a
level through August.

r

'al rOThe seasonally adjusted Texas industfl
its
duction index in July, at 170.2 percent 0 the
1957-59 base, was only fractionally above dlevels of the prior 2 months. Mining output a II
waS
vanced less than 1 percent, but there. the
month-to-month gain of 1.1 percent In 'fbe
total production of manufactured goodS.. btlY
output of nondurable goods increased slig romore than 1 percent, and durable goods P
duction rose fractionally.
.

Jllll-

In the durable goods sector, electrical. eO t
chinery production posted the most proJlll: ot.
c
month-to-month increase by gaining 4 per lec_
But, output of fabricated metals and no~evelS
trical machinery dipped slightly under the e ods
of the preceding month. Other dura?le ~oloW
industries recorded modest gains rangmg ejJlg,
2 percent. In nondurable goods manufactUftbaJI
petroleum refining rose somewhat ~ette~ductS
7 percent. The output of textile ml~ ~r 11011declined nearly 4 percent. The remalOln~ 00
durable goods industries showe~ nea~ diP
change or modest increases. DespIte a m Jllil1in activity in the metal, stone, and ear th etreerals industry, a fractional rise in crude P

leulll mining gave a slight lift to overall mining
OUtput.
Industrial production in the State was almost
10 percent over July last year. The year-to-year
adVance was led by gains in manufacturing and
Utilities output. Mining output declined almost
2.percent; a reduction of over 4 percent in crude
oil production more than offset production increases in other mining activities. The product'
I?n of durable goods showed a larger gain than
dId total manufacturing. Utilities output was
S
Ubstantially greater than in the same month in
19
67, with the thrust stemming from increased
electrical power generation.
Since midyear each of the major balance
sh
'
eet items except loans adjusted has advanced
at the weekly reporting commercial banks in
~he ~leventh District. These changes have be~n
eavily influenced by seasonal factors, partIc~larlY a less than seasonal decline in business
oans, and by the fall in market interest rates
aSSOCiated with the passage of the surtax bill.
7 loans adjusted showed little change in the
.Weeks ended August 14, declining about $1
llllllion, as relatively modest fluctuations in all
Of the major loan categories proved to be
~Oughly offsetting. Of particular note were an
I~crease in loans to nonbank financial instituhans ($35 million), a gain in consumer instal~ent loans ($16 million), and a decrease in
. Other loans" ($33 million). Commercial and
l~dUstrialloans fell $15 million, which is conS
Ider bl
d . .
th a Y less than the $79 million re uctJOn m
e cOlllparable period a year ago. Total investlllents advanced $47 million, with a moderate
accurn I .
. ,
c·
u atlon of non-Government Issues-pnno:all~ longer-term municipals - more than
G setting a small decline in holdings of U.S.
overnrnent securities.
d 011 the liability side of the balance sheet, total
gell1and deposits rose $111 million, or slightly
s~eate~ than in the comparable 1967 period; a
arp Increase in interbank deposits and smaller

gains in the demand deposits of states and
political subdivisions and of individuals, partnerships, and corporations more than offse~ a
reduction in U.S. Government demand depOSIts.
Total time and savings deposits expanded massively ($221 million), despite a mo.der~te decline in savings deposits. The sharp nse m total
time and savings deposits was centered in negotiable time certificates of deposit issued. in
denominations of $100,000 or more, which
spurted $214 million to a record level of. slightly
over $1.5 billion, undoubtedly reflectmg the
improved competitive position of these instruments as market interest rates fell .
Crops continue to make good progress in the
Eleventh District states, as rainfall in many of
the dryland farming areas in the western section
has benefited crop development. Range and livestock conditions are generally favorable, although pastures are becoming dry in some areas
in the extreme western part of the District.
Based on August 1 estimates, 1968 cotton
production in the five south:v~stern states. is
placed at approximately 4.9 million bales, WhICh
is 22 percent above the 1967 crop. In Texas,
the forecast of cotton production for the 1968
season is 20 percent over the output for 1967.
Most of the additional cotton output in the
State is expected to come from the Southern
High Plains area. The national 1968 cotton crop
is estimated to be 47 percent greater than the
previous year's output.
The 1968 grain sorghum output for the five
southwestern states is placed, as of August I,
at more than 438 million bushels, or 7 percent
above the record level attained in 1967. Yields
are expected to be in excess of 50 bushels per
acre.
Cattle feeding activity continues on an uptrend in Texas. On August I , the number of
cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market
was 792,000 head, or 34 percent over a year
earlier. Feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 or

