The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business
•
revIew
september 1969
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
financing the cattle feeding
industry in the high plains
. ... , . ........ . .. . 3
district highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
final.cing the
cattle feeding il.dustl·Y
in the high plains
Cattle feeding in the High Plains area has expanded in the 1960's from an industry producing 200,000 head of fed cattle a year to one that
now feeds more tllan 2 million head. It is
estimated that, with adequate financing, the
industry could expand its annual output of fed
Cattle to between 3 and 4 million head in as
short a period as 12 months.
The two principal resource inputs critical to
Continued rapid growth are feed and feeder
cattle. The area produces an abundance of grain
Sorghum and has demonstrated that it can compete effectively Witll other feeding areas for the
Nation's feeder supply. l Moreover, the highly
successful expansion of cattle feeding operations
in the area over the past few years suggests
the presence of the necessary management reSOUrces. The continuing advance in the conSumption of fed beef in the United States and
the favorable location of the High Plains feeding operations with respect to expanding conSUmer markets appear to augur well for future
demand for output.
The major factor which might limit the continued rapid growth of cattle feeding in the
area, at least temporarily, could well be a shortage of funds for financing expansion. Scarcities
of funds from local institutional sources are
already a major problem for tlle industry.
Rapid development of cattle feeding operations
-
1 As indicated in "The Ca ttle Feeding Industry in the
liigh Plains," by Charles M. Wilson, Busilless R eview,
JUly 1969, the High Plains area includes parts of the
Northern and Southern High Plains of Texas and a
Portion of eastern New Mexico. (See map on page 6.)
in the High Plains has placed heavy demands
on local suppliers of credit and some regional
suppliers. Although the volume of funds available for fed cattle operations has increased
significantly in the past 2 years, demands have
tended to outrun the total supply of funds that
institutional lenders have been able to provide.
In the first half of this year, cattle feeding
operations in tlle area were affected by rising
feeder prices, some regional tightness in the
supply of feeders, and numerous other problems associated with most any rapidly expanding
industry. Tight money and soaring interest rates,
however, have been the principal hurdles in the
path of expansion.
This article estimates total credit needs for the
cattle feeding industry in the High Plains, discusses the institutional sources used for credit,
describes the characteristics of cattle feeding
loans, and suggests possible alternative sources
of funds for the industry. Attention is also given
to tlle practices of some feedlot owners in obtaining investment and operating funds from
noninstitutional sources.
credit requirements
The total credit requirement of tlle fed cattle
industry in tlle High Plains counties has increased tenfold since the beginning of tlle decade. An estimated $200 million of continuous
credit is needed for operating expenses alone.
Expansion in the number and size of feedlots
has accounted for most of tlle increased credit
need, but rising operating costs have also been
important.
business review / september 1969
3
Like most businesses, a feedlot requires two
kinds of financing: fixed cost financing and
variable or operating cost financing. An area
feedlot with a one-time capacity of 10,000 head
would cost approximately half a million dollars
to build. This investment requirement includes
the cost of land, feeding mills, pens, water systems, and other equipment.
Fixed cost is only a small proportion of total
annual expenses for the average-size feedlot. A
feedlot with a capacity of 10,000 head requires
an annual operating outlay of more than $6
million. Since most cattle are fed 4 to 5 months,
one-time operating cost is reduced to less than
$3 million. In addition, cattle are fed and marketed on a staggered basis. In a situation in
which 70 percent of all operating cost is financed and placements and marketings occur
INVESTMENT AND OPERATING COSTS
OF A TYPICAL HIGH PLAINS FEEDLOT
WITH IO,OOO-HEAD CAPACITY
(Based on con dit ion s as of Janu ary I, 1969)
Item
Fixed in ves tm ent
l and ....... . .
Feed mill
Trench silo
Tractor, w agon s, lo ade r
Off ice
2 f eed trucks w ith el ectrica l sca les
80 p ens, ro ads, work a ll eys
Sic k pens and equipm ent .... . . , . .
Receiving and treat i ng ..
lo adi ng chutes .
Wat er syst em and w ell
Sca les .
Tota l fi xed i nvestm ent
Annu a l operatin g cost s
25,000 f eed ers ..
. ..... .. .
12 months' supply of milo
12 month s' supply of sil age ... . . . . .
12 m en (sa lary) ...
2 bookkee p ers (salary)
1 gen eral m a nage r
Util iti es .....
Gas and 011 .
Repairs
Ta xes . . .
Inte rest
Tota l ope rating capital
Amount
$
$ 509,774
$4,500,000
1,1 27,5 20
179,424
7 2,000
7,200
15,000
12,000
10,800
9,600
7,200
70,607
$ 6,011,351
SOURCES: Southwest ern Public Servic e Compa ny.
Federal Rese rve Bank of Da llas.
4
60,000
187,774
11,000
14,000
16,000
22 ,000
140,000
10,000
7,000
2,000
30,000
10,000
at 1-month intervals, a 10,000-head feedlot
would require an average of about $500,000
for operating credit on a continuous basis.
Assuming that the example above is typical
of the average feedlot in the area and that operating cost is proportional to feedlot size, the
total credit requirements for operating cost for
an industty feeding 1 million head would
amount to about $200 million outstanding at
anyone time. On a yearly basis, the cattle feeding industry in the High Plains would use almost
$500 million in operating credit. In addition, at
its present rate of growth, the industry would
require another $40 million of credit annually
for fixed investments.
sources of funds
Commercial banks are the most important
institutional source of credit for the High Plains
cattle feeding industry, whether for investment
outlays or for operating expenditures. About
three-fourths of the feedlots in the area used
commercial banks as a source of credit in 1966
and 1967. 2 Banks financed a greater share of
the operating requirements for large feedlots
than for smaller ones. Eighty percent of the
feedlots with capacities of more than 10,000
head used credit from commercial banks for
operating purposes.
A recent survey of the 15 commercial bankS
most active in financing cattle feeding in the
area showed that these lenders had approximately $94 million of feedlot loans outstanding
at mid-1969. Nearly 85 percent of this total
was for the purpose of financing cattle on feed,
5 percent for feed supplies, and 10 percent for
other operating requirements, such as salaries,
wages, and utilities. These banks indicated that
they have obtained varying amounts of their
2 Raymond A. Dietrich, Th e T exas-Oklahoma Cattle Feeding Industry - Structure and Operational
Characteristics, Research Bulletin B-1079 (CoUege
Station, Texas: Texas A&M University, December
1968).
f
f
)
I
I
funds for the fed cattle industry from outside
the area. Some of the larger banks in New York,
Kansas City, Wichita, Fort Worth, and Dallas
were cited as sources.
