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 . OUtPUt estimated measure of the physical State hof factories, mines, and utilities in the incor' as been revised beginning with 1958 to hIe bPorate certain improvements made possi/)}ajo; the. ~Vailability of new data. Although a W heQ .reviSIon was made in the index in 1966 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 Producti Industry groups, there are no physical 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 "'Ust be proJected. . . (The accompanymg 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' than was true Wit f r this ill eriod 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 duct' ~nufactures suggest that man-hour proStat IVlty for the motor vehicle industry in the 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 ol e Ptod\\lh . Nevertheless, the overall man-hour 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 So.:-: ,.- :-:--------------, 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 , d maJor J1l n 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 induStrY 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 inventorYs f d rhu , in one year were t ak enout. 0 pecio, . . 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' JIl '" co 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 ~----------------------------------------------------\lihen 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 pos Sl·b·li .. f . Vent I ty of distortion because 0 mtive 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 COUrse 0 ~g~regation of data, there are, of Of ' perSiSting problems in the development PrOdu t·· and s c Vlty factors for specific industries, Of th uch problems exist irrespective of the use 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 dec1Ille 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 additional credit. The growth of the areqUire . 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. LikeVise, a lender must be convinced of the soundss ne rear of the credit in order to make borrowing a 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. Oli minary , - 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 asSOci f . 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 . , M peno , a year earlier durmg the January- ay 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 SUbstantially 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 conSIder 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 5,101,411 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 Ne t loan s and discounts .. ... . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . Valuation reserves . .. . ... . . ... ..... ...• .. .... Gr ~ss loan s and d iscounts . . .. . . . ..... .. . .... .. Comm e rc ial and industrial loans. •. . • • •.• •. • . • 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 ••. •• •• •• Bolances with ba nks in foreign countri es . •. . . .. . . Othe r assets . • • .•..• ... . . • . . . .. . . . . .. . •• . . .. 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 Total d e posits . .. . .... .. .... . . . .. ... .. .. . . . . ---- 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 .. . ............ .. 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 ---- CONDITI ON OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS (I n thou sands of dolla rs ) ========== =============~ Aug. 30, A'i~6~8, Item J'iI~6~l, ~ Discounts for memb er ban ks . .... ...... .. ... 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 Eleventh Fed era l Res erve Di strict 9, 155,083 Total d emand d e pasits . ... .. ... . .. . . ..... . . 4,76~ 4,760 COUNTRY BAN KS LlA81LITIES ---5,377,862 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOU NTS 10,811 ,204 2 698,803 649, 150 49,653 695,565 3,238 5,91 1 - 2,673 Aug.2~ flc- a-t-e-r-e-se-rve-s-.-. -. .-.-.-.-.-.-. -. .-.-.-.- -3-5-4-,9-0-8- - 3-12- ,-9-82 T - o- t-a-I -g-o-Id- -ce-r-ti- 139,653 69,260 945,635 668,676 79,136 441 ,399 4,663 363,503 Revised. 71 1,608 660,633 50,975 707,397 4,211 18,497 - 14,286 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 ..... . .... . . . . . .. 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 . . . . . .. . •.. . . •• .... . • ... .. . r- 4 wee ks end e d Ju ly 3, 1968 RESERVE CITY 8ANKS ASSETS Ag ric ultural loan s, exclud ing Ite m 5 wee ks end e d Aug.7, 1968 ---- (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 LlA81L1T1ES 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 • • ••• • . . .... •• .• • • • . • . . 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 UISIANA: 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 1-28 1_____ 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. OUnly basis. 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 52 493 2,6 12 1,422 2, 147 12,793 14,36 1 83 -25 311 -58 -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 71 317 815 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 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 $ $8 17,072 14 -7 TIME DEPO SITS Country banks Total 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 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 1962-66 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 estimated 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, Average Arizona, louisiana, Now Mexico, Oklahoma , and Texas. 500 pounds gross weight ) ~ 1968, 1968, 1 (In thousands of bales - FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES' TEXAS Crop Texas Crop Reporting Districts Aug . 1 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 ....... .. ................. 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) Area January-June $ Texas . . .. ..••.•.• .... • . •• .. 247,023 177, 179 98,262 374,89 1 1,050,31 1 Total.. . .. . . . ... . ...... . .. United States . .. • • • •• ••• • • • $ 1,947,666 $18,423,665 Arizona •.. . ... ... •. .. ... . . • Louisiana ••••••• •• • 0 ••• • ••• • New Mexico •• •• .. • ••••••• • •• Oklahoma •• ••• ••• • ••••••• • • ELEVENTH DiSTRiCT •••••••• 1967 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 • • •••••• • • 1968 Area West Texas ..... .. .... $ 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 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 0.3 .7 .1 .3 -.5 -.1 2.1 - 1.9 -2.5 .9 1967 ..-:.:.:---_4.1 _3 .7 3.3 _5.2 _ 1.0 _7.9 _6.1 .6 _ 19.2 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 -------------------------------------~ ------TEXAS' 155. lr June July Total nonagriculturol • 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 ================(s=e=a=so=n=a=,,=y=a=d=iu=s=te=d==in=d=e=xe=s=,=1=9=5=7.=5=9===='=0=O=·)=====~ Percent change 0 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 INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT ION Five Southwestern States1 wage a nd sa lary workers • • Manufacturing . • . • ••••. • • Nonmanufacturing ...•• . •• Mining • • • .•.••.• Construction .• . •• . •••• . Transportation and public utilities ... . . . .. July 1967 June SOURCES: American Petrole um Instilute . U.S . Bureau of M,nes. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT Type of employment 1968p -------------------------------------p - Preliminary. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agricu lture. July 1968p July 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.
@FedFRASER