business review/september 1968

13

more head held 96 percent of the total number
on feed in the State.
Prices received by Texas farmers and ranchers during the first 7 months of this year averaged 2 percent above the corresponding 1967
period. Prices received for all crops were 1 percent below a year ago, but those for livestock
and livestock products were 4 percent higher.
Cumulative registrations of new passenger
automobiles in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston,

and San Antonio through July were 18 percen:
above those for the corresponding 7 months 0
1967. Registrations for the month of July wer~
8 percent higher than in June and 22 percen
greater than a year ago.
Department store sales in the Eleventh piStrict for the 4 weeks ended August 24 were ~p
. d 1n
13 percent over the corresponding pen a h t
1967. The gain during this period matched t ~1
for cumulative department store sales throug
the same date.

ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT

OKLAHOMA

o
o
CJ
CJ

14

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

STATISTICAL 5UPPI!EMENT
to the

BUSINESS REVIEW

September 1968

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS

RESERVE POS ITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS

CONDITION STAT ISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

(Ave ra ges of dail y flg ures. In tho usands of dolla rs )
~
4 woe ks ended

(In thousands of dolla rs)
Aug. 28,
1968

Item

July 31,
1968

Aug . 30,
1967

5 wee ks end e d
Aug.7, 1968

Ite m

4 wee ks end e d
Ju ly 3, 1968

71 1,608
660,633
50,975
707,397
4,211
18,497
- 14,286

698,803
649, 150
49,653
695,565
3,238
5,91 1
- 2,673

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

703,935
532,203
17 1,732
670,432
33,503
9,862
23,641

696,321
527,950
168,37 1
664, 174
32,147
14,429
17,7 18

643,091
481 ,825
161,266
603,623
39,466
3,775
35,693

1,4 15,543
1,192,836
222,707
1,377,829
37,7 14
28,359
9,355

1,395,124
1,1 77,100
218,024
1,359,739
35,385
20,340
15,045

1 292,6 11
1'063,60 0
'206,611
1 246,363
' 44,226
3,775
40,453

Aug.2~

RESERVE CITY 8ANKS

ASSETS
5,101,411
92,578
5,193,989

5,830,024
105,4 91
5,935,5 15

5,732,704
107,273
5,839,977

certiflcates of interest •• • • . • •••• . ••• . • . • • •
Loon s to b rok ers and d eal ers for
pu rcha sing or carrying:

95,893

96,275

U.S. Gove rnm ent securiti es .. • ... .. .. . . ....
O ther securities .. ... .. . .. .. .. . •. . . • ... . .

8,639
23,746

11 ,676
19,692

592
337,647

364
329,542

872
324,522

138,659
338,450
572,602
495,722
5,478
604,226

154,224
348,425
565,070
348,272
4,890
594,812

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

0
598,454

0
608,195

0
599,670

-2,495,899
- -1,107,134

2,489,653

2,518,045

20,650
0

1,099,830
38,936
0

1,203,241
83,216
0

205,538
582,809
298, 137

239,129
566,450
255,315

220,830
657,437
24 1,758

Total reserves held .. . . . . . . . ...
With Fe deral Rese rve Ban k.. ..
Curre ncy and coin .... .. . . . ..
Re qui re d reserves . . ... .. . . . . . .
Excess reserves .. .. ... . .... . . .
Borrowing s . . . . . .. ... .. . . .. . ..
Free rese rves ..... . .... . . . . . ..

Ne t loan s and discounts .. ... . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. .

Valuation reserves . .. . ... . . ... ..... ...• .. ....
Gr ~ss loan s and d iscounts . . .. . . . ..... .. . .... ..
Comm e rc ial and industrial loans. •. . • • •.• •. • . •

Ag ric ultural loan s, exclud ing

eec

---- -2,758,540
- -2,7 15,407

2,442,310
103,819
11,762r
56,850r

O ther loans for purcha sing or carr ying :

U.S. Gove rnm ent secu rities .• ... .. .. . .... . .
Other securities • •• •• ••• ••• • ••• • . •• • • • • • •
Loan s to nonbank Anencia l In stitutions:

Sales Ananc e, pe rsonal Anance , factors,
and oth e r busin ess cre d it companies • . .. . ..