The 15 banks included in tile survey estimated that feedlot loans have incl'eased a fourth
since mid-1968. Most of tile new funds provided
by these banks were used to fmance feeder purchases. Capital loans were held mainly on an
interim basis. All of the banks surveyed indicated that the funds available for meeting loan
demands associated willi cattle feeding operations were in short supply, even though a fourth
of their total loans were in tile form of credit to
the cattle feeding industry.
Although commerci'ru banks supply most of
the operating funds used by feedlots , direct participation by local banks in financing feedlot
operations is far from universal. Actually, only
a relatively few banks are aggressively active
in supplying funds directly for feedlot operations. Other local banks supply funds, however,
through loan participations with correspondents
or by more limited involvement in direct extensions of credit.
Production credit associations - major institutional lenders of short-term credit to agricultural producers - have recently become more
active in financing cattle feeding operations,
especially in the past 2 years . Less than 5 percent of the feedlot owners in Texas borrowed
from PCA's in 1966-67, but present indications
are that feedlot operators and cattle owners in
the High Plains are using PCA cred it considerably more frequently than in the past. The proportion of total PCA advances made to borrowers in Texas for the purpose of buying feeder
livestock increased from less than 4 percent in
1956 to more than 9 percent in 1966. During
that . time, tlle proportion of agricultural advances made by commercial banks in the Eleventh Federal Reserve District for the purchase
of feeder livestock increased from less than 2
percent to nearly 6 percent.
Six production credit associations serve tlle
High Plains area. These associations had an
estimated $60 million in feedlot loans at mid1969 - 44 percent more than at mid-1968. Of
the total, 75 percent was for feeder purchases,
15 percent for capital outlays, and 10 percent
for feed and other operating expenses.
The rapid growth and high profitability of
cattle feeding in the High Plains area have
encouraged the formation of agricultural credit
corporations and their entry into the industry.
Although these lenders can draw directly on
national credit markets, most of them raise
funds by discounting a large proportion (if not
all) of their paper with the Federal intermediate credit banks. Agricultural credit corporations organized before 1968 have performed
well in the fed cattle industry, but more recently
formed corporations have been handicapped by
the tighter lending policies adopted by FICB's
since early 1968.
One of ):he most successful agricultural credit
corporations operating in the High Plains is the
National Finance Credit Corporation, a publicly
held stock company specializing in livestock
loans. Almost 7 percent of tlIe feedlot owners in
Texas borrowed from lliis organization in 1966
and 1967. As in the case of other agricultural
credit corporations, the NFCC may discount its
advances with the Federal intermediate credit
banks.
.
Insurance companies and other lending
groups have also provided credit for operating
purposes, but most feedlot operators do not consider tlIese , institutions a primary source ' of
funds. In at least two instances, cooperatives
with direct interest in High Plains feedlot operations have obtained funds from the Bank for
Cooperatives.
Contrary to the usual pattern. of fixed investment financing, commercial bank loans are the
single most important source of investment capital for the fed cattle industry. As might be ex-
lJlJ,siness review / september 1969
5
pected, however, banks are not as active in providing financing for fixed investment as they are
in supplying operating funds . It is estimated
that commercial banks provide between a fourth
and a third of the fixed investment needs in the
High Plains feeding area.
NEW MEXICO
Insurance companies are not major direct
institutional lenders of feedlot investment funds
in the area. They do supply funds, however,
through participation loans with commercial
banks. Production credit associations are the
principal competitors of commercial banks in
financing fixed investment of feedlots . In a few
cases, the Small Business Administration has
also supplied fixed investment funds through its
area development program.
loan characte,ristics
In essence, the cattle feeding industry in the
High Plains obtains almost all of its financing
from two basic sources: commercial banks and
lenders who obtain funds by discounting paper
with the Federal intermediate credit banks.
Thus, it is not surprising that the characteristics
of cattle feeding loans from both sources are
similar.
The growing importance of commercial feedlots in the High Plains has changed the typical
6
livestock loan markedly in recent years. The
emergence of a sharply increased volume of
custom feeding appears to be the most important factor in this development. Actually, more
than three-fourths of the fed cattle produced
in the area are custom fed. As might be ex-
OKLAHOMA
pected, the large commercial feedlots are more
apt to feed on a custom basis than are smaller,
noncommercial units. It is estimated that more
than 90 percent of the feedlot units with capacities in excess of 10,000 head feed on a custom
basis.
Financial arrangements for custom operations differ considerably from those on fullownership operations. The major effect of custom feeding on financial arrangements is to
reduce the size of individual loans. This feeding practice also tends to incre'ase lender handling and inspection costs, however, since it requires the processing of a larger number of
separate lines of credit on a single feedlot.
Feedlot owners usually do not finance the purchase of feeder cattle for their custom clients,
In custom feeding operations, institutional lenders finance pens of cattle rather than feedlots.
In fact, lenders may finance a supply of feeders for the owners of the animals and also finance feed for the feedlot owner-operator.
r
(
,
r
I
I
,
Generally, there is no well-defined single
credit arrangement for feeder livestock loans in
the High Plains area. In some arrangements,
lenders finance the full purchase cost of the
cattle, with the owner providing the cost of feed
and other outlays. This type of arrangement appears to be more typical of noncustom feeders.
In other cases, lenders may finance 60 to 75 percent of the purchase price of feeders and the
same proportion of the feed bill. But, this type
of financial arrangement has proved burdensome to lenders since a greater volume of paper
work is required to separate total advances according to specific pens.
The arrangement most often used is partial
financing, especially in custom operations. A
creditor finances between 60 and 75 percent of
the purchase cost of feeders and all of tlle feed
bill. In most cases, botll feeder and feed costs
are easily separated by specific pens, which are
~anced individually. Almost without excephon, cattle on feed are the collateral securing
~he advances made by banks and other financial
illstitutions.
In custom operations, particularly when the
lender finances the cost of feeders with one party
and the cost of feed with tlle owner of the feedlot, the feedlot owner typically carries the customer's feed bill for various lengths of time.
The most common billing dates, however, are
once or twice a montll. These custom feeding
charges usually include a basic amount for feed,
the cost of veterinary services (which can vary
Considerably from pen to pen), and a fixed
illarkup for otller operating costs and profits.
Because of the nature of the fed cattle industry in the area, credit requirements for most
operating purposes do not appear to fluctuate
appreciably in response to seasonal influences.
In fact, feeder livestock loans involve less seaSonality tllan the typical loan on grass-fed liveStock. Most feedlots maintain continuous lines
of credit -- expanding drawings when prices
are favorable and contracting them when prices
are unfavorable. It is not unusual for a large
feedlot to have a continuous line of credit running as high as $1 million, with actual borrowings varying only slightly as a result of repayments and new advances.
There is a seasonal pattern, however, to the
amount of credit outstanding to purchase grain
and other feed supplies for feedlot use. Loans
outstanding on grains build up as harvesting of
new crops begins and then gradually diminish
as the crop year draws to a close. Such loans are
at tlleir lowest level in late summer, when tlle
area is in the midst of the change in crop years
for most of its feeds.