Other . • .• • • • • •• • • ••• •• • • •• •••••••••• ••
Re al estate loa ns . . .. . . ... . .... .. . . . . . .. ...
loons to dom estic comm ercial banks • . • .. .. . . ..
Loa ns to foreign ban ks .. .. . .. .. .... . •......
Consum e r Instalm e nt loans . • • .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . .
loans to fore ign gove rnm e nts, offlcial
in stitution s, centra l banks, international
Institutions . • • .. •. ... • . • . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .

Other loans .... .. . . . . .. . . .... . .. . . . . .....
Total investm ents . .... . .. . .•• .. •• . . . .• . .. . • ..
Total U.S. Gove rnm e nt securities . •• • .• •• ..• • . •
Tre a sury bil ls . . ... . ... .•• • ..• • .. . . . .. . ..
Tre a sury ce rtiflcates of Ind e bte dn ess . . . . .•. •
Tre a sury notes and U.S . Gove rnm e nt
bonds maturing l
Within 1 ye ar .•• .. • . •.. .... . . . .... ..•
1 year to 5 y e ars . • • . ... ... . . . .. . . • •. •

After 5 ye a rs .. .. .... . . .. .. . . . .... . .. .
Obligations of states and political sub division sl
Ta x wa rra nts and short· te rm notes and bills • .

All other .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . ... .... . .
Oth e r bonds. corporate stocks, a nd se curitie s:
Participatio n ce rtlflcat es in Fe dera l
ag e ncy loans . .•. . ... . . . .. ... .. . . ... . .

26,362
1, 168,660

33,895
1,147,0 15

30,658
1,050,506
148,467
85,173
758, 165
666, 144
76,777
425,88 1
5,416
330,924

TOTAL ASSETS . . .... ... .. ...... ...... .. 10,811 ,204

10,725,369

9,882,763

8alances with banks in the United States ••. •• •• ••

Total reserves he ld .. . .....•. ..

With Fed eral Rese rve Bank • • .•
Currency and coin . . .. . .. . . ..
Re quire d reserVes . • . ... .. .. .. .
Excess reserves .. .. .. . ... ... . .
Borrowin gs . .... . . . . ... . . .....
f ree reserves . . . ............ ..

ALL MEMBER BANKS
Total rese rves he ld . .. . . . . .... .
Curre ncy a nd co in . .. . .. . . . . .
Re quire d rese rves . . ... . .... . . .
Excess rese rves . .. . . . .... . . . . .
Bo rrowing s .... . .. . .. . . .. . ... .
Free rese rves .. . ............ ..

CONDITI ON OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
(I n thou sands of dolla rs )

~
========== ============= Aug. 30,

----

9,174,043

8,466,903

3,750,58 1
267,282
11 4,903
1,139,343

5,451 ,384
3,753,472
318,824
136,853
1,127,427

5,074,275
3,520,4 18
293,0 12
80,615
1,096,283

5,676
20,759
79,3 18
3,777,221

6,034
23,710
85,064
3,72 2,659

3,155
20,593
60,199
3,392,628

1,043,30 1
2,049,270
646,098
10,206
22,646

1,042,34 1
2,008,698
634,024
10,186
21,910

1,11 5,5 17
1,703,346
536,232
12,915
23,118

5,500
200

5,300
200

800
700

liab ilities fa r borrow ed money • • • •• •• • • • •• .• •
Other liab ilities •• • • • •• • • • • •••• • • • •• ••• •• • •• •

506,614
222,446

430,040
202,694

345,462
181,7 12

CAPITAL ACCO UNTS • • •• . .•• • ••• •• • ••• •• •• ••

927,061

9 18,592

888,686

10,725,369

9,882,763

Individuals, partnerships, an d corporations . . .•

States and politica l subdi visions • . • •• • • • ••••
U.S. Gove rnm e nt . . . ... . • .. •. . . . ... . .. . . .
Banks in the Unite d States ... . . . .. . . .. .....
Fore ign:
Governm e nts, offlcial institution s, ce ntra l
banks, inte rnationa l institutions . •. . •. . ..
Comme rcial bonks . . ... . ... . . ......... .
Cer tifled and offlt ers' che cks, e tc .. . . . .. . ...

Total time and savings d e pasits •• ••••• • • • ••• •
Ind ivi duals, pa rtn ers hips, a nd corporation s:
Saving s depo sits • • . .. ... ... . . . . . .... . .
Othe r time d e posits .. .. .... .. .. .. ... . . .
States and political subd ivisions . .. .. . .... . .
U.S. Govern ment (includ ing postal saving s) . . •
Banks in th e Unite d States . . • . .. ...........
Fore ign:
Governm e nts, offlcia l institutions, centra l
banks, int e rnational instit ution s .• . . ....•
Comm e rcial bonks . . .. .... . . . . •.. .. . .. .
Bills paya b le, re discounts, and othe r

---5,377,862

Discounts for memb er ban ks . .... ...... .. ...

2

Revised.

16,859

~
45H:~

5,541

' 0

Oth er disco unts and ad vances. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0

684

1 905 591

U.S. Governm ent securiti es . • • • • • • . . • . . . • • • .
Tota l earn ing a ssets .... .... . . . .. .. ..... .. .
Memb er bank reserve d e posits.. ... ... . . . . . .

2,189,030
2,205,889
1,164,954

2,169,943
2,1 76, 168
1,104,100

1'9 10'761
1'049:350
1:330,40 2

Fe d e ra l Rese rve notes in actua l circulation .... .

1,480,7 57

1,47 2,046

COND ITION STATI STI CS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS

(In mill ions of dolla rs )

=======================~
July 26,
June 26,
196~
July 31 ,
Item

----

~

1968

1968

l oan s and d iscounts .. ..... . ........ . ... .
U.S. Gove rnm ent obligations . .. ...... . .. . .
Oth er se curities .... . . ... . . .. .... . ..... .
Rese rves with Fe d e ra l Reserve Bank .... . • . .
Cash in vault .... . .. ..... .... . . . .. .. .. .
Bala nces with ban ks in th e Unite d States ... .
Balances with banks in foreign countri es o .. . .
Ca sh ite ms in process of coll ection .. ...... .
Oth e r a sse tse ... ... . . . . . ... . .......... .

10,029
2,366
2,8 10
1, 104
247
1,12 1
7
1,063
477

9,873
2,382
2,786
1,137
245
1,102

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

19,224

------------------------------------ASSETS
7

1,048
462

LlA81
L1T1ES AN D CAPITAL ACCO UNTS
De mand d e po sits of banks ... .. ... . . ... . .
O th e r d e mand d e pO sit s . . .. .... . ..... . . . .
Time d e po sits .... ... ...... . ... .. . .. . .. .

1,4 10
8,305
7,160

Tota l d e posits • • ••• • . . .... •• .• • • • . • . .

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOU NTS 10,811 ,204
r-

J'iI~6~l,

Eleventh Fed era l Res erve Di strict
9, 155,083

Total d emand d e pasits . ... .. ... . .. . . ..... . .

A'i~6~8,

Item

LlA81LITIES
Total d e posits . .. . .... .. .... . . . .. ... .. .. . . . .

----

ve-s- .
. -.-.-.- 3-5-4-,-0-8- - - 12 ,-9- - 9
3- - 82
To t-a- - o-d- - e-- flc a r-e-se-r- .-. - .-.-.-.-.-.-. - .
- - I g- I c rti-- -t-e-

139,653
69,260
945,635
668,676
79,136
441 ,399
4,663
363,503

Bolances with ba nks in foreign countri es . •. . . .. . .
Othe r assets . • • .•..• ... . . • . . . .. . . . . .. . •• . . ..

COUNTRY BAN KS

With Fe deral Reserve 8ank .• • .

124,47 1
69,272
883,350
736,260
84,550
420,065
5,307.
355,749

All other (incl uding corporate stocks) ••• • • •••
Cash itoms in proc ess of coll e ction ••. . .. .. . . . • . .
Reserves with Fe deral Reservo Ba nk .• . • .. . . . . . .•
Curre ncy and coin . . . . . .. . •.. . . •• .... . • ... .. .

4,76~

4,760

16,875
453
300
1,596

Bo rrow ing s . . . . .. . ' " . . " . . ... . . . . . .. . .
Othe r liabilities o . . . ..... . ... .... . . . . .. .
Total capital accountse .. ... . ... ... . . .. . .