Interest rates on all types of feeder livestock
loans have risen sharply since early last year.
The most common nominal rate at mid-August
1969 was 9.0 percent, with the range of rates
extending from 8.5 percent to 9.5 percent. A
year earlier, the rates ranged from 7.0 percent
to 7.5 percent. There appears to be little or no
difference in interest rates on feeder livestock
PRICES FOR CHOICE STEERS
(1,100· to l,300·pound steers, at Kansas City)
DOLLARS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT
36r-------------------------------~
32
28
F
M
A
M
A
SON
o
SOURCE : U .S. Departm e nt of Ag ri c ultur e .
business review/september 1969
7
loans available from competing sources. Rates
charged on such loans vary significantly, however, according to size of loan. As might be expected, rates are higher for smaller loans than
for large ones. This inverse relationship seems
to hold only within relatively narrow limits,
since rates on loans of more than $50,000 vary
little.
noninstitutional sources
Partly because of the rapid expansion of the
fed cattle economy in the High Plains and partly
because of the restrictiveness of national monetary policy in recent months, the. demand for
funds by the cattle feeding industry has increased faster than the supply available from
usual sources. Survey results indicate that many
feeders in tlle area have been unable to operate
at full capacity because of the relative shortage
of operating funds. The supply of local funds
has not increased fast enough, and external
sources - especially those available to commercial banks and other local lenders - have
been limited by restrictive monetary policy.
As a result of the imbalance between the supply of and the demand for loanable funds, some
producers of fed cattle have sougbt to develop
other sources for meeting their financing requirements. One of the alternatives that has
been used by feeders in the High Plains, as well
as by feeders in other parts of the country, is the
public offering of stock. Several feedlot operations in the area have been organized as corporate business entities in an effort to raise
additional funds. Typically, most of these business units are closely held by individuals feeding cattle in feedlots owned by the corporations.
There is evidence that fed cattle operations
in the High Plains have resulted in excellent
returns on investment. It is estimated that,
for 1968, profits on fixed investment actually
ranged from 20 percent to 35 percent for feedlots having capacities in excess of 10,000 head.
With reference to the 10,000-head feedlot re-
8
ferred to earlier in tbis article, the expected
profit before taxes is projected to be 30 percent
in relation to fixed investment.
In many cases, the feeding operations tllat
have been financed through public issues of
stock have provided considerably more to investors than an ownership interest in feedlots.
The assets of these corporations often include
feed-mixing mills, grain sorghum-producing
land, and marketing equipment - items that
could represent an investment running as high
as $5 million. Generally speaking, local interest
in the corporate form of organization reflects
efforts to integrate all the major stages of producing fed cattle, including the opening of neW
sources of financing.
Producers of fed cattle have also responded
to recent tight monetaty conditions by expanding their use of hedging operations in cattle futures. In some cases, creditors may encourage
or require producers to hedge their cattle to
reduce the risk of loss on loans. GenerallY,
hedged cattle make for a better quality of loan,
because most of the risk of price fluctuation is
shifted to speculators.
In the Nation, tl1e proportion of all cattle
hedged has increased from less than .5 percent
in 1966 to an estimated 10 percent in the current year. As a general rule, custom feeders
hedge a larger proportion of their cattle tlIan do
feedlot owners . Even on the part of owners whO
do not engage in hedging operations, there is a
growing familiarity with the advantages and use
of the futures market.
Another area trend that can be attributed, at
least partly, to profit and credit conditions in
the cattle feeding industry is vertical integration.
Ranchers own nearly three-fourths of tlle cattle
on feed in the High Plains. Moreover, several
large feedlots have been purchased by resourceoriented businesses, and it is estimated that
more than 10 percent of the cattle being fed
on a custom basis in the area are owned bY
f
(
I
I
I
I
packers. The trend toward integration probably
reflects, too, the fact that some commercial
feeding operations have lacked adequate credit
foundations, a situation which eventually makes
them prime targets for take-over by others.
As feedlots become larger in the High Plains,
Contract feeding will undoubtedly be used more
Widely as a means of shifting risk. It is not surprising to see cattle producers begin to employ
this technique, which tends to eliminate certain
intermediate steps, including transactions in the
auction or the terminal market. A contract in
which almost all the price risk is assumed by the
processor has long been used in the broiler industry in many areas of the Nation. The ability
of cattle feeders in the High Plains to use the
Contract technique has been increased, of
course, by the growing number of processing
plants in the area and the competitive demand
for fed cattle.
The recent expansion that has made cattle
feeding an important industry in tlle High
Plains will probably continue. But the problem
of sufficient credit, while not insurmountable, is
nevertheless real at the present tinle. Institutional lenders have responded to the rapidly
growing industry by supplying additional funds,
but the rate of growth in the industry's demand
for funds has been much greater than expected
and has placed unusually large demands upon
local sources of credit.
The fact that the cattle feeding industry continues to expand rapidly, despite a shortage of
operating funds, speaks well of the economic
soundness of the industry and its ability to compete effectively with oilier users of local funds.
In many respects, a more moderate rate of expansion might serve, in the long run, to insure
more efficient development of this industry.
CHARLES M. WILSON
business review / september 1969
9
district highlights
f
I
I
The seasonally adjusted Texas industrial production index was 174.3 percent of the 1957-59
base in July - 1.4 percent less than in June but
somewhat higher than in May. The index was
4.2 percent higher than in July 1968.
The principal reason for the month-to-month
decrease was a 5.6-percent drop in mining
output, brought on primarily by lessened crude
oil production. Manufacturing showed a slight
gain, with durable goods showing an increase
but nondurables showing virtually no change.
Of the durable goods, electrical machinery
posted the most prominent advance, and furniture and fixtures had the largest decline. In the
manufacture of nondurable goods, petroleum
refining and related industries showed increased
production, as did textile mills. Some declines
were noted, however, with apparel and allied
products dipping sharpest. In addition to the
decline in crude oil production, mining was also
off in the production of metal, stone, and earth
minerals.
The year-to-year advance was led by manufacturing of durable goods, which increased 7
percent. Both electrical and nonelectrical machinelY advanced vigorously. Transportation
equipment declined. Nondurable goods also
made a fairly strong advance, rising nearly 4
percent, with some sectors rising even more.
Textile products declined. Mining made a small
year-to-year advance.
Total nonagricultural wage and salary employment in the five southwestern states failed
to show the slight seasonal decline usually expected in July. At a level of 6,202,900, there
was virtually no percentage change from June.
Instead of easing slightly, as was expected,
manufacturing employment was unchanged and
10
nonmanufacturing employment gained fractionally. Government employment, which usually
eases after tlle end of the school year, declined
less than normally. Most other nonmanufacturing industries had stronger showings in employment than seasonally expected.