TOTAL LlA81L ITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe • • • ••• • •• • . • ••• •.. • ...

1,357
8,154
6,972

6919
2'3 10
'509
2, 76

1'~32

1,1 2~
945
462

----

176 42
~

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

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

DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change

July
1968
(Annual-rate
basis)

----

July
1967

1968 from
1967

July 31,
1968

July
1968

1968

July
1967

4,831,356
2,352,444
6,320,844
749, 112
1,805,184
5,128,956
6,271,788
5,976,024
1,414,380
4,297,224
419,076
91,92 1, 116
5,976, 13 2
18,107,172
2,382,900
80,404,1 16
829,032
4,427,940
1,458,9 12
1,892,580
1,376,796
1,025,580
14,86 1,580
989,880
1,476,168
1,921,032
2,480,724
2,239,416

7
0
2
9
-2
3
-7
6
- 6
-2
7
4
9
6
0
4
22
23
1
0
3
-5
1
13
7
9
-2
7

5
- 7
10
5
-2
11
20
8
0
1
6
21
16
16
15
13
2B
19
10
13
21
3
15
7
16
1
12
10

5
5
7
6
-4
12
23
4
11
11
10
19
6
17
14
14
13
5
7
7
6
9
17
10
12
8
13
6

$ 188,497
81,882
229,064
33,799
93,478
146,439
257,024
239,480
65,702
192,405
25,965
1,963,287
202,085
570,048
104,7 43
2,289,108
38,869
149,537
83,835
133,6BB
69,401
63,683
602,597
55,267
66,635
87,3 19
117,704
114,947

26.1
28.7
26.7
22.1
19.5
35.5
25.5
25.6
21.0
22.4
15.8
46.6
30.1
31.7
23.2
34.6
22.4
29.3
17.5
14.4
20. 1
15.8
25.1
17.8
22.7
22.0
21.3
20.2

24.7
29.1
26.5
20.2
19.8
35.9
28.2
25.0
21 .2
22.7
14.4
45.7
27.6
30.5
23.7
33.9
19.4
23.6
16.9
14.2
20.0
16.6
25.0
15.9
21.7
20.5
21.7
19.0

28.1
33.8
26.4
19.8
19.7
33.8
24.9
24.9
22.3
21.7
13.5
42.1
26.6
30.0
21.6
34.4
19.5
25.9
16.5
13.7
17.6
17.8
23.8
17.8
21.5
22.3
20.0
19.0

$273,337,464

0

15

15

$ 8,266,488

33.0

32.3

31.3

statistical area

U
ISIANA: Monroe . .. . .... .. .... ... . .... ..........
NE
Shreveport ........................ . . . ...
IE: MEXICO: Roswe ll' ... ..........................
AS: Abilene •• _• •••••••••••• •• ••• ••• •••••••• . .•••
Amari llo . ....• . .. . .. . . .•.•. . ...•.. .. ..•. .. . .

Austin . .. . . . .. . ...... . .. .. . . .. . . .... .... ... .
Boaumont·Port Arthur· Orang e . •• • ••.. . . .......•
Brownsvill e.Harlingen. San Ben ito .. . • .. .. •... . . •.

Corpus Christi .. ... . .... ... ... . .. . ............
Corslcana ll • ••• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •• •• • •• •
Dalla s• • • . •••• • • . • • •• . •••••• •• •• •• . •. ••• •• ..
EI Paso • • ••••• • •••••••••..•.•.•...•.•.....••
Fort Worth .. ..... ........ . . . . . .. . . . ....... ..
Galve ston-Texa s City • .. .... ... ... .. . . ........

~b~~~nk': ': : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:
McAlien-Pharr-Edinburg .... . ....... .. . . ... . ....
Midland • • •••••••••••••• •• • • •••• • • ••••.••• • •

r~~e~~~o~~:

: : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Sherman- Denison . •••• •• •• • • •• •• •••.• • •••• .• .•

Texarkana (Texa s- Arkansas} • ••• • • •• •••• •• • •••• •

i:~~: : :: :: :::::::::::::::: : : :::::::::: ::::

Wichita Falls •• • • • ••• •• ••••• ••• ••• • •• •••• • •• •
010
1 1-28 centers ... . ..... . .. . .. . . ..... .. ... . ...... .
_____

7 months,

1968

Standard metropolitan

~IZONA: Tucson___ ..• •• •.••••••• •••• ••••••••..• •. •

Annual rote
of turnover

July 196B from

$

June

June

~ ~epOslts

of individua ls, partnorships, and corporations and of stalos and political subdivisions.
O nly basis.
U

GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleve nth Federal Reserve District
(Averages of daily figures. In mi ll ions of do lla rs )
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS

BUILDI NG PERMITS

~

Date

Tota l

Re serve
city banks

1966: Jul y .... . ..
1967: July .. .. . ..
1968: February ••
March .• . . .
April .. .. ..
May •• ••••
June, . . . . ,
July ...... .

8,912
9,195
9,56 1
9,5 10
9,655
9,460
9,548
9,742

4, 165
4,302
4,391
4,388
4,486
4,382
4,453
4,554

VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousands)
Percent change
July 1968
from

NUMBER
J uly
1968

~

~RIZONA.
Tucson

;1 PQ:~:''''''
O'IW· .... •
~QI.es::;lh ••••
OUst O n.. . •.
lQ'ed " • • ••••
l'b bo\ · · .. · •
"'ldlQcd··· · .•
Od."n •• •• ••
O
PQ'I A ' ' ' ••• •
SQ"A'hur .. ..
SQ" A.~~e l o • • •
~~Qrko~nlo • • .
Qeo a .. . .
Wlchl,"·· · · •
I
a Fa lls ••
01Q'-24 "

..

~

7 months,
1968 from
1967

134

493
2,6 12

1,422
2, 147

12,793
14,36 1

83
-25

311
-58

317
815
2,789
986
765
2,845
12,428
3,30 1
3,74 1
574
15,650
243
820
508
468
563
46 1
8,257
289
1,752
496

577
2,694
7,930
1,479
1,2 17
4,620
27,053
4,777
8,916
276
26,180
72
9,217
3,23 1
263
683
5 17
5,347
8,2 21
1,04 1
1,140

100
5,551 - 17
153
13,258
150
-9
71,930 -42
-50
-B
10,775
117
434
3,609
145
83
25,453
73
25
155,046
42
-5
40,660
1 -54
5 1,950
8,068 -91 -54
- 1 -50
227,493
1,468 -72 -67
581
257
21,537
150 - 12
8,902
41 -65
3,048
484
169
2,4 11
6,611 -30 -60
79,68 1 -29 - 12
12,024 3,688 1,976
-9
10,557 -53
46 -68
7,707

-27
1
-7
2
116
33
32
17
-3
53
-2
-37
22
-9
-26
5
- 12
29
369
32
-40

9,928

64,624

$ 123,656

Reserve
city banks

Country
bonks

4,747
4,893
5,170
5,122
5,169
5,078
5,095
5,188

5,734
6,285
6,863
6,935
6,973
6,950
6,964
7,059

2,660
2,670
2,851
2,863
2,869
2,840
2,847
2,921

3,074
3,615
4,012
4,072
4,104
4,110
4,117
4,138

-3
-26

56
123
446
160
99
424
1,970
498
607
92
2,349
34
132
55
62
108
69
1,182
41
268
71

Total

52

71
420

......
8 eou~~"'t' " , •
8'0""
.....
'Or "'Villo . . ..
DQlrous Christi ..

July
1967

29

3,45 1

A"II"

Jun e
1968

$ 22, 179

59 1

"M,oe-West
Shre~nro o •••••
1EXAS eport •• • •

A"Q'III~"'" •

7 mas,
1968

4,636

lO~ISIAN~· · · · •

Ablle"e

July
1968

7 mos.
1968

TIME DEPO SITS

Country
banks

$

$8 17,072

14

-7

VALU E OF CONSTRUCT ION CONTRACTS
(In millions of dolla rs )
January-July

Area and type

J ul y
1968

Jun e
1968

May
1968

1968

1967

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' . .... .... ..... ..
Residential building ' .' .. , , ,
Nonresidential building .. . ,
Nonbul ldlng construction •• •
UNITED STATES .. ... ... .. ..
Resldenlia l building •••• •••
Nonresid ential building • •• .
Nonbuildlng construction . . .