Employment in the five states showed a gain
of 3.9 percent over a year earlier. The number
of workers in manufacturing was 2.5 percent
higher than a year earlier, and the number in
Ilonmanufacturing made a somewhat stronger
percentage gain. Employment in finance and
services showed strong year-to-year gains, but
construction made only a small rise. Employment in mining showed a nominal increase.
The production of crude oil, on a daily average basis, declined 3.0 percent in Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas in July.
Output was 3.3 percent higher than in July last
year. Texas showed the largest month-to-month
decline; New Mexico showed a small increase.
Compared with the same month last year, production in Louisiana was especially strong. Despite the July weakness, most regions of Texas
had higher outputs than a year earlier. The eXception was the Panhandle, where production
was lower than both a year before and a month
before. Inventories of crude oil in the Southwest
during July and the first 2 weeks of August
closely approximated those of a year earlier.
This was also the case with crude runs to refinery stills.
The oil allowable in Texas in July was 54.7
percent of the Maximum Efficient Rate of production. This reflected a substantial decline frorrt
the June level, which was the highest in about
20 years. Allowables were set at 53.1 percent
for August and lowered to 52.1 percent for
I
I
I
I
\
r
1
I
I
September. The allowable for Louisiana, which
had been fairly high in June, was lowered to 44
percent of permissible production for July and
remained the same for August and September.
In Oklahoma, the allowable has been steady at
100 percent from March through August. The
allowable in northwestern New Mexico has not
been changed for several years, but the allowable in the southeastern portion of the State has
been varied frequently.
Changes in the major balance sheet items
at the District's weekly reporting commercial
banks for the 5 weeks ended August 13 reflected
a considerable reduction in the funds available
to these banks. All major items registered declines during the period, in sharp contrast to
gains at the same time last year.
Loans adjusted decreased $154 million,
Which was a substantial reversal fFOm the $16
million advance reported a year before. Within
this major category, business loans fell $67 million, and loans to nonbank financial institutions
fell $42 million. On the other hand, consumer
instalment loans and real estate loans rose by
small amounts. A year ago, increases in consUmer loans and loans to nonbank financial institutions boosted total loans adjusted, while
business loans dropped only slightly.
Comparison of the movements in total investments during the recent period and the yearearlier period shows significant differences in
the 2 years. Total investments decreased $7 million in the 1969 period but increased $59 million a year before. The recent gains in holdings
of municipals and short-term U.S. Government
securities were more than offset by sales of
longer-term Governments and other bonds,
stocks, and securities.
Among the liability items, total demand deposits dropped $1.4 million, with declines of
$34 million in interbank deposits and $30 million in certified checks, letters of credit, and
other miscelJaneous items more than offsetting
gains in deposits of individuals, partnerships,
and corporations and deposits of states and political subdivisions. The recent drop in total
demand deposits was in sharp contrast to the
$111 million rise in the comparable period last
year. Total time and savings deposits declined
$102 million, as all major categories of such
deposits showed reductions for the recent 5
weeks. Negotiable time certificates of deposit
issued in denominations of $100,000 or more
were down $92 million (in contrast to the $123
million increase a year ago), indicating the continued adverse impact of high open market interest rates on the ability of District banks to
attract such large-denomination interest-bearing
deposits.
Registrations of new passenger automobiles
in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio were down slightly in July from June
and were 5 percent lower than in JUly 1968.
Changes ranged from a 23-percent increase in
Fort Worth to a 12-percent decrease in Dallas.
Through July, cumulative registrations in these
four centers were down 3 percent from the same
period in 1968.
Department store sales in the Eleventh Federal Reserve District during the 4 weeks ended
August 23 were 6 percent higher than in the
corresponding period last year. Cumulative sales
for 1969 were 9 percent ahead of the comparable period in 1968.
Scattered rainfall has brought some relief to
parts 'of the Eleventh Federal Reserve District,
but southwestern weather generally continues
hot. and dry. The lack of soil moisture has become severe enough to affect crop yields. Dry
ranges are increasingly becoming fire hazards.
This year's cotton production, based on August 1 conditions, is expected to total nearly
5.5 million bales, which is 4 percent higher than
business review/ september 1969
11
last year. The increase depicts low crop yields,
as cotton plantings in the District states were
almost a fourth larger than last year. In Texas,
the forecast is 6 percent higher than output
in 1968. Abandonment is expected to total
425,000 acres. Yields will probably average 373
pounds of lint per acre this year, compared with
410 pounds last year.
Production of grain sorghum in the five
southwestern states is expected to total approximately 395 million bushels, or 2 percent less
than last year. The irrigated crop has excellent
prospects, but the dryland crop generally has
only fair prospects. Rice output is expected to
be down 10 percent.
Because of the lack of moisture, range conditions are generally poor in most of the Southwest. The number of cattle and calves on feed in
Texas totaled nearly 1.3 million head on August 1 - 59 percent more than a year earlier.
new
membetbank
new
patban'~s
12
The number of cattle on feed in Arizona was 41
percent higher than a year ago. These figures
compare with a 16-percent gain for the Nation's
six major cattle feeding states as a group.
Average prices received by Texas farmers
and ranchers for all farm products during July
declined 1 percent from the previous month but
were 11 percent higher than a year earlier. For
the first 7 months of 1969, prices received by
Texas farmers and ranchers averaged 8 percent
higher than in the same period in 1968. Livestock and livestock product prices increased
17 percent, but average prices for all cropS
decreased 2 percent.
Cash receipts from farm marketings in Eleventh District states during January-June totaled
11 percent more than in the corresponding 1968
period. Livestock receipts rose 15 percent, and
crop income increased 6 percent over the yearearlier level.
The Great Southwest National Bank of Arlington, Arlington, Texas, a newly
organized institution located in the territory served by the Head Office of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business August 19, 1969, as a
member of the Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of
$300,000, surplus of $200,000, and undivided profits of $100,000. The officers
are: Angus G. Wynne, Jr., Chairman of the Board; Glen E. Tibbets, President;
Bill Phillips, Vice President and Cashier; and Mark A. Rush, Vice President.
The Bank of Lancaster, Lancaster, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located
in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
was added to the Par List on its opening date, July 28, 1969. The officers are:
William O. Stevens, Chairman of the Board; Vernon Scott, President; William O.
Stevens, Jr., Vice President (Inactive); and Phillip W. Gilliam, Cashier.
The Travis Bank and Trust, Austin, Texas, a nonmember bank located in the
territory served by the San Antonio Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, August 18, 1969. The
officers are: Joe M. Teague, Chairman of the Board; Don E. Standley, President;
Terry Tuggle, Vice President; and DeAnn Wilson, Cashier.