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

563
233
185
146
5,589
2,243
2,030
1,3 16

545
259
199
87
6, 170
2,543
2,227
1,400

3,641
1,6 10
1,110
92 1
35,082
14,382
12,52 9
8, 171

3,434r
1,337r
1,193
904
31,0 14r
11 ,858r
11 ,659
7,498

Arizona, Louisi ana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas .
Revi sed.
NOTE . - Details may not add to lola Is beca use of ,oundlng .
SOURCE : F. W. Dodge , McG raw-Hili, Inc.

1

r-

9

3

CROP PRODUCTION

COTTON PRODUCTION

(In thousands of bushels)

Average

estimated

1967

1962-66

Aug. 1

1967

2,767
18,658
53,216
6,615
1,350
350
25,908
343,485
150
3,774
333,450
4,329
810

4,223
23,729
60,621
17,2 17
3,497
417
19,394
253,0 13
741
3,093
262,338
3,082
842

4,880
31,674
222,015
26,754
26,158
1,240
57,688
438,395
744
9,849
611,300
7,816
5,556

4,000
27,515
150,903
11,533
18,007
909
47,943
409,267
150
9,568
558,470
7,892
5,008

6,110
33,434
162,145
23,946
22,249
1,267
37,094
294,492
74 1
8,1 28
455,310
6,069
4,807

Aug. 1

3,325
22,368
B5,806
20,876
3,584
Barley ••• • • • • ••
475
Rye ............
29,890
Rices • . . ..• • • . . •
Sorghum grain • .• 378,914
744
Flaxseed . .. • , ..
4,068
Hay· .... . .. .. ..
Peanuts5 • •• • •• •• 378,300
4,382
Irish pototoes 6 • ••
960
Sweet potatoes II • •
Cotton' .... . . .. .

Corn • .. •• . ..•• .

Winter wheal • . ..
Oats . . . . . .. . •..

1968

1968,

1962-66

estimated

500 pounds gross weight )
~

1968,

1968,

1

(In thousands of bales -

FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'

TEXAS

Crop

Texas Crop Reporting Districts

Average

1967

1966

1967

High Ploins ..... .. ...
High Plains•. . •••.• . •
Ploins •••• ••••• ••• . .
Plains ••.•• ••••..• ••

9 - Coastal Prairi es ..... . ...... ..
10·N - South Texas Plains • • • • •••••••
10·S -Lower Rio Grande Valley ......

260
1,275
250
340
15
360
25
45
160
40
75
90
90
20
280

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

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

101
136
115
145
125
136
132
11 5
101
174
139
92
77
100
89

State ....... .. .................

Arizona, louisiana, Now Mexico, Oklahoma , and Texas.

Aug . 1

3,325

2,767

3,182

I ·N
1-S
2·N
2·S
3
4

-

Northern
Southern
Red 8ed
Re d Bed

- Western Cross Timb ers •.. • ... .
- Slack and Grand Prairi es •• •. ..
S-N - East Tex a s Timbered Plain s ..• .

5·S - East Texa s Timbered Plains • •• •
6 - Trans-Pecos. . . .•. ... . .. • •••.
7 - Edwards Plateou .. . ...... ... .
8-N - Southern Tex a s Prairi es .. • . •. •
8-5 - Southern Tex as Prairies • •• • ...

----

2 In thousands of bales.

a In thousands of bags containing 100 po unds each.
, In thousands of to ns.
5 In thousands of pou nds.
o In thousands of hundredweight.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture .

f

---

as percon t 0

indicated
Area

120

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

DA ILY AVERAGE PRODUCT ION OF CRUDE O IL
(I n tho usands of barrels)

====================================~
frorn

CASH RECE IPTS FROM FARM MARKETINGS
(Do ll ar amounts in tho usands)

July
1968p

Area

January-June

$

Percent

Texas ...............•..

change

Gulf Coast ... ... .. .. . .

253,826
175,794
97,473
369,365
1,009,128

-3
1
1
1
4

East Texos (proper) .....
Panhandle •• • •• • .• • • ••
Rest of State • • •••••• • •

Texas . . .. ..••.•.• .... • . •• ..

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

West Texas ..... .. ....

247,023
177, 179
98,262
374,89 1
1,050,31 1

$ 1,947,666
$18,423,665

Arizona •.. . ... ... •. .. ... . . •
Louisiana ••••••• •• •

0

•••

•

•••

•

New Mexico •• •• .. • ••••••• • ••

Oklahoma •• ••• ••• • ••••••• • •

ELEVENTH DiSTRiCT ••••••••
1967

1968

Area

$

Southeastern New Mexico ..
Northern louisiana ...... ..

O UTSIDE ELEVENTH DISTRICT
UNITED STATES .. .. .... .. ..

$ 1,905,586
$ 18,1 55,280

Number of persons
June

1968

July
1967r

•

•

•

Trade ... . ..... ...... .
finance ••• ••• .••
Service • •. .. . .
Government •••• •••. .
0

0

•

•

•

•••

•

••

••

0

•

•

1968

1967

5,966,800
1,11 8,000
4,848,800
238,200
391,300

5,963,100
1,11 6,700
4,846,400
236,400
391 ,400

5,749,600
1,063,200
4,686,400
235,900
377,000

0.1
•1
.0
.8
•0

3.8
5.2
3.5
1.0
3.8

446,800
1,354,500
290,700
923,400
1,203,900

446, 100
1,351,100
288,600
918,700
1,214, 100

438,400
1,320,400
282,200
878,600
1,153,900

•2
•3
.7
.5
-.9

1.9
2.6
3.0
5.1
4.3

Arizona, Lo uisiana, New Mexico, O klahoma , and Texas.
p Pre liminary.
r - Revi se d.

1

SOURCE: Sta te employment agencie •.

4

0.3
.7
.1
.3

-.5

-.1
2.1
- 1.9
-2.5
.9

5.4
1.5
.7 _____

July
1968p

1968

May
1968

170.2
193.4
208.4
183.4
126.0
225.2

168.8
191.3
206.7
181.0
125.5
225.2

168.9r
191.8r
208.5
180.6r
125.8r
220.8r

July

~
July 1968 from
------- ------------------------------------- 155. lr
TEXAS'
June
July

Total nonagriculturol

•

3,781.4
3,294.3
6 13.1
1,555.5
155.4
99.3
871.0
313.5
173.6
5,321.3
9,102.7

1967
..-:.:.:---_4.1
_3 .7
3.3
_5.2
_ 1.0
_7.9
_6.1
.6
_ 19.2

( s
i x
7
·
================s=e=a=o=n=a=,,=y=a=d=iu=s=te=d==n=d=e=e=s=,=1=9=5=.=5=9===='=0=O=)=====~

Percent change

0

3,616.0
3,150.6
632.6
1,470.3
154.5
91.6
801 .6
321.5
143.9
5,559.0
9,175.0

June
1968

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT ION

Five Southwestern States1

wage a nd sa lary workers • •
Manufacturing . • . • ••••. • •
Nonmanufacturing ...•• . ••
Mining • • • .•.••.•
Construction .• . •• . •••• .
Transportation and
public utilities ... . . . ..

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

~
Jul y

SOURCES: American Petrole um Instilute .
U.S . Bureau of M,nes.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT

Type of employment

July
1967

June

-------------------------------------p - Preliminary.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agricu lture.

July
1968p

1968p

Area and type of index

Tota l industrial production ••••..
Manufacturing • . . . . . . ••..••••..

Durable ••••. • •••••••• . • ••. • •
Nondurable • ••• •• • • ...• . • • •••
Mining .• • .......• . . •• ...••.•.
U tiliti es •....••••.......•..•...

UNITED STATES
Total industrial production ••••. .
Manufacturing •.......... . ... . .

Durable • ••• •••...• • • • • . ••• ..
Nondurob/e • •••...••.•••..•.•
Mining .• •.• . .. . .. ••... . . ... • .
Utiliti es •......•.......... . ....

165.0
167.0
171.0
161.0
129.0
197.0

- - - - - -- -- - -- - --

June

169.0r
178. 5r
162.7r
128.3r
190. 6r

157.0
158.0
164.0
166.0
163.0r
170.0
152.0
161.0
128.0
127.0
185.0r
196.0 - - - - . - ; ; .
- - - - - - - ;M y 1968,
165.0r
166.0
170.0
16 1.0
128.0
197.0r

1 Re fl ect ing the use of improved ma n-ho ur productivity factors as of
Texas indu st ria l production index has bee n revised sl ightly back through
p Pre liminary.
r - Revi sed.

SOURCES : Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System .
Fe deral Rese rve Bank of Dallas.

t 958.