I
1
J
J
)
)
I
I
STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENT
to the
BUSINESS REVIEW
September 196.9
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS
RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Averoges of doily figure •. In thousands of dollors)
(In thousands of dollars)
Item
Aug. 27,
1969
July 30,
1969
5 weeks ended
Aug . 6, 1969
It em
Aug . 28,
1968'
4 weeks en ded
July 2, 1969
5 weeks ended
Aug. 7, 1968_
732,494
682,173
50,321
731,907
587
54,175
-53,588
747,843
698,104
49,739
745,759
2,084
77,265
-75,181
711,608
660,633
50,975
707,397
4,211
18,497
-14,286
773,337
596,174
177,163
748,391
24,946
24,531
415
772,605
593,886
17B,719
748, 162
24,443
22,706
1,737
703,935
532,203
171,732
670,432
33,503
9,862
23,641
1,505,83 1
1,278,3 47
227,484
1,480,298
25,533
78,706
-53,173
1,520,448
1,291,990
228,458
1,493,921
26,527
99,971
-73,444
1,415,543
1,192,836
222,707
1,377,829
37,714
28,359
9,355
RESERVE CITY 8ANKS
Total reserves he ld •.•••..••.••
With Federal Reserve Bonk ••••
Curre ncy and coin ••••••..••.
Re quired reserves .•••••• ••• ••.
Excess reserves •••.••.•••.•••.
Borrowings ••.•..••••.•.•.•.••
Free re serves .•.•.•••.•••.•••.
ASSETS
l
Federal funds so ld and securities purchas e d
under agree ments to rese ll ••• • •• •• • ...••••• •
Othe r loans cnd disco unts, gross .••. . .. •..••...•
Commercial and industrial loans •.••. . ••••. . ••
Agricultural lo ans, excluding CCC
certiflcotes of interest •.•••..•......•...••
Loons to brokers and dealers for
purchasing or carrying :
U.S. Governm e nt securities .•• . ....•. . ..•..
Oth e r se curities •... ..••. . ...••. • ...••..•
428,425
6,035,955
243,650
6,151,647
5,935,515
---3,000,179
3,024,521
2,715,407
110,228
116,524
95,893
COUNTRY BANKS
With Foderol Reserve Bank ••••
556
44,876
501
42,946
8,639
23,746
70
376,088
190
379,506
592
337,647
138,076
378,347
623,723
9,014
8,635
700,213
151,484
420,211
625,449
8,201
8,345
694,860
138,659
338,450
572,602
495,722
5,478
604,226
0
645,950
2,507,948
0
678,909
2,509,845
Other . ..... . ... ...... ... .. . . ...... .. . .
Real estat e loan s ••.•..•.••.••...••..••....
Loans to domestic commercial banks ••••• •.....
Loan s to foreign banks • . •.. ••.. •.... ...•.. •
Consumer insta lm ent loans •••.•...•..•...••.•
Loan s to foreign governments, ofncial
institutions, central banks, international
institutions •.••.••..•.•••.••.••..•••..•.•
Oth er loan s ••..• • .•••..•.•...•......•...•
Total investments •.••.•..•.• , .....•...••••••.
Total U.S . Governm e nt se curities •••.•..•...•..
Treasury bills •..••..••..•.••.....•......
Treasury certiflcates of indebtedness •••.••..
Treasury notes and U.S. Government
bonds maturing:
Within 1 ye ar •••••••••••.••...•••••..
1 year to 5 ye ars .•.•••••.••..••••..••
966,171
60,992
0
958,478
40,210
0
1,107,134
20,650
0
131,394
617,470
156,315
117,100
612,253
188,915
After 5 ye ars •••...••..••.•... ••••• ..•
Obligations of st ates and politico I su bd ivisions:
Tax warrants and short-term note s and bills ••
Curre ncy and coin •••• • ••••••
Required reserves •••••••••••••
Excess reserves •••••••.••••.•.
Borrow ing s ••••.•••••••••. ••••
Free res erves ••••• •.••• . •• • •• •
0
598,454
2,495,899
205,538
582,809
298,137
Other loans for purchasing or carrying :
U.S. Governm ent securities •••.•..••.••.•..
Other se curities • • ..••..•• ... •..••..••.•.
loans to nonbank Anancial institutions:
Sales finance, personal finance, factors,
and other bu siness cre dit co mpani es ••• ....
Total reserves he ld ••••• , .•..••
ALL MEM8ER 8ANKS
Total reserves held • .••..•••.••
With Federal Rese rve 8ank ••••
Curren cy and coin •• .•• •. ••.•
Requ ir e d reserves •••••.•••••••
Excess reserves •.••••••.•.• ••.
Borrowings . •••••• •••••.•• •. • •
Free reserves ••••.••••••••••••
CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
(In thousands of dollars)
24,256
1,422,645
25,862
1,420,776
26,362
1,168,660
0ther bond s, corporate stocks, and securities:
Certiflcates representing partici pations in
Federal agency loan s .•.•..••.••.....••
All other (including corporate stock s) .•.. •••.
Cash items in process of collection .•.... •• . •. .• •
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank •.•• ..• . • •.••
Currency and coin •••....••.•••.••.....••..••
Balances with bonks in th e Unit e d States • •.. .•.. .
Balances with banks in foreign countries ...•. •••.
Other assets (including investments in su b sidiaries
22,803
72,073
1,050,302
647,188
88,211
464,371
5,912
24,758
79,971
1,014,681
623,262
84,015
455,606
6,505
124,471
69,272
883,350
736,260
84,550
420,065
5,307
not consolidoted) •. • .... •••••....••..•.•• ..
413,783
412,964
11 ,502,175
July 30,
1969
Aug . 28,
1968
355,749
TOT At ASSETS ......................... 11,642,095
-=
Aug . 27,
1969
Item
10,9 16,695
All other ...............................
Total gold certiAcate reserves •• ••. . •.• '" ...
Di scou nts for me mber banks ••••..••..••..••
Other discounts and advances ••.•..•••.•.•.
U.S. Government sec urities •••..•••.•••..•..
Total earning a sse ts ••.•••...•.•• , .•..•..•.
Member bank reser ve deposits ••••• • . . . •...•
Fed e ral Rese rve notes in actual circulation •.••.
316,994
53,325
373,368
48,539
354,908
16,85~
2,322,962
2,376,287
1,175,528
1,652,265
2,241,833
2,290,372
1,123,461
1,625,197
2,189,030
2,205,889
1,164,95 4
1,480,757
o
o
CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS
LIABILITIES
Total d eposits . •••.•• .• , .....•..••.• • .. .. . •.
9,186,402
9,107,562
9,155,083
E(eventh Federal Reserve District
Totol d emand d e posits .• •. ... ....•• .....•. .
5,720,724
4,000,539
326,094
127,987
1,148,018
5,605,704
3,928,323
323,161
108,241
1,130,864
5,377,862
3,750,581
267,282
114,903
1,139,343
(In millions of dollars)
3,866
23,426
90,794
3,465,678
2,644
23,109
89,362
3,501,858
5,676
20,759
79,318
3,777,221
957,323
1,848,144
623,Q63
8,735
22,023
962,970
1,885,99 1r
612,429r
8,732
24,846
1,043,30 1
2,049,270
646,Q98
10,206
22,646
Ind iVi dual s, pa rtnershi p s, and corporations ••..
States and pol itica l sub divi si ons •.••....••..
U.S. Government • ..• • ...•.. • ..••..•..•••
Banks in the United States ••••• •.• • ....•• • .
Foreign:
Governments, offlcial institutions, central
banks, international institutions •...•....
Commercial bonks •• ..• . .. •.. . • .. •• .. • .
Certifled and offlc ers' checks, etc .••••.....•
Total tim e and savings d e po sits ••....••..• • ..
Individua ls, partnerships, and corporations:
Savings d e p osits •.•.•.. . •.•• .. ••. .••. .
Other time deposits ••..• . ........• •..••
States and political subdivisions . ..•...•. .•.
U.S. Government (includ ing posta l savings ) •••
Banks in th e Unite d States •. • •.. •. .•••..•..
-
6,000
390
6,500
390
79a.o45
246,719
322,031
117,778
11,560
959,560
751, 553
319,935
236,244
118,374
11,631
956,876
---- ----
927,061
TOT At LIABILITIES, RESERVES, AND
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS • • •• ...... • .• •..•• 11,642,095
11,502,175
Jun 3 25,
Loan s and di scounts, gross l • •• ••••••••• •••
U.S . Govern ment obligations •.••..••..•••.
Other se curiti es •••.••••••• ••...• ...•.. •
Re se rves with Federal Re se rve Bank •••• . ...
Cash in vault ••.. •••••.•••. .••.•••.••..
Balances with banks in the Unite d States • ...
Balances with banks in foreign countries e ....
Ca sh items in process of collection •. ••••• ..
Other a$ sets e ••••.•.•.•••••.......•..•.
11,388
2,164
3,136
1,123
259
1,154
9
1,170
753
11,317
2, 154
3,147
1,221
258
1,159
7
1,175
821
10,029
2,366
2,810
1,104
247
1,12~
TOTAL ASSETse • • ...•......•.•••... •
Foreign,
Governments, ofAcial in stitutions, ce ntral
banks, int ernationa l in stitution s .•...•...
Commercial banks •.. .. . ...•. ..•.. . .. ..
Federal fund s p urchase d and secu rities sold
under agree me nts to repurchase .. •... . ...•.•
Other liabilities for borrowed money •...• •. • .• ..
Other liabiliti es ....••... • ... ••. .• •.. .••..•..
Reserves on loan s ..• • .. • .•.•.. ••. .. •.•••.. • •
Reserves on securities ..••..•..• •• .. . •.• • .... •
Total capital accounts ....•...........•.....•.
-=
Jul y 31,
1968
Jul y 30,
1969
21,156
21,259
19,22 4
1,441
8,707
7,388
1,426
8,775
7,598
1,{10
8,305
7,160
Borrowing s •. ••••• .. • ..• •.. •...••.•....
Oth e r liabilities e .••...••.• . ...• • .••...•
Total capital accounts e .. .•.•. . ••..••• .. •
17,536
1,1 22
800
1,698
17,799
1,089
671
1,700
TOTAL lIA81LITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTS- •.....•.•.••.••••...•.
21,156
21,259
Item
ASSETS
10,916,695
5,500
200
l
LIABILITIES AND CAPIT At ACCOUNTS
Dem and deposits of banks •.••.••......•.
506,614
222,446
105,491
n.a .
Because of format revisions as of July 2, 1969, earlier data are not fully comparable.
r - Revised.
n.a. - Not available .
1969
Other demond deposits •.••• •.. .....••..•
Tim e deposits ••••......•...••..•..•..• ,
Totol deposits .••.•.•••.••...•.. , •..•
1
Belore July 2,1969, this item was published on a ne t bas is .
e - Estimated .
1
1,063
477
-
16,875
453
300
1,596
-
~
BANK DEBITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amount s in thousands, seasona ll y adiusted)
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS!
DEMA ND DEPOSITS!
Percent change
1969 from
1968
July 31,
1969
July
1969
1969
July
1968
-5
-3
9
-9
5
8
-2
2
9
2
-1
3
-2
-2
0
8
3
-1
5
-6
-11
-2
1
2
-6
0
10
18
12
42
29
8
8
59
9
18
20
4
23
19
16
10
19
6
9
6
5
9
7
10
4
9
14
17
5
17
14
24
22
10
6
54
8
9
7
4
29
17
14
6
16
15
17
12
14
16
12
10
9
12
19
11
8
$ 213,519
87,799
239,560
36,355
97,473
155,298
275,470
244,891
68,357
210,311
28,560
2,152,049
215,792
617,409
102,735
2,458,969
39,913
149,894
92,261
136,328
75,787
62,346
600,041
60,557
72,671
91,576
114,307
115,087
26.3
30.7
35.1
25.9
19.9
36.1
37.0
26.5
23.8
24.7
14.8
51.7
31.8
33.3
24.6
38.4
22.3
31.6
17.1
14.7
19.8
16.3
26.9
17.5
21.8
23.0
24.9
20.5
25.9
32.7
37.4
23.7
21.7
35.0
33.4
27.6
22.9
22.8
14.2
52.4
31.2
34.7
24.8
39.1
21.5
30.1
17.9
14.4
21.5
17.9
27.5
17.3
21.2
24.5
25.4
18.5
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
0
20
20
$8,8 15,315
36.6
37.0
33.0
(Annuol·rate
June
st ati stica l area
bo sis)
1969
ARIZONA, Tucson . ....•••..... •..•• ...••..• .•• .. ... .
LOUISIANA, Monroe • . ••..• •...•. • . . ..• . ...•• • ..•.. •
T.xarkana (Texas·Arkansa s) ••••..•• ••. .•••• ••• •
Tyl.r .......................................
Waco .... ........................ . .. .. ... ..
Wichita Falls .. .......... .. .. ... .. .. ..... ··•·
5,710,476
2,626,068
8,949,984
963,060
1,951,236
5,557,224
9,987,648
6,516,060
1,666,668
5,159,244
434,040
113,194,224
7,095,756
20,9 17,704
2,629,800
95,553,432
878,268
4,846,080
1,540,068
1,979,484
1,503,264
1,093,632
16,412,808
1,029,456
1,604,928
2,199,072
2,895,756
2,354,160
Total_2B c.nt.rs ... .. ............... ... .. ...... ....
$327,249,600
NEW MEXICO, Roswell' . .•••......••. ..•• ••••.•.•. •.
TEXAS, Abilene •••••...•••.••..••....•...•••...•....
Amarillo ............................•.......
Austin~
••••• . ••••• .• ••• . ••• •• •••• ••••• •• . •••
Beaumont·Port Arthur.Orange ..•...............
Brownsv ill e-H arling en-San Benito •• •••• . •.•. •....
Corpus Christi ...... ... ........ .. ... ......... .
Corsicana 2 •••••••••••••••••••
•••••••••••• • ••
Dallas •••.•...••.•.••...••....•....••.....••
EI Paso •.•....•••......•.•..•••••.••••.•••..
Fort Warth ..................................
Galveston-T ex a s City •.•......... . ... . ... .....
Houston •.••..• •...••...•••••.. • ...•... . .• •.
laredo ......... .. ..... ... .. . . . ... ..... . ....
Lubbock .. .. •. ••• ..• •••• ..• •..••• ... ••.....•
McAllen· Pharr· Edinburg ........................
Midland ••...••.••.••...•••...•....•.•...•••
Od • .,a ............................ . ...... · .
San Angelo ......... ... ... ............ .. ... .
San Antonio ................... . .. . . .........
Sherman· Den ison • • ••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••
-
! De posits of individuals,
~
7 months,
July
1968
Standard metropolitan
Shreve po rt .•....•........•..........•...
Annual rate
of turnOVer
July 1969 from
Jul y
1969
June
partnerships, and corporations and of states and political subdivisions .
County basis.
GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh federal Reserve District
(Averages af daily flgures. In millions of dollars)
BUILDING PERMITS
=-
GROSS DEMAND DEPOSITS
VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousands)
Dote
Total
Reserve
cit y bonks
1967, July .... . ..
1968, July .......
1969, F.bruary ...
March •••. •
April ......
May .•••••
June .... ..
July .... .. .
9,195
9,742
10,328
10,268
10,497
10,231
10,209
10,316
4,302
4,554
4,734
4,781
4,893
4,777
4,758
4,783
Percent change
--
Jul y 1969
from
NUMBER
Area
ARIZONA
Tucson .. . •...•
LOUISIANA
Monroe. West
S Monrae ••• • •
T hr.v. port •• . •
EXAS
Abilene •••.••.
~~a.r illo ••••. .
B Shn ........
BCc umont .....
Crownsville ....
DOrpus Christi..
Dalla s•••..•.•
Eenison .......
FI Paso • •.. •••
Gort Worth ••..
Holvcston .... .
l Ouston ... ...
laredo .......
M~bock ...•. .
O'dland ..•••.
p dessa .......
SOrt Arthur ••..
Son Angelo ...
s h'n Antonio ...
Termon .. .. . .
wx,orkana ....
July
1969
7 mos.
1969
July
1969
7 moS.
1969
June
1969
Jul y
1968
7 months,
1969 from
1968
752
4,474
$ 10,424
$ 42,501
26
125
92
48
404
455
2,949
1,213
2,677
8,619
23,025
10
57
-15
25
W~h~t~' j:~il;: :
280
4,989
2,950
956
429
2,347
14,186
20 1
3,074
3,484
620
22,148
243
762
355
438
597
398
7,387
582
226
1,709
494
286
6,010
10,856
1,262
787
1,623
34,712
204
4,321
4,829
356
46,154
149
1,982
343
314
514
322
6,732
5,314
430
3,124
1,017
7,547 -78 -50
123
585
21,451
37
14
98,108
52 -15
7,040
304 -35
6,166
16,023 -33 -65
28
16
216,509
8 -36
2,296
-61 -10
58,961
51,779 -25 -46
29
13,404 -74
76
98
254,613
107
13
2,171
19,062 -23 -78
3,466 -60 -89
19
5,891 -64
7,320 -78 -25
3,591 -5 1 -38
26
4
49,315
15,323 -30 1,535
64 -95
4,225
200
67
12,967
85 -11
9,761
36
62
36
-35
71
-37
40
2
45
0
66
12
48
- 11
-61
93
204
-46
-38
435
-65
23
27
TotOI_26 cities ••
15,612
76,733
$145,955
17
17
Total
Reserve
city banks
Country
banks
4,893
5,188
5,594
5,487
5,604
5,454
5,451
5,533
6,285
7,059
7,707
7,722
7,704
7,676
7,634
7,474
2,670
2,921
3,09·1
3,042
2,988
2,962
2,925
2,806
3,615
4,138
4,616
4,680
4,716
4,714
4,709
4,668
-33
60
40
3,879
382
205
58
373
1,872
15
421
436
57
4,725
33
76
33
55
92
57
1,103
79
39
293
85
TIME DEPOSITS
Country
banks
--
VALUE Of CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
(In millions of dollars)
July
1969
June
1969
May
1969
1969
1968
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES! ................
Residential building . ......
Nonresiden tial building ....
Nonbuilding construction . ..
UNITED STATES ............
Residential building .. .. .. .
Nonresidential building ....
Nonbuild lng construction ...
628
255
210
163
6,168
2,225
2,370
1,574
678
254
236
189
6,255
2,462
2,322
1,471
704
258
239
207
7,08 1
2,620
2,680
1,780
4,166
1,689
1,356
1,121
39,611
15,259
15,1 44
9,208
3,641
1,610
1,110
921
35,082
14,382
12,529
8,171
Arizona, loui siana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
NOTE . - Details may not add to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE , F. W. Dodge, McGraw·Hill, Inc.
1
$961,134
19
January-July
Area and type
CROP PRODUCTION
COTTON PRODUCTION
(In thou sonds of bushe ls)
TEXAS
Texas Crap Re porting Distriels
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'
1969,
1969,
estimate d
estimated
August I
Cro p
1967
August I
1968
2,767
18,658
53,216
6,615
1,350
350
25,400
343,485
150
3,774
333,450
4,329
810
5,465
42,333
199,938
32,248
30,618
1,688
48,472
394,627
1,296
9,353
605,860
8,499
5,400
5,244
36,871
218,974
25,450
26,856
1,208
53,943
402,171
742
10,418
671,476
7,654
5,206
4,000
27,595
150,903
11,533
18,007
909
47,435
409,267
150
9,565
558,470
7,892
5.008
[j
as p ercent of
1968
1967
1968
300
1,570
310
370
20
370
20
40
170
60
40
100
85
25
270
211
1,384
312
372
20
409
19
41
189
72
57
93
79
25
242
258
937
218
234
12
264
19
39
158
23
54
98
117
20
316
142
113
99
99
100
90
105
98
90
83
70
108
108
100
112
State ••. .. .•• •. • ...... •..••. ...
100 pounds each.
In tho usa nd s of pounds.
August I
I O·N - South Texa s Plains ••.•.•..•..
10· S - lower Rio Grande Vall ey • • . • .•
Arizona, loui sia na , New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Tex as .
~ In thousands of bales .
3 In t hou sa nd s of bag s containing
4. In thousands of ton s.
1969
indicated
1967
3,525
26,052
84,150
19,822
3,348
528
27,462
340,780
742
4,587
426,300
4,382
960
3,750
31,800
69,768
Oats . • . •••••• . . 24,768
2,772
8arley •• •• •. . . .
648
Rye •••• •. .•.•••
Rice 3 •••• • ••••••
25,254
Sorg hum grain • •• 328,640
1,296
Fla xsee d .......
3,621
Ho y' ••••..•..••
Peanuts G•••••••• 360,000
4,532
Irish potatoes o ...
Sweet pototoes 6,.
750
-
1969,
1968
Cotton:! •. .. •. . .•
Corn . .. ........
Winter wheat ....
1
(In thousonds of bales -- 500 pounds gross weig ht)
3,750
3,525
2,767
106
Area
I·N
I·S
2·N
2·S
3
4
-
Northern
Southern
Re d Se d
Re d 8ed
High Plains•..• . .....
High Plains • • ...•...•
Plains •... .. . ••• .. ..
Plains ••. .. ... . •. • . .
- We stern Cross Timb ers . .......
- Black and Grand Prai ries •.....
S-N - East Tex a s Timbered Plains • ...
5-S - Ea st Tex a s Timbe re d Plain s . .. .
6 - Tran s- Pecos........... . .. ...
7 - Edwards Plot eau ..... . . ......
8-N - Southern Texas Prai ries ... ....
8-S - South ern Texas Prairi es . . • ....
9 - Coa stal Prairi es . . .... ... . . . ..
SOURCE , U .S. Deportm e nt of Agriculture.
o In thousands of hundredweight .
SOURCE , U.S. Departme nt of Agriculture.
DAI LY A V ERAGE PR OD UCTI O N O F CRUDE OIL
(In thousonds of barre ls)
=================================
CASH RECEIPTS FROM FARM MARKETINGS
Percent change from
(Dollor amounts in thousonds)
Area
January-June
Percent
1968
increase
270,081
175,539
93,900
377,357
1,013,5 18
14
II
10
8
12
$ 1,930,395
$18,258,1 14
II
9
1969
Area
$
Tex a s . .... . .. .... ..... . .. .•
307,298
195,478
103,354
406,436
1,138,813
Total.... .... . . . .. ..... . . .
Unite d States..............
$ 2,151,379
$19,825,483
Arizona •.•.... . . . ..... .... .
Lo uisi ana . .. •.. . .. .... .. ....
New Mexico ..••. .... .. .. ....
Oklahoma •••. . • ••••••••..•.
$
---------------July
June
July
1969
FOUR SOUTHWESTERN
STATES ••.•.• . ••..•..•.•
Louisi ana ••...•••••.....
New Mexico .............
Oklahoma •••. •••• ..• •..
Texas ..................
Gulf Coast • ••..••. • •..
West Texas . . .........
Ea st Texas (proper) •••..
Panhondle • •.. ..••.. •.
Rest of State •• ..•. . • . •
UNITED STATES •• . ...•. . ...
1969
July
1968
6,534.1
2,351.8
353.4
608.8
3,220.1
647.5
1,515.9
157.7
87.6
811.4
9,310 .1
6,739.1
2,423.9
348.8
614 .5
3,351.9
661.9
1,593.0
159.2
90.9
846.9
9,508.1
6,327.2
2,241. 1
346.6
614.4
3,125.1
622.5
1,459.1
148.1
90.8
804.6
9,158.2
June
1969
1968
-3.0
-3.0
1.3
-.9
-3.9
-2.2
-4.8
-.9
-3 .6
-4.2
-2.1
3.3
4.9
2.0
_.9
3.0
4.0
3.9
6.5
_3.5
.8
1.7
-
SOURCES, Am er ican Petrol e um In stitut e.
SOURCE , U.S. De portme nt of Agriculture.
U .S. Burea u of Mines.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dalla s.
N O NAGR ICULTURAL EMPLO,YME N T
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTI O N
(Seasonall y adiu sted indexes, 1957· 59
Five So uthweste rn States'
= 100)
-=
Percent change
Area and typ e of index
Total industrial production .••...
M anufacturing .. .. . ..•. . . ......
Durable •••• ..• •••. . • •••• . ...
Nondurable . ... ........... .. .
M ining •... ....... • .... . .. •. . .
Utilities •........ . ......•......
UNITED STATES
Total industrial production ..... .
Ma nufacturing • .. . . ...• . .... . •.
Durable .... ... ...... . .. .... .
Nondurable . . .. . . ..... . .. . .. .
Mining .. . .. .......... .... .. . .
Utilities......... .... .. •...... .
r-
June
1969
May
1969
174.3
198.4
217.3
185.8
127.0
241.0
176.7
197.7
215.8
185.6
134.5
241.0
172.5r
194.4r
216.0r
180.l r
128.8r
236.8r
167.3
188.7
203. 1
179.1
125.5
225.3
175.2
176.3
180.4
171.3
133.3
222.5
173.9
175.0
178.5
170.6
132 .4
221.0
172.7
173.9
176.7r
170.3 r
130.5r
216.7r
166.0
167.4
170.8
163.0
130.0
199.3
Pre lim inary.
Revised.
SOURCES , 80ard of Gover no rs of the Fe deral Reserve System.
Fede ral Reserve Sonk of Dallas.
July 1969 ~
Numb er of person s
July
1968r
Type of employment
TEXAS
p -
July
1969p
Total nonagricultural
wag e and salary workers.•
Manufacturing • .. . . .. ... .
Nonmanufacturing .. ......
Mining .... . .. ....... .
Con struction •...... .. . .
Transportation and
public utilities .. •.. .. .
Trad e •...• ...•.•. ••••
Financ e .•.. . . . . . . .. . . .
Service •... ... .. ... ...
Governm ent .........•.
1
--
1969
July
1968r
1969
Jul y
1968
6,202 .9
1,155.8
5,047.1
236.5
411.8
6,197. 1
1,156.1
5,041.0
235.8
407.1
5,969.6
1,127.6
4,842.0
234 .5
404.2
0.1
.0
.1
.3
1.2
3.9
2.5
4.2
.9
1.9
465 .8
1,412.0
310 .3
972 .6
1,238.1
465.4
1,405.4
308.2
968.8
1,250.3
445.3
1,353.9
293.7
920 .3
1,190.1
.1
.5
.7
.4
- 1.0
Jul y
1969p
June
Arizona, Lou isi ana, N ew M ex ico, Oklahoma, and Te xas .
Preliminary.
Revised .
p r-
SOURCE , Stote e mployme nt agencies.
June
4.6
4.3
5.7
5.7
4.0
----
